Why do Badass Normals get more leeway than Superheroes?

I know a large majority of what badass normals are able to do are exaggerations of physical prowess but why do we these characters mroe leeway than actual superheroes? I just wonder what would happen if a hypercompetent badass normal got brought down to normal?

I'd say exaggerated feats of strength by badass normals are implicitly accepted as employing the Rule of Cool, while the power fluctuations of heavyweight superheroes are more likely to trigger some power level red flag or other. It seems anyone presented as more than just "peak human" is subjected to various classifications and number-crunching with regard to exactly how powerful they should be.

Other than that, I guess it's simply more impressive and satisfying to be able to compare the feat in question with the character's usual human boundaries. Superman lifting a whole Kryptonite continent falls within him just being Superman; we can't know how much extra effort it took. But if Batman lifts a "mere" five hundred pound thug over his head and throws him through a wall, than that's Batman clearly going the extra mile. The emotional effect is greater, so attention toward the laws of physics and the limits of human biology can more easily take a backseat.

And if a badass normal got brought down to normal...er, it probably wouldn't make that much of a difference. Again, old man Bruce is a good example.

edited 30th Dec '14 12:18:52 PM by indiana404

Depends on who you're asking, but I disagree.

I remember the big hubbub when Christopher Priest wrote a story where T'Challa the Black Panther (Peak human by Marvel Standards, a martial arts expert and extremely intelligent) was able to subdue Silver Surfer (someone who is able to warp the fundamental laws of reality at full power using the Power Cosmic and has fought the likes of Namor, the thing and the Hulk and other Supers without issue and technically should be more powerful than them) with an armbar. That's absurd. That wouldn't ever happen, even if Surfer held back.

In the DC animated Universe I remember Batman dragging Superman into a Boom Tube against his will. No Kryptonite involved he just did it.

That said this isn't an issue with Badass Normals, but of the genre in general, as Superheroes are casually shown to be more powerful than they were initially revealed as.

On the flip side of power incongruities you'll have things like Power Creep on the side of the Supers to justify their ever higher feats of strength. The most famous example is Superman obviously but for a more unknown example let's use The Flash. Jay Garrick, who originally was just a guy who ran really fast, yet when Barry Allen was introduced, he could not only run extremely fast, in his second story, his very second story he was revealed to be able to run through time. This is some 40 years before the Speed Force was introduced in the 90s which was yet another example of power creep, it was revealed that Wally and retroactively Jay Garrick used a power not unlike the Force from Star Wars, a metaphysical concept that allowed them power over momentum and acceleration called the Speed Force. Soon after they were revealed to be able to steal speed from other character rendering them inert, and enter a Speed Force dimension and it really just spiralled out of control with how powerful they could be and reasonably there is no reason they should ever have lost anything after that reveal.

The Speed Force is now an accepted part of Flash Canon. That event with T'Challa holding down Silver Surfer with an armbar is still seen as pretty stupid, it's certainly not seen as something that he can just do anymore. If anything Superheroes are called out when using powers because at a certain point suspension of disbelief is suspended, and you think about what the hero has just done and if it could have actually been done by the character with the information known about their powers. You never have that moment really with Badass Normals because Peak Human or impeccable accuracy with a bow or pierless martial artist is just vague enough that you pretty much accept that they can do things normal people can't do, but nothing ridiculous.

I still think it's fucking stupid that Captain America can leap out of helicopters without a parachute, but he can get his ass kicked by Crossbones.

I wonder what peak human ability even is? I am no fitness or physics expert but there is no way anyone in real life could preform half the feats Batman displays without getting injured for life. Even in real life not many have the kind of fitness to perform any superhauman feats that I know if. I have learned that are things humans could do with the right training, discipline, etc. but it isn't as though we dodge bullets at point blank range. Superhumans seemed to be irritating becuase they have superpowers and yet those same people praise Batman, Captain America, Lady Shiva, etc. for preforming seemingly superhuman feats through sheer effort. Again, I am no expert but ther eis no waya nyone could do any of those feats through sheer fwillpower and training.

There was a Batman story back in the Silver Age in which Batman dodged a flight of arrows while swinging through the air on his batrope. The caption said something like "For a normal man this would be impossible, but Batman is no normal man!" The point being, superheroes should not be considered realistically normal. Not even "badass normals." This should have been obvious from the first time Batman or Daredevil or whoever were able to knock scores of bad guys out with one punch each. It's the same rule that applies to animated cartoons, for why Bugs Bunny can, if he scrambles hard enough, get back on to the cliff he just walked off of; it's not that what the character does is realistic or even possible, it's that it seems reasonable. Batman is still super, just, I dunno, differently super.

Going in the other direction, in one of the old Fleischer Bros. Superman shorts, Superman has trouble forcing open a locked door on a plane. While the Fleischer Superman was not as powerful Superman would get in the 50's, he was still able to lift cars and rip apart robots with his bare hands. And he was having trouble with a locked door. No one is more powerful than the necessities of the plot.

Also Captain America is more than Peak Human. He's only badass Normal by comparison to other superheroes, but when compared to someone like Daredevil, he has much higher upper limits.

there's also usually some degree of Charles Atlas Supower at play even if the narrative doesn't draw much attention to it.

You know wasn't there a hero named Miracleman who achieved his powers through training? What kind of training do you need in order to achieve that?

Not Miracleman, I think. The only Miracleman I'm aware of is the American name for the English character Marvelman. There was a Charlton character from the 60's/ 70's called Peter Cannon, Thunderbolt who had trained himself to the peak of human perfection amongst a bunch of Tibetan monks or somesuch and has also acquired some kind of superpowers from his training as well; he was the basis for Ozymandias in Alan Moore's Watchmen.

I think it's because outside of comics we already accept absurd feats from Badass Normal characters. Watch any police procedural and you'll see the lead cop shrugging off injuries that would kill or cripple a normal human. Hell, Stabler from SVU should be spending the rest of his days in a wheelchair staring off into space what with all the blows to the head he sustained over the course of the show.

It also helps that "peak human" characters like Captain America, Black Panther and Winter Soldier already have vaguely defined strength levels.

edited 31st Dec '14 12:28:13 PM by comicwriter

why do we these characters mroe leeway than actual superheroes?

'Superhero' isn't a term defined by the presence or absence of superpowers.

Then how is a superhero defined? Can superheroes be just badass normals with 'peak human' ability?

'Superhero' is mostly defined by 'larger than life heroic deeds' rather than 'larger than life powers'.

Badass Normal superheros like Batman are seen as more plausible in reality, that's why. With enough money, with enough training, with enough good looks, Joe Somebody could also be Batman.

@Napoleon: No, what defined a superhero are:

1. A persona that isn't a legal person
2. A unique, distinctive and copyrightable costume (including powered armour) and/or alternate body
3. Capabilities (including enhanced human abilities or stats), resources, and/or technology used only by them or at most a relatively small team which they're a member of within the context of the publication.
4. Regularly fight evil and injustice outside of standard police and military action

Those are the real life legal definitions used in court by companies to protect or share their properties, but those are no more what a superhero actually is in a fictional sense then a black person being 3/4s of a person in the 1800s. Legally yes, that was how they were seen and dealt with according to the law, but the reality of the situation is that they were people the same as anyone, and the reason that those laws existed was to further subjugate them, and make it so that it was easier to treat them like cattle. I'm not saying superheroes are people, they're not, they're ideas and ideals, but the legal definition and the actual definition are often two very different things, and they only really exist to make it easier to deal with if the Law needs to get involved with such things.

I dunno, those seem like a pretty good summation of what makes up a superhero. Are there any superhero characters that wouldn't be covered by it? I can't think of any off the top of my head.

@Silently Honest: You are comparing two entirely different things. A person is born black, but nobody is born a superhero. Being a superhero is a choice.

It would be more accurate to compare superheroes to doctors. Legally, a doctor is someone with a degree and a medical license who treats people's diseases. Would you argue that's the legal definition, but the legal and actual definitions of a doctor are two different things.

(Also, superheroes aren't legally defined anywhere, because, you know, they aren't real. There are laws against vigilantism, but that's specifically about a range of activities rather than an occupation).

@imadinosaur: You could make a case for Green Lantern, what with the Green Lantern Corps being a thing. Me, I'd say the Earth Green Lantern is a superhero, while the Space Green Lantern stories would probably be space opera. (I'm not that familiar with Green Lantern, so feel free to cite contrary evidence).

Wrong in both senses. Both of those are legal definitions in that those are what is used in real life when dealing with legal issues regarding the rights involved with owning property, and they exist to tell everyone that they are, property. Superheroes are legally defined, because the rights to owning them, is disputed in court with frightening regularity.

Do you remember the Shusters vs. DC comics and how long that case took? Do you remember the X-men toy dispute that ended with the legal argument mutants aren't people because they aren't real? Do you even know that Marvel and DC are the joint owners of the actual word "Superhero" as in they trademarked it?

edited 31st Dec '14 5:26:07 PM by SilentlyHonest

Wait there was a legal dispute over an x-men toy?

Toybiz v. United States 2011.

edited 31st Dec '14 5:35:12 PM by SilentlyHonest

I think the idea that Bad Ass Normal types are slightly more plausible (even if the things they do sometimes are anything but) is the reason they get cut more slack.

We just tend to have more natural respect for people who got where they are by working hard and training and the like, then people who were born with natural advantages.

I always thought it would be interesting to see a story where Bad Ass Normal Heroes are basically seen as being cooler in-universe because of this, while the ones with blatant super powers are subtly disdained because they didn't earn what they have. They either got it handed to them, or were born with it.

Not really sure how to put it well, truthfully.

What if they gave themselves superpowers, like Iron Man, or Hank Pym?

.....

I don't know. Someone who makes Powered Armour could still be seen as being someone who got his powers through his own efforts (by building the armour) but I'm not sure how someone who made themselves super human like Hank Pym would fare.

Legal definitions of superheroes and narrative definitions of superheroes aren't the same thing, yanno. Much like legal definitions of insanity and narrative definitions of insanity aren't the same at all.