I don't think that. I think that when someone fucks up so badly it almost ends the company you review all your processes and work to limit the possible damage any one person can do. That would be a matter of putting in lots of additional checks for things to start with, and then removing them as you figure out what things don't need multiple people's oversight.

That sort of bureaucratic process is horrible and annoying, but it's less horrible and annoying than everyone losing their jobs when the company fails.

We're very fortunate in tech that we can automate 99% of this stuff. Stopping someone pushing bad code that fails tests or hasn't been peer reviewed is a straightforward case of adding some deploy rules to a repo. It's much harder to fix processes where things are manual checklists people need to follow.