... Does dipshit not realize that his "definition" of a hero also applies to the demon king? Or even just really successful serial killers? Like, I'm sure that, collectively, you could apply all those things to someone like Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy.
Just over 20 years ago, I remember seeing on a message board someone using a blanket definition of a hero that would apply to the NAzi soldiers and pretty much every war criminal out there. The were trying to claim all soldiers are heroes so claimed just putting one the uniform made you one, when it is what you do in uniform that actually matters as putting on a uniform then hiding behind a desk is not heroic, just as torturing prisoners is not heroic, but risking your life to defend your countrymen is.
Well the term hero originates from greek mythology if i remember right, and a hero in those wasn't really heroic based on their morality, but their strength, deeds and legends, it didn't matter if they were noble or villainous, posted this elsewhere but the easiest example of this is the story of david and goliath(since everyone, even non-religious, probably know it), in it david is a hero of the jewish people, but goliath is a hero of the philistines, even though goliath is known for some pretty heinous acts, by definition hannabal was a hero as well, as he was the only man up to the point in history to defeat rome in open battle, zhuge liang from china's 3 kingdoms was also a hero but in truth he was a military strategist and it's hard to estimate a "noble" side to the three kingdoms.
So to put it simply, he's technically right if using the classical term of hero a heroic entity could be a thief, murderer or tyrant, if his name is one of legends, ivan the terrible and vlad the impaler also are examples, though in vlad's case, he actually is considered a hero by the romanians in both senses, same with ivan in russia (technically the russians call him ivan the strong, the terrible part is a western mistranslation).