Superman secret identity reveal worst storyline since "Grounded "?

[LordUltimus]

Well, it seems like it's hard to take any "X doesn't have a secret identity, so Superman's just doing the same thing!" arguments seriously when he's not actually doing the same thing.

[Yoda]

Jessica Jones is a private eye still. Danny Rand runs Rand. Tony Stark is still the head of Stark's various iterations across various media forms. Presidents, ex-presidents, and all manner of high profile politicians and businessmen still function in their high profile jobs.

Clark working really isn't that different from those examples.

[LordUltimus]

Jessica Jones is a private eye still. Danny Rand runs Rand. Tony Stark is still the head of Stark's various iterations across various media forms. Presidents, ex-presidents, and all manner of high profile politicians and businessmen still function in their high profile jobs.

Clark working really isn't that different from those examples.

Those are all directly connected to their superhero jobs. When Spider-Man revealed his identity, he didn't keep working at the Daily Bugle.

[Yoda]

Those are all directly connected to their superhero jobs. When Spider-Man revealed his identity, he didn't keep working at the Daily Bugle.

How is Rand directly connected to being Iron Fist? Stark Enterprises isn't in the Iron Man business, it's just like a high tech company. Jessica Jones powers aren't really connected to her PI business directly. She gets involved in superhero themed investigations, but she also does run of the mill stuff.

Clark can work completely unconnected to his superhero job. The only potential conflict that really is set up is either writing about himself, which Bendis has glossed over a bit, or the UP position. Plenty of celebrities, business people, etc. write or work on issues that are important to him. Having Superman do that for your paper would definitely be something any media outlet would chase after.

[LordUltimus]

How is Rand directly connected to being Iron Fist? Stark Enterprises isn't in the Iron Man business, it's just like a high tech company. Jessica Jones powers aren't really connected to her PI business directly. She gets involved in superhero themed investigations, but she also does run of the mill stuff.

Clark can work completely unconnected to his superhero job. The only potential conflict that really is set up is either writing about himself, which Bendis has glossed over a bit, or the UP position. Plenty of celebrities, business people, etc. write or work on issues that are important to him. Having Superman do that for your paper would definitely be something any media outlet would chase after.

Rand finances Heroes for Hire. Iron Man was an employee of Stark Industries before the reveal; he was part of the high-tech company. And come on, man, superheroes solve run of the mill crimes all the time; if anything they solve more normal crimes than supercrimes.

When celebrities work on issues, they either do so through their jobs, or they join organizations dedicated to solving those issues. Blatant cheating through superpowers is not something that media outlets would want (unless they could do it without getting caught).

[Yoda]

Rand finances Heroes for Hire. Iron Man was an employee of Stark Industries before the reveal; he was part of the high-tech company. And come on, man, superheroes solve run of the mill crimes all the time.

When celebrities work on issues, they either do so through their jobs, or they join organizations dedicated to solving those issues. They don't get full-time jobs at media outlets unless they were working there already.

But Tony still runs Stark after coming out as Iron Man. He was even the head of Shield for a while, while still being Iron Man.

Superheroes also solve run of the mill crimes in ways that would never result in a conviction or even an legitimate arrest. Superheroing in a real world context flies in the face of just about any standard of viable law enforcement and the constitutional protections afforded to people. No one compelled to tell the truth by Wonder Woman would ever be able to be convicted. Batman's methods would result in zero convictions and likely bankrupt the City of Gotham due to the police department allowing vigilante to violate the rights of accused. . I just don't see why Clark keeping a reporting job is a step too far. Media outlets allow contributions from all sorts of people. If anything, Clark should get a bonus for the protection services he has provided day-to-day there.

[LordUltimus]

But Tony still runs Stark after coming out as Iron Man. He was even the head of Shield for a while, while still being Iron Man.

Superheroes also solve run of the mill crimes in ways that would never result in a conviction or even an legitimate arrest. Superheroing in a real world context flies in the face of just about any standard of viable law enforcement and the constitutional protections afforded to people. No one compelled to tell the truth by Wonder Woman would ever be able to be convicted. Batman's methods would result in zero convictions and likely bankrupt the City of Gotham due to the police department allowing vigilante to violate the rights of accused. . I just don't see why Clark keeping a reporting job is a step too far. Media outlets allow contributions from all sorts of people. If anything, Clark should get a bonus for the protection services he has provided day-to-day there.

And Iron Man was still directly related to the company because his armor used technology that Tony profited from, and his work in SHIELD overlapped with being Iron Man, as it was no different than Nick Fury doing missions.

Wonder Woman's lasso has been unable to be used to get legally admitted confessions. Batman gets evidence to the police, stops wanted criminals from getting away from the police so they can do the arrest, and Jim Gordon has still made it clear that he would feel compelled to arrest Batman if he knew who he was even after all they've been through, that's why Bruce has never revealed his identity to him. Other companies should either sue the Planet for having an unfair advantage or have some sort of metahuman arms race, which DC clearly has no intention of doing as that would ruin the relatability factor of superhero universes.

[Ascended]

Well, let's step back for a moment.

First off, there's lots of things that "could" happen. It's fiction, anything could happen. So what's *likely* to happen in this particular version of the story where Clark's identity comes out?

Will this change the Planet's traditional role of being Superman's voice to the people? I don't think so, the Planet has always been pro-Superman in its bias and willing to relay his words and actions to the public. It's just official now.

Does this change the ethical debate about Clark writing as himself? I don't really think it changes the basic point; "are Clark's actions at the Planet ethical or not?" even though it'll change the details and shift the discussion.

I think we won't be seeing Clark running late for deadlines anymore, I tell ya that!

[marhawkman]

Oh yeah, that reminds me. How did Purple Man find out Jessica Jones's real name? He basically just asked her to tell him. Sure mind control was involved, but he got her to tell him her name within minutes.

[Jackalope89]

Well, let's step back for a moment.

First off, there's lots of things that "could" happen. It's fiction, anything could happen. So what's *likely* to happen in this particular version of the story where Clark's identity comes out?

Will this change the Planet's traditional role of being Superman's voice to the people? I don't think so, the Planet has always been pro-Superman in its bias and willing to relay his words and actions to the public. It's just official now.

Does this change the ethical debate about Clark writing as himself? I don't really think it changes the basic point; "are Clark's actions at the Planet ethical or not?" even though it'll change the details and shift the discussion.

I think we won't be seeing Clark running late for deadlines anymore, I tell ya that!

Being pro-Superman is one thing. Actively publishing pro-Superman stories while also employing Superman would create a serious conflict of interest. Perry and company, prior, would at least have been kept in the dark about Clark being Superman. But now? The longer Clark is employed, the worse off the Planet looks from a public perspective. Like it or not, Perry would be in the right to fire Clark and even Lois for this. So he wouldn't have to worry about deadlines anymore. As it would create far too many conflicts of interest and bring the credibility of the Planet into serious question.

"But its written as a positive change!"

Problem being, Clark kept his identity as Superman a secret to protect those closest to him. So suddenly changing it, even if "written well", means that there can and should be consequences for his actions.

Do I want to read fun, positive stories? Yes. Do I want to read said stories that blatantly ignore things like this? No. And this has been an issue since Bendis came on to the title. I can't speak for his other works, as I never read any others.

[Ascended]

I don't think anyone is saying there shouldn't be consequences. Of course there should be. And I'm sure complications and consequences will arise from all this. I sure as hell hope so, what's the point in making a big change like this if you don't drum up some trouble to go along with it?

But Clark working at the Planet has always raised ethical questions. Now, it still does, but new questions. The Planet has always been pro-Superman. Now it still is, but that bias gets them more sales because Superman's actually on the payroll.

Bendis talked before his run even began about how he wanted to explore modern media through the Planet. This whole thing, keeping Clark on payroll despite the obvious ethical concerns, feels like something modern media would do. Even within this run we've seen Perry grapple with what his old school journalistic integrity tells him to do, and what he feels he has to do to keep the bills paid. I don't know how Bendis is going to resolve any of this; none of us do. And we're only a few issues in anyway, we've yet to really see how this will play out. All I'm saying is that this doesn't break the Planet or its role in the mythos. It's still doing what it was always supposed to do, it's just doing it slightly differently now.

[LordUltimus]

I don't really see why Superman can't help the Planet even when not working for them; he did it as Superman all the time beforehand. If anything it relieves pressure because he's doing it out of heroism and not because he's on their payroll. Truth had him distance himself from the Planet because he was doing it deliberately; he doesn't need to do that here.

[Ascended]

Well, he got fired during Truth and Perry was pretty pissed off. So I don't know how intentional that was. Damn little in that story was about Clark making choices; he was usually reacting to someone else's decisions.

And he could help the Planet without being on their payroll. But he likes his job and journalism accomplishes a lot that Superman can't.

I dunno. We saw the story where Clark's identity gets out and everything goes to sh*t. It wasn't a very good story. I'm cool seeing the version where his entire life doesn't implode.

[Lvenger]

Being pro-Superman is one thing. Actively publishing pro-Superman stories while also employing Superman would create a serious conflict of interest. Perry and company, prior, would at least have been kept in the dark about Clark being Superman. But now? The longer Clark is employed, the worse off the Planet looks from a public perspective. Like it or not, Perry would be in the right to fire Clark and even Lois for this. So he wouldn't have to worry about deadlines anymore. As it would create far too many conflicts of interest and bring the credibility of the Planet into serious question.

"But its written as a positive change!"

Problem being, Clark kept his identity as Superman a secret to protect those closest to him. So suddenly changing it, even if "written well", means that there can and should be consequences for his actions.

Do I want to read fun, positive stories? Yes. Do I want to read said stories that blatantly ignore things like this? No. And this has been an issue since Bendis came on to the title. I can't speak for his other works, as I never read any others.

this.jpg

10 char

[LordUltimus]

Well, he got fired during Truth and Perry was pretty pissed off. So I don't know how intentional that was. Damn little in that story was about Clark making choices; he was usually reacting to someone else's decisions.

And he could help the Planet without being on their payroll. But he likes his job and journalism accomplishes a lot that Superman can't.

I dunno. We saw the story where Clark's identity gets out and everything goes to sh*t. It wasn't a very good story. I'm cool seeing the version where his entire life doesn't implode.

People in his life kept trying to help Clark in Truth and he pushed them away every time.

Lois still works there, she could do the stuff Superman can't.

The problem is that Truth is not the only Superman story where his identity goes out and everything turns out terrible. We've had over eight decades where literally that happens and over and over again we are shown it's a bad thing. It would be like if Superman decided that he can kill people in the same way cops and soldiers do and he doesn't turn into a murderous tyrant; technically possible, but it flies in the face of eighty years of stories where we are told that is an objectively terrible thing.