What is wrong with their being well-placed
"What is wrong with their seeking a position for prestige", more like. But, you can trust a dishonest person to change the framing without acknowledging the problems of the other framing before trying it...
To clarify what I mean here, there is a clear and obvious dishonest tactic going on and I'm going to make a whole post just about that ONE thing because it's something people should be aware of if they are not already:
Let's say I say "what you are doing kills people, Carl", and then Carl says "what, you don't want some peace and quiet", as if that changes anything about the "that kills people" clause.
It's kind of the inverse of "I'm not going to check IDs at the polling place because I know literally everyone on my sheet personally", and then someone responding with "BuT ThEn ThEy MiGhT FrAuD", trying to
attach a "clause that cannot be ignored" rather than brushing the clause that cannot be ignored away?
Both are bad and both are dishonest framings around the "clause that should not be ignored".
Ulterior motives (self-promotion; prestige) are quite corrupting here, especially when the position itself has benefits.
We can see this on obvious display as a mechanism just looking at the US SCOTUS, with some failure clear "there for the grift" appointments, and we can clearly see the "grift track" that put the current population of SCOTUS rogues in place.
And further, I have seen nothing to beat the rap that brutality and authoritarian law is an almost-everywhere measure of corruption and graft.