So in other words, neutral evil. He'll exploit the law to further his selfish goals like the rest of them, but he also has zero hesitation to ignore the law when that suits him better, which precludes any "lawful" alignment.
Hey. Trump probably isn't really a billionaire and has managed to get charged for crimes even though his former job made him legally above the law. I don't think lawful evil is the correct alignment.
Nah, he's textbook neutral evil. He'll sometimes break the law to his advantage and sometimes exploit the law to his advantage. He doesn't give a fuck either way.
Chaotic feels more appropriate, since they're only really predictable if you try and think of the absolute dumbest possible thing they could say or do at any given moment.
Actually, I'm pretty sure Trump, being the eternal narcissist who thinks of himself being above the rules as a given, would be Neutral Evil. He wants to assert his selfish will on society IN SPITE OF the law as often as by USING the law.
Nah, I'm pretty sure that he's still lawful evil. Just because the rules are getting more nonsensical and arbitrary doesn't mean that he's no longer committing evil using rules and regulations like a true lawful evil villain.
I don't know if you're one of them, but a lot of people think that chaotic evil is inherently more evil than neutral or lawful evil. It's not. It's just a different flavor of malevolence 🤷
Lawful doesn't necessarily mean following the laws of a state, but adherence to order and hierarchy. Buying politicians to bureaucratically stack the deck in one's favor is compatible with lawful evil, for someone upholding a hierarchy in which they're (supposed to be) on top.
If it's more driven by greed than ideology, it's probably more neutral evil.
Nah. Some of those rat fucks are straight chaotic evil. Lawful usually means they have a consistent set of ideals they follow. Rules they won't break and such. Some, like Trump and musk, would gladly break any rule they've previously set to get just a bit further ahead than others.
The idea that one of the most famous people/families on the planet doesn't have influence on, at the very least, public opinion, which then goes on to influence policy, is ridiculous.