this reads as something slop would write

[slop slinger]

In Aristophanes' Birds, for example, Makemedo fits Whitman's definition quite well. 

Though Whitman did define the comic hero with Aristophanes' main characters as templates, Charlie Chaplin's "tramp" character also fits Whitman's definition quite well. Chaplin's character is quite individualistic and acts totally for his own desires...

I would never use the word "quite" like this. As Voltaire said, the adjective is the enemy of the substantive. And "quite" is an especially cringe one. And to use it twice in the span of two sentences? 

Quite is more tolerable as an adverb, and these instances by themselves do not make me wince:

his freedom from everything including morality is not quite what Aristotle meant.

But to reuse it to characterize a parallel scenario is too repetitive:

 though Strepsiades from Clouds does not quite match Whitman's description. 

At least say something like "it does not (exactly) match Whitman's description." If you have parallel scenarios, don't use parallel language (e.g. X example does not quite match X theorist), unless deliberately to achieve a poetic or emotional effect.

He sees the comic hero as one who is extremely self-motivated and self-centered

Nevertheless, Makemedo is extremely individualistic. 

Usually, use of "extremely" signals insecurity. Usually, it's because they want the word itself the do part of the work of demonstrating that he is just a standard fare individualist, self motivated, self centered, or what have you, instead of just having your argument demonstrate it for you.

He is also rather manipulative:

"Rather" is another mannerism of insecure writing. He's just manipulative. Not rather manipulative.