That's an interesting interpretation of the Mandarin, and I'm not saying its wrong, but what evidence you you have that his is how Marvel sees him? It's telling that you choose a DC story as an template of how you see him, rather than any Marvel story.
I've got my own views about the character. To start with, in All Hail the King, we were told that he's a warrior and I'm thinking he should have a warrior world view rather than an objectivist one. But all this is just speculation without a lot of evidence from Marvel that they see him this way.
In the absence of strong evidence from Marvel, you poster just makes him seem a bit one dimensional and over the top evil.
"Marvel" is a big place. I think that's how Stan Lee, Busiek, and the Knaufs see him. Stan Lee outright created the core story that defines him. Busiek gave him dialogue(including a big, blunt speech about how,"To know that you are superior, in mind, in body, in spirit, that is everything! To know that power is your birthright, to know that untold thousands exist on this world for no reason but to serve you, to channel their power through your empire, be it of land or of business, channeling it upward to fuel you, to fuel your glory!"
) and actions that fit within this template, kidnapping scientists to build a weapon of conquest. The Knaufs made him obsessed with perfection of mind and body, while kidnapping and exploiting a scientist, engaging in devious political/corporate manipulation, and displaying incredible martial arts abilities, so much of what I'm saying was subtext in their run, though without Busiek's having him spit it all out in a blunt, hammy speech. And I think their view at least partially influences how a couple of other writers see him. Even Fraction has him be devious, savage, and exploitative, while engaging in hypermasculine behaviors like gladiatorial games and having harems. So yes, there are plenty of Marvel stories that back up my view. I just used the Lex Luthor/Gorilla Grodd story because it is a particularly excellent bit of animation that can be easily watched with a quick visit to Netflix, whereas the Marvel stories require digging around in ones attic.
All that said, I'm not at all sure that "Marvel" as a whole even cares enough about the character to define him. Those few writers who have made an effort to define him, have pretty much defined him as extremely evil. Busiek's speech in particular is very straight-forward about this, though Stan Lee's comes very close. I don't think "warrior" fully describes what they created. What they created was someone who embodies deviousness, savagery, and exploitation. His savagery makes him a warrior to a degree, in that he's just as obsessed with athletic/martial arts domination as he is with every other form of domination, but warrior is too simple a word.
TLDR version: Stan Lee, Busiek, and the Knaufs made him the embodiment of deviousness, savagery, and exploitation. Most writers have maintained at least part of that interpretation. No writer has made him feel like a human being.