I think this is honestly one of, if not, the best "Superman is evil" takes because it does feel somewhat rooted in reality. Sure it's completely impossible but rather than just being "raaah I'm evil" you can see why he is the way that he is. He's essentially a god-like being that was raised as a test subject rather than an actual child/human being, he was never loved or cared for and never had parents; just scientists and suits. He wants people to love him but doesn't understand the concept of respect.
In a way you can't blame him for turning out like he did, but he still deserves to die horribly.
Yeah, that aspect is what's keeping Homelander interesting for me too. I can't take Dictator Superman stories seriously because they always have the paranoid autistic supergenius be the freedom fighter, while the literal god loses because of PIS. The powerscale is too big for such a story. Meanwhile Homelander works because he is OP in-universe but still has a sorta realistic framework. It helps that his character puts limits on himself, so you don't run the risk of having to rely on left-field nonsense to write yourself out of that corner. At a base level Homelander's an interesting character and regardless of his actions, it keeps you invested.
I've said it before, but I always had a soft spot for characters that are dicks. It made things interesting to see if they could back up their talk, and most of that type were just entertaining. Now, as time went on, I started getting aggravated at the ones who are both colossal dicks, and writers **** them as heroes. See someone like Emma Frost. She's an evil ***** with a fragile ego who's become an icon for the fandom so she's the literal embodiment of the "yaaaasss kweeeen slaaaayyy". I used to think the dichotomy made her interesting, but at this point I'm completely over her because she's hypocritical and suffers no consequences. And it pisses me off that people say that this gives her depth, meanwhile Jean is "one-note", when Jean's the one with a fleshed out personality. She's a motherly, good-natured lady but with a short fuse. She screws up, but she apologises. She has genuine relationships with the characters, and her and Scott worked. She feels real because she's written as a real human, not a series of ticked off boxes. Meanwhile Frost is just a self-insert that gets away with everything while being entitled; she's not entertaining, she's unpleasant, yet she's still pushed as a hero.
Yet, all cards on the table, if played properly and going off the 90s GenX series, I do like Emma. Regardless, Morrison just did so much damage to the X-Men (although isolated I liked the ideas) and the following climate wanked the allegory so hard that she was ruined alongside a lot of others. Someone like Cyclops made it through because he retained his core of a soldier standing up for his people, but Emma turned from an enjoyable **** to a ***** getting excused. They need to pick a characterization and stick to it. She can't act like an arrogant, rude villain and get a pass while being hailed as a hero. Honestly, I just didn't like her being paired with Scott and I hated what Morrison did with Scott and Jean. Properly written Emma works much better with someone like Namor.
What I'm getting at is that rude, arrogant characters who never suffer turn me off. But I love prideful characters who nevertheless pay the ferryman when their time is up. It's why I still like Namor or Doom; yes they're antagonists, yes they’re prideful, but they have clear agendas, they conduct themselves in a cordial manner and they suffer. They lose, they get punished for their crimes and aren't shown to be "yassss king slaaaayyyy" types. It's a fine line, but it makes all the difference. Now Homelander remains interesting because despite his faults, he also has flaws. With every bad choice he makes he becomes more and more alone, more and more cornered. He's not portrayed as a genuine hero, but as a self-serving sociopath. Yet we still feel for him because of his genuinely screwed up childhood. To bring it back to Frost, she was a billionaire who decided to go work as a stripper in a secret society because... she wanted to be independent, I guess. How am I supposed to sympathise with that? Her previous backstory of being stuck in a mental asylum due to her telepathy being out of control and falling in with evil mutants made her more sympathetic. But as it stands we have a bitchy character who acts in a completely self-serving manner, makes no sacrifices, always wins, and is hailed as a hero while having a thoroughly unpleasant attitude. Meanwhile Homelander loses in small ways, is not congratulated by the script and still acts more ammicably while actively losing it more and more with every episode. That's an interesting character, and not a writer's pet.
Gross nonsense aside, it's definitely a well-made show production and acting wise, and it's one of the few I still keep up with.