Come to think of it, the general public has enough trouble separating those two very different things...
Unfortunately I can't find such graphs too helpful either because
a) there is no 'flu' - there are very different strains of flu, ranging from the rather harmess but very contagious Swine Flu with a 0.03% mortality rate to the Avian Flu with a 60% (!) mortality rate in some strains (luckily it is not very contagious...) to the contagious and rather serious Spanish Flu with an averaged 2% mortality rate, however peaking in the 25-35% age group.
So by picking a harmless flu strain for the comparison one can make Corona look really really dangerous, by picking one of the more serious flu strains pales somewhat.
So the question should be - what flu strain is plotted?
b) As mentioned, the data of infected people may not be perfect - in fact there's serious estimates based on the initial spread pattern that the Chinese underestimated the actual number of infected people by a factor 5 (!) (which, incidentially, would bring the mortality they observe to what South Korea with extensive testing has) - so plotting 'after the fact data' which have been corrected for that effect against 'in situ data' which have not been corrected is not a sound principle either.
So the plot is made to scare people, which may be a good thing in the short run to get them to accept quarantine, but as far as I can see it is not an honest assessment of what can reasonably be inferred from the data.
In my view, there's no reason to either downplay not exaggerate the threat posed by this disease - it is really serious - but it's not something much deadlier than any flu.