>>100784489The moral with subverted Superman stories, though it's typically rather oddly done, is ultimately that Superman's abilities allow him to take his human values and beliefs beyond the point most humans are capable of. Individual physical force has limits, but not for Superman. He can force almost anyone, any group, of any size and belief to either bow to his will or be obliterated. All without needing any other help to do so. There is no human capable of this. All the world's most powerful individuals have still required the acquiescence of other individuals and through them other groups of individuals, requiring the use of humanity's complex social and political relationships. The nature of this means he doesn't have to go around and punch literally everybody and every nation in the world into submission personally, but this is driven by the acknowledgement he literally could.
This is usually simplified into "rassum frassum ayylium can't relate to muh humanity," when it's always shown Superman can be if anything too human in these stories. His failings in things like Red Son and Injustice are very much based on the often observed foibles of leaders to be unable to compromise or believe their worlds can operate without their control. When Superman is a good guy, he behaves as a moral paragon we rarely expect men with a fraction of his potential influence to be. The inherent moral here is a good man recognizes that there is a difference between being able to physically shape the world to your will and the actual world that would create. His actual power here is a metaphor for the real, less ridiculous, power men have had. When Superman is a bad guy, he behaves as a dictator we believe all men to be when given that much personal power. The inherent moral here is a single man can't have all that power. They're just not to be trusted. Both are human and almost unbelievable, but realistic in their relations to real humanity, in different ways.
