It is inevitable that an opposition would form against you. You either let the movement continue to gain traction and risk unseating you or you use your power in a corrupt manner to silence them.

I could be benevolent and part of the population would be still against me (slumlords, libertarians, nazis).

After some attempts to kill me I doubt I couldn’t become aggressive against the population who wronged me.

Well, I’ve managed to win every election legitimately in Tropico 5 so far while making sure there’s plenty of housing, education, jobs, food, and healthcare.

So guess so.

if I were magically made dictator somehow, no I don’t think so. but I’m not cutthroat enough to become a dictator in the first place.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

seems contradictory, dictators are almost never benevolent. They wouldn’t be a dictator if they were benevolent. the only thing they do is immediately cede power to a " council or a elected persons. unless you mean something like diety that is benevolent, ruling from the “shadows” through another leader.

Hael No!

I’d end up making a dystopic country/nation where people are suffering while I get the brightest scientists to work on genetically modifying the human body so I could become closer to looking like my fursona.

That, and having people on the far left and far right being thrown into prison.

Just normal every day things from someone who’s a little paranoid.

No.

Not because I’m evil, but because I am empathetic and someone evil would absolutely figure out a way to use that to manipulate me.

This is explained in the “the rules for rulers” video from cgpgrey, which condenses the book “the dictators handbook”.

I would rock that shit, literally my dream job, practical problem solver with infinite power.

Benevolent dictator is an oxymoron. The most benevolent thing a dictator can do is dismantle their dictatorship.

No I would be killed by a subordinate who wouldn’t be.

Yeah pretty sure all evil deeds start with good intentions. So, no. I would very likely mess up my own head by thinking I’m doing the right thing, and if I’m secure in my position as the leader, I’d have a big load of yes men hovering around enforcing and enabling my every thought and idea, be it good or not. Most likely it’ll tend towards the “not good” side over time, and at some point everything just gets distorted and convoluted and by that point, there’ll be no return. And if I’m not secure in my position, then I’ll be dead and replaced before I can spell out my first decree as the ruler. If I’m to be good, I’ll not be ready for the bad coming my way. If I’m ready for the bad shit, I have to be ready to dispense my own bad shit. And that, then, wraps into my first point.

There’s no way that would work if I was truly benevolent. I don’t believe it’s sustainable or even possible to lead as a dictator that is good or benevolent.

Edit: that’s in practical terms. Let’s not even begin with the ideals — can one really ever be both benevolent or just generally good, and a dictator? I believe not. Sharing the burden and the authority would almost always be the more moral choice, not to mention more plausible in terms of lasting.

Nope. And I wouldn’t even try. I’m going full evil tyrant, day one.

I personally can, but that’s because my empathetic response is unusually overblown.

My failure as a benevolent dictator would actually be becoming too detached from ordinary problems, so I’d need to have consistent town hall meetings where ordinary people could redress grievances, petition for aid and so on.

At that point it goes back to being a normal government, since the (un)elected official is trying their best to do the people’s bidding while remaining accountable.