Ok, why the facepalm mates. Tell me you weren't one of the people advocating for the trunks?i haven't said anything that's factually wrong
Yeah! Right, it can be said, it's for 13 or 15 year olds but that ain't mature, mate. It's like saying shonen is for mature audiences. Only ignorant people would say that, shonen is boy's manga. It's for boys, not men though men can read it. Comics are like that. Gratuitous sex or violence isn't what i am talking about. Have you read berserk or seinen manga? Have you atleast played darks souls? It's inpired by berserk. I would say, watchmen is mature.Not monthly comics, they aren't mature. Not even close. The storylines you mentioned like pornoshoot aren't mature but stupid. Action comics 775 isn't mature. It's for what? 13 to 17 year old demographic. Peace on earth too,but i would say it can be read by younger kids of 10.
No, when was the last a superman comic book was written with kids in mind,but can be enjoyable by everyone. And i am not speaking currently. Currently there are. No, mcu is for teens. I don't think it's mature. Hello! Incredibles is for kids. But, it can be watched by anyone. ET, iron giant.. Etc the list is long. This notion stories that are written with kids on the mind can't appeal to everyone is false. Superman is such a character. People have just shoved him into a space where he isn't needed. Heck! Superman smashes the klan is treat even for adults. Teens want more edge and angst other things. Superman ain't going to be that.kids want imagination, heart, a good tought... Etc. Superman is all of that. He can't do "i am the best at what i do. And what i do isn't nice."
Laying claim or not. Doesn't matter. The charges are still the same. He is effectively the states enemy. Your claim that superman isn't that level or scale a criminal is false. Immigrants that cross borders without permission are effectively criminals by the states standards. But they might not be treated harshly because of conventions and state policy. It's also a different deal, superman is also security threat. He is effectively a living weapon.
So? If they are'nt okay. They aren't okay. Why should it matter to the citizens of the city? It would just be disappointing. Continuing as part of the US would have been something better. But, if US government doesn't care for it. Then that's on them.
1)they didn't have freaking superman. The states that wanted liberty were because they wanted to practice slavery, racial segregation.. Etc which is against the ethos of the US. They weren't fighting for a just cause. Superman and citizens of Metropolis aren't fighting against the ethos or against even the constitution's principles. They are fighting for the ethos of it. If the federal government is against liberty and pursuit of happiness. If they are against the choice and right of individuals to a better life. Then its on them. Superman and people of Metropolis would kick US government's ass and make them realise their folly.
2)Routes won't have to change. Clark has brainiac tech, teleportation fields, levitation tech.. Etc all is at the city's disposal.
3)us government can try miserably for a while and then give up. You do know that US has enemies. They would atleast go with Metropolis just to spite US. But, i don't think superman really would go for siding with any country. He would be neutral .the US might be permanent member. But that wouldn't mean a damn if superman is the opposition. There would be enough pressure building. If the US had chosen war then more so. I don't think US would want to go through all the trouble and only to get embarrassed at the end. And for what? a small city. It's not like they can take on Superman who is protecting something with all his might. He is the most powerful being on the planet. He has the most advanced tech in the world. He would have allies. Even, if lex joins the opposition. Clark would still prevail.
Sure, if you say so. But, i don't think so. Vigilante superman fights for the weak to get strong and ideals he was raised with. Not laws. Laws are just tools to serve justice. If it doesn't. Superman wouldn't care for such laws. As for social order, order based on tyranny will be rejected. Otherwise, superman works for social order. He doesn't Kill because of morality, not because of law or fear of violent repercussions, It is the same for luffy. There is a difference between that and what you are suggesting . An agent of Anarchy, like luffy fits clark quite nicely. Bruce would be proud . I mean, he isn't controlling superman.
The champion of the oppressed aka the man of action vs the man who will be king of the pirates, monkey d luffy.The straw hat and s both are passed down legacy. They have a meaning.originally superman was the man of action and of few words, like luffy.
"Destiny, Fate, Dreams, These unstoppable ideals are held deep in the heart of man; as long as there are people who seek freedom in this life; these things shall not vanish from the earth" - gold roger
Superman is a man who breaks chains. But, chooses to not break some because of love, friendship, morality, limitations... Etc
I just realised this, seems early similar to moses's story. Go figure! Why didn't i think of it sooner? It is moses's story. I am not a Christian, jew or Islamic. That must have been why i didn't see it earlier. Wow! This is some kind of wierd coincidence. I guess, the original characterisation of superman stuck in my head isn't wrong.