If you're talking about the Sewer King and Arkady Duvall, I've seen those episodes. The Sewer King's treatment of the children is nasty, but other villains in that show have done worse. Heck, most of what he does is shout at the children and demand that they go steal things for him. The only child he ever uses violence on is Jack, which is bad, but other villains have tried to harm and/or murder children before and after.
As for Arkady Duvall, he doesn't do much onscreen. Destroying the railroad is his father's plan, and what he does himself onscreen is just trying to kill the hero and some "Bad Boss" tendecies. And "hurting some girl" is offscreen and given so little context. A villain's actions should be seen, not heard, or else it just comes across as an informed trait.
And as for TV Tropes, as someone who's a user on that site (albeit relatively recent), they usually make rather good points for why a character should or should not qualify, so their word shouldn't be casually disregarded.
The Sewer King's treatment of those children is a lot worse than just shouting at them, he starves them while eating huge meals in front of them, tortures them psychologically with light and threatens to feed jack to his pet alligators. On top of all that Batman regards him as so vile and atrocious in his evildoing that even he's seriously tempted to break his "no killing" policy with him. Plus he's a one-off villain with limited resources. I haven't seen Duvall in action so I'll give you a pass on him. In future if you see a character listed as a CM that you disagree with how about if you explain why on their talk page?
Considering this is a show where Clayface murdered what was essentially a child, Firefly tried to burn three kids to death, all the times Tim Drake, a child, has been nearly killed by Batman's rogues gallery, and let's not even get started on what the Joker did to him, no, I don't think the child abuse is enough, limited resources or no.
And this is a show where villains have attempted to destroy the city multiple times. No, I don't think Sewer King meets the heinous standard. And I don't think "Eating in front of starving children" is really all that heinous compared to the other villains, especially since they're bound to have been fed at times.
Oh, and there's something else I'd like to point out: Certain crimes don't automatically make you a CM. Rape doesn't automatically make you a CM, same as Child abuse doesn't automatically make you a CM. They're acts that could make you a CM, but they're not a one-way trip to CM territory.
I see your point about eating in front of starving children not being particularly heinous, but other than that I personally feel he's bad enough to count, especially seeing how the villains that have attempted to destroy the city have a lot more to work with. Although I am prepared to suggest a compromise, if you stop trying to get the characters that are presently listed as Complete Monsters on this wiki removed (note this doesn't extend to any characters that might get added in future), I'll ask DenisFan1998 to unlock the Sewer King's page.
Actually, there are ways he could've been worse regarding the children. He did have a pack of crocodiles with him.
Also, speaking of superhero movies: regarding Syndrome, we actually did have a discussion recently on TV Tropes regarding him. I didn't really vote either way, but it was decided he didn't count once more. And one reason was the very genre he was in.
Most slasher villains, for example, don't count because the very nature and genre of slashers dictate that a psychopath murder a lot of people in incredibly gruesome ways. So, if a slasher is going to be a CM, they have to stand out as brutal even among the slasher genre, like Chucky.
It's a similar thing with superhero stories. The very nature of the genre dictates that a supervillain threaten a large number of people and the hero's friends and family, so if you're a supervillain, you have to stand out as awful even among them. The Joker had to kill over a thousand people and try to destroy the world a few times to count. Green Goblin had to launch a terrorist attack that killed thousands just to cause a devastating war and try to kill his son to count. Red Skull had to be a Nazi that took part in the Holocaust to count.
And yes, parodies and homages are subjected to the same rules. By supervillain standards, Syndrome is actually pretty standard.
Actually a large majority voted in favour of Syndrome, but the admin Fighteer established himself as an unreasonable tyrant and shut the discussion down. And as for the superhero genre the rules regarding the heinous standard state that a villain only has to qualify as heinous by the standards of the story they're in, and Syndrome doesn't face any completion in that regard, or by Pixar standards in general for that matter. (I've always felt TV tropes cutting Syndrome while keeping Lots-o'-Huggin' Bear was hypocritical considering Syndrome's just as bad if not worse) On the subject of the Sewer King if I recall correctly he does threaten to feed one of the kids to his crocodiles, but if you really want to remove him I'll ask DenisFan to unlock the page.
Syndrome and Lotso are from two different movies with different heinous standards. That, and as was mentioned, superhero stories still have a baseline. The reason most slashers don't count is because the baseline for slasher films is very high considering the genre. Same goes for superhero films.
And the Sewer King threatened to kill one kid. That's about it.
The superhero genre doesn't have a high heinous standard in and off its self, it has a number of exceptionally atrocious villains, but that's not necessarily a requirement like with Slasher films. The Incredibles takes place in a completely separate continuity from the DC and Marvel universes, so Syndrome doesn't have to compete with characters like Red Skull and the Joker.
Hold up on adding any more categories. Categories are being completely overhauled and the way they are added completely revamped. This is a result of a complaint that was filed about categories being copied from other sites.
I personally feel she fell short of Complete Monster in the first film, but it's nothing to do with her care for her brother, it's because she's played sympathetically a couple of times and she's not as utterly vile as him. In the sequel though, she's lost all sympathetic traits and she burns her sister's baby daughter alive (forcing the baby's father do it no less).
I personally feel he's the worst out of the three Pixar CMs and it was totally hypocritical of TV tropes to cut him while keeping Lotso, seeing how syndrome actually has a weaker Freudian excuse and a higher body count.