Realpolitik

I was struck by a Rashi in this week's Parsha.  The passuk (6:13) says that Hashem commanded Moshe, but doesn't identify the commandment - וַיְדַבֵּר יְקֹוָק אֶל מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל אַהֲרֹן וַיְצַוֵּם אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶל פַּרְעֹה מֶלֶךְ מִצְרָיִם לְהוֹצִיא אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם: .  Before providing a פשט explanation, Rashi first quotes the midrash that He commanded Moshe & Aharon to give Paroh respect, as מלך מצרים.  I appeal to the students & teachers who are learning Shemot to help out here - is this to be read at face value?  Paroh was a murderous tyrant of the worst kind.  We know the ending, so it's easy for us to imagine a cartoon version of him spitting blood and dodging frogs, but this is a man who not only enslaved (virtually) an entire people, but then mandated infanticide.  He had as much Jewish blood on his hands as almost any villain in our history, and Moshe needed to give him respect?  Would we say the same about a Castro or Ahmadinejad or Stalin?  Does the governmental or military authority alone demand honor and legitimacy?  I'm really not sure, maybe it does.  Maybe it was just advice, that strategically, the way to productively deal with a despot is to play along and treat him like the bog shot he thinks he is.  This seems unlikely, as the point of the conversation was not to have Paroh concede to anything.  Or maybe it was different there because he was a monarch, so by virtue of his birth he was automatically legitimate, but someone who takes power by sheer force would be different.  Or maybe this is not the rule, but Paroh deserved Moshe's respect as his adoptive grandfather - that one is very difficult to read with the language.  The most likely explanation is the first, simple one, but it definitely surprises me.

Can you tell that I have a sky-high stack of midterms to grade?