This was my understanding of the Flashman character as well. I figured we were supposed to be entertained and aghast at his charming roguishness in more or less equal measures.
I’m not sure “Anti-Hero” is what I’m getting at here. That, to me, implies a dark, brooding, possibly troubled character - as opposed to someone who’s just a dick to people for the sheer hell of it (cf Sterling Archer or Bender).
The problem is that we have been able to show you several different types of characters that fit the description in the OP. These cover a lot of different kinds of people. I don’t think there is a single term that will cover them.
That was what I was asking in the OP, FWIW - if there was a single term to cover the archetype.
So the answer is “No.”
who is often also an Amiable Zany.
Ron Burgundy was the first thing I thought of upon seeing the thread title.
It seems like every modern interpretation of Sherlock Holmes fits this archetype including (especially) House. This does deserve a term. There is an appeal to being a jerk that gets away with it, free of social niceties and still accepted/loved. It’s different than the fantasy of being a bad ass but not completely.
TV Tropes has a whole category to cover this: Jerkass Hero. There are several subtypes, aversions, subversions, and inversions to choose from.
Come to think of it, is there such a thing as a protagonist who should be unlikeable and actually is? I’m thinking that the simple structural act of making a character the protagonist of a story is partly what predisposes the audience to root for and identify with said character - turning even Humbert Humbert or, say, Richard III, into characters that we’ll cheer for all the way even when they’re clearly heading down the express road to Hell.