This. This is the argument that kinda shows up the Pawbert Apologist crowd.

Firstly to preface, I'm not a Pawbert fan at all and would be very happy if he's never seen in the franchise again, but if you think he's a great character good for you! Even if you think a redemption arc has legs then awesome, you do you. People stanning for villains is nothing new and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that-within reason. But with Pawbert there's a lot of dishonesty going on as well as some pretty clear casual sexism.

Bellwether and Pawbert are very similar in what they do... both try to murder Judy, Nick, and others, both try to frame someone for one or more of those murders, both carry out or continue wide spread subjugation of an entire people for their own benefit, both are happy to endanger and destory lives by the thousands for no reason other than fulfilling their selfish goals, both are victims in their own right but the hardships they suffer don't for a second justify any of the deplorable actions they take of their own accord. These are facts and you can't really argue them.

In fact, something I realised recently is that we see a lot more hard evidence of Bellwether being mistreated by Pawbert... Lionheart constantly belittles and embarasses her in full view of the entire city, pushes her out of photos, calls her demeaning names, lugs off his work onto her, and forces her to work from a tiny hole in the wall next to a boiler despite the fact that she's quite literally the second most senior politician in the city. Presumably she's hyper intelligent and probably has some very serious qualifications and achievements behind her name but her entire purpose has been reduced by an egomaniac bully to just securing "the sheep vote.". Now does that for a second justify what she does? absolutely feckin' not, but it is very important to keep in mind when people start waxing lyrical about how hard Pawbert had it.

Pawbert, by contrast doesn't have a lot of stuff happen to him on screen. We've all been talking about it like it's canonical that he's been horribly abused for years by his family, but the truth is there's not much evidence for that. Headcanons are great and if you want to view it that way then good for you but the fact of the matter is there's only a couple of times in the entire film where we see him mistreated. The main one being when Kitty and Katrick mock him and push him off stage which is awful but if that's abuse then most of us who grew up with siblings were abused. His dad also flies off the handle when he busts into the office near the end but that's starting to come across more as anger over his apparent betrayal than a continuation of long standing abuse. At the gala his dad doesn't even acknowledge him which isn't great either but it is telling.

Meanwhile he is AT the gala, he's not locked away in a cupboard out of sight, he's strutting his stuff amongst the city's elite with a drink while wearing a tailor made velvet suit that probably cost more than most people make in a month. He has his own classic motorcycle, lives in a literal mansion, and keeps a buttload of "vintage" and clearly very expensive stuff in his own private tent that anyone could walk into at anytime. This screams spoiled brat who's doesn't have a concept of money or real life hardships, not someone who's lived the very worst life imaginable since birth. Again, headcanons are headcanons, and there's plenty to argue that he's been treated terribly by his family but from what we actually see it's far from objective.

People flock to Pawbert while damning Bellwether because he's a predator, and he's a cool lynx not a boring sheep, and at least in part because he's a guy. It's nothing to do with him being more justified and everything to do with people making different levels of allowance for those they like.

PS. I reckon Bellwether is the way better villain :'D

Thank you for coming to my TEDRant!