Analysis of Lex Luthor

A drill seems to work rather nicely. Never mind such arguments tending to spiral out into presenting arbitrarily powerful threats along with inflating the heroes' own abilities, just to shill the point that people need them. And like I noted, misplaced charity often tends to harm the very people it proclaims to help. Kinda like how the Live Aid initiative against hunger in Ethiopia funneled money precisely to the dictator that was causing it. All risks considered, the greatest danger when it comes to heroics is believing the ability to help also grants the providence to know when to help. I'm not saying self-reliance is in turn a universal approach; but as I noted around the start of the current discussion, it would be nice to see it presented as a valid one, even if it takes the spotlight away from staple heroes.

Is not like stories need villains that manage to threat the heroes.

Like? Superman is smart enought to know when things like the Live Aid iniciative can fail, he is a journalist, he is no dumbass Wide-Eyed Idealist.

So, you want a story where the civilians manage to save the world for themselves? I mean, is not bad, but, dude, we are talking about the superhero genre, is obviously focused in the Hero himself.

Also, people working together to protect themselves is the opossite of self reliance.

edited 12th Feb '18 8:57:00 AM by KazuyaProta

Watch me destroying my country

I think arguing the point with Indiana is fruitless at this juncture.

Because at some point, he seems to have come to the conclusion that is the opposite of the comics.

That Superman isn't human.

When he's the most human of us all.

• Shatner voice*

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

I wonder how many times Superman has to beat Darkseid solo (e.g. Apokolips Now #1) before people accept that his "Big Bad of the DCU" position no longer applies, if it ever did.

Darkseid has suffered some definite Villain Decay. He's gone from being a Justice League villain to being a Superman villain. Mind you, that's not much of a fall for most.

Still, he destroyed the entire DCU at one point so I give him props on that.

Mind you, Darkseid in the DCAU is the ultimate villain of the series and is the only man to have conclusively beaten Superman as well scare all of humanity into uniting. He's also substantially weaker than comic Darkseid just like Superman himself.

I will say the Justice League movie should have had Darkseid as the villain versus Steppenwolf.

edited 12th Feb '18 9:32:43 AM by CharlesPhipps

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

The last time Darkseid was impressive (adaptations not included) was during the Great Darkness Saga.

Anyway, going to echo Ambar here, it's really weird trying to blame Superman for Lex's many, MANY bad deeds.

edited 12th Feb '18 9:35:25 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

The DCAU as a whole massively reduces the power for most of the heroes, which I generally think is a good idea even if they worf Superman way too much sometimes (a problem shared by Young Justice).

As for the live action, well, Darksied has to be the big cheese, it's leading up to him. That at least, is a decision I can understand.

edited 12th Feb '18 9:37:50 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?"

While true, I think that it would have been better to actually have him be a presence in the movies then have him come back later as a recurring villain.

Make a big splash at the start.

Then again, Darkseid's thing is he actually has a personality unlike many DCU cosmic threats. The Anti-Monitor can't hold a conversation while Darkseid can.

As for Darkseid being impressive, the Great Darkness Saga is one of those moments but I also point out that Final Crisis while ridiculous at least did use him to his full extent.

edited 12th Feb '18 9:39:51 AM by CharlesPhipps

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

It's actually been quite a long time now since superhero comic publishers started diversifying their portfolio. Both major houses now feature a number of anti-hero titles, even the occasional villain-based limited series. Marvel is actually pretty good about leaving everyone do their thing, rather than, say, have the Avengers impose on everyone... and what a feet-of-clay situation that would be anyway. However, the Distinguished Competition has yet to stop trying to convince readers to like particular heroes, rather than let characters develop organically both in-universe and in terms of popularity. And when the same attitude is demonstrated by writers, the results are less than impressive. Luthor could indeed be the next Magneto or Doom, being ruthless yet honest about his stated ideals. That he's frequently brought down to cartoonishly flat malice may be one major factor as to why Superman himself is considered outdated, even on top of the same attitude that disregards most of his own iterations.

edited 12th Feb '18 9:44:46 AM by indiana404

Wait, are you saying that Antiheroes= Somehow the people? I though that you mean something as stories of average joes managing to save the world, antiheroes are far from a average joe.

That is the most laughable thing that I have read in a while.

You mean putting a In canon Draco in Leather Pants?

edited 12th Feb '18 9:48:23 AM by KazuyaProta

Watch me destroying my country

"Superman is the most human of heroes"

Okay, how? What exactly do people mean by this? He certainly isn't human biologically speaking. His ability to be a flawless paragon or rather be in situations where he rarely, if ever, has to compromise, isn't human. There are times you could show him as being human by pointing he doesn't have all the answers and isn't perfect but we all know how fans react to that. People calling Superman the most human of heroes don't generally seem to know what being human means.

No, I'm saying that if you have a title starring freakin' convicts, you might as well revive the one about spies working alongside superpowered beings, and hopefully not drown it in half-baked intrigues as opposed to proper action.

And you are setting up a strawman of Superman fans, in a thread that is about Superman Arch Villain.

edited 12th Feb '18 10:01:48 AM by KazuyaProta

Watch me destroying my country

Okay, how? What exactly do people mean by this? He certainly isn't human biologically speaking. His ability to be a flawless paragon or rather be in situations where he rarely, if ever, has to compromise, isn't human. There are times you could show him as being human by pointing he doesn't have all the answers and isn't perfect but we all know how fans react to that. People calling Superman the most human of heroes don't generally seem to know what being human means.

Not really because there's the Superman of canon versus the Superman of fanon with Flanderization in effect for a lot of people's views. It's the same with Captain America as people view him as a flawless exemplar of all that is good and Messianic Archetype but it ignores WHO the character is.

Superman is a guy from rural Kansas who grew up in a shitty small town before getting a job as a journalist in New York City's Expy. He has an apartment, he pays bills, and now he's married with a kid after a long period of crushing on a coworker who wouldn't give him the time of day because she's just a wee bit cooler than him.

On a day to day basis, the vast majority of Americans have much much more in common with Clark Kent than they do Lex Luthor or Bruce Wayne. His "amazing goodness" is actually primarily a function of being able to check himself in ways the vast majority of people with power can't.

Why is Superman not a killer? Because most people are not and he doesn't have the insane idea he has the right to kill people. Why is Superman trying to save people? Because why wouldn't you if you weren't a sociopath and had the ability to? If you see a man in a burning building and you're fireproof—why not go in and help him? His level-headed, easy going, or to use the word "Mild mannered" nature is exaggerated to being Jesus because so many people assume a man with extreme abilities has to have an extreme personality when he's just a normal dude.

On a day to day basis, Supemran does not think about theology or how to save the world, ona day to day basis he is thinking about watching netflix with his wife and then stopping a guy from getting run over because he has the power. He is the exemplar of Rousseau Was Right with the fact he uses his power because Superman/The Reader is meant to believe if you did have the power to help people out that the average working class person would.

Superman and Spiderman remain the most mundane thinking "Average Joes" of the comic book world. They just have superpowers, which is the result of an accident of birth and an accident period.

edited 12th Feb '18 10:23:08 AM by CharlesPhipps

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

Thing is, per the other story I mentioned earlier, these exact points are just as valid as reasons for Luthor being less than enamored with the guy. Super-intelligence or not, Luthor has had to compromise every ideal he might have once held, encountering obstacles of every sort, only to find himself overshadowed again by someone benefiting not just from inborn superpowers, but other people's care and sacrifice. In that regard, Superman is lionized solely for things other people did for him, rather than any choice he had to make himself... and as Man of Steel aptly demonstrated, taking that away from him is all but anathema.

That's really the problem with the character as a paragon - he makes for a nice power fantasy as to how wonderful things would be if we had as much power to use for good, but presents no means, not even within his fictional world, as to how anyone is supposed to acquire such power in order to do good... or at least do good without ending up in a bodycast, Kick-Ass-style. Meanwhile, Luthor's genius and financial success may be just as inflated, but the baseline notion he worked things out for himself is a lot more inspiring. The guy's basically a demonization of Doc Savage, the original ideal hero, complete with a Fortress of Solitude to boot. Only fitting he gets more popular the more these traits are emphasized.

edited 12th Feb '18 10:21:46 AM by indiana404

Excellent summation of the character!

"And when the last law was down and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, the laws all being flat?"

I mean, that explain Lex actions. But they are not even close to justify them. I mean, at the end, he is still trying to kill someone that do good things because he was overshadowed. Plus, at the time of the story, Lex already was a inmoral jerk.

And heck, a lot of stories already had Lex as a rich man, inheriting Lexcorp or just dont care at the "how".

Clark is a rural farmboy that had superpowers, Lex is a super genius that own billions.

Obviously, supporting the first over the later is a example of elitism.

Yeah, Lex had a freaking superpower too.

edited 12th Feb '18 10:27:28 AM by KazuyaProta

Watch me destroying my country

With Luthor's superhuman intelligence being a canonical and well established power in its own right and the reason he has so much hax tech, he's really no more realistic/relatable/self-made than Brainiac.

edited 12th Feb '18 10:27:13 AM by NogaiKhan

Thing is, per the other story I mentioned earlier, these exact points are just as valid as reasons for Luthor being less than enamored with the guy. Super-intelligence or not, Luthor has had to compromise every ideal he might have once held, encountering obstacles of every sort, only to find himself overshadowed again by someone benefiting not just from inborn superpowers, but other people's care and sacrifice. In that regard, Superman is lionized solely for things other people did for him, rather than any choice he had to make himself... and as Man of Steel aptly demonstrated, taking that away from him is all but anathema.

Your essentially demonizing Superman for being born with superhuman abilities and taking the kind of view that no matter what privilege he might have, there's nothing he could do other than be inferior to someone who acquired them. You're also lionizing Lex Luthor for the acquisition of power and wealth regardless of the means or what he uses it for.

Plus, again, Lex Luthor was born with his super intelligence.

That's really the problem with the character as a paragon - he makes for a nice power fantasy as to how wonderful things would be if we had as much power to use for good, but presents no means, not even within his fictional world, as to how anyone is supposed to acquire such power in order to do good... or at least do good without ending up in a bodycast, Kick-Ass-style.

One might simply view the metaphor as using one's abilities to help others.

Meanwhile, Luthor's genius and financial success may be just as inflated, but the baseline notion he worked things out for himself is a lot more inspiring. The guy's basically a demonization of Doc Savage, the original ideal hero, complete with a Fortress of Solitude to boot. Only fitting he gets more popular the more these traits are emphasized.

Doc Savage fought many Mad Scientists in his time. Notably, his archenemy Johnny Sunlight, highlighted how he was going to save the world by conquering it and asked what Doc Savage was doing to help it.

"I'm saving the world by stopping you."

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

That IS the essence of the most iconic version of the conflict isn't it?

Lex Luthor hates Superman because he can't understand why anyone who had those sorts of abilities WOULDN'T abuse them horribly.

Superman can't be a guy who works a 9-5 job because who WOULD?

Wouldn't such a person be a ultrarich celebrity?

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

Indeed, especially if you remember he also presides over an international vigilante organization with more firepower than all the world's governments combined, operating out of an orbital battlestation beyond scrutiny or legal restriction. Unless the NRA has officially gotten tactical weapons allowed for civilian use, that's not exactly my impression of an average Joe. There's also another - considering Superman is just as often the initial aggressor in their relationship - as in the DCAU, American Alien or Birthright - it may simply be the case I mentioned earlier - that Luthor has managed to establish himself in a dog-eat-dog world, and now there's an alien invader whose idea of justice is too little, too late, and arbitrarily directed at that. Kinda like a schoolteacher come to punish not whoever started a fight, but whoever is on top when she arrives. That Superman even now continues targeting Luthor regardless of his more heroic endeavors speaks of a personal grudge he holds as well, for a fight he may have well started.

I think there's a serious case of Watsonian versus Doylist going on in this thread, with people jumping between the two standards willy-nilly depending on which one supports their "side" better.

Is Superman an interesting character (as compared/opposed to Lex)? Is Superman an inspiring character (as compared/opposed to Lex)? Is Superman a good person, judged by in-universe standards (the only one that makes sense for this particular question, since in real life he's just a fictional being)? These are all thought-provoking questions, but there's no reason they ought to be conflated with one another.

Okay, Superman is not the initial aggressor in the DCAU, unless you count "interfering in my evil arms smuggling" as aggressive.

"And when the last law was down and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, the laws all being flat?"

It still explains why Luthor wouldn't be particularly fond of the guy, for reasons other than petty jealousy - which the DCAU Luthor notably lacks as well. This is also one of the more prominent self-made-man iterations, and one that saved the world both times Darkseid arrived. Guy's my third favorite Luthor after the ones in Young Justice and now Justice League Action.

We... we don't even know how Luthor got his money in the DCAU from what I know.

It should also be noted that this is a Luthor that, when he gained ultimate power, his first action was to try and destroy first the Earth then the entire universe simply to remake it in his image.

Like, don't get me wrong, he's one of my favourite DCAU characters as well, I just don't see how he fits into the opinions of Luthor you've stated before at all, even compared to the other versions of the character.

In addition, first of all, people who understood what Luthor was actually doing the second time Darksied invaded raise your hands. Understood from actually watching the episode, not from reading word of God to understand what happened.

No hands are raised.

Good. Second point, he didn't save the Earth. He got revenge on Darksied. He didn't care about the Earth one way or another. In fact, he resurrected Darksied in a failed attempt to resurrect Brainiac. So he could, you know, destroy first the Earth then the entire universe simply to remake it in his image.

edited 12th Feb '18 11:00:47 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?"