"Realpolitik? Machiawhatee?? Project paperclip??? That pales in comparison to MY strategy. Just heckin' kill the bad guy!!"
Then he doesn't kill the bad guy.
Yes, the writers let him say "it's not just about my revenge, I'll stop paradeus from continuing in THE FUTURE", and, again, no difference. Hand rises from the grave in a C grade zombie movie.
Now, he drives around in his gay little cybertruck, selling irradiated potatoes as a subsistence farmer, fighting the same group he could have eliminated last time. All because he wouldn't LISTEN to the adult in the room.
Why didn't he?
The reason is simple.
Readers are literal children, and writers enable them. They want a capeshit manichaean moral fantasy of heckin' killing thanos. They want an archetypal villain to complement their righteous hero. Despite such a gritty world, MICA still gives it to them, shielding the player from the discomfort of doubt.
Rather than the hedgehog and fox, the better comparison is an ethic of responsibility versus an ethic of conviction.
An ethic of conviction says: Damn reality, I will act according to my convictions, and if reality fails to live up to them, that's not my responsibility.
The ethic of responsibility says: You're wrong, it is.
And that's who the Earl is, a responsible man in an irresponsible world. A man who knows the past and works with the present to shape the future. He sees the taming of William and of the commander in much the same way, for they are both vile beasts of the present.
That's why all the animal comparisons - hedgehog, fox, eagle, bear - were ultimately derisive. There are many stupid beasts in GFL, but there has only been one man.