xendeavour: what did he do wrong?

Caligula was an archaic Roman emperor who, despite his originally altrusitic motives, is contemporarily known as perhaps one of the most tyrannical despots in all of history. Caligula was instated as emperor after a coup against the then much-hated emperor Tiberius and was, for all intents and purposes, a significant upgrade and loved by the people. However, despite orginally being beloved by the people, Caligula entirely changed following an event where he fell ill and, despite coming near death, recovered. The hypothesis regarding Caligula's behavioral change is that the recovery caused inflammation in his brain, which subsequently led to drastic personality changes, resulting in the far more rash and despotic figure that we know Caligula as today. Caligula proceeded to abuse his position as emperor- killing aristocrats who opposed him, exiling his enemies, and generally engaging in much debauchery and butchering.

I disagree with this hypothesis. Caligula was an abused child (he was raised under the influence of the emperor Tiberius, who kept Caligula around essentially as a taunt after he had the rest of his family killed). Child abuse of this kind is inherently linked to the development of mental disorders- and thus, it can be said that Caligula was not mentally well- and the leap in logic that can be made is that the alleged inflammation in Caligula's brain did not 'damage' him but rather fixed whatever mental disorder he may have had that enticed him to act altruistically- it caused him to act in the manner that he had been raised by Tiberius- a manner that one could see as, given the circumstances in which he was raised, perfectly natural.

Do you see where this allegory is headed? xEndeavour was, much in the same manner as the ancient emperor Caligula, not acting in an inhuman way; rather, as is par for the course with individuals in positions of power, he was acting perfectly in-line with the acceptable standards that the ancient Roman empire set for people in said positions of power. Since the beginning of history people have silenced politcal opposition, or merely people they didn't like. Since the beginning of history people have utilizied corruption for personal gain. Since the beginning of history, we have had despots, we continue to have despots, and we will, in all likelihood, continue to have despots for thousands of years after we die.

Why, then, should xEndeavour be persecuted for his own actions when nearly every major political party is history has, at one point or another, abandoned widely accepted morals and their own rules for personal or political gain? No one in North Korea condemns Kim Jong Un. Nearly no one in Russia condemns Putin. To see nearly the entire population of DemocracyCraft, including others in positions of power, condemn xEndeavour for his comparatively insignificant behavior rather than unquestioningly accept the word and actions of what is essentially God, is a sight that breaks my heart and should rationally not be allowed to continue. The proper course of action here is to continue following the standards that classic antiquity has laid forth- xEndeavour should continue unfairly banning dissenters, playing petty, and leveraging his position for political gain without regard for the impact it may have on others.

Because that's what the Romans would have done. And because that's what we should do.