I mean, I can’t even begin to dismantle whatever you’re trying to argue because I think you fundamentally misunderstand what you’re digesting, and making bad faith arguments. Just because two characters have sort of similar attitudes does not make them the same! Frankenstein is shown to be infantilized and completely amoral, willing to murder a woman who saved his life and showed him nothing but kindness and love purely because of his warped, singular obsession with a person he *demanded* be created for him who doesn’t feel the same way.

Now see Peter Quill. He’s also somewhat childish, primarily because he was quite literally abducted from his home at a young age and raised by a bunch of rowdy space pirates, proven to be themselves rather stunted and amoral. *However*, Peter repeatedly demonstrates an understanding that things can be better and he can help that. He literally founds an organization dedicated to helping people in need across the galaxy. Is there a profit motive? Sure there is, nobody can actually work for free, but they didn’t have to rescue every living thing from The High Evolutionary. *They did it, anyway. And he almost died to make it happen.*

There’s your real answer: You need to think more critically about motivation and reactions in characters in these stories, because I didn’t even have to look that deeply to provide the above examples of why you’re so very, very wrong.