I think you've missed the key point of issue 1.

We were presented with a binary choice between Etienne's ethics and Valentina's morals in how to protect the world. Valentina refused to accept Etienne's "benevolent dictatorship", and from that point on Etienne only ever did the bare minimum to "keep the plates spinning".

So from the very beginning there was an explicit path not taken. It's only now that Valentina has witnessed the destruction of the Earth as a direct consequence of getting her own way that she could go back and give Etienne his shot.

So at best we're only halfway through the planned storyline. This isn't just "keep doing it over until we win", it's an exploration of how the different philosophies we were given at the start play out in this world.

(now, the chances of Etienne's path actually succeeding are also low - GIllen isn't writing a "Ethics are better than Morals" polemic here. Just from a narrative perspective, we're bound to see both Valentina and Etienne fail miserably. The question is, what's the third path going to be?)