Superman

King Zeal, in my dream Superman barely got two words in, dammit. It was all the President talking! In What's So Funny, you can summarize Superman as "Nice Guy", but he's not really being a character-person who stops and thinks for himself, he's being a character-icon, a fixed point around whom story happens and people react and comment, and of course his powers and his apparent health vary like a Pro Wrestler's as usual, depending on what the plot needs.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

On the point about Tough Love, I'd say it's probably best to simply have him let the occasional villain be Hoist by His Own Petard - the Golden Age Superman did so, and that's about as close to knowing the original character as it gets. Still, snapping a guy's neck was a bold move, since in fiction it's not so often that an unambiguously heroic character would personally drive the blade or pull the trigger to end a villain's life - that's usually the province of anti-heroes or Inigo Montoya. And it's actually a nice way to de-emphasize how a hero is commonly expected to fight, focusing on what he fights for, and the personal responsibility he carries.

And yes, keeping an eye out on villains is one thing. Imposingly hovering over them like a one-man CCTV, however, is very much on the Beneath Watchful Eyes◊ side of law-enforcement, and we've seen where this can lead. Bottom line, Superman doesn't become less heroic if he has to kill someone; and sometimes he can become less heroic without killing anyone.

i always thought that was Supes' way of telling Lex that he is not above the law. Lex had it in his head that he owns Metropolis, and Supes was warning him that no one is completely untouchable.

All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

I think my favorite thing about the 52 storyline was how Superman was currently indisposed so Supernova (aka Booster Gold) went and did the "hover outside of Luthor's window in disapproval" bit. And of course it drives Lex up the wall.

If Superman had the slightest grasp of Lex's psychology, he'd know he's just provoking the guy and keeping his hatred focused.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Here's how I'd like to see Superman address the whole Thou Shalt Not Kill idea:

"It takes an idiot to do cool things, that's why it's cool" - Haruhara Haruko

Yeah, please tell that to all the bystanders who were murdered while your enemy-of-the-day had blasted you into the air or pinned you to the ground. You're omnipotent? Then you let them die!

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Yeah, no. That's not how it works. Superman giving it his best shot to save everyone and failing does not make him culpable for their deaths.

That's exactly my point. Your "dream" doesn't do anything to actually characterize Superman. It's just some whining about how pathetic human beings are and how much we need Space Jesus to do everything for us.

But Superman hardly gives it his best shot, does he? He's constantly holding back. Letting himself get pummeled left and right and then doing a No-Sell when dramatically appropriate, almost as if the point was not to save as many people as possible, but to make a spectacle of it.

I would be grateful if you could take the tone down a notch. I think this level of bitterness and hostily is hardly warranted, don't you?

But, although I have a hard time moving from "If Superman needs to hand the fates of mass murderers to the relevant civil authorities, let's just democratically and legally make him a civil authority, so that he's best able to defend our interests" to "we're Holding Out for a Hero meets Everyone is Jesus in Purgatory", you do have a point; why don't governments in the DC and Marvel verses execute villains?

Heck, given the threats faced by the likes of Metropolis on a monthly basis, why isn't that city loaded with Tokyo-3 levels of defensive measures? Heck, why do people even keep living in large cities given how probable it is that they get smashed to pieces by the latest cosmic threat?

edited 18th Dec '13 5:54:24 AM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

...would mean occasionally setting his heat-vision on "kill" when the situation calls for it. Or at least, contrariwise, not acting like the Big Blue Brother that no one asked for. Caville's less than expressive acting nothwithstanding, Man of Steel got this right - a Superman who sacrifices all he has, while still showing simplicity and humility when communicating with others. For all the symbolism galore, this was one Superman who decidedly didn't have a Krypton-sized God-complex to wave around.

Other than that, I note that @Handle's original Armor-Piercing Question concerned dangers that threaten even Superman himself - powers beyond normal human technology. It's not that he's supposed to be a free energy replacement for Ole Sparky, but that there is the occasional threat that only he can end. Y'know - a job for Superman. And that, by refusing to do so, while still flaunting himself as a defender of Truth, Justice and The American Way, he's in fact making promises he doesn't live up to, failing humanity in the process. Consequently, if he's not willing to finish off Darkseid-level baddies, then he should at least provide the means - technological or otherwise - to people who are.

edited 18th Dec '13 5:57:44 AM by indiana404

Two things. First, using all your power isn't the same as giving your best shot. That's like saying a police officer isn't giving it his best shot if he uses a taser instead of bullets. Based on whoever's writing, Superman's best is somewhere between "demolish a city block" and "demolish a solar system". Trying to avoid doing the latter while still apprehending a villain is still doing your best.

Second, if we're arguing if writers fail at writing Superman effectively, then sure. I can agree with that. I just don't agree with your solution.

No idea what you're talking about.

That would be the best solution, yes.

I've also mentioned this before. Superboy has the ability to put a flawless, undetectable, force field around anything he touches. This ability is so perfect that he once stopped complex machinery from exploding while subconsciously downloading the schematics for it into his brain, along with an ability to reassemble things telekinetically when he really concentrates. Comic books, however, do not realize how freaking valuable that ability would be. Superboy's power, by itself, would solve nearly every collateral damage problem in comics ever. A kinetic force field that protects, records, and rebuilds anything??! Have STAR Labs reproduce that shit ASAP!

No it doesn't.

Giving it "your best shot" simply means doing your absolute best within a certain parameter of restraints. As I said, you can't say a cop isn't "giving it his best shot" when he chooses not to kill someone that he reasonably thought he could capture alive. Even if he turns out to be wrong, he still gave it his best shot.

edited 18th Dec '13 9:23:11 AM by KingZeal

And if people die in the process, then him "giving it his best shot" means two things to them and their families - Jack, and something else. In reality, cops are wisely trained and instructed to draw and shoot center-of-mass at anyone stupid enough to pull a piece and threaten civilians. I'd say there is a point where vying for peaceful resolution becomes futile, and actually endangers more lives. If you style yourself a defender of people, and those people happen to die, then by all means you have failed. If you have opted not to use lethal force against the perpetrators, then you simply have prioritized their lives over those of the victims, and your failure becomes your fault.

Again, we're considering forces well beyond what any civil authority can deal with - titanic monsters, nigh-invincible alien warlords, and even the occasional demigod. If the DCU's governments had their own ways of dealing with such threats, then yes - having Superman kill would be redundant. But they usually don't, and so far he's been loath to offer any alternative at their disposal.

edited 18th Dec '13 10:06:54 AM by indiana404

And that is unfortunate, but an Appeal To Emotion doesn't work in this instance. The fact that people won't like the outcome doesn't make the outcome wrong.

Extremely oversimplistic. At least in the United States (which is the only place that matters for this discussion since Superman is American), cops are trained to use their best judgment when using lethal force, and there is no real "right answer" when it comes to neutralizing a lethal threat.

Because the thing everyone forgets thanks to fiction is—violence is an unpredictable variable. Once it starts, there is no way of knowing how it will end. Even firing a gun once can have unbelievable collateral damage, which is why, no, cops are NOT supposed to just gun down anyone "stupid enough" to threaten a civilian, because they can and often do wind up doing worse damage than the criminal would have.

And when your power is to move planets, even more caution is necessary.

Perfect Solution Fallacy. You can defend people and fail to do so regardless of what methods you employ. Whether or not that makes you unsuitable for the task depends on the context.

No it doesn't. As said before, violence is not an absolute certainty. Besides that, with someone of Superman's abilities, a non-lethal option is almost always a plausible one. The reason human beings resort to lethal force is because our options are limited, which is literally not the case for Superman.

And that's not his problem. The fact that he does anything at all is more than remarkable on its own. The fact that he doesn't fix absolutely every problem for humans is tantamount ONLY to the failure of the authorities themselves and not Superman.

edited 18th Dec '13 10:53:59 AM by KingZeal

We're not asking Superman to do everything, we're asking him to kill Darkseid. Is that really too much to ask for? Is there any point at all in giving Darkseid the slightest bit of mercy?

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

The fact that the outcome leaves innocent people a bit too dead to like anything at all, however, does. The matter is simple - should a hero place the lives of the guilty over those of the innocent? No third options. No magic time rewinds. As much as you don't like it, Man of Steel put it as bluntly as that, and had the decency to act upon it. With distinction, if I might add.

Speaking of which, I'm greatly amused by all the Fan Dumb complaints about Superman and Zod utterly wrecking downtown Metropolis, at the cost of likely thousands of lives. I mean seriously - this is very much what happens when two Physical Gods fight without the benefit of Conveniently Empty Buildings. This is what happens when the premise of the world itself doesn't pull any punches. And in such a world, neither should Superman, because even one such fight is too much for too many people. And if swiftly and violently ending the guy who started it is even the least bit likely to prevent another, then that is a price worth paying. A sacrifice worth making.

The absence of Conveniently Empty Buildings was indeed remarkable. We got some of the best emotional moments out of that.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

As far as I know, this has never actually happened, though. Most times Superman has fought Darkseid, he either barely escaped with his life or he actually tried to kill him.

Except that the Man Of Steel example was a perfect example of how such a scenario doesn't actually work. Keep in mind that Zod isn't just some supervillain or bank robber. During the fight, he was a fully flat out Omnicidal Maniac, and this was fight where he had nothing to lose and knew it. They wrecked half a city fighting because of this.

So let's take this a step further. Imagine a universe where every supervillain who could harm innocents or takes innocents hostage knows that their lives are forfeit. But, they know YOU value the innocent's lives over theirs. So basically, they have zero incentive NOT to use them as hostages or to CONSTANTLY use them as shields. That means every fight will have them looking for innocent people to threaten to keep the hero at bay, and every fight will be all-out because they have absolutely NOTHING to lose. Congratulations. You just made sure that every fight, instead of possibly ending peacefully, will for sure endanger everyone in the area.

And in case you think I'm just guessing, this a problem that actual hostage negotiators and SWAT officers constantly have to deal with.

Further, in the case of Man Of Steel, there was no Phantom Zone projector or superhuman prison or red sunlight to capture Zod with. In the comics (which I assume we're talking about), these options exist. Even then, Superman had dozens of options besides just meeting Zod head-on. The problem people had with the fight is that Superman had several moments where he could have taken the fight out of the city, or done something else besides just beg Zod to stop (Cover his eyes with your invulnerable hand, maybe?) The whole scene was just as blatantly crafted to force Superman to that conclusion as "What's So Funny..." was to enforce Superman's viewpoint.

edited 18th Dec '13 12:53:17 PM by KingZeal

So random thought but in the event of a Justice League barbecue would Superman be their guy on the grill?

"War without fire is like sausages without mustard." - Jean Juvénal des Ursins

Nah, that's Batman - control freak wouldn't let anyone else touch it but him.

And so tries to do their supervillainy without harming anyone. A Spider-Man comic addressed this, in that most of New-York's costumed villains are reluctant to use lethal force, since even though the web-slinger might show them grace, The Punisher will not. At the same time, the skull-chested sociopath doesn't bother with simple robberies or assorted animal-themed small-fry. Thus, they have every incentive to stay well out of his sights. In real life, there's a reason most criminals opt not to use firearms or take hostages - their own lives are at risk as well, and their objective is usually money, rather than Card Carrying Villainy. It's not worth getting shot over, and so not worth giving people a reason to shoot you.

To contrast, Doomsday or Zod-level threats tend to be city-busters to begin with. They have nothing to lose either way, and are far too dangerous to be apprehended peacefully, even without the Card Board Prison status of the Phantom Zone. Much as in real life it's sometimes necessary to shoot center-of-mass, so does a fictional hero often face threats that require him to hold nothing back, including lethal force, in order to deal with them for good.

edited 18th Dec '13 1:32:34 PM by indiana404

Yes, what a crock of shit. You can't criticize "Whats So Funny..." for being Anvilicious while ignoring the same problems with another story that just happens to share your viewpoint.

Nope. In Real Life, there is zero evidence that lethal force does actually deters a criminal from committing more heinous crimes.

Again, Doomsday and Zod are exempt from this discussion, because they were rampaging Omnicidal Maniacs.

That would be fear you're talking about. For any given criminal, actual use of lethal force deters them from committing any further crimes, with a 100% success rate so far. And yes, dedicated burglars or white-collar crooks tend to avoid upgrading to hostage taking or mass murder. Contrariwise, the latter rarely ends with the perpetrators drawing breath, and not always by their own hand.

And it's precisely rampaging Omnicidal Maniacs that are a job for Superman. In his absence, nobody else can deal with them. So by choosing to spare them, he's deliberately placing the world in danger, should he be distracted or indisposed at any later time. And given his weakness to a bunch of Green Rocks, that happens quite a lot.

edited 18th Dec '13 2:08:55 PM by indiana404

Again, actual results may vary when accounting for collateral damage and other inherent problems.

Except (A) that again requires the magical power of "Certainty" and (B) Superman does kill them when he absolutely can't hold back. Superman wasn't fucking around with Doomsday. Doomsday was just strong enough to take it.

Yet by removing certainty you pretty much forfeit all pretense of not killing to begin with - collateral damage is not a matter of deliberate choice, but of inevitable consequence. Which is why even non-powered vigilantism is frowned upon in real life. Again, fan reaction to Man of Steel doing away with the Conveniently Empty Buildings was rather telling of how, on some level, it's not really the thought of Superman that's enticing, but of the cartoonishly convenient world that bends to accommodate him. A world where he can choose to fight, in spectacular displays of superpowered violence, yet without actually being responsible for killing anyone.

However, once put in a world that doesn't offer this certainty, a world where such violent heroics inevitably lead to people dying, any pretense of non-lethality becomes hollow and vain. Better to take it in stride, and carry the responsibility that comes with it, than deny it for appearances' sake.

What are you talking about? "All Violence Leads To Collateral Damage" does not suddenly equate "Then All Violence Must Be Lethal", because as I said Man Of Steel is an example that defeats your entire argument. That was a kill-or-be-killed brawl. That's not a winning argument FOR the idea that all fights being lethal—it's a strong argument why you can't do that (Word of God even said as much), because at that level of power, two beings that prioritize killing/survival over other means to win is just bad news for everyone.

You're looking at lethal force as it pertains to human beings, not invulnerable gods.

edited 18th Dec '13 4:21:52 PM by KingZeal

What makes you assume there will be innocent bystanders killed in the battle?

The core concept of Superman is that he's ridiculously better than everyone at everything. He should be able to stop all his villains from killing anyone without using lethal force or even getting his suit dirty. And if someone does get killed, he should be able to dig up some piece of Kryptonian Techno Babble that can bring them back to life.

"It takes an idiot to do cool things, that's why it's cool" - Haruhara Haruko