cliffnotes: Since we effectively take away villain's chance to make a mistake when we bet with a balanced range, where does the profit come from when one plays unexploitably?

First of all, shout out to BigFiszh for helping me out with some of this stuff.

I figured I'd make a new thread since the GTO thread MichaelDolle started has already developed in a slightly different direction.  I read a good bit of it, sorry if this post is repetitive.  

Here are my thoughts that lead to the above question:

-An unexploitable rock-paper-scissors player doesn't win or lose in the long run, regardless of his opponent's decisions.

-An unexploitable chess opponent will dominate weaker opponents because their poor moves open up very clear "+EV" chess moves that are also optimal (unexploitable). 

-I need help conceptualizing how poker works when one plays unexploitably.

I've heard it asserted by much better players than I that playing
unexploitably crushes, because we don't make any mistakes and our
opponent makes many.  But...where does the profit come from if we play in such a manner that villain's decisions are inconsequential? 

In a basic river scenario in which we are polarized and we bet a balanced range, it doesn't matter what villain does, so they don't have the opportunity to make a mistake against us.  From their perspective, EV call = EV fold.  He can call 100%, fold 100%, either way we make money when we bet a balanced range, and he wins the hand when we check. 

Thanks for any thoughts