Reminds me of Justice League unlimited were Luthor had no problems being a threatening villain. At one point near the end of the first season finale. This is what he said.
Luthor "President? Do you have any idea how much power I'd have to give up to be President?"
The Question "Then!"
Luthor "That's right, conspiracy buff. I spent $75 million on a fake presidential campaign. All just to tick Superman off."
edited 18th Feb '14 10:03:56 PM by Saya1
You look happy, I can change that if you want.That's really the core of Luthor's role as a villain. He can never get a physical victory over Superman, he can never tangibly HURT him. What he can do is wear him down, mentally and emotionally. He's basically Superman's troll.
My various fanfics.Consequently, Superman bothering to give Luthor so much of his attention - whether to designate him as his greatest enemy, or get so paranoid as to be easily manipulated by him - makes him that much small-minded by extension as, in all likelihood, the world's smartest man poses no greater challenge or threat to him, than does it's smartest termite.
Overall, I'd say the conflict leaves both parties looking less than stellar, in spite of all the symbolic shilling thrown their way. Eisenberg's certainly got his work cut out for him, no doubt about that.
If we look at your assessment that Superman is someone who's "never had to deal with X bad thing and is thus good", that flat out justifies why Superman is needed by itself.
If we take what you say to be true "Superman had a nigh-perfect life, thus he has no compulsion toward selfishness", then that is exactly why someone like him is needed and why Lex Luthor is flat out wrong. If what you are actually saying is that removing "negativity" from someone's life will make them good, then Superman is like a clean, unstainable washcloth wiping across a stained Earth while Lex Luthor is a filthy rag that's been hopelessly tarnished and only spreads muck. By definition, then, Superman is the objectively better person and a flat out necessary entity.
edited 19th Feb '14 4:19:51 AM by KingZeal
That's just the thing, though - as Superman flatly refuses to do what has to be done in order to actually end Luthor (as the rest of humanity's political powerbase has more than enough uses for the chrome dome to be left alive), the actual moral turns out to be that the "unstainable washcloth" only remains such because he won't bother to deal with the actual dirty work - the one that most people, including Luthor himself, haven't the luck to be able to avoid. For that matter, the very notion that such an unblemished savior is "necessary" for humanity, very much corroborates Luthor's view - that if nothing is done, people will inevitably grow dependent on such heroes, ultimately becoming complacent and unable to hold their own.
Consequently, advertising Luthor's moral downsides ("filthy rag" - seriously?) only further drives the point of him being an intentional Thersites, against whom the ultimate beneficiary of the Superpower Lottery is supposed to shine... That is, as long as he doesn't do anything irrational like, say, knock out a city block out of sheer paranoia, or preach self-reliance
to people who don't have the benefit of being bullet-proof.
In terms of actual threat, Luthor barely amounts to a Punisher Starter Villain, and would fare exactly as well, had he not been put against the world's most morally squeamish hero. If he's so evil, then find an excuse for the Themysciran Theomachist to snap his neck and be done with it. Otherwise, ramping up his baby-eating cred serves not to contrast Superman's pristine moral stance, but merely makes one wonder why he doesn't sacrifice some of that cleanliness in order to do the deed himself.
Speaking of which, as in the Snyderverse he's finally lost both that "too good to be true" background, and the aforementioned squeamishness, I'm eager to see just what will come out of his meeting with Luthor, and whether or not any reasoning to not unalive him will be as ham-fisted as his usual fare.
edited 19th Feb '14 7:03:06 AM by indiana404
It's made clear that Superman is uncompromising about his midwestern values. It's also made clear that he's trying to set an example for the rest of the world and he doesn't want to kill one man to encourage everyone else to kill someone.
That much I've nothing against. The issue comes up, however, when he decides to actively preach and occasionally enforce his own values, without accepting responsibility for any drawbacks they might actually entail. The infamous "over here, over there" speech in Grounded is a testament to what happens when someone feeds him an Author Tract without ever considering how it looks coming from a nigh-invulnerable powerhouse. Of all people, he's the one man who can't afford to not be humble, let alone get vocal and indignant.
In turn, inflating Luthor's villainy is all but pointless, as it's a Foregone Conclusion that the cape simply won't give in to temptation. Most it could accomplish is make him a blatant Hate Sink - a far cry from the challenge Superman deserves.
edited 19th Feb '14 8:48:18 AM by indiana404
It's been mentioned before, but Lex Luthor "winning" doesn't have to be beating or killing Superman in a fight. Lex has emotionally broken Superman on several occasions (see Superman for All Seasons for a good example) and there was the time he became president.
When I say to challenge or to win, I mean something a bit grander than, as @Son of Sharknado put it, emotional trolling. Something like that favorite fight of mine in JLU, where Luthor goads Superman into disgracing himself, showing that yes, he does have human flaws... which in turn makes The Cape's effort to overcome them that much more poignant. Or, for instance, if at the end of Superman vs The Elite, another superpowered Atomic Skull-wannabe started offing people en masse, with no fear of retribution whatsoever - which would challenge the validity of Superman's views, rather than just his emotional struggle to hold on to them.
It's clear that Luthor is by no means a physical challenge to Superman, dispersing any expectation for him to win a fight. But if he is to be mentally or ideologically challenging, he should be able to occasionally win an argument.
edited 19th Feb '14 11:13:20 AM by indiana404
This is a Perfect Solution Fallacy. Whether or not Superman executes Lex Luthor has nothing to do with his status as a necessity.
Also, Lex is a human being. He's not some God of Evil that Superman and Superman alone can destroy. If you want to blame someone for letting Lex continuously survive, blame the elected officials who fail to do so and the other human beings who believe his bullshit.
And the last time I checked, when Superman meets beings like that (*cough*Darkseid*cough*) he tends to kill them or employ other permanent measures. (See: Final Crisis, Our Worlds At War)
edited 19th Feb '14 11:58:15 AM by KingZeal
Consequently, as Luthor himself only seems dangerous when put against the one guy who won't simply vaporize him on sight, I can't really hold him up to the likes of Sinestro, Doom or Magneto - who are genuine threats to any cape in their vicinity, as well as having far grander overall goals. Next to them, the guy is just... small. And small villains, sadly, make for small heroes.
However next to no one likes this and consider it stupid.
Luthor has constantly gone up against heroes and villains other the Superman and come out on top so that's not true.
edited 19th Feb '14 2:07:47 PM by Saya1
You look happy, I can change that if you want.Here's a quote from Grandfather Clause, which both touches on the fact he's grandfathered in and the efforts people make to keep Luthor that way:
I'd say it's not so much about what Luthor is by himself, but rather what he was supposed to be to Superman - namely, not much of an obstacle to begin with. The guy's an amalgam of all the dime-a-dozen Mad Scientists and Corrupt Corporate Executives Superman has fought ever since his early days, and those were never meant to be serious and persistent threats. Setting up one such opponent as a permanent adversary all but deconstructs what Superman was designed to represent in the first place - a social justice avenger that no scary scientist or malicious mogul could stop. So now, ironically, he stops himself, invalidating the very reason for his own conception. After all, as early as the 1930's, people who wanted to see supposed heroes tip-toe around the rich an powerful and always leave them at the easily-bought mercy of the state, could simply read the news.
What if he were more of a foe for Clark Kent or Bruce Wayne? A reportor trying to put him away with court admissible evidence? Because even though Superman could go and spank/give a wedgie/beat up/prank Lex any time, wouldn't that get him in trouble? Seems Lex can get away with Bullying a Dragon only because Clark is nice enough to not seriously injure or kill someone weaker than himself. Why does Superman bother saving Lex when the guy ends up in danger? How often does that happen?
Calling you out for Perfect Solution Fallacy again.
Superman being some unstoppable juggernaut that no human corruption could stop didn't last long. He had villains giving him formidable trouble within a few years. Granted, he almost never suffered an actual defeat, but he certainly had challenges. As I've mentioned before, I specifically prefer the mogul Lex precisely because his power is equal to Superman's, but simply different. Also, your words here are exactly what I meant by "blaming" Superman; you claim you aren't, but the above statement drips with venomous condemnation for what he does or chooses not to do.
edited 20th Feb '14 6:38:47 AM by indiana404
That's why Luthor would do a lot better as a Villain Protagonist than a straight villain. Grant Morrison said this about why you should root for him:
Oh yeah, totally. Even better, he'd be an excellent Deuteragonist, contrasting his views with Superman's in the face of other threats. At his best, he's delivered some pretty impressive armor-piercing questions to humble the man-god himself... though, sadly, that was out of standard canon. If his mainstream version is actually presented as having a point, without it being derailed as part of yet another evil scheme, it'll go great lengths to humanize both men of steel.
edited 20th Feb '14 8:21:24 AM by indiana404
Crosspost from the Superman general thread (thanks to Nightwire)
Comparing and contrasting The Joker and Lex Luthor
Speaking of which, Geoff Johns
has apparently prepared something for Forever Evil #7 that "changes the dynamic between Superman and Lex Luthor quite a bit".
And after that, as you may've heard, Luthor joins the Justice League, which is just bound to be universally accepted as the great creative decision it is.
Oh, and Captain Cold will be there, too.
So... anyone else here cautiously optimistic?

Ironically enough, SPEAKING OF SMALLVILLE, I just started reading Smallville: Season 11, and it has a PERFECT example of how Lex Luthor can win.
He sets up a rocket launch, a rocket launch FAILURE that nearly kills 7 people, JUST to bathe Superman in a harmless radiation that will allow Luthor to know where he is all the time for FIVE HUNDRED YEARS.
My various fanfics.