Serial Procrastinator
That's a massive generalisation of Silicon Valley businessmen. Many of them are dicks, but that's no reason to just paint with a broad brush.
It's also pretty unfair to describe Edison like that.
"And when the last law was down and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, the laws all being flat?"
True.
Still, I do think it's a weird line to draw the fact he's a tech billionaire as a kind of unassailable good guy.
Weirdly, I find "Good" Doctor Doom infinitely more believable than Good Luthor.
I have difficulty with Injustice's Luthor not just being a Villain with Good Publicity.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Serial Procrastinator
I can buy certain good Doom moments - like saving Reed's child just to get one up on him - but I don't like how he's sort of gradually been remade into sort of a potential benevolent dictator over time.
"And when the last law was down and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, the laws all being flat?"
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Well that is an alternate universe where things are very different.
I'm pretty sure Bruce Wayne, Ted Kord, Michael Holt and whole host of other super geniuses in the DCU come close if not match him. In fact, in Phil Jiminez's Superwoman, I think it was shown that Lena helped design some of his inventions.
Luthor's intelligence is really just an exaggerated form of human intelligence in a sci fi setting (it should also be known that superhero science is capable of much more than what real life science can do).
Superman by contrast is unattainable not only in real life but within the fictional universe that he exists.
edited 10th Feb '18 8:51:08 PM by windleopard
@ 399
I don't know where in All Star Superman you think Luthor praises Clark for his "hard work and integrity,'' but if it's the scene I think it is (the one where Clark is interviewing Lex in prison) that read to me like Luthor essentially praising Clark for, in Lex's view, "knowing his place." He see's Clark's humble, respectful, self-effacing attitude as appropriate for people who aren't Lex Luthor to have when addressing Lex Luthor. Essentially, if the rest of humanity would just acknowledge Lex as their lord and master, then Lex wouldn't have to keep demonstrating to them why they should. As with Byrne's rendition of Lex, Morrison's Lex can't imagine that Superman would stoop to pretending to be a normal human, given that it's something he (Lex) couldn't stand to do himself.
Serial Procrastinator
Luthor's brainpower seems to vary wildly between interpretations.
From what I saw, Luthor simply states that Clark would be "quite a catch", referencing his pining for Lois, if Superman weren't there to overshadow him... which I've always found to be another rather dark aspect of the traditional love triangle, presenting Lois as something of a gold-digger who regards two people with pretty much the same personal and moral traits completely differently based on their power and influence.
The irony in it all is that Superman's own power has to be continuously inflated in order for him to compete with an entire civilization with enough firepower to carve a smiley face on the Moon. Eventually, his power has become his defining characteristic, consuming all other traits that make him unique as a hero, never mind how attempts to make him modern and relevant have mostly resulted in making him angsty and aggressive. Presenting Luthor as an ambitious upstart challenging his authority may have worked if this were the Shakespearean days when this attitude was pretty much government-mandated. But in a democratic and tech-savvy modern nation, there's nothing inherently wrong in his aspirations, ruthless methodology notwithstanding.
Serial Procrastinator
I'm honestly baffled that you look at two guys, one who can fly, and one who slaps his name on giant skycrapers and his company and all of his products, and thinks that the former is the condescending one. Ironically, this sort of reaction would make for a good Lex Luthor story.
Lex is the one who goes around rubbing his success in people's faces and trying to make them dependent on him. Superman spends his days rescuing cats from trees and babies from burning buildings. At a very basic level, it's hard for me to see your "Superman is The Man and Lex is the scrappy underdog" argument when Superman uses his considerable resources to help people and Lex uses his to either further enrich himself or pursue another one of his selfish goals.
Superman doesn't oppress Lex. Lex oppresses himself with his own outsized ego.
edited 11th Feb '18 12:07:12 AM by Sigilbreaker26
"And when the last law was down and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, the laws all being flat?"
Superman also runs a veritable N.G.O. Superpower filled with a bunch of other borderline physical gods and billionaire tycoons, frequently disregards any international or local law he doesn't agree with, and often goes more aggressively against rival heroes than actual villains... including, as of late, Luthor's own apparently genuine heroic endeavors. In light of such resources, saving kittens from trees is all but a token effort. To contrast, Luthor is heavily involved in all kinds of industries, medical, scientific etc., meaning his work probably saves more lives per day than if Superman were to even work around the clock. That's why I find his self-image of trying to save the world to be honest - in any planet not chock-full of supernatural idols, his way would be the right one.
Considering the number of superheroes who are autocratic monarchs answerable to no one even in their own countries, that's not particularly surprising. Comics have a rather unwholesome hard-on for neo-feudalism, where being born into power automatically grants the providence to use it justly, while public scrutiny is dismissed just as eagerly. I may believe Doom would be a pretty good ruler for the Balkans, but that's the Balkans, where Putin-style autocratic populism simply lacks a Putin to... put in. In a first-world nation, I reckon Luthor's subtlety and ability to just talk things out would fare much better.
Doom, it should be noted, was an impoverished Romani caravaner who murdered the previous monarch of Latveria and made himself it's king. One of the more fun Stan Lee and Kirby stories about Doom was the fact the Fantastic Four once overthrew him for the "rightful" monarch and found out that he was infinitely WORSE.
Doom has a mad on for feudalism but he's actually what we'd call a Steampunk now. All of his knights, swords, and sorcery stuff is because he likes it rather than being born to privilege.
Superman also runs a veritable NGO superpower filled with a bunch of other borderline physical gods and billionaire tycoons, frequently disregards any international or local law he doesn't agree with, and often goes more aggressively against rival heroes than actual villains... including, as of late, Luthor's own apparently genuine heroic endeavors. In light of such resources, saving kittens from trees is all but a token effort. To contrast, Luthor is heavily involved in all kinds of industries, medical, scientific etc., meaning his work probably saves more lives per day than if Superman were to even work around the clock. That's why I find his self-image of trying to save the world to be honest - in any planet not chock-full of supernatural idols, his way would be the right one.
1. Superman is the working class hero among gods. 2. The thing with "hero Luthor" is this is THE Superman and that means he has about 30 years of continuity behind him (10 years at least) which means that his skepticism to Luthor is born from having seen him nuke his own city. 3. I liked Superman: Doomsday where it's pointed out Lex Luthor has sat on the cure for cancer to make more money from it. While not canonical, Lex Luthor of this time has space travel and other science he keeps from the public. Remember, Lex Corp made a lot of its money as an arms trafficker too
Oh and the current Rebirth Luthor stole all of his early tech from his crippled sister and many other scinetific discoveries.
edited 11th Feb '18 7:17:49 AM by CharlesPhipps
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Foreign Troper
To me, trying to make Lex look sympathetic has never worked. He is not Magneto, who tries to fight for the freedom of his people. He is just a megalomaniacal thug who tries to justify his hatred and most of all JEALOUSY of Superman.
He always claims that what he does is for the good of humanity, but how exactly would killing Earth's most beloved and inspiring hero be 'good' for humanity? It's just fundamental bullshit.
Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% Scandinavian
Magneto was also once a megalomaniacal thug until he wasn't. If he can be seen as sympathetic after setting off a global EMP, I don't see why the same can't work with Luthor.
As I noted, there have been times where other forces have had Superman incapacitated or outright mind-controlled, and it was people's reliance on him that left them open to assault... and fittingly, it's on these occasions that Luthor is the one doing the saving, as with Darkseid's attack in the DCAU, or more recently the Crime Syndicate crisis.
Speaking of which, Superman's prejudice toward Nu!Luthor given he was present yet still in hiding during the event - meaning he not only saw an evil version of himself, but Luthor doing heroics as well - doesn't exactly speak well for his own judgement of character. I'd understand suspicion, even after he apparently ransacked through Luthor's records and found nothing, but his attitude was of abject hostility to someone who looks like his familiar enemy, but who he had no reason to assume was like him in character, and right after witnessing clear evidence that heroes and villains are not the same throughout the multiverse. Finally, as he only decided to reclaim his cape - that is, the cape of an alternate Superman as well - after seeing Luthor in full heroic splendor having just foiled a robbery, it's not unreasonable to conclude he's also guilty of jealousy over his own position in society.
As I said, it's only expected for not everyone to be on board with Luthor being anything other than an amalgamation of everything the respective writers considers bad about humanity, no matter how counter-intuitive the combination is. But it's precisely this attitude that produced Luthorberg, making it clear how outright pathetic it looks in live action. Adam Sandler movie villains are more dignified. If that's how one of Superman's greatest and most emblematic enemies is to be presented, well, don't complain when people consider Superman himself to be overpowered, unrelatable, and ultimately uninspiring.
edited 11th Feb '18 7:49:36 AM by indiana404
Largely, that last is the result of people only casually familiar with the character, or of people constitutionally dead-set on disliking the character cherry-picking their examples from the 80+ years of Superman publication history (hell, try to reconcile that time in the early 40's where Luthor had pointed ears and fangs). And, of course, people with their own personal agendas to push.
Of course, the cherry-picking works both ways, of course, but what you're left with is that there are people who like the character, and people who don't. I frankly don't believe people when they say they don't like Superman because he's overpowered, too goody-goody, whatever, because if you changed those things, I'm pretty sure they still wouldn't like him. I agree with Neil Gaiman when he said that when a person tells you they dislike a story (or a character) they're absolutely right, but when they try to tell you why they're usually wrong. The subtext there is that they'd forgive everything they say they dislike about Superman for a character they actually liked which, if you spend any time talking to people about these things, you'll see that's exactly what they do.
I suppose it depends on what you think Lex Luthor IS SUPPOSED TO BE.
Superman can be the Beware the Superman style character and Injustice Lords Superman is a great character because he's completely off the rails from what Clark Kent is meant to be but is still someone who is recognizable.
But who is Lex Luthor? Is he supposed to be a character of many facets or is he supposed to be the embodiment of everything vile about humanity just like Clark Kent is supposed to be the embodiment of everything good.
Lex Luthor HAS had sympathetic versions with the Lex in Smallville being a good guy and antihero for roughly half the show.
On a basic level, I think Lex Luthor and Superman are archetypes as much as actual characters. Lex Luthor can be a mad scientist, corporate mogul, Nazi, Stalinist communist, or criminal kingpin—but the heart of the character has to be in his reflection of Superman as well as the belief, "This guy has to go."
edited 11th Feb '18 8:28:28 AM by CharlesPhipps
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Foreign Troper
@413
Well I guess the biggest difference for me is the motivation and personality. Lex Luthor (in MOST versions) has, above anything else, always been motivated by Greed, Narcissism and Jealousy first. Not exactly the best attitude for a supposed Well-Intentioned Extremist.
Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% Scandinavian
Yeah, I guess I see Lex Luthor as the pettiest most spiteful man on Earth. The guy who makes all the asprin on Earth may save a lot of lives. But Lex Luthor is also the guy who would poison a shipment of his rivals firm because it was more effective.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/ComicBook/LexLuthorManOfSteel
This is a great comic for studying "my" Lex as we have Lex Luthor pay for a guys' kids' medical treatment, talk about Superman making people's lives worse, and building an android superhero to save Metropolis. At the end of the comic, he killed his android to frame Superman for negligence that resulted in the death of man's child.
It also had the great line. "You don't know my soul, Superman!" "No, Lex, I can see your soul."
And that terrified Lex to death—because what if Superman COULD and knew just how many lies he told himself?
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Lex is essentially exactly what he has at various times accused Superman of being, an extremely powerful being who feels he's superior to all humanity, who want's humanity's adulation and dependence, and who's fooled the public into thinking he's benign. Lex is more of an alien, in that he alienates himself from the rest of humanity out of a sense of superiority, than Superman has ever been.
But you're going to get different interpretations based on the motives of the writer, of course. If you wanted to portray Superman as a potentially negative force (which most writers don't, as it'd be counter productive to an ongoing Superman franchise) Luthor would likely suddenly develop some valid, if likely ruthless, arguments. Simplistically, you could make him a mad scientist with grand or petty goals, if that's what your story needs. I suppose the one constant through it all is that Lex is ultimately only out for himself, and feels he's an ubermensch among sheep.
Thing is, there are a number of hints of the same attitude coming from Superman as well; likely as a result of inadvertent projection by his writers, but evident nonetheless. If alt-fics are to be considered valid at least as character statements, then per Kingdom Come, Superman himself would throw a hissy fit and retire should he ever become merely a hero rather than the hero, the one for everybody else to be measured against. The same happened regarding the Elite - Superman became worried that his personal philosophy was losing popularity, and ultimately resorted to violence in order to "prove" his point... that violence wasn't the answer, somehow. I understand writers get the shivers whenever his popularity drops - and that's a lot of shivering these days - but there are probably more appropriate ways for him in particular to demonstrate his relevance than just beating up expies of whoever disagrees. Talk about agendas indeed.
For that matter, considering there's nary a civil institution Superman hasn't antagonized, while Luthor primarily sticks to at least quasi-legal means, it's much more intuitive to conclude that Luthor makes an effort to fit in established social frameworks, while Superman intentionally breaks off ties with the world. He even renounced his citizenship the last time writers got on an anti-American soapbox. I've always wondered how that's supposed to work, by the way - was Clark Kent also not an American citizen anymore? Did Superman effectively renounce a country all while continuing to live in it under an assumed identity? And never mind still engaging in international vigilantism... you can see why management felt the need for an entire universe reboot after that sort of debacle.
edited 11th Feb '18 10:19:45 AM by indiana404
Foreign Troper
No, sorry, Alternate Versions are exactly that: Alternate versions. That's like taking Ultraman as an example.
And yes, that was the point: The Elite was demanding violence and he showed them violence. He showed them what a horrible thing it is and then he STOPPED instead of killing them (which was their philosophy).
edited 11th Feb '18 10:19:33 AM by Forenperser
Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% Scandinavian
Which he could only do because he had the physical power to back up what he was selling. The public didn't side with the Elite because they were more powerful than Superman. They sided with them because their methods seemed more effective than Superman's. It would have been easy to show the negative consequences of the Elite going overboard or even focus on other questionable deeds like their enslavement of a sentient AI (then again we all know how much Superman hates sentient machines if his behaviour in Morrison's Earth 3 is anything to go by). But instead the story decided to have the resolution be Superman showing his physical superiority in a philosophical conflict. Because at no point is he ever able to make a coherent philosophical counter argument. Seriously there's a scene in the comic where he likens the Elite to Nazis after they killed a bunch of super powered terrorists that were attacking Tokyo.
Meanwhile, we've seen how nonsensical Superman's ideals or at least the way he champions them come across when stacked against a character who isn't a straw man like Wonder Woman. And in her case it's because she's iconic enough that DC won't make her look too terrible in main continuity.
Precisely. In-universe it makes him look hypocritical when he shrivels against someone he can't easily overpower or otherwise humiliate. Coincidentally, I loved Wonder Woman's interactions with Luthor when he joined the League, particularly one moment where she showed him how good feels good when saving a little girl. That would've been an even better Superman moment, a real lost opportunity right there.
edited 11th Feb '18 10:59:02 AM by indiana404
So basically, the vibe I'm getting is, "Superman is good as a pure fantasy construct, but in real life Luthors are all we have to work with, so audience sympathy naturally starts there, or at least tends to slide there as soon as writers try to make their stories all ~realistic~."
My "ideal" Luthor would probably borrow a lot more from Doom - a supermegagenius with his ego really doesn't seem like the kind to cower behind money and lawyers, if only because neither of those things are 100% his to control. Exchange rates and taxes fetter money. Judges and Bar Associations fetter lawyers. Would it not be more in-character for him to run off to another planet, displace the existing society, and build his own from scratch?
... come to think of it, nobody's dusted Lexor off in a while, have they?
Eh, I grew up in Appalachian Kentucky where we're surrounded by propaganda for the chemical, coal, and oil plants with massive unemployment and the children's museum filled with propaganda about how these companies are the only thing keeping our society going. I *KNOW* people like Lex Luthor who point to how society only exists because of them and it is a dependent begging relationship. They genuinely believe they're helping the poor and destroy lives by the thousands with the stroke of a pen.
He's an Objectivist superman and by nature, anyone altruistic exposes that as a meaningless symbol.
Also, the "Superman antagonizes governments" thing is a weird thing to say about the most consistently law abiding of all heroes—and that's usually a criticism of him that Superman SHOULD be shaking down governments more.
Mind you, I really like Injustice Superman because there's a lot of good arguments that Batman's way and the US governments are inferior to Superman—but they are "all or nothing"
edited 11th Feb '18 11:56:56 AM by CharlesPhipps
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Silicon Valley's billionaires have proven themselves to be enormous sexist tools and given the state of the USA, I don't see the Corrupt Corporate Executive becoming a tired archetype anytime soon.
But I do think Lex Luthor needs to be "more" than a businessman. I believe he needs to be the man who finds humans to be a impediment to his dreams and things he's willing to flick out of the way.
Andrew Ryan meets Thomas Edison.
edited 10th Feb '18 6:17:01 PM by CharlesPhipps
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.