Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 37 (click to see context) from:
* Why did the Kents do nothing to stop Superman's descent into madness? After Superman rescues Jonathan and Martha in ''Year One,'' there's a months-long stretch where they're just [[ChuckCunninghamSyndrome sitting in the Fortress of Solitude twiddling their thumbs]]. You don't need a degree in geopolitics to realize that a worldwide super-fascist is diametrically opposite to the Kents' [[{{Eagleland}} "folksy American farm life" values]], yet they apparently don't give a toot that their adopted super-child is subjugating the planet and fighting anyone who opposes him. It would have been trivial for either of them to tickle Clark's super-hearing and talk some sense into his head... but they don't even ''try.''
to:
* Why did the Kents do nothing to stop Superman's descent into madness? After Superman rescues Jonathan and Martha in ''Year One,'' there's a months-long stretch where they're just [[ChuckCunninghamSyndrome sitting in the Fortress of Solitude twiddling their thumbs]]. You don't need a degree in geopolitics to realize that a worldwide super-fascist is diametrically opposite completely contrary to the Kents' [[{{Eagleland}} "folksy "simple folksy American farm way of life" values]], ideals]], yet they apparently don't give a toot that their adopted super-child is subjugating now out to subjugate the planet and fighting anyone who opposes him. It would have been trivial for either of them to tickle Clark's super-hearing super-hearing, sit him down at the kitchen table, and talk some sense into his head... but they don't even ''try.''
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Plus, who in Atlantis is going to question him? He's the friggin' king of the place.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Why did the Kents do nothing to stop Superman's descent into madness? After Superman rescues Jonathan and Martha in ''Year One,'' there's a months-long stretch where they're just [[ChuckCunninghamSyndrome sitting in the Fortress of Solitude twiddling their thumbs]]. You don't need a degree in geopolitics to realize that a worldwide super-fascist is diametrically opposite to the Kents' [[{{Eagleland}} "folksy American farm life" values]], yet they apparently don't give a toot that their adopted super-child is subjugating the planet and fighting anyone who opposes him. It would have been trivial for either of them to tickle Clark's super-hearing and talk some sense into his head... but they don't even ''try.''
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 10 (click to see context) from:
*** If this was a mainstream DC comic, going back in time to stop the event from having ever happened would be what would happen. However, since this is a "What-if Superman went Evil" scenario it requires such methods to be rather stupidly not come up or rejected if they do, because then the intended plot of the writers couldn't happen. In short, the AnthropicPrinciple is in full force.
to:
*** If this was a mainstream DC comic, going back in time to stop the event from having ever happened would be what would happen. However, since this is a "What-if Superman went Evil" scenario it requires such methods to be rather stupidly not come up or rejected if they do, because then the intended plot of the writers couldn't happen. In order for Superman to become a tyrant as the story requires, Lois needs to not only die but stay dead despite how little sense it makes. In short, the AnthropicPrinciple is in full force.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 35 (click to see context) from:
** Part of this also seems stems from the comics and the games initially portraying the Metropolis event slightly differently. In the game (where the basic premise was likely invented), the interrogation room scene makes it clear that Batman doesn't know where Joker got the nuke (it's not actually explained in the game), and in the main timeline, it's explained that Joker got the nuke from Luthor (who more believably has the resources and intelligence to aqquire or even build one, and specifically ordered it to be used on Metropolis); both scenarios acknowledge that Joker getting his hands on a nuclear weapon, at least as part of a story's set-up, is unprecedented, and a bad enough situation even without getting into whatever game he's set up around it, or what happens after he sets it off. The comics did their job by filling in details, but through retcons and VoodooShark explanations, made the Joker seem far more dangerous and competent than he normally is, raising the question of why he doesn't do stuff like he did here as part of his normal schemes.
to:
*** Assuming the "easy" Joker was referring to was his ability to corrupt someone, and not the effort it took to do the actual inciting deed makes sense... until you factor it into Joker's whole supposed philosophy. From his POV, he ''had'' to go after a hard target like Batman because if even one person can't be corrupted with [[ComicBook/TheKillingJoke one bad day]] then Joker's entire philosophy is moot. If he just enjoys corrupting people, there are plenty of regular Gothamites he can do that to for a fraction of the effort. Plus, if he can pull off such a scheme, why didn't he do so years ago when he was still trying to corrupt Batman? I suppose its possible he just coincidently realized he had enough experience as a supervillain to pull off the nuke heist around the same time he conceded to Batman, though all this just seems to confuse how we're supposed to see Joker.
** Part of this also seems stems from the comics and the games initially portraying the Metropolis event slightly differently. In the game (where the basic premise was likely invented), the interrogation room scene makes it clear that Batman doesn't know where Joker got the nuke (it's not actually explained in the game), and in the main timeline, it's explained that Joker got the nuke from Luthor (who more believably has the resources and intelligence toaqquire acquire or even build one, and specifically ordered it to be used on Metropolis); both scenarios acknowledge that Joker getting his hands on a nuclear weapon, at least as part of a story's set-up, is unprecedented, and a bad enough situation even without getting into whatever game he's set up around it, or what happens after he sets it off. The comics did their job by filling in details, but through retcons and VoodooShark explanations, made the Joker seem far more dangerous and competent than he normally is, raising the question of why he doesn't do stuff like he did here as part of his normal schemes.
** Part of this also seems stems from the comics and the games initially portraying the Metropolis event slightly differently. In the game (where the basic premise was likely invented), the interrogation room scene makes it clear that Batman doesn't know where Joker got the nuke (it's not actually explained in the game), and in the main timeline, it's explained that Joker got the nuke from Luthor (who more believably has the resources and intelligence to
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Part of this also seems stems from the comics and the games initially portraying the Metropolis event slightly differently. In the game (where the basic premise was likely invented), the interrogation room scene makes it clear that Batman doesn't know where Joker got the nuke (it's not actually explained in the game), and in the main timeline, it's explained that Joker got the nuke from Luthor (who more believably has the resources and intelligence to aqquire or even build one, and specifically ordered it to be used on Metropolis); both scenarios acknowledge that Joker getting his hands on a nuclear weapon, at least as part of a story's set-up, is unprecedented, and a bad enough situation even without getting into whatever game he's set up around it, or what happens after he sets it off. The comics did their job by filling in details, but through retcons and VoodooShark explanations, made the Joker seem far more dangerous and competent than he normally is, raising the question of why he doesn't do stuff like he did here as part of his normal schemes.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** If this was a mainstream DC comic, going back in time to stop the event from having ever happened would be what would happen. However, since this is a "What-if Superman went Evil" scenario it requires such methods to be rather stupidly not come up or rejected if they do, because then the intended plot of the writers couldn't happen. In short, the AnthropicPrinciple is in full force.
Added DiffLines:
*** Joker considered going after Superman to be "easy mode" because for him it was. Yes, he probably could've pulled roughly the same gambit, tricking Bruce into killing someone he cared about and nuking Gotham as a consequence, but it would never have the same... oomph as tricking Superman into killing Lois and his unborn child. For one thing, assuming everything is roughly the same trying to destroy Bruce mentally is a routine thing for him that he fights off with HeroicWillpower, but Superman has had comparatively few. For another, Bruce just doesn't have anyone he cares about anywhere near as much as Clark does Lois, largely for the reason that Bruce avoids getting that attached to people to avoid that very thing. It just would not make Bruce snap like Superman did, if it made him snap at all.
