History Headscratchers / SupermanVsTheElite

* Coldcast's neutrino blast knocks out a city full of innocent people in a failed attempt to KO a few terrorists. We clearly see a number of cars crashing as a result, and there were likely far more we didn't see, along with people getting a great number of injuries and likely fatalities from people who were walking and their momentum when they were knocked out caused them to fall forward. Injuries likely led to more dead people since there was no way of calling emergency respondents since they would be out cold as well. Yet Superman doesn't bring this up? Why? It feels like the only reason it isn't is because if he brought up the Elite's blatant disregard for innocent people caught in the crossfire of their actions would destroy any leg the Elite's argument had to stand on right there.

*** "Putting the Elite's actions aside" is a slightly silly thing to request of us in this case, considering that the whole moral debate '''''hinges on the Elite's actions'''''. You might as well argue "putting aside the actions of the man who killed your grandmother, it's wrong for you to demand that he be locked up against his will for the rest of his life because locking people up against their will is wrong and two wrongs don't make a right, and if you've previously argued people shouldn't be locked up for life against their will you're a hypocrite". You're demanding that we ignore some pretty important context just to try and prove some moral absolutist point that makes him out to be a hypocrite. Of ''course'' Superman's not going to tolerate someone else's morality when that other person's morality argues that "killing people just to prove a point and scare people into doing the right thing = a-okay moral behaviour". Because a pretty big part of Superman's moral code is that he is opposed to killing people, and it wouldn't even ''be'' a moral debate if Superman was willing to tolerate that particular form of morality.

** It could be that Menagerie is a sadist and Black was indulging her. Good for team morale and all that, and it's not like he cares what happens to them.

** They probably figured they'd get the answer either way, and this way was cooler. Black's just kind of an asshole.

** To be ''entirely'' fair to Lois and Clark, it's not like Manchester Black has given them much reason to trust him or his good intentions by this point. Okay, they're leaping to the wrong conclusion on that one, but it's not like Black hasn't given them plenty of reason to do so. It's sort of a CryingWolf situation.

** It's also arguably as much a demonstration for the people of Metropolis / the world who started clamouring for Superman to be more like the Elite as for the Elite themselves. Superman may not like doing it, but he feels the world needs to be sent a message -- that message being "Okay, so you want me to stop being nice and dorky? You want me to abandon my "old-fashioned" moral code and act with ruthless, lethal efficiency towards my enemies with no interest in potential collateral damage or the lives of the little people? Alrighty then! Here's a little taster of what that means. Not so cool ''now'', is it?" And the only way for him to send that message with the efficiency it needs to be sent with is for him to temporarily take the gloves off, even if it goes against how he normally acts. Actions speak louder than words, and sometimes people need a good sharp shock to remind them why things they may be taking for granted should be like that.

** It's also arguably as much a demonstration for the people of Metropolis / the world who started clamouring for Superman to be more like the Elite as for the Elite themselves. Superman may not like doing it, but he feels the world needs to be sent a message -- that message being "Okay, so you want me to stop being nice and dorky? You want me to abandon my "old-fashioned" moral code and act with ruthless, lethal efficiency towards my enemies with no interest in potential collateral damage or the lives of the little people? Here you go! Not so cool ''now'', is it?" And the only way for him to send that message with the efficiency it needs to be sent with is for him to temporarily take the gloves off, even if it goes against how he normally acts. Actions speak louder than words, and sometimes people need a good sharp shock to remind them why things they may be taking for granted should be like that.

** Because he just saw Supe doing a sonic boom that partially levelled the street. That's probably why Superman had the robots ready, so he can pretend he doesn't care if he blow up the street.

*** "Putting the Elite's actions aside" is a slightly silly thing to request of us in this case, considering that the whole moral debate '''''hinges on the Elite's actions'''''. You might as well argue "putting aside the actions of the man who killed your grandmother, it's wrong for you to demand that he be locked up against his will for the rest of his life because locking people up against their will is wrong and two wrongs don't make a right, and demanding that the man who killed your grandmother be locked up for life against his will if you've previously argued that people shouldn't be locked up against their will makes you a hypocrite". I mean, yes, if we take a unyieldingly moral absolutist view of the situation where certain actions are always wrong regardless of context, then I suppose there's a point here, but we're kind of missing some pretty important context, aren't we? Superman does something against his moral code to frighten his enemies and make them rethink the consequences of their actions, the Elite go around ''killing people''. Even if we concede that there's a hypocrisy here, the actions aren't of equal weight here. Sometimes you have to do things that would otherwise go against your normal moral code because a greater good demands it, and in this case Superman presumably feels that the slight hypocrisy of doing unto the Elite what they've been doing unto others regardless of how much it goes against his normal moral code is preferable to and outweighed by the wrong of the alternative of just letting the Elite go around bullying and killing whoever they feel like. And of course Superman's not going to tolerate someone else's morality when that other person's morality argues that "killing people just to prove a point and scare people into doing the right thing = a-okay moral behaviour". Because it wouldn't even ''be'' a moral debate if Superman was willing to tolerate that particular form of morality when it differed from his own.

*** "Putting the Elite's actions aside" is a slightly silly thing to request of us in this case, considering that the whole moral debate ''hinges on the Elite's actions''. You might as well argue "putting aside the actions of the man who killed your grandmother, it's wrong for you to demand that he be locked up against his will for the rest of his life because locking people up against their will is wrong and two wrongs don't make a right, and demanding that the man who killed your grandmother be locked up for life against his will if you've previously argued that people shouldn't be locked up against their will makes you a hypocrite". I mean, yes, if we take a unyieldingly moral absolutist view of the situation where certain actions are always wrong regardless of context, then I suppose there's a point here, but we're kind of missing some pretty important context, aren't we? Superman does something against his moral code to frighten his enemies and make them rethink the consequences of their actions, the Elite go around ''killing people''. Even if we concede that there's a hypocrisy here, the actions aren't of equal weight here. Sometimes you have to do things that would otherwise go against your normal moral code because a greater good demands it, and in this case Superman presumably feels that the slight hypocrisy of doing unto the Elite what they've been doing unto others regardless of how much it goes against his normal moral code is preferable to and outweighed by the wrong of the alternative of just letting the Elite go around bullying and killing whoever they feel like. And of course Superman's not going to tolerate someone else's morality when that other person's morality argues that "killing people just to prove a point and scare people into doing the right thing = a-okay moral behaviour". Because it wouldn't even ''be'' a moral debate if Superman was willing to tolerate that particular form of morality when it differed from his own.

*** In short, you're essentially asking Superman to display IntolerableTolerance by tolerating what he views as an intolerable moral code that is itself rather intolerant.

*** In short, you're essentially asking Superman to display IntolerableTolerance by tolerating what he views as an intolerable moral code.

*** Superman doesnt kill, no exceptions. So no, he wouldnt assist with an execution no matter what. Black's powers were the result of a mutation, and removing the abnormality is more akin to corrective surgery than mutilation. The Phantom Zone is also only for criminals who absolutely cannot be stopped in any other way, such as Doomsday or villainous kryptonians. Atomic Skull can easily be contained by civilian authorities, so there's no reason for why they cant simply drain him of his atomic energy completely and kill him that way. Or simply exert enough force to destroy his brain like Black did.

** All this still doesn't explain why Metropolis and the public ''and government'' ask Superman, and later the Elite, to do the killing. At least in Gotham, the villains pretend to be insane so they can't be excecuted, but as stated above, there nothing to indicate that Metropolis or the general DC Comics USA has a ban on the death penalty, and even if it did, what's stopping the people from voting it okay to kill people if they've escaped custody numerous times and have killed hundreds?

*** "Putting the Elite's actions" is a slightly silly thing to request of us in this case, considering that the whole moral debate ''hinges on the Elite's actions''. You might as well argue "putting aside the actions of the man who killed your grandmother, it's wrong for you to demand that he be locked up against his will for the rest of his life because locking people up against their will is wrong and two wrongs don't make a right, and demanding that the man who killed your grandmother be locked up for life against his will if you've previously argued that people shouldn't be locked up against their will makes you a hypocrite". I mean, yes, if we take a unyieldingly moral absolutist view of the situation where certain actions are always wrong regardless of context, then I suppose there's a point here, but we're kind of missing some pretty important context, aren't we? Superman does something against his moral code to frighten his enemies and make them rethink the consequences of their actions, the Elite go around ''killing people''. Even if we concede that there's a hypocrisy here, the actions aren't of equal weight here. Sometimes you have to do things that would otherwise go against your normal moral code because a greater good demands it, and in this case Superman presumably feels that the slight hypocrisy of doing unto the Elite what they've been doing unto others regardless of how much it goes against his normal moral code is preferable to and outweighed by the wrong of the alternative of just letting the Elite go around bullying and killing whoever they feel like. And of course Superman's not going to tolerate someone else's morality when that other person's morality argues that "killing people just to prove a point and scare people into doing the right thing = a-okay moral behaviour". Because it wouldn't even ''be'' a moral debate if Superman was willing to tolerate that particular form of morality when it differed from his own.

*** "Putting the Elite's actions" is a slightly asinine thing to request of us in this case, considering that the whole moral debate ''hinges on the Elite's actions''. You might as well say "putting aside the actions of the man who killed your grandmother, it's wrong for you to demand that he be locked up against his will for the rest of his life because locking people up against their will is wrong and two wrongs don't make a right, and demanding that the man who killed your grandmother be locked up for life against his will if you've previously argued that people shouldn't be locked up against their will makes you a hypocrite". I mean, yes, if we take a unyieldingly moral absolutist view of the situation where certain actions are always wrong regardless of context, then yes I suppose there's a point here, but moral debates don't occur in a perfect vacuum where every single act is of equal moral weight, they have to be weighed against the actions of the people involved. Sometimes you have to do things that would otherwise go against your normal moral code because a greater good demands it, and in this case Superman presumably feels that the slight hypocrisy of doing unto the Elite what they've been doing unto others regardless of how much it goes against his normal moral code is preferable to and outweighed by the wrong of the alternative of just letting the Elite go around bullying and killing whoever they feel like. After all, unlike Atomic Skull at least at the end of it they're still alive. And of course Superman's not going to tolerate someone else's morality when that other person's morality argues that "killing people just to prove a point and scare people into doing the right thing = a-okay moral behaviour".

*** "Putting the Elite's actions" is a slightly asinine thing to request of us in this case, considering that the whole moral debate ''hinges on the Elite's actions''. You might as well say "putting aside the actions of the man who killed your grandmother, it's wrong for you to demand that he be locked up against his will for the rest of his life because locking people up against their will is wrong and two wrongs don't make a right, and demanding that the man who killed your grandmother be locked up for life against his will if you've previously argued that people shouldn't be locked up against their will makes you a hypocrite". Moral debates don't occur in a perfect vacuum where every single act is of equally moral weight, they have to be weighed against the actions of the people involved. Sometimes you have to do things that would otherwise go against your normal moral code because a greater good demands it, and in this case Superman presumably feels that the slight hypocrisy of doing unto the Elite what they've been doing unto others regardless of how much it goes against his normal moral code is preferable to the alternative of just letting the Elite go around bullying and killing whoever they feel like. After all, unlike Atomic Skull at least at the end of it they're still alive. And of course Superman's not going to tolerate someone else's morality when that other person's morality argues that "killing people just to prove a point and scare people into doing the right thing = a-okay moral behaviour".

*** Atomic Skull is a stupid choice for a villain in this kind of story anyway. He isn´t even remotely human anymore, physically and mentally. In a logically functioning world he wouldn´t fall under human law or would have been sent to the chair a long time ago.

** The Elite werent even going to stop at using fear and intimidation to uphold the law, thats Batmans schtick, they were literally going to murder every criminal they came across until all of them were gone. What do you think Black meant when he talked about wiping the globe clean?

* So around the middle of the movie, The Elite are interrogating the other two terrorists who attacked the train. They refuse to talk, so they have Menagerie sic parasites on them to torture them. Why the hell would a metahuman team ''whose leader can read minds'' resort to torture? Even if they had no desire to show the terrorists mercy, surely doing that [[BuffySpeak eye-bleedy]] MindRape thing that Superman stopped Black from completely doing to the other two terrorists would have been more effective?

* So around the middle of the movie, The Elite are interrogating the other two terrorists who attacked the train. They refuse to talk, so they have Menagerie sic parasites on them to torture them. Why the hell would a metahuman team ''whose leader can read minds'' resort to torture? Why didn't they at a bare minimum just do that [[BuffySpeak eye-bleedy]] MindRape thing that Superman stopped them from completely doing to the other two terrorists?

** If you had freaking ''Superman'' in front of you, and he suddenly stopped being his boy-scout self? You really think you'd have a chance to even ''try''?

* Superman invokes BewareOfTheSuperman to prove why their actions of scaring enemy into submission with such methods are wrong and it works. But does this count as hypocrisy on Superman's part and ultimately proves The Elite's right? The reason it worked is by virtue of using fear and scaring them straight.