[Roxy1970]

I've seen speculation that Simon was responsible for the 10 years and older males being killed at Oceanside. Is Negan's forceful, "only one", the only indication that may be the case?

[Alessia2]

I think it sounds a lot like Simon´s work... Wouldn´t be surprised.

Negan talks easily for his "only one" -rule, but still he is eager to kill or hurt people with very low excuses... How about Spencer and Olivia, for example.

[naossano]

And the librarians. Let's not forget the librarians.

[kombat]

It does seem they are setting up Simon to be more evil that Negan in order to make him less evil. Of course, when Simon ran down Maggie in the mid-season finale he seemed to follow orders there. Of course Maggie's people have more plot armor than the filthy garbage people.

[etphoto]

It does seem they are setting up Simon to be more evil that Negan in order to make him less evil. Of course, when Simon ran down Maggie in the mid-season finale he seemed to follow orders there. Of course Maggie's people have more plot armor than the filthy garbage people.

 

I guess technically one could consider it being more evil if you kill 100 people then your boss who only killed 40 (made up numbers).  But in all honestly, who cares.  Negan only burned people alive and smashed skulls in so its ok if Simon becomes the bad guy because he killed more?  I fear the writers will be using Simon as an excuse for keeping Negan alive.  The scaring part, just because Negan showed a little compassion because of Carl's death, some viewers will go along with the writers.  (which defies any logic)  

[cornjob]

I believe anyone could be redeemable, but there would have to be a sincere change of heart. A productive Negan would be a great asset. I'm skeptical these writers could pull that off.

Spoiler

I'm really enjoying Negan's redemption arc in the comic, and its been a slow grudging process. But I don't really see how that would work for the TV show. And I fear a superficial repentance that just leaves us all unconvinced and frustrated at the writing.

[naossano]

The proper comparison would be a dictator who would kill or lock in prison his political opponents, suspected spies, and possible members of the resistance, and the one who would kill all the members of an ethnic group because one of them bullied him. One can be a functional ruler who could rule for decades and be well regarded by a good chunk of his population even after his demise, while the other would be seen as a bloodthirsty beast that need to be put down asap. And depending on how much it takes to remove him, even his first name won't even be used to name new children for decades/centuries.