Hmmm. I'm always weary of the weak and strong terminology when it comes to human nature and behavior. For example, a rapist can be said to lack inhibitions which is a form of weakness compared to someone who may have a passing fantasy or indulges in the possibility of the same action but refrains from ever carrying it out for reasons related to morality, common sense, or a more reliable capacity for calculating the long term results. If the rapist just so happens to be in a position or under circumstances where they can act on their impulse, and they do, then what I'm really seeing is someone weak taking advantage of an opportunity. That person being strong has nothing to do with it. A person can temporarily be all powerful while still remaining fundamentally weak with their actions as concrete evidence of their state, and there are people who can be temporarily rendered powerless while being fundamentally stronger by any other reasonable measure. So I disagree that corruption reveals what someone is like when they're not weak. On the contrary, it often magnifies the weakness. Now there are many cases of people being in a position where such weakness is actually a virtue, but that's still not a testament to any notable strength of their own.