There's a difference between deterring bad behavior and letting yourself become animalistic and hoping that's a deterrent.

In psychology, we have this concept of reinforcement. It isn't what most people assume at first glance.

If your son keeps playing video games instead of doing math homework, and is getting a C- in math, and you take away the video games for a weekend, but then later he plays video games even more instead of math, and now he's getting a D- in math, that isn't just his spite, or a punishment that didn't seem to get through to him. You just reinforced his behavior. (Specifically, you did so by taking something away. This is technically a "negative reinforcer" because of the taking away, but functionally resembles a reward.)

A reinforcer is any intervention that leads to more of what you're giving feedback on.

A punisher is any intervention that leads to less of what you're giving feedback on.

It doesn't matter how intuitive or counterintuitive.

If your reward - offering to pay someone - results in less of what you were hoping for, that is a punisher, and for many practical purposes, a punishment.

If your punishment - assessing a fine - results in more of what you were hoping to prevent, that is a reinforcer, and for many practical purposes, a reward.

What you think you're doing - making it pleasant, making it unpleasant, etc - takes a seat way at the back of the caboose compared to what the data say actually happens as a result.

If you want to deter consistently or encourage consistently, you cannot ignore data.