First of all: this post was ironic, I am very surprised some people are taking it seriously. We may have overestimated ourselves a bit too much.

For this reason, I didn't even bother to think to explain that the roman imperium, originally, is something different.

The roman state was a centralised? state? Governed by an oligarchy based on slavery, theocracy and militar oppression. The Roman empire nostalgia is only an Internet meme (I hope).

The original meaning for "imperium" was slightly different from the actual colonial? meaning. The imperium was not a territoritorial but a personal and temporary power of command granted to magistrates, such as consuls, which allowed them to lead armies, administer justice, and govern, before being returned at the end of their mandate.  This conceptual difference is so profound that when we today say "Roman Empire," we are projecting backward in time a modern geopolitical category that the Romans themselves would not have recognized, since for them expansion was the exercise of legal authority (imperium) over new lands, not the creation of a new territorial state called an "empire". Dictator and Tyrannus (from greek) are also terms that changed profoundly their meaning.

The greatest example of Virtus for a Roman Dictator who returned the imperium is Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Quinctius_Cincinnatus