Gnome BODY (important!)

You are incorrect because your opinions are opinions and my opinions are facts.  As proof, I am of the opinion that my opinions are facts, therefore it is fact that my opinions are facts. 
Furthermore I am of the opinion that 6e's removal of the Lack of Weakness power was terrible since no longer can the GM respond to "I use Find Weakness on him" with "FOOL, DOCTOR DEFENESTRATION HAS NO WEAKNESS!".  Therefore 5e is objectively and unarguably superior to 6e in all ways. 

You are incorrect because your opinions are opinions and my opinions are facts.  As proof, I am of the opinion that my opinions are facts, therefore it is fact that my opinions are facts. 
Furthermore I am of the opinion that 6e's removal of the Lack of Weakness power was terrible since no longer can the GM respond to "I use Find Weakness on him" with "FOOL, DOCTOR DEFENESTRATION HAS NO WEAKNESS!".  Therefore 5e is objectively and unarguably superior to 6e in all ways. 

Seeking love.  "I'll take her away from him, then she'll come to love me!" or "He said he loves strong women, so I'll beat Gynamo and show I'm the strongest woman!"
Being in love.  "She said she wants diamond wedding rings, and the jeweler won't miss just two." or "He'd be crushed if Stanford didn't accept him.  One mind-control won't hurt anyone, right?"
Political motives.  "They can't outlaw swords, my entire family of sword-trainers will go bankrupt!  I have to make them stop!" or "In national news, Mister Everywhere has continued his sit-in of the entire state of Delaware, which he says will continue until Governor Naemhear resigns or is ousted."
Religious ideology.  "The holy book clearly says that lending money with interest is a sin.  I have to save Wall Street's souls!" or "Those new-new-reformed-new-Christians that set up a church are ungodly blasphemers and need to leave."
The thrill.  "There's no sport in fighting normals, and these do-gooders won't throw a punch without me giving them a reason." or "Getting away with it is the best feeling in the world!"
An old mistake.  "I didn't know I had super-yelling, I didn't mean to hurt that cop!  But now they're shooting at me!" or "I was young and stupid, and they saw my face.  I'm still wanted in half the world, but a superman's gotta eat." 
 
Also remember that motivations can easily be changed.  A motivation only needs to hold long enough for something simpler like 'revenge' or for the villain team to finish their relevance and fade into the background. 

You're equally sound-effected if the GM is communicating that poorly, Christopher. 
If you build a wonderful character and then the GM suddenly dumps NCM on you, you're rebuilding that character to save a bunch of points. 
If you build a wonderful character and then the GM suddenly dumps a hard cap on you, you're rebuilding that character. 
If you build a wonderful character under NCM the GM still might tell you he doesn't want anything above a 25 and didn't expect anyone to go that high with NCM but sorry you have to change that. 
 
Your example isn't a case of NCM being better, it's a case of not getting blindsided. 

I'd do it as something along the lines of
Paralyzing Stench:  Entangle 1d6, 1 DEF, Works Against CON, Not STR (+1/4), Takes No Damage From Attacks All Attacks (+1/2), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), Area Of Effect (4" Radius; +1), Continuous (+1) (47 Active Points); No Range (-1/2), Always On (-1/2), Cannot Form Barriers (-1/4)
Adjust number of dice to fit tastes. 
 
Anyone who walks into the area has to make a Casual CON roll.  If they don't get enough NDB on the CON roll, they're paralyzed until they get a good enough roll to break out. 

I can't say I understand the point of an Aid construct. 
If the person wanting to implement racial characteristic shifts is the GM, they can just waggle their hand and announce that yonder pluses be not included for NCM. 
If they're not the GM, I'd expect the GM to ask some very pointed questions about this strange Aid construct and tell the player to just buy the insert-favored-expletive-here stat. 

I don't feel there's any fair way to price the NCM point, just because if the stat isn't above the normal NCM it becomes wasted "points".  Also everything Lucius said. 
 
If you're really intent on differentiating races by characteristics, why not give characteristic bonuses from race template that apply after NCM calculations?  So an elf has +5 DEX, and that gets added after the character pays points, including NCM points, for their other points of DEX. 

I disagree with both those, actually. 
Longevity should be free unless NND Longevity attacks are reasonably frequent (IE, going to come up).  Any benefits from living long, such as knowledge, should be bought normally with the "very old" SFX.  Even if NNDs are in the equation, 1 point is about all I'd support it costing. 
The +2 to Concealment should come with a mandatory purchase of Concealment so it actually works.  Or just be replaced with a mandatory purchase of Concealment. 

The problem I have is that the increased maxima is either always worth points (it gets used) or never worth points (it goes unused) for a given character.  This directly contradicts the idea of getting what you pay for. 

Be careful with "behind" in a turn based system, it's very easy to have two people each circling the other for constant backstabbing.  Likewise, there's very little a character can do to restrict enemy movement in HERO so you get 1v2s having constant backstabbing. 
 
Just to offer an alternative to Lucius's excellent suggestion, you could build the backstab as a Martial Arts maneuver or power with a bunch of extra DCs but a stiff OCV penalty: They would then be encouraged to use it only when they had surprise or some other advantageous circumstances. 

Blue text indicates you have manually edited the skill description.  It will no longer automatically update so as to not erase your manual edit. 
To restore it to default, whatever the program suggests the text should be, clear the description field. 
 
I will also note that this is in the manual. 

Looks solid. 
 
I'd personally also mention that a Champions character starts strong and gets minor improvements whereas as D&D character generally starts weak and gets significant improvements.  What you start with matters, since you'll be using it for the character's lifespan.  This is also a significant part of why a Champions character takes longer to make: It's like starting at high level. 
 
I'd also suggest setting up your tone.  If you're going Silver Age, things like "Fights aren't to the death.  Killing people is bad and wrong and not heroic.  Heroes knock the villain out and arrest them, not shoot them and dump their body at the police office." in the introductory document can go a long way towards establishing the tone you want.  There's a bunch of takes on superhero out there, the last thing you want is somebody bringing The Gunisher to your idealistic Justice League-esq game. 

Looks solid. 
 
I'd personally also mention that a Champions character starts strong and gets minor improvements whereas as D&D character generally starts weak and gets significant improvements.  What you start with matters, since you'll be using it for the character's lifespan.  This is also a significant part of why a Champions character takes longer to make: It's like starting at high level. 
 
I'd also suggest setting up your tone.  If you're going Silver Age, things like "Fights aren't to the death.  Killing people is bad and wrong and not heroic.  Heroes knock the villain out and arrest them, not shoot them and dump their body at the police office." in the introductory document can go a long way towards establishing the tone you want.  There's a bunch of takes on superhero out there, the last thing you want is somebody bringing The Gunisher to your idealistic Justice League-esq game. 

I'd do it as something along the lines of
Paralyzing Stench:  Entangle 1d6, 1 DEF, Works Against CON, Not STR (+1/4), Takes No Damage From Attacks All Attacks (+1/2), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), Area Of Effect (4" Radius; +1), Continuous (+1) (47 Active Points); No Range (-1/2), Always On (-1/2), Cannot Form Barriers (-1/4)
Adjust number of dice to fit tastes. 
 
Anyone who walks into the area has to make a Casual CON roll.  If they don't get enough NDB on the CON roll, they're paralyzed until they get a good enough roll to break out. 

Remove all the #s from power and list names. They're what's causing the issue. 

The problem, to me, isn't about TPKs.  It's about systems and paradigms that enforce PC fatalities as the only failure states and consequences.  People want their story to continue.  The GM wants the PCs to stay alive.  But if defeat means death, that can take defeat off the table. 
If every fight is to the death, then losing a fight means TPK.  If withdrawing is difficult or impossible, then every fight is win hard or lose hard.  If the only method of removing an enemy from combat is lethal, then all fights are lethal. 
 
Every scene with important decisions in a TTRPG should have consequences for those decisions.  Combat is a dense cluster of important decisions, so absolutely requires consequences for bad decisions.  Otherwise why bother including such a robust conflict-resolution method for it?  If the only question is "how do the PCs win", then abstract the actual combat and skip to what matters. 
Champions et al are great for this sort of thing.  A hero defeated by a villain might be left behind to stew in their defeat, might be kidnapped for experimentation, might be placed in a sadistic deathtrap, might be unmasked publicly, might have their mcguffin stolen, might fall from the public's graces, or might just be shot and left for dead (possibly to come back).  Plenty of fun and exciting ways to have a defeat matter without ending a story. 
A PC who goes down in D&D enters the countdown to stability or death, and if everyone drops generally somebody bites it.  And because healing magic is so capable of popping a defeated character back up to fighting status, it becomes a smart move to finish somebody while they're down.  Defeat means the end of a story, which means defeat becomes impermissible. 

Flying Dodge is broken not because it allows a character to move with high DCV.  That's fine, since it precludes attacking. 
What makes Flying Dodge broken is the ability to abort to movement without playing by the rules of Dive For Cover.  As long as the PC isn't using Flying Dodge for that, it's fine. 

How do we distinguish that from a speedster?  They tend to meet all those qualifications too. 

Correction: A close reading of the rules in Ultimate Martial Artist for the FMove tag indicates that you cannot abort to a Flying Dodge to gain a FMove.  FMove indicates that the maneuver can be taken during or after a Full Move, not that the maneuver includes a  Full Move. 
Since you already can't abort to a Full Move, aborting to a Flying Dodge thus does not provide movement. 
 
My objections to the maneuver are now gone. 
 
Further correction: Writeup for Flying Dodge says you can abort to movement, but this doesn't prevent the attack, but does change range modifiers for ranged attacks.  I don't feel any of this follows from the maneuver's specifications, but this is vaguely balanced so w/e. 

I'd personally go with "1 pip and 1d3 count in all ways as if they were results from 1d6".  A 1 is no NDB however you come about it, a 2 or 3 is one NDB no matter how you come across it.  Consistency makes everything easier on newcomers. 
If this means 1 pip penetrating isn't penetrating, fine.  A minimum cost threshold isn't a bad thing. 

It's not efficient against people, you're better off with a AVAD RKA that Does Body if you just want massive BODY counts. 
What your construct does do cheesetastically well is shred focuses.  Each hit that deals BODY removes a power from the focus, so a decent roll will outright obliterate any breakable focus without Hardened defenses. 

Looks solid. 
 
I'd personally also mention that a Champions character starts strong and gets minor improvements whereas as D&D character generally starts weak and gets significant improvements.  What you start with matters, since you'll be using it for the character's lifespan.  This is also a significant part of why a Champions character takes longer to make: It's like starting at high level. 
 
I'd also suggest setting up your tone.  If you're going Silver Age, things like "Fights aren't to the death.  Killing people is bad and wrong and not heroic.  Heroes knock the villain out and arrest them, not shoot them and dump their body at the police office." in the introductory document can go a long way towards establishing the tone you want.  There's a bunch of takes on superhero out there, the last thing you want is somebody bringing The Gunisher to your idealistic Justice League-esq game. 

The problem, to me, isn't about TPKs.  It's about systems and paradigms that enforce PC fatalities as the only failure states and consequences.  People want their story to continue.  The GM wants the PCs to stay alive.  But if defeat means death, that can take defeat off the table. 
If every fight is to the death, then losing a fight means TPK.  If withdrawing is difficult or impossible, then every fight is win hard or lose hard.  If the only method of removing an enemy from combat is lethal, then all fights are lethal. 
 
Every scene with important decisions in a TTRPG should have consequences for those decisions.  Combat is a dense cluster of important decisions, so absolutely requires consequences for bad decisions.  Otherwise why bother including such a robust conflict-resolution method for it?  If the only question is "how do the PCs win", then abstract the actual combat and skip to what matters. 
Champions et al are great for this sort of thing.  A hero defeated by a villain might be left behind to stew in their defeat, might be kidnapped for experimentation, might be placed in a sadistic deathtrap, might be unmasked publicly, might have their mcguffin stolen, might fall from the public's graces, or might just be shot and left for dead (possibly to come back).  Plenty of fun and exciting ways to have a defeat matter without ending a story. 
A PC who goes down in D&D enters the countdown to stability or death, and if everyone drops generally somebody bites it.  And because healing magic is so capable of popping a defeated character back up to fighting status, it becomes a smart move to finish somebody while they're down.  Defeat means the end of a story, which means defeat becomes impermissible. 

It technically requires a little more to get truly objective length measurements (thanks, relativity), but defnitions such as  "The metre is the length equal to 1 650 763.73 wavelengths in vacuum of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the levels 2p10 and 5d5 of the krypton 86 atom" allow for unambiguous length measurements. 
If I give the aforementioned definition of a meter (and krypton 86, and the levels, etc) then I can say that the metal rod I'm holding is 1.234 meters in my reference frame and every single observer (with accurate information) will agree. 
 
Pinning down a "detect lie" power simply requires a bunch of definitions.  Take the statement 2+2=5. 
Is it a lie if somebody honestly believes that 2+2=5?  Is it a lie if they misspeak and intended to say 2+3=5?  Is it a lie if they don't speak English and are just reciting words they don't know the meaning of?  Is it a lie if they really quietly whisper the word "doesn't" before "equals"?  Is it a lie if they meant to say 2+2=5 but accidentally said 2+2=4 instead?  Is it a lie if they postfix it with "I think" and honestly do think such? 
The problem isn't that "lie" is impossible to make objective, the problem is that there's many competing definitions and methods of lying.  There may be a lot of questions needed to properly define "lie", but once those are out of the way you can easily have an objective "detect lie" power.  It's just very questionable as to if it's worth the time.  And if your GM even wants you to have it.