This is such strange logic. No. You want the company to not break the rule, otherwise it's not a rule. Therefore the fine should be to a point where breaking it would be so determental to their business that they do everything to not break it.

Its like after gdpr came in a lot of shady USAian companies simply geoblocked European IP addresses as they knew the potential fines were so massive

Bud you need to go outside and give your head a shake.

Your whole argument is based on the naiive idea that everything has a clear cut nominal cost that can be easily measured.

The reality is that things like environmental destruction and abuses of labour, have costs and impacts that ripple across generations with uncountable numbers of secondary effects. When toxic waste is dumped and it causes family members to get cancer, you see huge amounts of permanent suffering and loss and waste. From the costs of treating the actual patients (of which many will die permanently and cannot be brought back with money), from all their time spent suffering, from all of their friends and family and communities time spend grieving and suffering, to the loss of their actual output and effect on their communities, to all of the environmental "remediation", that can never actually be completed back to the way things originally were.

Not everything is reversible or fixable.

You need to grow up and stop relying on simple cost models to explain everything. Corporate fines are not tolls that are expected to be paid. They are punishments for breaking the law and are there to deter corporations from doing so.