Do You See Superman as the Leader of the Justice League?

[SecretWarrior]

[Clark_Kent]

I see him as the one most of them would look to for leadership, but also the one who is least likely to want it or accept it.

[SecretWarrior]

I see him as the one most of them would look to for leadership, but also the one who is least likely to want it or accept it.

I also think non-members might just assume he's the leader, making him the de facto one.

[stargazer01]

yes the natural leader because he inspires and always tries to do the right thing.

[Tzigone]

In my ideal world, the Justice League has no leader. It's a much looser alliance than the full-time team of the Titans. They are all equals, vote on entry of new members, and whoever is best suited leads any given mission.

[married guy]

I never thought Superman as leader of the JLA made sense.
As mentioned by Tzigone, it makes more sense to me for it to be a case by case decision.
Issue in space? Talk to John Stewart
Covert op? Talk to Batman

[9th.]

I see him as the face of the League but like the others said I like to think they switch leaders depending on the case.

[Güicho]

Pretty much as described here - https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post4404714

[OpaqueGiraffe17]

Voted ‘I don’t know.’ I think it would make a lot of sense if he were, given his personality and the respect he receives. But it rarely comes across that way. And before I get blasted by scans of Superman having leadership moments within the last 50/70 whatever years there have been Justice League comics. There are probably a bunch more where anyone else in the big 6 or Martian Manhunter or Black Canary or whoever has their moments where they took charge.
Anyway maybe it’s a good thing Justice League doesn’t have a Captain America or Nightwing or Cyclops. Gives writers less pressure when they want to play around with the teams dynamics.

[Frontier]

I think of Superman as the de-facto and moral leader of the League.

In my ideal world, the Justice League has no leader. It's a much looser alliance than the full-time team of the Titans. They are all equals, vote on entry of new members, and whoever is best suited leads any given mission.

Or rotating chairmanship.

[mathew101281]

He's emotional and spiritual leader. The team tend to mirror his overall aesthetic, and outlook. Batman is more the strategic leader and monetary backer.

[Ascended]

I voted "Yes" but I don't think Clark's so much the "official, elected leader who makes the final decisions" so much as he's the guy everyone looks to and models their behavior from.

In the field, Clark's not a leader. He's too busy fighting the big bad to give orders and directions. So is Diana. Generals do not lead from the front lines; it's too chaotic. In the field, I'm fine with Batman calling the shots because, honestly, what else can he do against League threats? I really hate it when creators have him on the front lines. When you've got a crowd of god-like beings all fighting, Bats on the front line is nothing but a useless liability who's likely to be killed just from the blowback of someone's attack. So let Bats call the shots in the field, from the back where he can see everything happening.

As far as battle plans go, Diana is where it's at. Bruce is a great tactician as well, but Diana's probably one of the best generals the hero community has; she understands war and she's been trained since childhood to command armies. She and Bruce can cook up the battle plan, with everyone else giving input where they can. If John Stewart is on the roster (as he should be) then he should be included in those discussions too, he's a damn fine military commander.

But Clark? Clark doesn't know how to plan a war or a battle, and he's often uncomfortable being the guy in charge. He's a front-line defender, not a general. But everyone still looks to him for leadership and morale, if not combat orders, and they follow where he leads.

[Dr. Ellingham]

Practically speaking, throughout its 60-year existence the JLA has traditionally had a rotating chairperson, but not one de facto leader calling the shots.

Thematically, Superman always ends up "the" leader, even amongst other leaders. Which is understandable; Superman is the origin and center of the entire genre, not just the JLA or DCU. The superhero genre is itself an outgrowth of Superman's enduring popularity from 1938 onward - so if something important happens that shakes the world, what Superman does, or how it impacts him, is intuitively the first question.

[stargazer01]

In my ideal world, the Justice League has no leader. It's a much looser alliance than the full-time team of the Titans. They are all equals, vote on entry of new members, and whoever is best suited leads any given mission.

I think this is the only way an alliance like this can work. People weren't hired to be part of the team, they chose it in order to protect the world and the galaxy, etc from danger. There shouldn't be a "boss" telling the others what to do, they all are great heroes and the best of the best as far as I understand. But I still see Superman as the moral leader and the face of the team.

[DrNewGod]

In my ideal world, the Justice League has no leader. It's a much looser alliance than the full-time team of the Titans. They are all equals, vote on entry of new members, and whoever is best suited leads any given mission.

^What Tzigone said^. It's not like The Avengers, which have a couple of members that are more vested in the organization than almost all others, and who receive a particular deference from the rest.