This particular issue stems from a mathematical problem, as the comparator provided is not a valid general contract. Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect a "regular result."
if A > B then B < A must hold true
if A > B then NOT (B > A) must be the case
if A > B and B > C then A > C must be true
However, when the comparator is () => 1, the situation arises where A > B and B > A simultaneously, which does not make logical sense!
For your information, in Java, a warning is issued for this specific scenario, and in some instances, failure to adhere to it can result in a "Comparison method violates its general contract" exception:
The implementor must ensure that sgn(compare(x, y)) == -sgn(compare(y, x)) for all x and y
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/Comparator.html#compare-T-T-