Re: tl;dr 2 of 2
Well, if you had, I'd have just stared at you blankly and said, "yes, of course, why on earth would that be a problem?" I mean, by your definition, find me a hero who is not submissive to anyone. Clark's never tipped his hat to Perry or his parents? Bruce has never placatingly backed off and put his hands up to talk a guy off a ledge, or stepped back and let Jay Garrick do his thing with the Speed Force? Dinah and Helena have never made a point of long-term employment by and the corresponding ceding of authority to Babs?
Bruce stands for, for the most part, being Big Strong Answerable-to-no-one Man, and that's supposed to be a sign of strength. Diana, on the other hand, explicitly draws strength from community. (Clark is inbetween, answerable to society and the people but not in the concrete way Diana is or to the same relevance). Order and hierarchy are a big part of her, whether it's Marston's bondage-funtime or Perez' mythic gods&royalty, and that's a direct and deliberate answer to the (masculine) "lone do-my-own-thing wolves are better" philosophy (see also: Buffy). Trying to frame that communal paradigm where a hero can allow other people to be superior to her (be it in rank, skill, or anything) as somehow bad makes no sense to me.