What Defines An Arch Enemy?

The Joker, in fairness, doesn't CARE who Batman is. And most versions have Batman as Batman's real identity

DC Comics are terrible, why would their archenemies be any different? The Joker gets around it by the fact that, as stated by , Batman's true identity is Batman. Bruce Wayne is irrelevant. And Lex Luthor is an awful archenemy. He just...is. Superman vs. Lex Luthor is the weakest Hero/Villain matchup ever conceived in comics, and the writers have to go out of their way left and right to invent excuses why this conflict is even possible.

Peter Parker is not Batman. At his core, he is Peter Parker. Spider-Man is great for what Peter, the man, brings to him. When Peter takes off his mask, Doc Ock ceases to exist in the scope of his life. Like the rest of Spider-Man's world, it's there for Spider-Man. He can escape from it all by just going home.

Both Norman Osborn and Venom share an important element: they hit Peter where he lives. They challenge Peter Parker, the Man, while the rest of his villains are content to fight outlandish battles with Spider-Man the Superhero.

DC heroes in general are different about this because there is no The Man component to them. They're larger-than-life heroes 100% of the time. Even when they're civilians, they're really just Superheroes Out Of Costume.

edited 10th Sep '13 2:58:40 PM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

Fair point. Come to think of it, the two do work differently. Loki's known Thor since they were toddlers, Obadiah Stane (who I honestly consider more of a Worth Opponent to Ironman then ol' Mandy' ever was, even if he's been dead for over two-and-a-half decades,) managed to bring Tony Stark to a drunken, company-less wreck, Ultron's had a mad-on for Hank and Jan for ages, so-on-and-so-forth. Marvel's archenemies really do tend to be a more personal bunch, and more often then not, know the hero's true identity.(Although I argue that Captain America's relationship with the Red Skull was more like DC's for a while, at least until more recently. Also, seeing as a number of Marvel heroes don't have S.I'D's, it's not so hard for the villain to learn who the hero really is.) ...Come to think of it, what major marvel hero doesn't have a villain that knows their S.ID by now? Seems to be sort of a loose commodity these days...

edited 11th Sep '13 7:56:41 AM by kkhohoho

Out of topic but it's always nice to meet someone who shared my view of the Superman/Lex Luthor rivalry.

DC has some good archenemies though. Hal Jordan and Sinistro. Flash/Reverse Flash, Zoom, whatever he's calling himself.

edited 10th Sep '13 3:43:32 PM by Anteres

Eh. Arch Enemies usually get obsessive about their counterpart. They'd be pretty dumb if they spent that much time thinking about them and couldn't figure it out.

Who was the first major, on-going villain to find out the hero's secret identity ? Norman ? Some would have know from the start, like Loki, but who started ignorant and twigged it ?

It probably is Osborn. I think he was the first Marvel villain to unmask a hero, DC stories from that era rarely had lasting impact; Lex Luthor might figure out who Clark Kent is, but one way or another this wouldn't be permanent. Of course he lost his memory at the end of that story, if he hadn't remembered it later on he wouldn't be any different to the DC villains.

Am I a good man or a bad man?

To be fair, Norman Osborn eventually got amnesia too.

Then he lost it. Then he killed Gwen Stacy. But the point is, Marvel did play the Amnesia Card at one point.

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

But, by your logic, Ra's al Ghul is an even better archnemesis because he's not only Batman's antithesis, but also knows how to harm both Batman and Bruce Wayne. The Bruce Wayne aspect is not as irrelevant as Batman likes to pretend it is, and Ra's exploits that fact constantly.

See "Tower of Babel" or The Dark Knight Saga for examples. In fact, Nolan specifically said that he saw Batman as having three persons: Bruce, Batman, and the real man, who is somewhere between the two.

This is, again, why I like Mogul!Lex. He can influence the Daily Planet. He can make Clark Kent look like an idiot by discrediting a story he wrote. He can target Lois Lane for being both an annoyance and Superman's girlfriend. And that's not even getting into interpretations of the character where he has personal connections to Smallville and to Clark himself.

Mad Scientist!Lex is what you're describing—and, not coincidentally—the one I least enjoy reading.

Lex is good for one or two stories. Use him in the origin story, or an early story in the timeline, and then leave him alone. Just take Birthright's Supes vs Lex, and then have Lex rot in a cell forever. Because really, Luthor can threaten Superman and set up interesting conflicts for a few stories, but after three or four times there's no reason Superman shouldn't just wreck Lex's schemes with his godlike power, rinse, lather, repeat.

edited 11th Sep '13 1:44:07 PM by RedM

The very best, like no one ever was. Check out my Spider-Man fanfic here! [1]

Again, Mogul!Lex defies that. I mentioned in another thread that the whole reason I found the Lex vs Superman motif interesting was because it wasn't a battle of brains vs power (making Superman into dumb muscle is one of the worst things ever done to the character) but because it was Power vs a different type of Power.

Lex is every bit as powerful as Superman is, and can even do things that Superman can't, but it's in a different form. You can make that a credible menace even for someone who can toss a moon.

Personally, I've always thought it'd be cool to see Lex go straight. Start engaging in immoral but technically legal business policies to take economic and/or political control over Metropolis. Fund campaigns to raise awareness of the world's crippling overdependence on Superman. Buy out the Daily Planet and start printing propaganda. And all the time, watch Superman like a hawk. When disaster strikes and he's not there, demand answers. When he makes a mistake, print it all over the front page. Overtax him and keep him constantly on his toes by forcing him to live up to impossible standards and punishing him with public outcry when he fails. Push him to his breaking point. And most importantly: never, ever commit a single crime.

The fact that Lex is a criminal is his weakest point, because it gives Superman the right to break into his building and beat the crap out of him. The thing keeping him from true greatness is the simple fact that he keeps justifying Superman's opposition of him. He has spectacular, manipulative moments of brilliance that really highlight just how dangerous he can truly be, and then he chucks those out the window to build a suit of powered armor and try to punch Superman to death.

For my Luthor, I would even go so far as to have Lex sit down with Superman, maybe over tea, and explain all of this to him.

"You will continue doing what you're doing, and when you fail, I will be there. Every time you slip up, I will be there, and I will expose it to the world. I will break you, spiritually, economically, emotionally. I will undermine everything you represent. But I will never lay a hand on you. I will not strike you. I will not threaten the lives of anyone you hold dear. I will not commit any crime that would give you a just cause to come for me. I will operate completely within the boundaries of the laws you've sworn to protect, and within those borders, I will destroy you. Welcome to Earth, Superman."

edited 11th Sep '13 2:05:53 PM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

That sounds like a good plot, under the condition that Superman doesn't "break".

There's seriously been enough of that crap. If Superman saves only 1,000 people out of 30,000 from a tsunami and Lex questions why he wasn't there faster, I'd fully expect Superman to stand there, listen to the crowd's boos, let their tomatoes smack him dead in the face, and then calmly, sincerely, promise to do better.

I'm saying this because one of my personal pet peeve storylines is the "Public Turns Against Superman And Superman Angsts Over It" that gets repeated like every three to four years or so. Yeah, it sucks when you save 199 people out of 200 and know you could have done better. But you know what, 199 people would have still been dead if not for you!

No it doesn't. Unless the DC America has some disturbingly different laws, the only people permitted to break into your house and beat the crap out of you are the police if they've managed to get a valid search warrant and even then they can only hurt you if you resist.

That might make for a fun one-off. Lex is planning some sort of evil scheme. Superman breaks in to stop him. Lex sues Superman for trespassing.

Ukrainian Red Cross

If Lex Luthor wasn't a criminal he wouldn't really be a villain. He'd be a richer JJJ.

Am I a good man or a bad man?

Yes, it does. Specifically, the fact that Luthor engages in criminal activity justifies Superman in fighting him.

There are all kinds of diabolical ways Luthor can destroy Superman without committing any kind of actual felony, and he often engages in those. Both the JLA cartoon and...I think it was the Batman/Superman animated film?...made good use of this. Luthor can belittle Superman, drive him insane, damage his public appeal, cause great harm to his civilian life and the lives of those he cares about, solely through the sheer power of being a rich, politically influential man.

But it's hard to fight that. Near impossible, without looking like the aggressor yourself, and Superman, like many superheroes, doesn't have a very wide range of options for conflict resolution. He punches people. If Luthor runs a smear campaign in the papers and blacklists Lois from ever being able to find a job, forcing her to live in poverty, Superman can't just kick his door down and beat him to a bloody mess, because then Superman is the criminal.

So the writers create reasons to justify Superman doing so, by having Luthor take whatever devilish activities he's been engaging in and throw them all out the wnidow to build a SUPERMAN-KILLER ROBOT or somesuch. At the end of the story, Luthor drops all of his cleverness and becomes a thug so that Superman can break his face and throw him in jail. Luthor has to throw the first punch before Superman can actually fight him, and so no matter how clever he may be in a given arc, he always stops being clever and throw a punch at the end of the arc.

"Punching" here having the definition of "any criminal activity meant to KILL SUPERMAN." Crime is the weakest tool Luthor has in his arsenal, and his constant falling back on this is his biggest failing as a villain.

edited 13th Sep '13 7:49:00 AM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

I think you have a very flawed and narrow understanding of Superman.

I was referring to a legal justification, rather than a moral one. Yes, if Luthor is plotting to take over the world or whatever, it is morally right for Superman to oppose him, but he still doesn't have the legal authority to break into Luthor's private dwelling.

Ukrainian Red Cross

One thing that people always imply, which in my opinion has done severe damage to Superman's character, is that he's Lawful Stupid. Superman will fight to uphold society's laws and customs insofar as he has no impeding reason not to do so. If Superman can't prove that Lex is doing anything illegal, but that illegal thing is outright harming people, he has several options to take before busting in Lex's office becomes a necessity. And if it becomes one, Superman would do it.

The implication people always make with Superman is that if he's caught in Gray-and-Grey Morality, that he is incapable of doing anything. But that ignores the possibility of A Lighter Shade of Gray, and that Superman as a character is all about finding a better way to do things—not merely the best way.

edited 13th Sep '13 11:19:17 AM by KingZeal

I think the point still stands. In fact, it's more valid. Superman is about making the world better. The fact that Luthor builds the Kryptonite-Robot (or whatever) means that Superman then makes the world better by punching Lex Luthor.

To do that, Lex AND Superman are lessened. They become thugs.

If you went with what Tobias is saying, you then see the non-punch-punch-kick-kick side of Superman, where his strength is truly supposed to be. He would figure out how to stop Lex legally. He'd use his reporter mojo, he'd try to lift Metropolis up so they ignore Lex's pettiness. You can see Superman as more than just a collection of powers. He becomes a leader, a (and I hate to say it) savior.

edited 13th Sep '13 12:59:29 PM by Anteres

The character who have more than one arch enemy usually do so because they're Long-Runners and different writers favor different styles of villainy. The really good archenemies in a comic book context, I think, are the ones who can be interpreted in different ways according to the new eras. Arms dealer Luthor/ Mad Scientist Luthor/ estranged friend Luthor/ Power Armor Luthor/ Corrupt Corporate Executive Luthor / President Evil Luthor/ Insufferable Genius Luthor...all of them are Lex Luthor, interpreted different ways to be Superman's foil.

edited 13th Sep '13 1:18:16 PM by SKJAM

Which definitely draws attention to why Spider-Man has so many potential candidates for the title. Dr. Octopus has had the most longevity, but only in the hands of more capable writers are his parallels to Spider-Man obvious; Norman Osborn has been favored a lot post-90's because his brand of villainy was rather trendy; Venom made a big mark and has Evil Counterpart mojo going for him.

Basically, different eras and writers have had different ideas about what makes a great villain, and as such different villains have fit well depending on the time period. Doctor Octopus seems to be making a BIG resurgence right now, just as he was pretty much a nobody for most of the 90's and 00's.

edited 13th Sep '13 1:24:15 PM by TheEvilDrBolty

They COULD make Luthor a straight evil businessman and bring back the Ultra Humanite in his original role as Superman's Mad Scientist nemesis.

...That's actually a really darn good idea.

Thank you Webster. We can thank some poorly translated extraneous books for this misconception but by definition there is only one arch of anything and it is simply the greatest one.

How can a hero have more than one arch enemy? He cannot, unless one replaces another. Not everyone has an arch enemy, a reoccurring gallery of them makes the possibility of it all the more unlikely. But if any particular foe is going to be the arch foe all he must do is stand above the others in some way, be it from his conflict being the most personal, difficult, disliked or persistent. There are many ways to be someone's enemy so there are many ways to become someone's principle antagonist.

So, Cobweb was sleepwalker's arch nemesis because fighting cobweb was literally sleepwalker's day job before cobweb left him stranded in an alien world for all eternity and set out at ruining his reputation. Fighting C'Thun is Doctor Strange's profession but his arch enemy is Dormammu out of sheer persistence. Kirby's most persistent foes are Wispy Woods and Kracko without question but the conflict that gets the most of his investment is the one against King Dedede. Black Panther probably spends more time fighting Claw than anyone else, White Wolf and Malice are probably his most personal foes but Erik Killmonger stands above them all anyway because he is the biggest perennial threat.

Modified Ura-nage, Torture Rack

This just in! Tobias Drake to replace Scott Lobdell in DC Comics' ongoing Superman monthly series! DC Comics has been cryptically without comment since releasing this statement to the press earlier today!

The very best, like no one ever was. Check out my Spider-Man fanfic here! [1]