A line stolen from Talking Dead. I’d explain what I mean except that most everybody who recognizes the terms will know what I mean, and people who don’t recognize the terms can’t reasonably be said to have meaningful opinions, plus I expect that if the thread gets any legs others will provide details, plus I’m a jerk.
Poll in 15.34 seconds.
Huh? no… why?
Chris what’s-his-name on Talking Dead made the suggestion, the clear implication being that the Governor was far less evil than Gareth, leader of the pseudo-civiilized cannibals of Terminus.
Woodbury’s dark secret was that they would murder anyone who threatened the stability of the town.
Terminus’ dark secret was that they would murder and EAT anyone who wasn’t one of them.
I guess I could mumble an apology and kick some rocks.
I think the Governor comes out ahead in this contest. There was some choice involved, and no threat of being eaten.
And that the only way to become one of them was to be willing to murder & eat people.
Well, and rob people too. Though that falls way under “murder & eat” in the catalog of sins. I checked with Pope Francis to be sure.
But what really puts Gareth over the top when it comes to comic-book villainy isn’t simply murdering & eating passersby, but keeping Bob alive while eating him. Even Hannibal Lecter has the decency to off his victims first.
And nobody mention Krendler. No such novel as Hannibal was ever published; likewise Hannibal Rising.
Hardwick, or as he will be known after our wedding, Hardwick-Sampiro.
Although… and I’ve thought this in other contexts… is being eaten after death really all that bad?
Yes. But it’s certainly not as bad as being eaten BEFORE death.
I’d say it’s preferable to being eaten before death.
I’m indifferent. If someone wants to eat me after I’m dead, I’m ok with that.
Eww…with a gammy leg? 
But would you rather, while traveling [del]thru[/del] [del]through[/del] thru a post-apocalyptic landscape in which even grits were no longer available, find yourself in Terminus or Woodbury?
I have no interest in eating other people. So Woodbury. And I would avoid Terminus since they’d take measures to be able to eat me. But if I were being endeadenated regardless, I don’t care if someone eats me.
(post shortened)
No apology needed. Both are sociopaths, or psychopaths, and there is no place to hospitalize them far, far away from society.
The point is that the Governor seems way less evil in light of Gareth. Hell, if Michonne and Andrea had happened to find Rick’s group before finding Woodbury, he might never have descended into full-blown villainy.
In defense of the Termites, at least they’re always killing for a reason and not letting the meat go to waste. The Governor didn’t always just kill for self-defense, he was just a plain psycho killer, sometimes.
It’s almost like the difference between a hunter that kills and eats his prey, and a psycho that kills animals for the thrill and leaves the meat to rot.
Is this one of those morality questions where we say “Ted Bundy wasn’t that bad if you compare him to Hitler”?
'Cause I’m not buying it. All I owe the Gov is a boot right out of the storyline.
…didn’t he ambush that group of army guys and murder them?
He was a full-blown villain completely separate from Rick’s crew showing up.
He just became an out and out psychotic villain thanks to losing Woodbury.
Tough choice, given the options. I chose ‘an order of magnitude more evil’.
The Governor was a sociopath who created a cult of personality. Gareth is a psychopath who institutionalised behaviour that is abhorrent to most people. I think that is more evil because a Governor-type can be overthrown or assassinated. The Gareth-type can be assassinated, but the machine he created will still exist.