Except that as various writers have repeatedly shown, that's not the case at all. Superman does want to get through to Luthor, and at various points has nearly succeeded. They also do have some common ground to stand on. They both want to keep the Earth safe from other alien threats, for instance. They also do share some traits in common, most notably an understanding of what it means to be alone in the crowd, isolated in a world that doesn't fundamentally understand you. The difference being that Luthor let that twist him into a monster, while Superman instead wants to protect the crowd, despite everything.
Perhaps that's true for Superman, but I doubt it's true for Clark Kent.
It's definitely not. Clark's got a pretty thorough grounding in the human experience, despite what a lot of his detractors seem to want to believe (ironically enough, mimicking Luthor in their criticism). He's seen selfishness, greed, and all the other fun aspects of human nature on display, and he understands the temptation to give into them. That's why he's made as many efforts as he has to save Luthor from himself.
I'd say Clark's had a similar view of human faults as people on safari have of the jungle - enough for a general impression, but always from a safe distance. After all, how can you tempt a man who has everything? How can you threaten him, who can level a mountain with but a glance? What exactly can he be offered, that he cannot take as he wills?
As I recall, at one point Luthor realized Clark Kent was Superman, and was outraged that not only was the guy born with powers no man could possess, but he also grew up in an all but picture-perfect all-American environment that most people can only dream of. As Luthor has had to fight for every little ounce of respect he's ever got, it's understandable he'd be a bit miffed at such a realization.
Ironically, in their adult life, the roles and experiences of Superman and Luthor are reversed. Now it's Luthor who cannot be tempted, who cannot be humbled, as he's very well aware that anything one might offer him, he might as well take for himself. And it's Superman who has to fight for every little compromise to get Lex to do something decent, never at ease with the thought of him being in complete control, fearing what he might do with it.
edited 12th Feb '14 12:16:15 PM by indiana404
I'm getting rather tired of you trying to claim that Superman has this perfect existence. In fact that sentence "what can you offer him that he cannot take as he wills it?" You've missed the whole point of the Superman character. The idea is that while he could take what he wants, he doesn't. He's been raised to be a functional person. I'm not quite sure what you're even trying to drive at there, honestly.
Then again I'm not sure what you're trying to drive at period. Reading over the last batch of pages you've changed your argument about "why Luthor is a bad archenemy" so many times that I honestly can't follow it anymore. If you want to continue this discussion, could you do me the favour of restating your point, so that I can actually respond to that, as opposed to your reponse to someone else's response to someone else's response?
The point is basically this:
Distancing it from any highbrow symbolism, in terms of assets and abilities, the conflict still boils down to a mortal man challenging a borderline Physical God. While I've seen it put as some sort of brains vs. brawn deal, Superman's occasional displays of hyper-intelligence mean that there's really no advantage Lex can have that he can't easily surpass.
Said Physical God literally lives in an ivory fortress filled with wonders from half the Universe. That he does not claim the Earth as his own is hardly a sign of self-restraint, considering his own real-estate is likely more valuable. For most of his life, he's never had to fear pain, hunger, disease or poverty - issues that humans have to deal with on a daily basis. The death of his adoptive father in some versions is considered the one problem he couldn't solve... which would be very poignant if every other human being didn't have to worry about that as well. Thus, his altruism is very well entrenched in him not needing to act selfishly at any point in his life.
To contrast, in most versions, Luthor has gone through probably the ugliest Rags to Riches rise to power conceivable, and seen just how un-altruistic humanity can be to those starting from the bottom. His ability to recognize and exploit people's flaws may very well stem from him never benefiting from anyone's virtues. And when he's finally on top, not having to worry about any human giving him the shaft, along comes this alien who, per Luthor's experience with humanity, has no reason to be trusted. And that's before he starts meddling in his regular business affairs. To him, Superman is the guy who was never around when he needed help most, yet who's eager to interfere and act a hero now that he's finally got the upper hand. Rather inconsistent, to say the least. Put these two at odds, and there's no solid connection to be made; no common ground or goals, save for temporary alliances of convenience, and no basis for either man to actually get the other.
Rather than his arch-nemesis, I'd say Luthor is actually Superman's flaw - namely, someone that will not acknowledge him. Much as the Joker is the one loony who has no fear of the bat-man whatsoever, Luthor is the one human for whom there is no "super"-man. A man that he can easily overpower, but just can't turn - and that's a notion he simply can't concede. For who doesn't heed Superman? Who doesn't need Superman? Lex Luthor, that's who.
edited 13th Feb '14 2:34:04 AM by indiana404
Joker is not the only Bat Villain that is not afraid of Batman you know. Ra's, Two Face, Black Mask, Hush, Bane, Croc, Ivy and Freeze have next to no fear of him. O
On the actual topic I disagree with you completely on your analysis. Sadly I am a really bad writer and am tired. By the time I have the energy to give a detailed response to your comment someone else will probably have already said what I would have better then I could.
You look happy, I can change that if you want.But Superman isn't looking for acknowledgement. If he was completely anonymus, he'd still be doing his thing. He has pretty much no ego about his "work". He just wants to help make things better for everyone.
Now, for him, Luthor COULD do the same, instead of spending his wealth and power in the pursuit of MORE wealth and MORE power. That's what bugs him, especially given Luthor cheats and scams to get more of something he doesn't need and doesn't do any good with. Superman, who also has power, doesn't crave more.
On the flip side, Luthor thinks he needs it, that it's a dog-eat-dog world and he needs to make sure he's the big dog, not Superman. He NEEDS to beat Superman because he needs to beat all his challenges (on a side note, I suspect he will NOT age gracefully). But that's all on Luthor, not Superman. Superman doesn't NEED to beat Luthor. If Luthor was just some rich random business man, Superman would just ignore him, just like he does any other of D Cs rich.
Still think Luthor is a terrible arch-nemesis for Superman though
I'm going off this particular quote taken from here:
"Luthor is my greatest enemy. Not because of his wealth. Not because of the weaponry he creates. Not because of greed, not even because of evil. But because he cannot be humbled. No matter what happens to him."
To which I ask - just how can Superman humble him? Him, that he has not helped when most needed. Him that no longer feels the need for any help at all, nor trusts it when offered. It is this acknowledgment, rather than any shallow vanity, that is Superman's flaw - that some people he cannot help, and those few who endure on their own, will no longer accept it. He does want to make things better for everyone, no arguments there, so it's that much hurtful to have his help be rebuked as coming too little, too late. This is what Luthor represents - the man he could not save before, and cannot save anymore.
edited 13th Feb '14 5:37:09 AM by indiana404
That's one quote. It's not something that, in my opinion, is a regular aspect of Supes (though I may be wrong). But Superman wanting his enemies (or anyone) "humbled" is not really his style.
To me, that stems from the same issue: Lex Luthor is Superman's arch-nemesis. Why ? So people grab reasons and stick them in, like Alex Ross in Justice, when the most plausible reason is because he has always been his arch-nemesis. So there.
edited 13th Feb '14 6:25:54 AM by Anteres
Well, that's obviously the real reason.
Granted, works like Justice all but deify the DC capes - a trend which I've always found more than a little self-indulgent. For instance, Superman Unchained #1 has a sly reference to Thersites
- a commoner objecting to the utterly pointless Trojan war, and, naturally, demonized and despised for it. This is similar to how Luthor's expressed concern over humanity's dependence and glorification of superheroes can be easily dismissed, exactly because it's Luthor who says it. To that effect, touting him as Superman's arch-nemesis is not so much a sincere attempt to create a challenge for the boyscout's ideals, but rather a preemptive straw-manning of any argument against their validity.
Personally, I'd much rather name the DCAU Brainiac as Superman's true arch-foe. I mean - a nigh-invincible living memory of the world you left behind, representing everything that was wrong with it? Now that's a challenging enemy. Come to think of it, MOS Zod was close to that as well.
Yeah, real reasons aren't as much fun
I think Luthor bugs me because he CAN be a great villain, a subtle version of Doom, a serious Big Bad to the entire DCU (at least one who isn't planning on blowing it up). It's just he can't beat Superman. No one is allowed to. Even the small losses that other heroes take. When you have a schemer who's schemes always fail, he's weakened. If Zod or Brainic are his arch-nemesis, first you get the fight aspect, but they can also blow up/enslave/introduce muzak to some other planet that Superman can fail to save.
Trying to give a reason why Luthor/Superman is personal to Superman doesn't work because Superman is too goodly-good.
I think that even though Lex has lost a lot of weight as a straight-up villain, he has a lot of untapped potential as a Villain Protagonist. Heck, I think a movie with Lex as the protagonist could be a hit in its own right (probably as an eventual sequel to Man of Steel).
Please help out our The History Of Video Games page.Well, with Jesse Eisenberg as the lead... I dunno. I'm not sure if that casting decision is meant to try and lokify him (with obvious intent), or to further zucker him into being an easy target for Henry Cavill to punch out. Not to mention that, as @Anteres said, he just can't be allowed to win. His Start of Darkness, while harsh, is pretty cliched by modern standards; his stated goals and ideals are usually revealed to have been Evil All Along, and without Superman to focus on, he's little different from the garden variety 80's style Corrupt Corporate Executive his current interpretation was based around.
Going from all that, I'm just not sure what kind of story he can carry on his own. Guys like Sinestro, Deathstroke and the Rogues can all be allowed to have a genuine noble side, however brutal they may otherwise be, and can have their day in the limelight without having it be deconstructed as some sort of facade to cover their wicked ways. For Luthor, however, everything so far has had to boil down to shafting Superman in one way or another - and again, that just can't happen. Still, I'm all ears for suggestions.
edited 13th Feb '14 11:49:38 AM by indiana404
I think you could work some decent tragedy out of Lex Luthor, in that he has everything he should need to be happy, but instead he spends all his time thinking of ways to kill Superman, constantly angry and frustrated at his failures. Maybe there's even an implication that, if Superman weren't around, Luthor would find some other impossible goal to dedicate his life to, because his overwhelming ambition won't ever let him relax and be content.
Alternatively, you could play Luthor for comedy, and have him be like Wile E. Coyote or Elmer Fudd, constantly taking pratfalls in his attempts to kill/capture his invincible prey.
You know, that actually gives me an idea. Since DC Comics is owned by Warner Bros., it's possible they could get the rights to have Looney Tunes characters appear in their books. What if there was a comic that revealed that, as a kid, Lex Luthor always rooted for the bald-headed Elmer Fudd to finally kill that wascally wabbit, and now that he's a billionaire, he buys the Warner Bros. corporation solely so he can get a cartoon made where that's what happens?
![]()
I think your definition of "win" is too narrow. He doesn't have to "win" permanently and forever, just give him a goal to work towards that doesn't make any future stories redundant, but shakes things up a little. For example, in Superman For All Seasons, Luthor was able to emotionally break Superman, if only briefly, by demonstrating that he can't save everyone.
I have this idea for a Man of Steel-universe story where Lex actually finds out Clark and Superman are the same person, and that (in place of the Kryptonite that those writers hate so much) he uses it to get on Superman's nerves and try to control him.
And before you say that Luthor's Pride would disallow him from believing Clark and Superman are the same, I consider that a reinterpretation of his pride, as he would believe that his altruism is a weakness and he can exploit that of Superman.
Please help out our The History Of Video Games page.Actually, I consider that particular reasoning for Luthor ignoring Superman's deduced secret identity to be among the silliest justifications for Clark Kenting to ever grace printed page. Quite the contrary, I do believe that him and Lois both being in the loop would shake up the dynamic pretty nicely. As the MOS Superman is a lot less goodly-good and has to deal with the darker aspects of having superpowers, there's a much greater range of possible connections and interactions with Luthor, who's all about the dark side of power. Conversely, Luthor having an undeniable example of Superman not only using his vast power to help humanity rather than try to rule it, but also of him wanting to live like a normal human rather than a self-admitted god, may just convince him to reconsider his own views on the nature and purpose of power as a whole.
![]()
Lois did find out Clark's secret in Post-Crisis continuity (because Clark told her), and she does do so in most continuities since then, in fact.
I do prefer how in Man of Steel, Lois actually acts like a reporter and figures it out by herself.
Instead of "reporter" just meaning "moron who flings themself headfirst into deadly scenarios."
My various fanfics.![]()
![]()
Yeah, but All-Star already did something that. I'm thinking of a totally new angle. Thus, what I meant was for all three of them to know, and know that they know.
I forget (since I haven't watched beyond season 3 yet), did Luthor find out Clark was Superman in Smallville?
Please help out our The History Of Video Games page.What's Superman? That sounds like a dumb thing. You wanna watch Clark Kent have awkward romantic tension with Lana Lang and Chole, fighting people who are basically X-Men for two minutes every show, don't you?
My various fanfics.
Hey, I've read a little about the show before I actually watched part of it. Also, I don't really like the show so far either (I think Arrow is a far superior program).

To contrast, on top of his inborn superpowers, Superman has been the beneficiary of altruistic acts literally from day one. He has no understanding of why someone wouldn't use their talents and assets for the common good, since throughout his life he's had no need to be selfish. There's nothing he could be threatened or tempted with, all while being freely given human kindness and love. Thus, of all people in the world, he's actually the least suited to handle Luthor, since he has no idea where the guy's coming from.
Ultimately, while the symbolic relationship is clear, I thing they are simply too different to make for a proper match up. They're not so much foils, as one another's antitheses, with no common ground to stand on, and neither one willing to even slightly consider the other's viewpoint - which in turn gives a foregone conclusion to every interaction they might have. Now, I can understand where this dynamic stems for - with Luthor being a stand-in for every Mad Scientist/Robber Baron Superman's fought ever since the Fleischer Cartoons, and with the default impulse to have the hero share nothing with the villain. Nowadays however, this limits both of them by making it so that their relationship just can't not be adversarial, as they have no shared interests, or even shared traits beyond sheer determination.
edited 12th Feb '14 1:26:32 AM by indiana404