The issue is the incongruity and how it's fundamentally irresponsible to write inherently bad things in an uncritical or positive way. It's fine to have morally grey things, but they should be consistent: the problems need to be shown, the consequences need to be shown.

For example with the UC one can't just be like "so yeah it's a military dictatorship that renders anyone who hasn't done a term of service in the government as stateless, but uh they do social welfare and they're super tolerant and nice and stuff" because that doesn't make sense: it's incongruous that a state oriented around brutal militarism and its war machine that demands people actively participate in its machine to attain basic rights is then going to be this paragon of religious and cultural tolerance with a social safety net for all its stateless residents; it needs brutality and rage and sadism or it would not be designed the way it is, it would not have the rulers it does, it would not allow the social problems that it has.

That's why I describe it as it either needs to be better or worse: it needs ideological compassion and a drive to improve things for the people even if it is materially unable to do so and it needs to lose the fascism to do this, or its villainy needs to be played straight and its tone should reflect its elitist and militarist nature with the consequences of what such a system wants and needs put front and center.