Dr. Hannibal Lecter vs Raymond "Red" Reddington

Who's more of a manipulative bastard?

In a game of cat and mouse, who makes the better cat? Who makes the better mouse?

If both wanted each other dead, who would find a way first?

I'd say Lecter is the more dangerous of the two. I might be slightly prejudiced because I read the books, though. He's a much colder, scarier bastard in the books. No discernible weaknesses. Reddington is a top-class manipulator, but he has more than a few vulnerabilities.

Hannibal's good, but he's not so dangerous that nearly all the big superpowers wants him dead or locked up.

Red says ****s the cat and mouse game. He's a ****ing dragon to Hannibal's roach.

Red has allies everywhere in the world. He also has the money to have Hannibal killed anytime he wants from just a phone call.

Hannibal and Lecter simply have different interests. Red likes money and power. Hannibal likes screwing with people's minds - and eating them. Hannibal once convinced a guy to kill himself by swallowing his tongue and suffocating himself simply by talking to him, because the guy ticked him off. He mindraped another guy into cutting pieces off his face and feeding it to his dogs because he didn't like him.

My money is still on Hannibal.

Originally posted by Dreampanther
Hannibal and Lecter simply have different interests. Red likes money and power. Hannibal likes screwing with people's minds - and eating them. Hannibal once convinced a guy to kill himself by swallowing his tongue and suffocating himself simply by talking to him, because the guy ticked him off. He mindraped another guy into cutting pieces off his face and feeding it to his dogs because he didn't like him.

My money is still on Hannibal.

Where as Red as enough pull that he cockhold the Cabal, a group that basically runs every shitty coup that happens around the World.

In one episode, Red walks into a a Warlord camp threaten him and made him his ***** cause he annoyed him.