"And even in story lines where he appears to become evil or does evil things, it's always due to outside influences - red kryptonite, magic, meddling time traveling aliens, etc. - and he can always be redeemed. It's his inherent nature."
If we take only the first story, the answer to Ann's question is 'Yes.' Superman can go very wrong indeed. But people like happy endings, and Dandello chose to provide one (maybe--we haven't seen the end of hers yet, although she has already exonerated Clark). Terry chose not to. That doesn't make Terry's Lois inherently evil. It makes her damaged. Terry's brain damage of Lois is just as much an outside influence as magic or red K on Clark. The difference is that the brain damage is not reversable, but that's the nature of the injury, not any inherent wickedness in Lois. If Clark weren't invulnerable he'd be liable to the same kind of injury.
BTW, if you want to see an evil Kal-El, check out the Long, Strange Journey. There a few stories with evil Lord Kal Els. The premise there being that heroes aren't born; they're raised by peolpe like Martha and Jonathan Kent.
I don't think I've ever seen a story in which Lois is a minor character. Lois and Clark are both indispensible to each other--not that the other couldn't survive alone, but it would be a lesser life than it would have been with the two of them together. Ad Astra Per Aspera is an example of the two of them surviving, but not really thriving, seperately.
