Comparative analyses of domination often rely on broad categories such as violence, hierarchy, servitude, cruelty, or oppression while leaving the underlying mechanism under-specified. Similar outward forms can arise from different patterned configurations and can generate different trajectories of scale, duration, reversibility, and personhood erosion. This article develops an ecology-psychology framework for differentiating those configurations without collapsing into either moral essentialism or flat universalism. The framework shifts the explanatory center away from dark traits alone toward a broader spectrum of pathological formations organized around entitlement, inversion, dissociation, domination, and the regulation of personhood. Within this structure, manipulative, grandiose, cold, and coercive tendencies function as adaptive strategies rather than as the final level of explanation. Entitlement carries the main mediating weight because it links patterned operation to normalized asymmetry, weakened reciprocity, and the institutional scaling of harm more directly than aggression alone. Social failsafes supply the main comparative hinge, including kinship obligations, shame systems, personhood boundaries, ritual constraints, and institutional checks that raise or lower the cost of destructive conduct. The article also reconstructs oppression as an internal selector rather than as a merely external force. Domination reorganizes the internal field of the targeted population by redistributing reward, elevating compromise-susceptible actors, and increasing the viability of brokerage, mimicry, and selective cruelty. Language enters the mechanism at the same level, since euphemism, irony, bureaucratic naming, and moral inversion reduce inhibition and normalize conduct that would otherwise remain more legible as predatory. Comparative historical discussion, including African adaptive variation, migration memory, personhood coding, and the limits of migratory determinism, clarifies why movement, ecological stress, and conflict do not mechanically produce the same thresholds of entitlement, dehumanization, or scalable domination [1]–[4], [13]–[22]. A final contribution formalizes diabolical entitlement as the outer limit of pathological entitlement: a condition in which severe violence, degradation, or dehumanization persists beyond proportionate strategic necessity, despite less destructive alternatives and often at no commensurate gain. The article concludes that human dark potential varies less by essence than by regulation. Historical systems differ most sharply in the strength, distribution, and durability of the restraints that prevent entitlement from hardening into common sense, procedure, and durable rule [9]–[12].