φιλεῖ δὲ τίκτειν Ὕβρις
μὲν παλαιὰ νεά-
ζουσαν ἐν κακοῖς βροτῶν
an old outrage wants to give
birth to a new outrage
amidst the sufferings of mortals
Αἴγισθ', ὑβρίζειν ἐν κακοῖσιν οὐ σέβω
I do not respect/approve of insolence
amidst the sufferings [of others]
The infinitive at ὑβρίζειν at 1612 is emended to an accusative participle by several editors who find fault with the syntax of the mss. but note LSJ and Cooper
LSJ ὑβρίζειν ἐν κακοῖσιν οὐ σέβω, i.e. τὸ ὑβρίζειν, I do not respect, approve it, A.Ag.1612;
Cooper calls this an objective complement of the main verb σέβω, φιλεῖ. I have problems with the metalanguage here; complement has a very flexible meaning in grammar books and linguistics. If 763-64 is an example of an objective complement then the rendering of 1612 in LSJ appears to be wrong. It would be something like Sommerstein’s “I’m not in the habit of being insolent at a time of trouble.”
I am wondering why LSJ appears(?) to disagree with Cooper, R-T, D-P, and others in regard to ὑβρίζειν ... σέβω. It looks like LSJ construes the infinitive as the direct object. On the other hand a functional direct object is a subset of complement in the broad sense of the word.
EDIT: I just scanned the b-greek archives for objective complement and it appears that it is a second accusative which complements the accusative direct object. In the citations from A.Ag above there is no accusative direct object for the finite verbs φιλεῖ & σέβω so we either supply one by emendation or fall back on the notion of an "understood" accusative direct object (R-T) to which the infinitive functions as a complement. All of this still doesn't answer the question about the apparent discrepancy between LSJ and the various editors, commentators and translators.
 Guy Cooper, Greek Syntax vol 3, p2525, 220.127.116.11.ALSJ ὑβρίζειν ἐν κακοῖσιν οὐ σέβω, i.e. τὸ ὑβρίζειν, I do not respect, approve it, A.Ag.1612;