If lex luthor was truly altruistic, would he be a better superman than clark?

A truly altruistic Lex wouldn't care or try to prove he's better than Superman.

[QUOTE=Frontier;4977492]Lex is the type of person who believes he's a Superman because he has that big an ego but personality-wise is the farthest from the ideal because the only thing he cares about is himself, his bottom line, and killing Superman.

...Because it's the right thing to do? That's how the Kents taught him to be? It's not that hard to grasp in my opinion.

Ultimately every Superhero is out there to help people and do good. They're not there to answer every problem but their involvement leads to the saving and protection of thousands if not millions of lives on a daily basis.[/QUOTE]
There isn't a personality requirement for being superman. Caring about yourself enough is healthy. But, as said this is a thread about altruistic lex luthor. So,what you said is out of the question.

It is very hard to grasp. There is difference between compulsion and a choice or even an instinct. With clark, sometimes it's obsession.
"[B]superman? He was overrated and too warped up in himself. He thought the world couldn't get along without him[/B]".
I love me a superman who gets real with people, effortlessly with charm says the truth and winks at the camera
"saving the world" isn't the right thing to do. It's basically a kindergardeners idea for a future goal and career or someone with a savior complex. Riiight, we all do exactly what our parents tell us to do. When has that happened, exactly? Sooner or later people disagree and say it. With clark that never much happens. So, that furthers my point. The guy needs help.Kents are same parent who sent their kid in ridiculous outfit to fight crime and be a vigilante. They aren't exactly "sane".Sure,but there is a flipside to that. They are bunch of vigilante's, unaccountable with too much power and who have constantly wrought devastation. Every single one of them is guilty of bringing misery to someone.

[QUOTE=manwhohaseverything;4977570]There isn't a personality requirement for being superman. Caring about yourself enough is healthy. But, as said this is a thread about altruistic lex luthor. So,what you said is out of the question.[/QUOTE]
I think it's enough to discount him, but that's just me ;).
[QUOTE]It is very hard to grasp. There is difference between compulsion and a choice or even an instinct. With clark, sometimes it's obsession.
"[B]superman? He was overrated and too warped up in himself. He thought the world couldn't get along without him[/B]".

"saving the world" isn't the right thing to do. It's basically a kindergardeners idea for a future goal and career or someone with a savior complex. Riiight, we all do exactly what our parents tell us to do. When has that happened, exactly? Sooner or later people disagree and say it. With clark that never much happens. So, that furthers my point. The guy needs help.Kents are same parent who sent their kid in ridiculous outfit to fight crime and be a vigilante. They aren't exactly "sane".Sure,but there is a flipside to that. They are bunch of vigilante's, unaccountable with too much power and who have constantly wrought devastation. Every single one of them is guilty of bringing misery to someone.[/QUOTE]
So it sounds like you have a lot of issues with the Superhero genre and how it operates. Because Superheroes saving the world is generally seen as standard for the genre. Most Superhero movies involve saving the world to one extent or another.

I think there are worse things in this world then being obsessed with saving people if it's ultimately to a good aim. I would want an altruistic Lex Luthor to be obsessed wit helping people because it would mean he would do more good.

[QUOTE=Gaius;4977539]A truly altruistic Lex wouldn't care or try to prove he's better than Superman.[/QUOTE]

How is that connected? Altruism doesn't negate competitive spirit nor ambitious mind. Beating superman would be a dream come true for anyone. The guy is op and all.

[QUOTE=Frontier;4977578]I think it's enough to discount him, but that's just me ;).

So it sounds like you have a lot of issues with the Superhero genre and how it operates. Because Superheroes saving the world is generally seen as standard for the genre. Most Superhero movies involve saving the world to one extent or another.

I think there are worse things in this world then being obsessed with saving people if it's ultimately to a good aim. I would want an altruistic Lex Luthor to be obsessed wit helping people because it would mean he would do more good.[/QUOTE]

I don't particularly have an issue with anything. I just don't think being a superhero is all that's hyped up to be. I do feel these guys are glorified many a times. Our understanding of good or bad is based on the information presented to us, our on notions and leanings. These can be mere illusions . Something meant for good can be devastating. Someone terrible can truly bring about great positive. Have you heard of the devouring or tyrannical archetypes? Superman basically becomes that if he gives in to savior complex.Helping people can be overrated. There needs to be healthy dose of selfishness and ambition. I mean, a lex without ambition is like venomous snake without venom. Venom can kill, it can also save lives as well.

[QUOTE=manwhohaseverything;4977626]I don't particularly have an issue with anything. I just don't think being a superhero is all that's hyped up to be. I do feel these guys are glorified many a times. Our understanding of good or bad is based on the information presented to us, our on notions and leanings. These can be mere illusions . Something meant for good can be devastating. Someone terrible can truly bring about great positive. Have you heard of the devouring or tyrannical archetypes? Superman basically becomes that if he gives in to savior complex.Helping people can be overrated. [B]There needs to be healthy dose of selfishness and ambition.[/B] I mean, a lex without ambition is like venomous snake without venom. Venom can kill, it can also save lives as well.[/QUOTE]
That just seems to run counter to the general modus operandi and belief of the Superhero narrative.

I think the emphasis on any selfish motives from Superman is probably something more interesting from the perspective of a non-fan, i.e. the type of person who thinks Superman is "too perfect" and "boring" and wants to see some flaws emerge. DCAU Superman went into this a bit.

[QUOTE=Frontier;4977850]That just seems to run counter to the general modus operandi and belief of the Superhero narrative.[/QUOTE]

Not really, you have a batman avatar. Batman is very ambitious. "the one man who beat you". He liked beating superman.

He'd be Ironman but bald

Many writers touched on this subject. That if Lex had the passion to save humanity he could certainly change the world.

The first ones that come to mind are Siegel,Morrison and Millar.

Millar showed that Lex could turn earth into a utopia but he did it only to prove Superman (even post mortem in Luthor's eyes) he could do it better than him (Red Son). In Millar's EXCELLENT Superman Adventures, he touches on the same subject that his ingenuity is wasted on idiotic schemes to attack Superman. In Up Up and Away by Busiek and Johns(great story by the way) Luthor claims he could cure even cancer if Superman didn't meddle in his way, something he actually DOES in an elaborate scheme to kill Superman in "The death of Superman" (the silver age imaginary story).

All Star Superman implies that Leo Quintum is a future Lex (although never comfirmed but the sub-text is too strong to be coincidental).

What all these stories have in common except all star (which makes it even better for reasons too long to specify) is Lex saves or helps humanity only to trick Superman or to satisfly his ego, not out of kindness.

So a trully passionate altruistic Luthor would be a better Superman than Clark, in that his ingenuity would make the world thrive.

[QUOTE=Man_of_Tomorrow;4978108]Many writers touched on this subject. That if Lex had the passion to save humanity he could certainly change the world.

The first ones that come to mind are Siegel,Morrison and Millar.

Millar showed that Lex could turn earth into a utopia but he did it only to prove Superman (even post mortem in Luthor's eyes) he could do it better than him (Red Son). In Millar's EXCELLENT Superman Adventures, he touches on the same subject that his ingenuity is wasted on idiotic schemes to attack Superman. In Up Up and Away by Busiek and Johns(great story by the way) Luthor claims he could cure even cancer if Superman didn't meddle in his way, something he actually DOES in an elaborate scheme to kill Superman in "The death of Superman" (the silver age imaginary story).

All Star Superman implies that Leo Quintum is a future Lex (although never comfirmed but the sub-text is too strong to be coincidental).

What all these stories have in common except all star (which makes it even better for reasons too long to specify) is Lex saves or helps humanity only to trick Superman or to satisfly his ego, not out of kindness.

[B]So a trully passionate altruistic Luthor would be a better Superman than Clark, in that his ingenuity would make the world thrive[/B].[/QUOTE]

Finally, someone on my side. Phew!!!!

[QUOTE=dreyga2000;4977931]He'd be Ironman but bald[/QUOTE]

Hah yeah this. Lex would definitely change the world unless the Status Quo is God effect mandated that he didn’t. But you could say the same for Clark.

[QUOTE=manwhohaseverything;4977901]Not really, you have a batman avatar. Batman is very ambitious. "the one man who beat you". He liked beating superman.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but I don't think generally Batman actively wants to fight Superman.

[QUOTE=Frontier;4978165]Yeah, but I don't think generally Batman actively wants to fight Superman.[/QUOTE]

Yeah! I think it's always in the back of his head and deepdown he enjoys risking it all in a match.So,he wants it hence the the declaration of victory. Imagine the adrenaline of going toe to toe with most powerful being on the planet. It doesn't get more ambitious than beating the man. The guy gets enjoyment with punching criminals. So naturally , punching superman would be on a different level. But, the minute bruce sees himself or his parents in clark. His enjoyment will quickly turn into anguish.That's also why bruce is fixated on Clark's humanity. It reminds him of his own, that makes him vulnerable and fearful .

Classically, Superman always thought that Luthor's refusal to try to do good in the world the way that Kal-El does, was the only reason that Luthor wasn't "winning" their nonexistent "contest".