But I do understand your point about the problem raised by the Will to power which is precisely what Ultron represents.
However it must be understood that Power is a synonym for God, and so the Will to power eventually means the Will to find God since He is the source of all power.
It is just that the Will to power in an inverted frame of reference leads to much violence, which is depicted with Ultron seeking revenge in Sokovia as he tries to end all life on earth.
The will to power that he represents comes crashing down and literally implodes.
Ultron is eventually defeated but the Avengers are lost and confused.
The story reveals that even if the Will to power as Ultron, which again is born of Stark's fear of death, "a suit of armour around the world to protect this precious vulnerable earth", is misguided, the vision of Christ comes as a reward.
The plot moves forward.
All that we need in the atonement is for the plot to move forward, no matter where it leads us.

Vision is used as vision in reference to the vision of Christ, that is why he is so serene. He transcends Stark and StarKs creation, Ultron, which if you remember comes as the consequence of Stark's fear which is triggered by the wormhole (the wormhole symbolizes a voyage into space-time where his fear of death, of Thanos, of God actually, is awakened). Vision is half Jarvis/Stark, half ultron who was created from the mind stone. He is half human - half God.

.

Thanos eventually becomes the next villain which is this embodiment of death, this
fear of death which is actually his fear of God, against which he will battle until the end where it is depicted as a victory with the snap, but a victory that will cost him his life. Thanos and stark cancel each other like Neo and Smith and the hero ascends as the savior. This is Christ's journey as Stark, all the characters surrounding him beingonly reflections of his own psyche, projected onto other characters so that we can see in a movie how the split mind dialogue with itself, is torn in conflict and eventually heal as death is vanquished.
.
And when it comes to Nietzsche, it is important to realize that he clearly did not understand Christ's message, also because the Church has distorted it. Nietzsche wants to become the overman himself which is exactly what Christ offers him through His salvation. It is true that only the men who free themselves from morality can ascend to Christ consciousness because it is morality that create the sin, the sinner and all the evils in this world (As the judgments born of the false knowledge of the tree of good and evil eventually translate into matter). Morality is the division of God's love into human narrow moral rules, supposedly binding evil, but actually binding God and His love.

Nietzsche just struggles with the Church's message which fails to convey that Christ is supposed to be special but ALSO a model of learning for everyone not only to ascend to, but simply to express, since Christ exists within every human being, but remains unknown as long He is not expressed. It is not because Nietzsche wants to free man that he denies God. What he denies is a picture of God, an idol, separate from man. Nietzsche wants to free man as much as Christ and he understands much although his frame of reference seems to be saddly inverted (as if he was seeing everything upside down). As such he calls for the reunification of man with God, so that man may be free from all idols, free from external authorities, free from good and evil as moral values, free in God and so really free from evil.

From Howard Hughes and Howard Roark, , to Howard Stark to Tony Start is a very different ethos - that of heroic materialism. Toys and tricks over come nature - but the man is the same. Howard and Tony Stark is a founding member of the military-industrial complex. He's rich and the Army's biggest weapons contractor - a future member of the global elite (see "Civil War"). if some one is going to be blamed for Captain America's failu7re to return, it will be Agent Carter who will get the book thrown at her. "I can't touch him" says Colonel Phillips. Despite the risk to herself, Agent Carter helps Steve Rogers, because "I had faith". And when Rogers returns triumphantly with the rescued soldiers, Phillis turns to her and, almost snidely, says "Faith, huh?". Rogers represents what is best in the culture of America, Americans at their best. We can't be that strong, but we can all strive to be ethically - better. Finally, Rogers knows that, as Rostand says through his hero Cyrano: "A man does not fight just to win".

Having just been "born", as well as being under the influence of a source of great Knowledge (The Infinity Stone), the Vision was likely under a great amount of sudden sensation and consciousness. He was then immediately interrogated by the Avengers. When asked who he was, his answer was "I am... I am."

He did not say "I am THE 'I Am'", rather "I am not sure how to answer that question, I just kind of exist now..."

If this author actually knew about the characters from the Marvel Universe and their histories, he would know that the Vision is no more a God/ultimate source of correctness as the character Thor who is also God like but flawed in nature and personality.

Two knights meet alone in a field. One manages to stab the other in the gut, disabling him. The winning knight has two options, to let the other die slowly in misery, or to finish him off. Finishing him off is an act of mercy, but is it still an act of love? Maybe his mercy is based on honor or a code, which I don't think is quite the same as love. I suppose the real answer depends on what's going on in the head of the knight, what motivates him.

Let me repeat that I'm 100% against "mercy killing" of human beings.

Nevertheless, what is true mercy but an aspect of authentic love? Thus it is not something abstract because it directly impacts the person to whom the love is directed.

I would say mercy is the justification for mercy killing, love may or may not exist. Typically the victim requests the mercy killing, so the desire to kill comes from the one being killed. The person helping is a tool, not the author of the intention. It's the exception not the rule.
I think when you say "charity" you are talking abstract concepts; I'm talking about an active mental state during the killing. I might kill a monster out of love for those the monster might kill, but I wouldn't be loving the monster when I killed him. We could come up with a rare hypothetical like you see in movies (parent has to kill a evil child or something) but that's an extremely unusual situation.

Nietzsche clearly saw the alternatives: either we live by Dionysian myth that justifies the use of violence to maintain life’s “eternal fruitfulness,” peace, and order, or we live by the Gospel of Jesus Christ that refuses to create peace through violence, but offers another way: peace through forgiveness.

Nietzsche consciously chose the way of Dionysus, and the way of violence drove him mad because he couldn’t accept the forgiveness of Christ in his own life. And yet by clearly seeing the alternative between Dionysus and the “Crucified,” Nietzsche was closer to Christ than many who profess to be Christian. Many Christians are far from Christ because while they profess Christ, they actually believe in Dionysus; they actually believe in a god who justifies their violence rather than leads them in the way of forgive.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/teachingnonviolentatonement/2015/04/a-god-torn-to-pieces-good-friday-nietzsche-and-sacrifice/