I am sorry, but I cannot agree at all because you make no real points why you think there's a large difference between having an all-powerful CEO who makes all

I am sorry, but I cannot agree at all because you make no real points why you think there's a large difference between having an all-powerful CEO who makes all decisions alone on a corporation (except he's obviously not allowed to arrest you or use violence, usually) and a regime where the leader gains those missing powers to do whatever the hell he wants. The two things originate from the same desire humans have to "believe" in an all-knowing entity, and their propensity to attribute superpowers to a leader. These are only different by the level of the power the person has at his disposal, which is not nearly as different as you seem to believe... history shows things can escalate extremely quickly without anyone noticing. You make a silly analogy and seem to actually believe it's representative of what we're discussing, showing a lack of understanding beyond that which would allow a proper discussion to continue. That doesn't show your intelligence and ability to debate, quite the opposite.