Annoying trope: the rebel becomes the tyrant

[u/Floba_Fett]

[u/Bigenemy000]

Why is the king Conquest in the third image lmao

[u/MelodyMaster5656 → u/Bigenemy000]

What, were you not ready for him?

[u/Bigenemy000 → u/MelodyMaster5656]

I was not standing ready for his worm arrival

[u/SeizureProcedure115 → u/Bigenemy000]

But, you were give plenty of time... 🤔

[u/Ok_Paramedic8698 → u/Bigenemy000]

A lot of the images are stills from anime or comics. Like there's a JoJo reference and a The Boys reference that I caught just going through a few of the slides.

[u/Luke-Bywalker → u/Ok_Paramedic8698]

2 jojo refences btw

crying Jospeh (CEASAAAAAAAAAAAAAR)

and the menacing Jotaro vs. Dio scene

[u/Rargnarok]

"If you're revolution goes well and you do get power remember why you wanted it" -John Marston 1911

[u/Illustrious-Ad1148 → u/Rargnarok]

"*your" - John Marston, 1912

[u/Rargnarok → u/Illustrious-Ad1148]

My war with autocorrect continues

https://giphy.com/gifs/rHBleFPW4utkkBF726

[u/HommeMusical → u/Rargnarok]

About your user name...

[u/Rargnarok → u/HommeMusical]

Intentional layered referencd

[u/Weekly-Bluebird-4768 → u/Rargnarok]

Referencd?

[u/SweaterFromHell → u/Weekly-Bluebird-4768]

Kendrick Lamar of Internet Irony

[u/StevoTheMonkey → u/Rargnarok]

This really was your, Ragnarok

[u/drmadavis → u/Illustrious-Ad1148]

“Wait I was speaking aloud”
“I have subtitles on”
“Oh, okay-wait, what?”

[u/DrLexAlhazred → u/Rargnarok]

“You eat babies!” - John Marston

[u/memecrusader_ → u/DrLexAlhazred]

“WE EAT BERRIES AND MUSHROOMS YOU FOOL!”

[u/nufan86 → u/Rargnarok]

1911.

Boy was he in for a treat.

[u/Vandergrif → u/Rargnarok]

"Lumbago" -Uncle, 1899

[u/fnordius]

“You see, the only thing the good people are good at is overthrowing the bad people. And you're good at that, I'll grant you. But the trouble is it's the only thing you're good at. One day it's the ringing of the bells and the casting down of the evil tyrant, and the next it's everyone sitting around complaining that ever since the tyrant was overthrown no one's been taking out the trash. Because the bad people know how to plan. It's part of the specification, you might say. Every evil tyrant has a plan to rule the world. The good people don't seem to have the knack.”

―Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!

[u/dirtyLizard → u/fnordius]

It’s worth pointing out that this wasn’t necessarily Sir Pratchett’s worldview. The character who says this has an extremely cynical view of society and humans in general. The same character, at one point, involves himself in the politics of the literal wall rats because he’s bored and has a pathological need to feel like he’s in charge of something

[u/fnordius → u/dirtyLizard]

Very much true. In Guards! Guards!, Lord Vetinari is still an antagonist, but one who is more nuanced and much more pragmatic than typical fantasy rulers. He (Vetinari) was unabashedly in Camp Evil, but only because he was written as a fervent believer in the ends not only justifying the means, but defining them.

[u/Zanzaben → u/fnordius]

"Vetinari was a strong believer of one man, one vote. He was the one man, he had the one vote."

[u/Wild_Marker → u/Zanzaben]

Vetinari is the centrist dream. He lives in a reality where every other choice is inarguably worse.

[u/dirtyLizard → u/Wild_Marker]

Not exactly. His system is better than many others but it’s a local maximum. He is wrong about a lot of things and actively keeps the status quo even though a better future is possible

[u/Eiskralle1 → u/dirtyLizard]

I think one of the many things PTerry wanted to do throughout the AM books was show Vetinari growing alongside the city.
He grew up with Snapcase etc.. ruling the city and what that lead to. He saw all the bullshit that went on in the earlier Discworld books like the Moving Pictures and the Music With Rocks In It and all the shit the wizards got up to pre-Ridcully. He understandably believed that the most important aspect of being a ruler is keeping the lights on, so to speak. Keep the machinery running.

(He was also taught by a vampire, which absolutely informs his management style and opinion of "ordinary" people)

But then Vimes, Sybil and especially Carrot come along after Guards! Guards!, and he starts to slowly, *very* slowly, understand that there is more to rulership than preserving stability, and that, if you're really careful about it, change can happen that is Good, Actually.

And he starts to put his trust in more people, in his own, very paranoid way. He sets up institutions and systems that can outlast him and effect good change without losing stability. He selects people to get things done in a way that he understands as safe (or sometimes they just show up and he condones it, like William de Worde) and supports them, even if he doesn't always agree with them.

His character development is very subtle, but it is absolutely there and crucial to the development of Ankh-Morpork as a place and a culture.

[u/I_Miss_RIFisfun → u/Zanzaben]

Land of 'One Man, One Vote''

I've met him, and he certainly has the vote.

Ah Interesting Times my beloved!

[u/HAOZOO → u/fnordius]

I don't think Vetinari is ever described as evil, or at very least he becomes less and less "evil" as the guards series carries on. He is simply incredibly calculated and deceitful. Night watch establishes what came before him and by contrast to that he is quite a kind and fair leader. He is never needlessly cruel because he is never needlessly anything. He also works to emancipate the goblins in Snuff.

He is an antagonist often, not because he is evil but because he can see the bigger picture, and he uses others assumptions about him to his advantage. For him the ends justify the means, but his ends are often quite just.

[u/Hetakuoni → u/HAOZOO]

He is very lawful. I don’t think he’s lawful good or evil. Just followed exactly to the letter of the law. The intent on the other hand…

[u/Juliuseizure → u/HAOZOO]

From another book: "THERE IS NO JUSTICE. THERE IS JUST US."

[u/Juliuseizure → u/fnordius]

Vetinari hadn't been fully fleshed out yet. Was "Guards, Guards" the first novel explicitly with him? Regardless, as the series progressed, his character rapidly became deeper and more nuanced

GNU STP

[u/PirateSanta_1 → u/dirtyLizard]

Vetinari's philosophy is generally that people don't care about high minded ideals of justice and just want stability. They want the world to be something they understand and know they can survive in. For tomorrow to be more or less the same as today. 

[u/BornCoyote87 → u/PirateSanta_1]

Vetinari would be looking at the current world political situation and wonder who let the amateurs run things.

[u/heademptygirlie → u/dirtyLizard]

Yeah a lot of the characters are kinda bastards?

(I think the quote is Vetinari)

Like Sam vimes is decent enough, but it's still a very cynical character that is very anti any sorta revolution, because he's a cop who deals with a lot of shitty people

"People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn't that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people."

Like this feels to me like very much a "I'm a cynical old bastard who thinks change is impossible" moreso than terry saying it?

[u/BornCoyote87 → u/heademptygirlie]

His cynicism does improve over time, when we first meet him in Guards! Guards! Sam is at a very low point in his life. Fast forward a few years....

“Commander, I always used to consider that you had a definite anti-authoritarian streak in you.”

“Sir?”

“It seems that you have managed to retain this even though you are authority.”

“Sir?”

“That’s practically zen.”

― Terry Pratchett, Feet of Clay

[u/ryegye24 → u/BornCoyote87]

Yeah you can use the first quote to cast Vimes as a "both sides are the same"-guy, but what it really boils down to is that Vimes is mistrustful of authority, period.

Commander Vimes didn’t like the phrase "The innocent have nothing to fear," believing the innocent had everything to fear, mostly from the guilty but in the longer term even more from those who say things like "The innocent have nothing to fear."

[u/dirtyLizard → u/ryegye24]

I think Vimes and Vetinari are both practical realists with very slightly different worldviews. It boils down to “are people good or bad?”

The members of the Watch all have personalities that make them uniquely ineffective. Carrot is myopic and idealistic, Nobbs is corrupt, and Colon is a jobber who doesn’t really care about the big picture.

Vetinari sees them and rightfully assumes that they’ll make an ineffective police force. Vimes sees the same people and believes that they will rise to an existential threat if they need to.

The two argue about it a little in the dungeon but this is juxtaposed with the people of the city coming together to put fires out. Pratchett seems to suggest that his worldview aligns with Vimes’s.

[u/get_it_together1 → u/heademptygirlie]

It’s not that change is impossible, but it’s certainly a lot harder than youthful naiveté assumes. People don’t just thrive in freedom and democracy, especially when forced on them from the outside at gunpoint.

Revolution is often about tearing down existing structures, but then you have to build new structures.

[u/SpaceMonkeyAttack → u/get_it_together1]

Revolution is often about tearing down existing structures, but then you have to build new structures

Very much this. But also, people who excel at tearing down the structures of oppression generally (as Vetinari says) are not great at building new structures. And being in a revolutionary cadre, you probably have to work in some kind of military command structure, and get used to the idea that lives are currency to be spent, and that the ends will justify the means.

My theory is that for a truly successful revolution, you need two groups. The revolutionaries who smash the state and cast down the oppressors, and a second group who form the new government (or help set up anarchist co-operatives or whatever) who had nothing to do with the violent revolution.

Of course, as /u/BonJovicus points out in the comment below,

the revolutionaries themselves are a coalition of multiple viewpoints about how to run the country

So even if you do have a government-in-waiting ready to go, is it one all the people who fought to put it in place actually agree upon?

[u/Warcrimes_Desu → u/SpaceMonkeyAttack]

Most successful revolutions happen when there is both elite dissatisfaction and mass unrest. You do need both.

[u/BonJovicus → u/dirtyLizard]

The character who says this has an extremely cynical view of society and humans in general.

It's pretty much a kind of viewpoint that you only find in fictional characters and edgy teenagers. In reality, some revolutions are successful. Also in reality, the problem is usually not that no one has a plan to run the country the day after, but that the revolutionaries themselves are a coalition of multiple viewpoints about how to run the country.

[u/Scripten → u/BonJovicus]

Not to mention that the new country is suddenly no longer being "supported" by a foreign imperialist power and is having to navigate a global embargo on just everything they can't produce themselves.

[u/OrionLinksComic → u/fnordius]

God i miss Terry.

[u/andy_b_84 → u/OrionLinksComic]

RIP

[u/brood_brother → u/fnordius]

Mandatory GNU Terry Pratchett 

[u/Gotoflyhigh → u/fnordius]

The Indira Gandhi question, Are trains coming on time worth getting your balls snipped ?

[u/Stygsss → u/fnordius]

I think my favorite instance of this is in Night Watch. After Lord Winder is killed and Snapcase makes his first orders as new ruler, his supporters quickly realize that the new ruler is just as bad as the old one. And he knows exactly how they got rid of his predecessor and who was involved....

[u/karl2025 → u/Stygsss]

Yeah, but when they got rid of Snapcase they got Vetenari, and that worked out for everybody except the mimes.

[u/SpaceMonkeyAttack → u/karl2025]

And Rincewind

[u/Statistactician → u/SpaceMonkeyAttack]

Nothing ever works out for Rincewind.

[u/majorex64 → u/fnordius]

I haven't even read Guards! Guards! but three lines in to the comment I was sure it was Pratchett lol

[u/BungleBums → u/fnordius]

GNU Sir Terry Pratchett

[u/Arcane10101]

I don’t think it’s annoying when done well. The sad truth is that legitimate grievances can be co-opted by people with their own agendas, and even when revolutionaries start with noble intentions, they can change. But it takes more buildup than “I now have power, and power automatically corrupts everyone it touches so I’m evil now.”

[u/JudgeHodorMD → u/Arcane10101]

This is pretty basic:

The guy who wants to become an evil dictator won’t get there by promising to be an evil dictator. They get people to follow them by convincing them that they’re worth following.

Sometimes, they may actually have good intentions but don’t understand a better way or the reality of the job or something.

I think my favorite example is The Last of Us 2.

A zombie apocalypse breaks out and the military takes over. FEDRA was basically trying to stop human extinction as best they could. It’s hard to say how much was right or necessary, but they had to deal with a million hard decisions and trying to please the masses would just get them killed.

WLF managed to violently kick FEDRA out of Seattle and suddenly they have to deal with the same hard decisions except that a lot of the manpower and resources that were needed to keep people alive had been destroyed in the fighting.

Meet the new boss same as the old boss.

[u/Gingevere → u/JudgeHodorMD]

The guy who wants to become an evil dictator won’t get there by promising to be an evil dictator.

Are you 100% sure about that? Because uhh, *gestures broadly* it really seems like a solid 1/3^rd of the population are overjoyed to support someone who explicitly promises to be an evil dictator.

[u/amisslife → u/Gingevere]

I mean, if you're trying to steal elections, and rankle at the idea of someone enforcing rules to keep it a free and fair election, you don't say, "I'm going to steal the election."

You insist that you're going to save the elections, that the ones enforcing the rules are actually subverting the elections. You insist that others are trying to undermine the will of the people, that you are the will of the people, and that's proven by the fact that if you're allowed to count the votes without anyone else watching, you'll get all the votes.

Which is exactly what Trump and company have done. No matter how badly and obviously they're lying, they still have gone through the very committed routine of insisting that they are upholding, rather than sabotaging, election integrity. They have kept to that lie for years.

Yes, they've indirectly and very, very, very strongly implied suffering and dictatorship, but they've always paid lip service to the idea that everyone else is the dictator.

[u/UniqueLog8386 → u/Gingevere]

I hope you mean Trump, because I only promised to be a dictator. I never promised I'd have morals.

[u/rohlovely → u/Arcane10101]

Red Rising is a book series which is currently doing this quite well. The protagonist is not king, but he is the general of pretty much all the armies in his newly founded Republic. He spends the first few books just barreling through his obstacles and refusing to look back at the carnage. They’re all from his POV, so naturally you’re like “yeah hell yeah revolution go Darrow.” The next books are…different though. To start, there’s a ten-year time skip between book 3 and book 4.

Darrow and his wife Virginia are now General and Sovereign of the Solar Republic, respectively. They have given most of their power over to a Senate which tires of spending people in a decade long war. The people feel they’re not better off now, largely because the new Republic infrastructure was built hastily for an increasingly costly war, and was not prepared for refugees or actual reform. There are multiple POVs, specifically from people who Darrow harmed indirectly. Darrow spends his POV reflecting on his actions and eventually coming to an epiphany which allows him to truly change.

Most importantly, everyone disagrees with him in the fourth book. His wife is disappointed, his best friend is on the brink of abandoning him completely, his father figure turns from him in shame. It’s shown explicitly in the narrative that his ends have not and will not justify the means.

[u/patlikesjuice → u/rohlovely]

And that is why a good contingent of readers agree with Lysanders POV. (Not me though, he's a pixie.)

[u/rohlovely → u/patlikesjuice]

Lysander is a bitch Pixie who doesn’t actually understand the people he thinks he’s fighting for and seeks to uphold a centuries long system of torment and slavery all while denying that anyone was “really a slave.” People who say “hmmm Darrow bad so Lysander must be good” lack reading comprehension skills. It’s not either or. Both are incredibly flawed characters with good motivations who have been through unspeakable traumas. The difference is what they have chosen to do with their lives.

Edit: I know you agree just wanted to rant

[u/patlikesjuice → u/rohlovely]

100% agreed my Goodman.

[u/rohlovely → u/patlikesjuice]

Peak series. Peak

[u/patlikesjuice → u/rohlovely]

I’ll never forgive him for Cassius

[u/HitandRyan → u/Arcane10101]

Growing up under a brutal regime and fighting the kind of revolution and civil war necessary to oust a brutal regime can mess you up in the head. That kind of conflict also selects for the kinds of people who will do terrible things to take and hold power. I’m not saying we should lie down and accept tyranny because all governments are the same, but it can and has happened many times. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

[u/Floba_Fett → u/Arcane10101]

Yes, that was what I meant to convey, although it seems that a lot of people misinterpretated that. I was complaining about how some authors just do a complete character assassination out of nowhere and force their rebel character to do a complete, unexplained 180 on their morals and beliefs as soon as they win

[u/SilverMedal4Life → u/Floba_Fett]

Exactly. My kingdom for more stories where the folks who are making the revolution work start to see cracks form in it, and then actually come together to fix them and try to actually build something better.

[u/aldandur → u/SilverMedal4Life]

I would recommend watching SowietWomble's Arma Bulshittery 9 where exactly this happens to a plucky band of revoluzzers, who slowly turn into terrorists due to immoral actions being easier than working within morally acceptable systems

If you can stand their humour.

[u/Willing_Ad_5272 → u/aldandur]

The Badgers, they are the Badgers

[u/Square-Singer → u/Floba_Fett]

Think of the qualities of a great rebel leader:

• He knows best. He knows best to such a degree, that he pushes his opinion through with violence. He knows best so much that he'll kill people over that fact.
• He's decisive. In a rebellion there's no time for committees, referendums, discussions or any of the other democratic stuff. The rebel leadership needs to react fast, now. No need or chance for discussions.
• He's a charismatic people-cult-like leader. For a rebellion to work it needs to rally around a single leader. People need to follow him unquestioningly into death.

Now does any of that sound like a good leader for a liberal, democratic, pluralistic society?

A rebel leader in government is a military dictator. It's the same profile.

So while he's a rebel leader he's the lesser evil, fighting the evil dictator in power. Once the evil dictator is gone, there's no bigger evil and thus the lesser evil just turns into the evil in government.

Read up on e.g. Napoleon, Pol Pot, Trotsky and pretty much any other revolutionary leader who succeeded in their revolution and lived long enough to be head of government for a while.

and force their rebel character to do a complete, unexplained 180 on their morals and beliefs as soon as they win

It's not a 180 in their morals and beliefs, but a 180 in their circumstances.

[u/Clemdauphin → u/Square-Singer]

unless you talk about the pig in the animal farm, Napoléon wasn't the one that made the revolution tho. he was just a succesfull general that coup the first republic. he wasn't the leader of the first french revolution. the leaders were what formed the first assemblée nationale. if you want a french revoltionary that was authoritarian, you have Robespierre.

[u/Hikury → u/Floba_Fett]

In reality the guy was purging rivals and sexually coercing admirers since he was fifteen.

Stable governments are products of boring nerds

[u/overlordshivemind → u/Arcane10101]

I agree. It's more interesting seeing how power corrupts a good person as opposed to instantaneous cause and effect

[u/S0N_OF_THUNDER]

I don't know if I agree 100%, but the comic was hilarious.

I don't think the trope "Revolutionary Leader becomes evil" is necessarily bad (as long as it is well written, of course). My problem is that sometimes the story and the heroes seem more focused on stopping this Evil Revolutionary than actually correcting the problems in society that made they become a revolutionary.

RWBY, for example, is maybe the worst offender that I know. The writers were so focused on making the Evil Revolutionary Guy (Adam Taurus) less sympathetic that they literally retconned the settling's racism to be less bad than previously established.

Just an annoying trope in general.

[u/JustaguynameBob → u/S0N_OF_THUNDER]

I also remember them trying to resolve the Faunus racism made Blake less relevant other than to be Yang's girlfriend.

[u/Special_Tu-gram-cho → u/JustaguynameBob]

made Blake less relevant other than to be Yang's girlfriend.

I think the production made that choice in later volummes in order to cather the fans, as if making a popular ship cannon could have helped the show.

[u/ninja3121 → u/S0N_OF_THUNDER]

RWBY is the worst offender in a lot of narrative categories. First couple seasons are okay, then it's literally just smashing action figures together.

[u/TwilightVulpine → u/ninja3121]

Well, RWBY at its best is smashing action figures together. Lets not forget the series started with no context action scenes.

[u/Neomataza → u/TwilightVulpine]

Thats the weirdest pitch i ever heard about. The creative guy who got the funding and all organized was only providing context free battle scenes, and got 2 bro-gamer-comedy writers to make all the dialogue. And he gave those hacks homework to watch certain animated shows like avatar the last airbender and that was like the last substantive interaction, not even checking back whether they understood what they were supposed to learn from watching other shows.

[u/kazeespada → u/Neomataza]

Don't forget he died. So most of the show was a bunch of dudes looking at his notes trying to make it the way they think he wanted.

[u/man_juicer → u/ninja3121]

It's the pinnacle of great ideas, poor execution.

[u/LeonTetra → u/man_juicer]

I think that's the reason why the fandom is so passionate. Everyone can see the *spark* of something great, but it's handled so badly that any undergrad in creative writing class could make it better. Which drives fandom engagement.

[u/man_juicer → u/S0N_OF_THUNDER]

tries to make a fictional minority group to represent racism

proceeds to make it look like the oppression isn't actually that bad, minorities fighting for their rights are overreacting violent criminals, and minority characters mostly being used as accessories for the "normal" characters

Did RWBY accidentally make the most accurate representation of racism in media?

[u/dashboardcomics → u/man_juicer]

By trying to be progressive yet having no understanding what that actually means, they accidently yet accurately portrayed the mindset on how rascist apologists see the world.

[u/TwilightVulpine → u/dashboardcomics]

The vast majority of stories about racism aren't even brave enough to depict the horrible things racists did, because they think it would be too heavy handed and maybe even make their heroes look complicit.

But it would have to be like that, to be true to real life.

[u/Cyclonitron → u/dashboardcomics]

Have the oppressed race represented by human-animal hybrids:

• Make the herioc hybrids have the most aesthetically-pleasing animal features - sexy cat-girls and a wolf-man whose "wolf" features are a hairy chest - while the villainous hybrids have unattractive features like weird splotches on their skin? Check.

• Make the heroic hybrids white while the villainous ones have a range of darker skin tones to really drive the point home? Check.

• Have the wolf-man make an impassioned Model Minority speech about how they [hybrids] need to stop being so mad about their circumstances and show their oppressors that they're not the violent savages their oppressors portray them as? Check.

• Have those circumstances consisting of being forced to live in abject poverty on a barren island, all the while wolf-man lives in a huge mansion in the center of town, replete with his own domestic staff? Check.

What else am I missing? I haven't watched RWBY in years so I'm sure there's more I'm forgetting.

[u/man_juicer → u/Cyclonitron]

Don't forget freedom fighters being either violent terrorists or ineffective pacifists.

[u/Finrod-Knighto → u/S0N_OF_THUNDER]

Arcane too. The ending was extremely disappointing from a political standpoint with the politics and heavy topics Arcane dealt with at first. Vi keeps getting worse and her gf becomes a straight up tyrant who continues the cycle of violent oppression of her people, killing loads. In season 1 the premise was set up so well with two flawed revolutionaries who went in opposite directions, both of them making huge mistakes and ending up well removed from their original aspirations. Vi and Jinx are then a mirror to it. But in the end we end up with… the status quo restored after everyone briefly teams up and it’s all good and we go back to Zoun being a toxic shithole. The characters spend more time fighting against the latest Zounite threat than ever addressing the root causes or even discussing them. Ekko is the only one who is right.

[u/Dondagora → u/Finrod-Knighto]

I feel like they ought to have brought up the massacre on the bridge more for how much it influenced the big leaders of Zaun. Instead it felt like Piltover didn’t even remember that ever happened, which can be compelling in its own right if it had been brought up at all “you want to know why all this is happening? This thing that wasn’t a huge deal for you was a pivotal moment for us.”

[u/Leftieswillrule → u/S0N_OF_THUNDER]

It’s good trope if done well because it’s a commentary on power itself. It’s a bad trope if treated as a necessity. “Rebel leader becomes tyrant” must have good reasons for why they become the tyrant, and often times the feeling that they have to be corrupted by power makes writers forget that a corruption story requires you to have a good understanding of the individual’s flaws and come up with a believable explanation for why they have become terrible when given power. And it should be consistent with their ideals. There’s very little fun in a story of “actually this guy was just power hungry all along”, such a story has very little to say. 

[u/Cyclonitron → u/S0N_OF_THUNDER]

RWBY, for example, is maybe the worst offender that I know. The writers were so focused on making the Evil Revolutionary Guy (Adam Taurus) less sympathetic that they literally retconned the settling's racism to be less bad than previously established.

The entire Menagerie arc was so incredibly cringe. I was honestly impressed how the writers included racism, classism, and colorism and then managed be on the wrong side of every one of those issues.

[u/zyuiop_ → u/S0N_OF_THUNDER]

Avatar: Legend of Korra has a lot of this as well. I was genuinely annoyed watching it.

[u/Dondagora → u/zyuiop_]

They did it in a very sad way as well, I prefer the way Game of Thrones did it with the High Sparrow. He’s not evil in the traditional power-hungry sense, he’s simply dangerous because he’s a true believer and that means he can’t be bent, manipulated, or reasoned with. He’s such a non-hypocrite that he’s following through with his moral vision for the future without room for nuance or compromise.

[u/SeaJay_31 → u/Dondagora]

Those sorts of people scare me in real life. In fiction they're bloody terrifying.

[u/Neomataza → u/Dondagora]

It's called a fanatic.

[u/FrenchAmericanNugget → u/zyuiop_]

Tbf they only really did this with Amon, the other large villains were classic build ups and made sense. Water guy (I forget his name) was corrupted by dark spirits so no shit he went insane, Zaheer and the Red Lotus were violent anarchists attempting to sow chaos, so no shit they tried to end the avatar and killed the earth queen. Kuvira was a nationalist war lord, sure she set out to "restore order" but so does literally every dictator, her deciding to invade Republic city (I forget if that's the name of it) made sense, now that she had quelled the interior enemies it is now time for her to keep up her momentum and retake any land she considered rightfully earth kingdom territory, same exact thing happened after the Russian civil war, once the soviets quelled the interior they attacked their neighbors, same thing for Revolutionary/Napoleonic France.

[u/Rollem_Bones]

There is a reason why Washington walking away at two terms was such a huge deal.

[u/Nobleblade1 → u/Rollem_Bones]

This is such a heavily propogandized 'fact.' Washington retired because of profound political polarization which led to policy gridlock, and his persistent health issues which he would die to a few years after stepping down(surrounded by his slaves). The American school system's representation of their own history is actively ahistorical. Have you ever though about why the 'first president' took office a decade after independence and 6 years after the peace? I highly recommend looking into contemporary accounts by leaders of that time. The early republic was a mess, and half the founding fathers expected another civil war. Moreover the position of President was far from the ridiculous Unitary executive constructed by the conservative supreme court this wasn't unlimited dictatorial power he was giving up, you could almost compare the position more to the authority held by the secratary of state in the modern era.

[u/FutureComplaint → u/Nobleblade1]

Cause the Articles of Confederation were ass

[u/MC1065 → u/Nobleblade1]

I think the sentiment you're missing is that Washington probably could have done almost anything he wanted. If he was extremely greedy for power he could have been a king or a dictator or president for life. He could have caused that civil war people were worried about. He could have decided to solve political gridlock by force, by destroying democracy, or could have just decided he wanted to stick around for as long as possible, fate of the country be damned. Washington set the limits on his power and the power of the office, not the other way around. It shouldn't be confusing why people find that admirable.

[u/Rhodin265 → u/MC1065]

Even if Washington did secretly desire to be king and only quit because he was in poor health, that already puts him miles ahead of our current politicians who will roll off their deathbeds every day and pretend they can still run a nation.

[u/thefirstlaughingfool → u/MC1065]

I'm not sure about the veracity of this, but I recall the story about how after Britain recognized the US independence, Washington's army offered to overthrow Congress in a coup and install him as a king. Washington responded "Do you think I overthrew George III to become George I?"

Washington was was obviously not a saint. Even by the standards that no one in power is perfect, he was still less so than some of the time. That said, I feel even if the actual reasons for historical precedence are muddied by greed and selfishness, you can still use the abject results as a guide. Even if Washington stepping down after two terms was a strategic move or for his health concerns, it still can result in power becoming less stagnant and can be emulated by future generations.

[u/vaderi → u/thefirstlaughingfool]

Traditions have to start somewhere

[u/SacredGay → u/Nobleblade1]

All of that is true, but the way you present it is its own version of America Bad propaganda. The expectation of a resident voluntarily stepping down hadn't been set yet. Washington wanted to model his legacy after Cincinnatus, the fondly-remembered Roman senator who became dictator, and returned to the life of a humble farmer. The new nation had just separated from an empire where the ruler was expected to rule for his whole remaining life. Even despite the polarization, people still didnt identify his administration as the source of it, and some federalists were comfortable with the idea of crowning him king (though it wasnt popular) or re-electing him again. The idea of a president being humble enough to recognize the right time to retire was unheard of. The Federalists' concept of their new nation was that it would be ruled by snobby smart rich übermenchen philosopher-kings who would trade jobs around in a junta-like one-party state. Him acting like a noble and humble (slave-owning) aristocrat genuinely did set the tone for how the first modern republic should behave forevermore, even if there were other sins we can't ignore with modern eyes.

[u/DonChrisote → u/SacredGay]

Guys you're both wrong. Washington was a lizard person and had to go shed his skin.

[u/CraftyKuko → u/DonChrisote]

Yeah, but how long does it take to shed? He could've gone back to work after it was done.

[u/z3_ggs → u/SacredGay]

This might seem like a nitpick but I don’t love the use of “modern eyes.” Even back then, people knew owning slaves was immoral. There were groups that actively brought attention to it and opposed it. I think it’s ahistorical to say “well, times were different, and everyone agreed slavery was cool back then even though we recognize it’s bad nowadays.” Idk I think it’s whitewashing. People just chose to be evil. Same as it ever was. And sure it used to be more widespread than nowadays but that seems more a question of power and leverage than just people suddenly realizing it’s wrong when they used to think it was right

[u/No_Walk_Town → u/z3_ggs]

Yeah, it's really funny how, in the past few years, there's been this push on the internet for British people to claim that the UK banned slavery before the US did, but they always cite a law from the 1830's that was a very narrow, partial ban that only banned slavery in the home islands - slavery was still completely legal everywhere else in the British empire.

Well, that's funny, because if our standard of "we banned slavery first" is a tiny, narrow, partial ban in a very specific region - then the US beat the UK by about 60 years when Vermont was founded as a free state in 1777.

There were people in the US who knew from day 1 that slavery was wrong, and beat most of the world to that understanding. But, after all, there is literally nothing the British won't try to steal, and I guess stealing credit for extremely narrow partial bans on slavery is just another example.

[u/JayRandom212 → u/Nobleblade1]

The Articles of Confederation were the attempt at "limited government". It failed. Washington gave up real power. Look at the Whiskey Rebellion.

Look at Trump today to see how much power the Presidency *really* has. Those crazy powers were always there, they just never got used because we had better men (like Washington) in office.

[u/Xikar_Wyhart → u/JayRandom212]

Well Trump is getting away with stuff because the other 2/3rds of the USA government are letting him. Unfortunately there is no automated system (a 4th completely independent branch) to just enforce action when he or any member of the Federal government breaks the rules.

Take the recent wars power vote that just passed to curb Trump on Iran. Only Congress may declare war, with the President acting as the top commander in its execution. The potus has been given limited power to send troops in what should be emergency confrontations (like an external invasion onto USA soil or territory).

But to launch continuous strikes on a sovereign nation like Trump and Hegseth did amounts to war. And the majority of Congress kept voting to let it continue and willingly gave up their power to control the president. It wasn't until Trump burned done bridges that two GOP senators switched votes to stop him. And even then what enforcement does Congress have outside of saying "No, stop don't do that". Are the military personnel no obligated to ignore Trump and Hegseth's orders?

[u/Ok-Being3970 → u/JayRandom212]

I don't believe the "crazy" powers were ever intended. The abuse of executive orders has been an escalation of power in the executive branch that neither side has tried to stop because they benefit from it when it's their turn to govern.

[u/Ferbtastic → u/Nobleblade1]

Yeah, not like we have a president in poor health still clinging to power.

[u/Steakbake01]

People point out that this happens a lot in real life, but the annoying thing about this trope as presented is stories that go that route often don't really understand why other than a vague sense of "power corrupts", so they just have the revolutionary leader completey 180 with very little build up.

In reality, the reason revolutionaries often becomes dictators isn't because they were secretly evil or being in charge flipped their alignment like the One Ring, it's because when you have a dictatorship that can only be only stopped via protracted violent revolution, you're left with a country that has had its entire government ripped out at the roots, and said government even when it functioned wasn't set up to help the people. Setting up a new system of government, as it turns out, is pretty damn difficult. Everyone has their own agendas to push, you need to carefully manage resources to make sure no one goes hungry, foreign countries take advantage of your nation's weakened state, etc.

Being a politician, even a mediocre one, is difficult. Being one in a nation that has very little of it's systems remaining intact even more so. Saying "fuck it, everyone does what I say or gets shot" is much easier. That's the corrupting nature of power.

There's a lot more to it of course - often when a big revolution occurs in a country in the modern era, big 1st nation countries usually get their fingers in the pie as well, and those countries are incentivised to back the leader that is more likely to become another tyrant, since a tyrant is easy to control and get that countries resources.

All I'm saying is I don't like the oversimplification that all revolutions are destined for tyranny by their very nature. It's just a very common pitfall that any good revolution must plan for. (And there is historical precedent for revolutions that didn't fall into this trap - usually by having the leader of the revolution not be the guy in charge and having an experienced politician take charge instead)

[u/Ehehhhehehe → u/Steakbake01]

Well said. 

There’s also the problems of factionalism/infighting in the rebellion as it approaches victory, as well as counter-revolution from remnants of the old system, both of which can incentivize paranoia and brutality within the new leadership.

[u/SpicyWhizkers → u/Ehehhhehehe]

Exactly. When counter-revolutionary forces linger and continuously still attempt to retake power, it’s a difficult situation to be in for revolutionaries. Especially if, like throughout modern history, you have a powerful nation (the US) backing/funding many of those counter-revolutionary forces.

[u/Just_A_Little_Rabbit → u/Steakbake01]

We also have a very, compressed, view of history of previous revolutions. People will view post WW2 nations that have flirted with authoritarians or similar political instability as if they are just bad at doing it and ignore how long it took the US, for example, to stabilize (arguably not until the Civil War).

Another issue, specifically in the context of socialist and communist revolutions, is how much external influence there is in trying to make it fail. Haiti was embargoed by the US and France for having a successful slave revolt and was forced at gun point to pay France back for "stealing" its resources. Cuba was embargoed by the US and under constant threat of invasion. USSR was constantly threatened with war or nuclear annihilation (don't forget the whole Civil War where the 'west' sided with the Tsar). Not to mention Korea, Vietnam, Libya, Venezuela, Iran, etc. All under some threat of war or destruction by external forces that wanted or "needed" them to fail and collapse.

When under that kind of pressure, its not unexpected that an authoritarian structure will come forth.

[u/kovha → u/Steakbake01]

Even if the revolution plans for it, it doesn't always work. Here in Cuba Fidel wasn't put as a president in the 59', the plan was to establish a democracy. But eventually he ended up taking the power anyway and establishing an authocratic military dictatorship.

[u/Blackrock121 → u/Steakbake01]

Once you use killing to solve your problems its becomes easy to just keep solving problems with killing. 

[u/Yongtre100]

I don’t even think there’s anything wrong with showing how power is corrupting but you have to make *that* point. They can’t suddenly become evil because they won, that’s just bad story telling and dumb.

[u/GinchAnon]

is it a trope when its in a non-fiction history book?

[u/ShmebulockForMayor → u/GinchAnon]

TVtropes literally have a "Real Life" category.

[u/fnordius → u/ShmebulockForMayor]

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FullCircleRevolution

See the last folder of examples ("Real Life")

[u/ironballs16 → u/fnordius]

See also: New Boss, Same as the Old Boss

[u/fnordius → u/ironballs16]

From the trope entry:

See also Meet the New Boss, for when the new villain doesn't even bother pretending to be any better than the one they've just deposed.

[u/B4rberblacksheep → u/GinchAnon]

Yeah there’s so many examples of this happening throughout history. There’s a reason it gets written into stories.

[u/Fern-ando → u/GinchAnon]

Yeah, is ironic making the character look like Castro when he famously  became another tyrant after his revolution. He only needed 10 months to start purging his own revolutionary comrades.

[u/Neomataza → u/Fern-ando]

Stalin didn't even need that.

[u/dumnezero → u/GinchAnon]

...yes

[u/GinchAnon → u/dumnezero]

I mean, it kinda seems to imply that its not a thing that actually happens.

[u/S0N_OF_THUNDER → u/GinchAnon]

Not really?

For example, a couple of teenagers in love sharing an umbrella is one of the most cliche romance tropes in anime, but it is certainly something that happens in real life too.

Tropes may be non-fictional too.

[u/GinchAnon → u/S0N_OF_THUNDER]

the trope part by itself, fair point.

but this comic in particular seems IMO to imply that its not a real phenomenon.

[u/BonerPorn → u/GinchAnon]

I think the comic comes to the wrong conclusion of why this happens by stating it is smug enlightened centerism from the author.

Instead, I would say in most cases it is poor writer wanting to comment on the VERY real phenomenon of revolutionary leaders becoming their own dictators. But instead of presenting their characters realistically, they have them act like the propagandized version of themselves in both roles, creating a massive tonal whiplash. If the revolutionary leader was more fully develolped, the turn shouldn't be a shock.

This comment above pretty well illustrates how a revolutionary leader who turns dictator SHOULD be characterized https://old.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/1ufz0uv/annoying_trope_the_rebel_becomes_the_tyrant/otwlaqa/

[u/MarsAstro → u/GinchAnon]

I don't really read it that way. It doesn't seem to comment on revolutions, but the character trope of having a single character suddenly flip their entire personlity. One idealist having an epic fight with an authoritarian, only to immediately become authoritarian himself, is what this post is criticizing. And that is indeed not a thing that happens in real life.

Real life examples of people who overthrew a corrupt government only to be corrupt themselves don't really work that way. They're not pure idealists who immediately do a 180 on their personality as soon as they achieve their goal of overhtrowing the government.

In real life, it's usually something along the lines of people who were already selfish and power hungry working their way into high positions of a valid populist/revolutionary movement to co-opt it for their own gain. Then followed by them discarding that movement and its ideals once it's served its purpose of gaining them power. Which is a very different thing to the popular trope of having a character that's genuinely driven by ideals suddenly change everything about who they are as soon as they get a taste of power.

[u/Starfleet-Time-Lord → u/MarsAstro]

I think the last two panels make it pretty clear that they consider the trope to be a comment on revolutions.

[u/GinchAnon → u/MarsAstro]

that kinda reminds me of something from Jordan Peterson before he went completely off the deep end, that essentailly boiled down to that part of what it takes to be able to get into those positions is a certain degree of power-hungry that will essentially always become a new iteration of what it fought against. that if you DON'T have that, you'll either just not have the grit needed to get there, or you'll get taken out by someone who does.

[u/YayDiziet → u/GinchAnon]

It isn’t just revolutions, it’s anything where someone can work themselves into a position of power. Basically it’s a form of selection bias. The people most likely to be in positions of power are also the most likely to abuse it for a bunch reasons

[u/MarsAstro → u/GinchAnon]

Yeah, given how often this happens IRL there might actually be something to that! It's been a long time since I agreed with something JP said, lol.

[u/dumnezero → u/GinchAnon]

Nah, it just means we live in dystopia(s) and like to escape into fiction.

[u/DracoLunaris → u/GinchAnon]

Real life generally has better buildup. Take the USSR for example. The Bolshevik party was already run in a top down authoritarian manner, so it was no surprise they ruled the nation in the same way. Stalin was also a glorified highway man who's last robbery resulted in a lot of civilians being blown up with grenades for 0 gain (the bank notes they stole where all marked and the party members who tried to use them where arrested).

Basically, the bastard are typically already bastards, or there are bastards waiting in the wings who come out on top of the inevitable infighting caused by the entropy of victory (or in the USSR's case, both).

[u/Wild_Marker → u/DracoLunaris]

Real life generally has better buildup. Take the USSR for example.

That buildup had B-plots, C-plots, all the way to Z-plots. You could have the entire show be the buildup and it would never end!

[u/Substantial-Sea-3672 → u/DracoLunaris]

The problem tends to be that most people prefer the status quo.

So successful revolutions usually can’t risk just letting the people choose their government directly after the small revolutionary cabal overthrows the last regime.

This is often accomplished by either delaying the implementation of the new constitution until the “crisis” is over, rigging elections, or preventing certain people from being eligible for public office.

We can see all three used during the French Revolution

[u/ArkitekZero → u/GinchAnon]

yes

[u/screwitigiveup]

This happens in like, half of all real revolutions. Shocker, a violent revolution motivated by a charismatic leader is inclined to end up with that leader in absolute power.

[u/adjavang → u/screwitigiveup]

More than half, I'd say. Part of the problem is that it's easy to get a whole bunch of disparate groups to agree that the current dictator is bad. It is much harder to get them to agree to your brand of post-rebellion society, which leads to the rebels rebelling against you and all of a sudden you're quashing a rebellion and oh hey look, you're a dictator.

[u/linkthereddit → u/adjavang]

Plus, as Terry Prachett pointed out, those who want the absolute power tend to be the ones who have an easier time pushing their way to the top and dealing with rivals in a... less than ideal manner. They know how to break or bend the rules, take advantage of the root cause of the problem without making it obvious to everyone what they're doing. Or knowing the people just don't care, they just don't want the last guy back in power.

[u/AlmondMagnum1 → u/adjavang]

Another part is that, however things were run before and how bad they were for the general populace, there were reasons they were run that way. Reasons that went deeper and broader than the personality of the guy at the top.

[u/Tnecniw → u/AlmondMagnum1]

With some exceptions.
(Can think of some monuments, statues, etc that was done for pure ego)

[u/Square-Singer → u/screwitigiveup]

This here. Revolutions and peaceful governments require two entirely different sets of leadership types, skills and structures.

In a revolution you don't have time. You need fast, decisive and extreme action right now. There's no time for discussions or distributed leadership. You can't call in a committee to figure out different paths of action and then call a referendum on what to do. No, it needs to be decided and done now, thus you need a strong hierarchy. Leader says, people do.

To succeed, a revolution needs to have basically the same organization structure as a military dictatorship.

So now the revolution is successful, and you have successfully put the military dictatorship into power, with a charismatic dictator at the head of it, who people follow without question.

That's not a great basis for a democratic pluralistic liberal society.

[u/SeaJay_31 → u/Square-Singer]

Of course I'm liberal! Let's make those hospitals and universities free for all! The ones that are still standing anyway. We'll work out how to fund it all later.

Also, and by-the-by, I do need to live somewhere... I might as well use this palace that's lying empty since we ...er... 'pacified' the corrupt fatcat at the head of the previous government.

Oh, and we don't need all those armed volunteers any more. In fact, they're making me... I mean, the citizens! They're making the citizens feel a bit nervous. Hardly a peace-keeping force, are they? Why don't we 'encourage' them to give up their weapons and return to work. We will need a security force though, so perhaps we should keep some of them around? How about the unit that I personally commanded during the uprising and are fanatically devoted to me? That seems fair.

Form a government? We should probably think about doing that, huh? Why don't we get the inner-circle together and throw some ideas around? I know General 'Wife-was-killed-by-previous-regime' is keen to head up the Justice department, and Dr 'Head-of-aggressive-interrogation' had loads of great ideas for healthcare reform. In the meantime it's probably best if I retain nominal control of, well, everything.

Hold a vote? It's a bit early for that, isn't it? Surely we need to put a new constitution in place first! Get all the details worked out. How long do you think that will take? 5 years? 6? Better make it 10, just to make sure we've got all our ducks in a row. Don't announce anything firm though. We'll have a vote "When it's time". That should be enough to tide them over for a while.

What do you mean, 'the media will never accept that as an answer'? We can't afford disruptive elements within the media at this fragile time. In the interests of national cohesion, let's provide the media with some approved talking points. Shut down any outlet that doesn't toe the line. It's a National Security issue, really, so get Colonel 'Probably-an-actual-psychopath' to follow that up. Just hell him to keep it quiet. For the greater good.

[u/zhibr → u/SeaJay_31]

No no no, we will have the election. Everybody will participate, that's what we fought for.

What did you say? The supporters of the old regime have substantial support? Well, we can't let them decide, that would defeat the point. Everyone else though. Except that other group either who also wants some kind of autocracy, we want democracy after all.

Why are they complaining I'm dictatorial? Having demonstrations, attacking my people, even though most of the people can vote? We have to restore the peace, forward my personal guard (since it's the only force I trust)!

[u/Sageypie → u/screwitigiveup]

The type of person that it takes to overthrow a government, is not the type of person that you want to run one. Basically.

[u/VoicelessPassenger → u/screwitigiveup]

I was going to say this, real life rebellions are usually not a one-man effort and a lot of post-rebellion states go backsliding into hell again because the ones in charge of the rebellion started fighting amongst themselves.

My go-to example would be the Mexican Revolution: they overthrew the corrupt president Porfirio Diaz, and everything was great under the new president for about five political minutes until he was assassinated and overthrown by another guy (his successor was in power for 45 literal minutes, and his whole job was to appoint the guy who started the coup as president) and then that guy got ousted by someone else and the country devolved into civil war for a number of years.

As far as revolutions goes it is VERY hard to keep things together in the immediate aftermath: the only ones I can think of that actually pulled it off and managed to survive more or less intact for an appreciable number of time was the United States, who still got very close to collapsing on number of occasions.

[u/Platnun12 → u/screwitigiveup]

French Revolution literally had this happen lol

The people from the first fucked up and became the targets of the second one

[u/statinsinwatersupply → u/screwitigiveup]

Having power like that changes you. Soo many examples of someone who started out 'good' and wound up a monster. Robespierre was a French lawyer, fervent antislavery abolitionist, who early in his career resigned from an appointment as a judge due to ethical opposition to capital punishment. Super ironic because he turned into the guy that ordered most of the guillotinings in the French revolution (most of whose victims were not aristocrats).

[u/samurairaccoon]

It's a trope because it happens in real life. Over and over and over. There have been literal studies that show power changes how the human mind thinks. We just aren't wired well to handle it. Or we are wired too well, depending on your opinion.

[u/Hotagi]

Idk if the comic artist is young but if you read a lot of revolutionaries works post fighting revolution, they will tell you it is chaos.

When you open a power vacuum sometimes you can get better outcomes over decades. Other times you get a stricter regime or tyrant. This is why we have so many sayings from actual revolutionaries that warn extreme caution.

Even when a 'good' guy wins, you have brought instability, sovereign insecurity, and sometimes financial ruin. These stress factors can corrupt even the most well intentioned people. 

[u/Arbyssandwich1014]

This definitely has never happened. Pol Pot was so chill and benevolent 

[u/Fusilero → u/Arbyssandwich1014]

ngl, Pol Pot started off all kinds of fucked. He did pretty much exactly what he said he would do.

It wasn't some unexpected drift into agrarian totalitarianism, it was pre-planned and executed.

[u/Blindmailman → u/Arbyssandwich1014]

It would probably be easier to list off revolutions that didn't end up overthrowing a king and just changing the job title

[u/DisillusionedHobbit → u/Blindmailman]

I know everybody likes to shit on America but we literally did have probably the best, most successful revolution of all time.  

[u/Fit_Employment_2944 → u/DisillusionedHobbit]

Not even probably 

We did it all without even losing ties with the nation we revolted against 

[u/Srellian → u/Arbyssandwich1014]

Yeah, centrist historians just painted him as a bad person cause they hate revolutions

/s

[u/heffron1 → u/Arbyssandwich1014]

And Lenin and Che Guevara

[u/UselessAndUnused]

OP, sorry to say but that's usually what happens. Look at the Arab Spring. Most of those countries either ended up in dictatorships again anyways, or in civil wars. I agree dictatorships need to be overthrown, but, sorry to say, usually the ones fighting the hardest to overthrow it aren't exactly suitable as politicians lol, even if they think they are. Most revolutions or armed resistances are, initially, formed by a bunch of madmen with nothing left to lose, along with extremists and criminals. Not just that, but usually the revolution is formed by multiple opposing factions that got along solely (if at all) because they wanted to overthrow a specific dictator. Once that falls away, you can't even guarantee the correct faction takes power (if any exists).

Violent revolution is easy to glorify (and might at times be necessary), but friendly reminder that the people who are actively willing to fight back and murder people and who actually go through with it (instead of just talking about it on the internet) tend to extremist murderers lol. They're needed sometimes, but don't make for good rulers.

[u/nottherealneal]

Glances awkwardly at history book

Right...a trope.....

[u/internet_whale]

I live in a country like that. In fact I'm not sure there is a more perfect country than Syria for this trope. It's like the entire history of the country is an eternal repeat of this.

I get your sentiment. Violent revolution is alot of the time the only path to ending current tyranny, but people born in the shadow of violent oppression and violent revolution don't tend to be the most well adjusted. Wanting for revenge against the group that their oppressors belonged to, or maybe they were only ever bothered that they were the ones being oppressed and didn't mind oppressing others.

Even forgetting all that and assuming you're an ok person, your rebellion won and now what? Just because you're good at guerilla warfare doesn't mean you're qualified to govern, or that any one of the other factions recognized your violently seized power. Why can't they do the same to you? Maybe they don't like your stated goals for this country? At that point you either quash another revolution and then you're a dictator/warlord now or you cede power to them without a fight and who knows maybe they'll be nice or maybe they'll be subjeft to the same cycle.

[u/Constantinoplus]

It’s not centrist to realize the shortfalls of revolutions, and there inherent nature of often becoming what they were revolting against in the first place.

[u/Toutatis12]

The revolution glazing is going strong I see... nevermind the purges that occur afterwards, the rise of military strongmen, the draconian laws enacted, etc etc.

I am not saying revolutions aren't needed or warranted in any way, many have valid reasoning behind them but so many 'plucky rebels fighting the evil tyrant' ignores nearly all the aftermath and issues that go hand in hand with a violent revolution. Nevermind the unofficial violence carried out by the victors against the enemy now laid low.

[u/TheXypris]

This is sadly what happens more often than not irl

Power corrupts

[u/SmugCapybara]

It's not because "the author is a centrist", it's because most such "revolutions" simply end up with a different asshole in power.

[u/AgentJhon → u/SmugCapybara]

Exactly. It's because the author opened a fucking history book.

[u/Visual-Mean]

This is a great example of "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

We called the Viet Kong terrorists. Never the US.

We called the ANC terrorists. Never apartheid.

We call Hamas terrorist today. Never "israel".

Great job, well illustrated.

[u/ace5762]

It's actually highly accurate to how the majority of revolutions go.
By their very nature, violent populist uprisings have to be spearheaded by people who have a lot of charisma, capacity for violence, and Machiavellian tendencies.
The bolshevik revolution in Russia initially resulted in a transitional government that held public elections to pick an assembly for the government.
The communist party lost, but because they were the ones who had the military manpower at their disposal, Lenin ordered the election results overturned and established the Soviet government, and cancelled any future elections. When Lenin died, Stalin got the reins to power and you know the rest from there.
Simon Bolivar led multiple south american countries to independence from spain, and then promptly declared himself president for life of them.

[u/Shieldheart-]

Depicting any revolution as politically monolithic is itself unrealistic, they attract all manner of rebels with wildly different plans.

At the end of the day, the winner is not decided by who's cause is most just or who has the best plan, rather, its a military competition that favors the most effective soldiers, not the most reasonable diplomats and statesmen.

Additionally, all these rebel factions that fought and bled for the revolution will want a say in the post-revolution outcome, none of them want to be sidelined or made politically obsolete simply because their goals are nationally less popular, and that's to say nothing of the messaic visionaries that have a very specific vision that they feel the whole country should adhere to without compromise.

So yes, the heroic liberator heelturning into full on Stalin mode is not realistic, but ascribing that to centrism is like reading Animal Farm and not grasping who the farmers represent.

[u/BrighteyeJunco]

Not one person here mentioning Animal Farm is crazy

[u/antipyrene]

Its only annoying if you ignore the fact of most of history following this pattern

[u/OkCluejay172]

You’re going to hate history 

[u/TirithNampat]

Okay, but the realistic outcome is that we then get a left-wing tyrant instead of a right-wing one. Revolutions are hard; creating a solid system afterwards even harder.

[u/Supercoolguy7 → u/TirithNampat]

And the people who are suited for violent revolutions are not always the people suited for peaceful administration.

Huzaifa, a 24 year-old former sniper, said, “The Taliban used to be free of restrictions, but now we sit in one place, behind a desk and a computer 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Life’s become so wearisome; you do the same things every day."

https://time.com/6263906/taliban-afghanistan-office-work-quiet-quit/

[u/Level_Werewolf_7172 → u/TirithNampat]

Turns out being willing to start a violent revolution means you’re usually pretty passionate to extreme about your views

[u/theucm]

Great comic, but I'm annoyed the artist acts like a revolutionary leader turning into a tyrant is mostly fictional and an annoying trope that speaks to a flaw in the fictional author's politics. In real life it happens probably more often than not.

[u/Alfred-Richthofen001]

Is that what you think it means to be centrist? Idiotic.

[u/Snoopac2]

"I'm 14 and this is my worldview."

[u/Fit_Log_9677]

“Haha yeah what an annoying an unrealistic trope, that clearly is made up and never happens in the real world!”

looks at history

Ohh. 

Ohhh no. 

Ohhh noooooooooo.

[u/Equivalent_Party706]

Come on man, saying "Revolutions often lead to tyranny" is centrist cowardice is fucking stupid.

Of the first three French revolutions, all three of them resulted in a similarly autocratic government (1789/1793 ended in the dictatorial Committee of Public Safety before being overthrown by the vaguely authoritarian Thermidorians before degenerating into the Napoleonic Empire and later the Bourbon Restoration; 1730's July Revolution ended in a barely-more-liberal Orleanist monarchy which acted essentially the same; and the 1848 February Revolution ended in the second Napoleonic Empire.) IIRC the founders of the Third Republic seriously considered restoring the House of Bourbon in 1871 (after crushing the hardline Republicans, Socialists, and Anarchist Communards in Paris), and even when they didn't the Third Republic would fall to Petain's coup in 1940.

Russia's 1905 Revolution ended up backsliding immediately to Tsarist autocracy, while the 1917 Revolution ended in Stalin. The 1991 revolutions that dissolved the USSR gave us Putin.

The English Revolution of the 1600s ended in Cromwell's military dictatorship and then the restoration of the House of Stuart.

The United States came perilously close to a military dictatorship, and only Washington's personal disinterest in the plot stopped an attempted coup; half a century later the Union would explode into civil war.

Like, come off it dude. It's a valid point and a sober warning.

[u/Xercies_jday]

Is it a trope or is it just....history?

[u/Rainy_Wavey]

Okay let's see

-Conquest
-Black Noir from the comics
-Joseph Joestar shouting "SHIZAAA" as his best friend Caesar died
-The "Oh you're approaching me?" scene from JoJo's bizarre adventure
-Pretty sure it's a Naruto Scene but it's the Stalin vs Hitler meme punching each other
-Squid Game
-Average Redditor

[u/Sporelord1079]

Annoying Trope: History

[u/9oooooooooooj]

I can see why it's a frustrating trope, but that's literally what happened like 75 percent of the times

[u/Rebel-Throwaway]

I like how this is labeled "annoying trope" (which it can be) but the comic artist modeled their protagonist off a combination of Fidel Castro, Che Gueverra, and Vladimir Lenin who all very famously became brutal tyrants after seizing power.

[u/celestia_keaton → u/Rebel-Throwaway]

I remember thinking communist revolutions could work when I was OP’s age too 

[u/mmdb264]

Daenerys?

[u/okram2k]

history doesn't repeat itself but it's definitely full of tropes.

[u/redacted-no31]

While often irl , leaders of revolutionary movements often become awful leaders themselves- it’s usually because they start out as shitty people with shitty ideals that get pushed because they’re promising change in an otherwise stagnant and unfair society.

It becomes frustrating in media because we know the person, they’re good- and you believe them because you’ve seen that they’re good, and then suddenly they just become super evil bad guy for little to no reason. Not even a smart like- “ends justify the means” corruption story- which could be interesting. But nah, they just replace the BBEG

[u/PharrowXL]

[u/Revayan]

Is it really a trope when this just kept and keeps happening in reality throughout history?

[u/the_geth]

hi, this is not what being centrist is. Get some education.

[u/JuvenileEloquent → u/the_geth]

Centrist is like the lamest comeback insult that extremists fall back on, the moment someone points out how unreasonable and unworkable their ideas really are.  Like am I supposed to think it's bad to want to find a way for everyone to coexist?  No no, if I don't wish for your enemies to be genocided then clearly I want your enemies to defeat you. /s

[u/odysseushogfather]

The Soviet Regime was this to the Tsarist Regime, maybe reality is too centrist for you to handle?

[u/VastExamination2517]

This happens irl all of the time. See Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Napoleon, multiple African warlords, etc.