Nature vs nurture arguments are kind of futile, since it's impractical to gather concrete empirical evidence for either side without a time machine and crimes against humanity. Suffice it to say that what is "natural" for humans encompasses a great deal of learned behavior - we are social creatures, and our socialization is part of our nature. The line between learned and instinctive is kind of fuzzy and ultimately irrelevant. We are what we are.
Anyhow...
Do you know why democracy originated in Greece, and not, say, some other ancient civilization?
It's because of weapons technology. The premier weapon system of the time was the armored hoplite, wielding a spear and shield, marching in a phalanx. Aside from it's superiority on the battlefield, the thing that set it apart was that it was a very "middle class" technology. The average citizen could afford it, and use it effectively. Yes, the rich neighbor could afford a horse, but without stirrups, cavalry were of limited use. The professional soldier could train all his life, but only become marginally more effective than the farmer who practices in the off season after he got the harvest in; diminishing returns had a big impact.
Parity of power led to parity of political influence. You had to respect your neighbor, and he had to respect you, because you were equally powerful on the battlefield - and the tactics required encouraged strong social cohesion if you wanted to protect your community.
(Slaves and others disenfranchised by the Greeks were in the self perpetuating trap of not being effective in a fight - they didn't have armor.)
In the dark ages, armored knights on horseback dominated. Kinship ties were the primary social bond, so infantry were (mostly) undisciplined and ineffective against them. Stirrups gave cavalry striking power and made their mobility useful, so they ruled the battlefield. Equipping and sustaining a knight was expensive, so they were a small subset of society, and this warrior class came to dominate politically. Feudalism both enabled their existence and was enforced by them.
Then, wouldn't you know it, a new weapon technology leveled the playing field again. Muskets meant that a cheaply equipped farm boy could match the most well equipped soldier sponsored by the state. It didn't take long for a democratic approach to be tried in the new paradigm. All men are created equal - as long as they're bearing arms.
Now, what do you think would really happen if a subset of humanity gained "superpowers" that allowed them to militarily outclass everyone else? Yes, some would try to be "heroes", some would be "villains", with the norm somewhere in between. However, no matter how virtuous they might be, they would tend to gain more and more political power until they became a new ruling class.
