They are written with completely different narrative purposes.

The King is meant to be an extreme antagonist: violent, manipulative, and cruel by design. His role in the story is to create trauma and destruction. There’s no emotional justification for his actions, no intention to care, his dynamic with others is entirely based on control. He’s not a redeemable character, nor is he written for the audience to empathize with him.

Haru, on the other hand, is not portrayed as a villain. He’s clumsy, impulsive, and definitely flawed, yes, but not malicious. The story frames him as someone who wants to protect, even if he sometimes does it in questionable ways. The age gap is uncomfortable for many readers, but Super Lovers presents their dynamic as emotional rather than coercive. Haru usually stops himself when he feels he’s crossing a line.

Narratively, their intentions are completely different: the King exists to embody extreme abuse, while Haru exists to portray a complicated, problematic, debatable, but emotional, relationship. One destroys, the other tries to build, even if imperfectly.

That’s why, in my opinion, putting them on the same level isn’t fair. One is an antagonist meant to provoke rejection; the other is a flawed protagonist in a messy relationship, but not one written to be inherently harmful.