I suspect they all had good intentions on some level, although they probably thought they were justified in getting personal perks for their great work.

I'd say that being the absolute ruler of a country, subject to practically fanatical hero worship, is enough to qualify one as a "lord" even if it's a pretty lousy country and you do a crap job of running it. It's not as if any of them were particularly competent.

If you want to claim that intention and ability are meaningless, please come right out and say so. If you please, also describe what is left to a '"dark lord" if evil intent and the ability to achieve it are -- Waitaminute.

We're skirting an argument of definition here, so I'll just skip the quibbling and jump straight to attacks on your character, if you don't mind:

You are not even trying to contribute, here. You're just swinging at anything that gets close, assured that the contrarian audience in your imagination will admire the wide, wild arcs your bat carves out of empty space.

Stalin and Mao incompetent? Do you beleive that clawing one's way to the top of an organization of that size and overseeing it's operation and -- yes, after a fashion -- prosperity is something that any chump within one standard deviation of the mean could stumble into like a Lotto winner?

Cold, quiet heavens, no. It takes a special breed with special lessons just to pull that off in a safe, civil environment. Doing so in place where promotions are obtained with obituaries filters for even more specialized aptitudes. Average people, Lotto winners, incompetents don't even last long on their own.

As for "padding," there are plenty of other examples I could have used, but I didn't expect as many readers to recognize, say, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo.

Yes, I accused you of namedropping without understanding. I gave you a bit of wiggle room so you could weave a more flattering narrative out of your actions. I threw you a rope but you preferred your shovel.

TL;DR: I see you trollin'.