In a circular kind of reasoning, villains are heroes: villains knowingly fight a battle they cannot win, subsequently creating situations for heroes to shine. There is a very fine line that separates villains from heroes. They seem to both share the same want for power and thrive off attention from the media. The separating factor is intention: heroes intentionally save the public from villains while villains intentionally try to attack the public. Does the opportunity to save the public as a byproduct of their evil intentions constitute heroism? From the public’s view, probably not, but in the world that only involves villains and heroes, their co-existence depends on it. As nerdy as this may sound, it kind of makes me think of Le Chatelier’s principle. Villainy and heroism can be in equilibrium with one another. Add more villainy into the world and you magically (or not so magically) create more heroism until they’ve equilibrated again. If that’s the case, though, why not have neither villains nor heroes? Society needs good guys and bad guys so that they can define their own morality. It wouldn’t make much sense to call both heroes and villains the “good guys”. People can’t be fans of villains, because the villain's more conspicuous goal to destroy the world overrides a possible underlying goal to create opportunities for heroes to define "good".