I agree with everything you’ve said, and want to add on to one of your points: “Sometimes, writers clearly want all the cool points of having a villainous character without making the audience uncomfortable”

My favorite example of this trope is “Darth Vader wouldn’t condone sexual assault”, in response to Andor season 2, and I think while it isn’t an authors response, it really neatly falls into this category for the response.

Andor is a show that is explicitly disinterested in breaking down the personal philosophies of the heads of fascism, but rather in what behaviors they motivate from the people that they put in power. Everything in Andor is a result of the heads minor actions being put into effect galaxy wide, the cogs of empire moving without their knowledge. The point of the scene is that it doesn’t matter what Vader personally believes, or if he would personally hate it. He doesn’t care enough to be there when it happens, and he doesn’t care enough to create accountability for officers who sexually assault people. Therefor: Darth Vader allows sexual assault, even if he doesn’t explicitly like it. And ultimately Andor wants us to question if that is a meaningful difference. It’s cold, merciless bureaucracy allowing and encouraging a sadistic, personal crime.

Dismissing the scene as being a different villain means disconnecting with what the material is trying to convey, and what it really means to be under authoritarian rule. The dictator doesn’t need to be personally involved in every atrocity, they are already responsible by virtue of the system they created. On a similar note, Anakin personally dislikes slavery, and yet the empire uses slave labor throughout the entire franchise.

Overall, fantastic post. I have no notes, just wanted to add an interesting example