Turbulence/seeing conditions often supersede optical wavefront accuracy. "Poor" (general term) seeing conditions (i.e. turbulent skies, "swimmy" and/or "shimmery" star and planet images) will not be "offset" by superior optics.
On the other hand, seeing conditions don't have to be perfect (rock-solid stable star and planet images with no "smearing" of detail) before images will benefit from superior optics.
Think of a turbulent sky like a swimming pool on a calm day. If there's a life-sized photo of Abe Lincoln at the bottom of the pool, and the water is dead calm, you'll see Lincoln's beard, heavy lids, facial mole/wart, and his trademark shock of hair. If you introduce minor turbulence (say, by swishing your hand along the surface with one swipe), the photo will be impacted (distortion, "waves," and such), but you'll still know it's Lincoln, and you'll likely still be able to discern his beard and hair. That swish introduced a minor wavefront error (relative to the earlier dead-calm "perfection"), but it didn't wash out all detail. You can think of that scenario as good (but not perfect) seeing conditions impacting a perfect mirror.
Now, let's assume your best-case mirror is already distorted (equivalent to the distortion caused by your swishing hand). If you again swish your hand through the water, you introduce the same "level" of distortion as you did the first time, but this time, it's affecting an imperfect medium (distortion already present). The additional turbulence distorts the Lincoln image even moreso - perhaps "erasing" the shape of his hair and beard, and making it difficult to recognize Lincoln at all. -Same "seeing conditions" (swishing distortion), but your baselines (one perfect mirror, the other one "average/typical") are different. One distorted image still has fair detail, while the other image has much less detail.
Of course, if Andre the Giant did a cannonball or belly-flop into that pool, it wouldn't matter who was in the photo: the sloshing, splashing pool water would eliminate any hope of discerning detail in the photo (perhaps even erasing/smearing the photo, itself).
Nutshell (my own - not speaking for anyone else): a superior mirror under good-to- perfect seeing conditions can, indeed, yield more detail than a mediocre/average mirror under those same seeing conditions. Under poor seeing conditions, almost any mirror (even a perfect one) will be effectively undermined and overridden, yielding little useful detail (beyond the shimmer and "wavy gravy" effect, itself).
Light pollution will not be "helped" or offset by superior optics. If your skies are typically (often) swimmy and turbulent, you may never see the difference between a perfect mirror and one with a 1/4 wave error. However, if you do experience good (or better) seeing conditions (at least sometimes), the extra expense may very well be worth it, to you.
My skies here in the Denver region are typically handicapped by poor seeing conditions due to two primary factors: the nearby mountain front of the Rockies, and the many "appearances" of the northern polar jet's flow/route over or near Colorado. Even so, there are enough nights of good seeing to "keep me going."
Best wishes, Tom.