I've Legit Seen Folks (mainly Some C!techno Apologists Who Try To Argue That His Character HAS Experienced

I've legit seen folks (mainly some c!techno apologists who try to argue that his character HAS experienced the narrative consequences everyone else wants him to) claim that c!Wilbur has "never been punished" and "always got what he wanted." And that take... Just baffles me. Because...

Are you speaking in narrative terms? Are you saying the narrative itself has never punished Wilbur? Because might I direct you to the fact that: Every harebrained scheme the man has ever concocted has ended in disaster. Every time he takes any action, the narrative curbstomps him with consequences. Oh? He thinks he can have an innocent drug van? He and his friends are targeted with violence from the police. He thinks he can achieve safety through a loophole by making his own nation? He thinks that, if challenged, he can just ignore the threat of war until it goes away? His opposition destroys the land, continuously brutally attacks them, uses an inside man to kill them while their guard is lowered, and generally grinds his men into the dust and would have succeeded in their attempts to snuff out their rebellion had Tommy not made a great personal sacrifice. He tries to hold a one-party election to get a firm grasp on authority? Political opponents spring up and challenge him, the man he brought in for an endorsement runs against him and wins and kills and exiles him. He tries to find peace in death? Hellish Train Limbo.

This man fucking breathes wrong and the narrative is like "hmmmm. I think. He needs to suffer some consequences for that." (Which I love)

Or maybe you're talking about the idea that he was "escaping consequences" with his death? That he wanted to die and so him committing assisted suicide isn't really a consequence or a punishment? And to that not only may I again direct you back to "the man wanted to find peace in death only to find himself trapped in a hellish train limbo," but also... Is that really how you see suicide? When someone commits suicide, do you not feel anything negative about it because "well, they wanted to die, so they just got what they wanted?" I'd hope bet no. I'd hope bet you still feel bad for folks who kill themselves, you still think that dying-- even by suicide, even if that's what the person "wanted"-- is something bad. I'd hope bet you still recognize that the emotional state leading up to a person committing suicide is one of great suffering. So why is Wilbur any different? Why is his suffering suddenly erased, his death made out to be a positive for him or a grand success, just because "well, he wanted to die. He got what he wanted"?

Like sure. Wilbur wasn't executed or imprisoned for his crimes. But is that the only way you can conceptualize punishment? Consequences? Does it have to be systemic or connected to a government to matter? And just because it wasn't, does that mean Wilbur was not punished enough? Did not suffer enough? Did not experience the harsh consequences of his actions?

And hmmm. Doesn't that sound... familiar, actually? Doesn't that sound like... a certain self-destructive mentally ill man's own views on himself? Doesn't that sound like the mindset of a man desperate for punishment, a man who is being framed within the text as showcasing his self-harming traits-- as being incorrect-- in expressing that mindset?