Right. That's certainly an interpretation of Doom. It's not the only way writers have interpreted him, and it's not the one that most appeals to me as a reader. (Actually, it's not the argument Scott's making, either- notice the bit where he says he's had the misfortune to meet people who claim Doom has layers. He seems to claiming that Doom is like a vain petty ruler pudding, with a few sprinkles of culture on top that don't really matter).

Personally, I prefer Doom as a sort of Evil/Nobility swirl. Like those ice creams where you mix two flavors together, and pretty much everything is visible on the surface, but it's not all one thing? I don't know, food metaphors aren't really my forte. I think that he's a vain and petty and ruthless man, and that the good he could do is going to be largely prevented or perverted by his ego. But he's *also* a man with a strict code of honor, who honestly believes that he's the world's last best hope, and that's as much the true him and defines him as much as his flaws.