I generally agree (although I'm not sure if the example really illustrates it enough to justify it's length). However, this is an incomplete or misleading view

I generally agree (although I'm not sure if the example really illustrates it enough to justify it's length). However, this is an incomplete or misleading view on three counts. First, it sounds like you're justifyimg immortal behavior, which I think wasn't your intention, but the wording isn't so clear on that. The same argument can be given (and would apply) to saying a concentration camp guard has to do what they do in order to "be good at the job". That is a relevant explanation of an important dynamic at play. It doesn't make it OK. Second, being a scumbag has a cost (e.g. reputation) even from the cold-hearted and immoral poit of view of disembodied money. Society controls this calculation and is not powerless against it. Third, disembodied money has no agency. Concretely, the mechanism is a manifestation of diffusion of (moral) responsibility. The board and shareholders are not absolved from moral responsibility by some divine right to make maximum profit on their investment. Neither are they justified in ignoring the responsibility they have by diffusing it, neither by choice nor carelessness and willful ignorance.