Are you sure you've got a "superstar" there?
I think the term ought to be reserved for people who truly do a lot of good work, and not the many varieties of people who manage to make it look like they're doing lots of good work. Which absolutely exist, and need terminology to talk about them, and sharing strategies to deal with them is a good thing to do. But while I'm sure there's a non-zero set of people who are both superstars and very good at giving the appearance of doing a lot of work and being very political about it, I doubt there are many. That's a very particular order off the metaphorical menu of attributes.
I would expect a real superstar to be happy to find that you can carry a meaningful portion of the load. There is always more work to do than can be done. Being able to not do some of it allows them to focus somewhere else.
A real superstar would empower the team with that extra sprinkle of confidence so they can tackle the cool projects and succeed. They should be SWAT, not Mayor.
I’m sorry you feel this way and you should bring this up with your manager.
I feel you need pace setters but not excessively reward individual heroics.
Because when the "team" undoubtedly fails, it falls on shoulders of the superstar to fix it.
How do they get to "take" as an IC.
So what you have isn't a superstar. That's a jerk who will burn out fast and your management isn't responsive enough.