It's more a matter of intentional contradiction. From about 1981 (I mark the start of the "Iron Age" as the start of the X-Men "Days of Future Past" storyline by Chris Claremont, though other dates ranging from 1981 through 1987 come up), comics began to focus on more realistic, flawed heroes whose superpowers were either limited or utterly nonexistant. In this age, we get Alan Moore, Frank Miller, Neil Gaiman, Denny O'Neil, Grant Morrison, and numerous others rising to prominence on nuanced, philosophically-charged storylines.
Coupled with those storylines, we get villains that are simulataneously (and contradictorily) both innately human and seemingly untouchable. The Kingpin, in Miller's Daredevil storyline "Born Again" dealt with this in spectacular manner—The Kingpin is just a guy, but he's an incredibly well-connected, wealthy guy who controls organized crime throughout Hell's Kitchen. Compare that to The Chairman. He's just a guy, but he's an incredibly lethal, merciless, beast of a guy.
Rook City, thematically, emulates those sorts of comics. That comes with the constraints of the idiom, whether positive or negative. And that includes the seeming contradiction between street-level, gritty heroes and seemingly all-powerful, unstoppable villains.