"Power" is an interesting and ambigious subject; as far as discussion on it in modern discourse, these are my thoughts thus far:

1. The "nihlistic" or radical "postmodern" view which views power or power relations as "arbitrary" and "bad" is flawed.

While it's true that, in practice, people in postions of power and authority have abritary or delegation in how they use it (such as a Judge in a court of law, an elected offical, a company executive, etc), this view is essentially "anarchist", and doesn't bother to distinguish between different types of power, or different political, economic, or social systems.

For example, I'd argue that it's self evident that tyrannical "power" in the sense of Hitler, the Nazis, or Stalin, is not the same as "power" in the sense of a democratic or republican form of government.

Much as unrestricted or "tyrannical" power, is not "the same" as power within a system of checks and balances, such as the American or British forms of government.

2. Mass media frequently portrays power as something "bad" or "corrupt", such as in nonsensical potrayals of power in Hollywood movies or TV shows (e.x; "Game of Thrones" being a popular examples), as well as most stereotypical portrayals of "corporations", "executives" (ironically produced by media corporations itself), or childish pop literature on the subject (e.x. Machiavelli, Saul Alinsky, Robert Greene, Ragnar Redbeard, Anton LeVey, Max Stirner, childish, pop "social Darwinist" nonsense, etc; trashy tabloid magazines like Cosmopolitcan, Men's Health, written and marketed to the HS reading level or less); said speculative and unsubstantiated literature is more popular than actual high-level books by actual corporate executives like Ray Dalio, or various treatise on business law, legal theory and philosophy, simply because it, like most nonsensical mass media sells and appeals to the ugly, visceral, ADHD mindset of the average consumer). The negativity bias has been scientifically documented, with over-exposure to negativity in mass media leading to naive, paranoid mindsets, which is why "negative" is falsely associated with "realistic" or "realism", even though in real life, it's as "realistic" as a low-budget horror film.

This is simply because it sells, and appeals to the negativity bias (e.x. in practice, not all companies operate on the same business model, sets of values, forms of governances, etc).

There is also some popular wisdom that power which is "inherited" or acquired without "earning" it tends to naturally become more corrupt than earned power; I think there may be a bit of truth to this.

3. I'd also argue that it's self evident that, on some basic human level, every form of interaction with someone else is an attempt to "influence" them in some way, and that the difference between positive social influence, or "negative" or antisocial "manipulation", such as by use of anger, threats, fear, rather than positive and healthy discourse is also self-evident. (Even if a person is hocking a 'negative' view of power or influence, then in doing that, they are still attempting to 'influence' or use power to convience others that 'power' is bad, which is oxymoronic.

By itself, I would argue power is a tool and is "neutral", whether or not it is "bad" or "good", "legitimate" or "illegitimte" depends on how it is used. (Unless one becomes a hermit or recluse, in is, on some level required to interact with others in some capacity simply to live, but one can self-evidently distinguish between positive discourse with other people and 'manipulation', such as threats, force, violence, intentional deception, and so on and so forth

4. I'd argue that corrupt power is archaic and appeals primarily to impulses and degenerate or inferior antisocial aspects of human nature.

5. Sometimes power is portrayed as a "game", however in reality, a corrupt view of power in which "might makes right", or the end justifies any means is not a "game", nor is there any way to "win" to begin with, since there are no "rules", whereas in a 'legitimate' power system, such as a Constitutional form of government with checks and balances, or in an organized sport or competition, there are objective, agreed upon rules or standards (as well as some degree of subjective judgment or delgation on behalf of the officials). (There is a book "Meditations on Violence" by Rory Miller which does a good job explaining the realities of this ugly type of power or setting).

6. From a cultural perspective, as per the theory of Law by experts such as Oliver Wendall Holmes, negative or degenerate forms of power represent a cultural devolution, with formal law and legal systems having developed or evolved as an evolution above more "primitive" and barbaric modes of human behavior, such as blood feuds or mob rule.

7. Some have said that 'power is fleeting'; I would assume this to be true, regardless of the power (whether one is talking sports, media, government), or anything else, regardless of what the ends and means of the power are, or whether it is positive/negative, or legitimate/illegitimate, one would have to keep doing, or being able to do consistently do the same "things" ad infinitum in order for it to be sustainable, with obvious factors such as social or life changes, aging, and so on and so forth factoring or playing in to it.

8. Power is relative or not "inherant" as some people superstitiously imagine; there is no 'exact science' or mathematical to it; arguable there may be some inherant things which tend to naturally lend themselves to power in certain circumstances, however, in practice, power, such as in the case of "money", is based on faith, trust, or what people imagine it will actually be worth to them or others; by itself just being paper and metal, and having no "inherant" worth outside of whatever consentual social context of interaction the money is eschanged (e.x. one cannot 'force' another person or company legally to accept their money); the same could be said of other things, such as "credentials" (e.x. a degree from a college or school representing something that the employer has faith in the value of); a person, of course cannot legally "force" a company to accept their degree or other credentials, and by itself it is just a piece of paper, believed to represent something.

So, even though, in a "realistic" sense, a loaded gun or a knife might have more "real", physical power in a violent altercation than paper and metal, most 'power' in civilzied, 1st world countries is not believed to come via physical violence or force, but rather economic or social exchanges or transations, such as exchanges of money, negotations, contracts, deals, and so on and so forth.