You wrongly assume rational villains and hack writers. See the best article ever written about writing non-shit villainshttps://web.archive.org/web/20200220023109/http://www.giantitp.com/articles/rTKEivnsYuZrh94H1Sn.html
Particularly prescient are several points:>Step 4: What is the villain's goal?
Because oftentimes, unstoppably murdering the heroes in cold blood is almost never a villain goal, even if they REALLY dislike the hero or they're a nuisance. You don't kill a traffic cop if he's making you late to work, and villains don't necessarily want to ice a hero just because they're making their life harder either, deaths mean cleanup, new rivals, higher scrutiny, paperwork, bonuses, leaving breakfast early? No thanks!>Step 7: What is the villain's primary means of projecting influence?
Because, for example, just because Lex Luthor could hire every homeless man in Metropolis to carry around Kryptonite to harass Superman, he wouldn't do it. It's inelegant. It wouldn't let him feel smart, powerful, or rich. It could publicly fail or come out, which would be embarrassing. It gives a bunch of money, to bums! It'd be a scandal, no doubt. It's not how Lex would want to operate.>Step 8: What are the villain's resources?
Not every villain has the time, money, energy, or power to fuck with the heroes - you could be a literal genie and if you spend all your time volunteering for the "make-a-wish foundation", you might be too busy during the day and tired at night to un-poof a hero; you'll "do it tomorrow" - until it's too late and suddenly they punch your wishing stone or whatever.>Step 10: What are the villain's boundaries?
E.g, Just because you COULD kill Batman by nuking Gotham doesn't mean you WOULD. The Joker might be an amoral bastard, but he doesn't work with Nazis, and he won't kill Batman because he wants him to SUBMIT, murdering him would be like leaving a running joke without a punchline, which the Joker won't abide.