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

[Superlad93]

Not really, lex was billionaire before clark arrives in Metropolis.

Ask yourself this: in the span of time that Lex had as a billionaire and household name, had he ever done anything even remotely close to the absurd feats of science and ingenuity that he'd eventually get up to as a direct result of trying to kill and/or humiliate Superman. The answer's no. Being a billionaire is impressive to the average person, but in comparison to the nonsense that he's able to do to attack Superman it's laughably underwhelming.

[manwhohaseverything]

Ask yourself this: in the span of time that Lex had as a billionaire and household name, had he ever done anything even remotely close to the absurd feats of science and ingenuity that he'd eventually get up to as a direct result of trying to kill and/or humiliate Superman. The answer's no. Being a billionaire is impressive to the average person, but in comparison to the nonsense that he's able to do to attack Superman it's laughably underwhelming.

Well, he made an ai. That itself is a feat. He couldn't have gotten rich by not building anything or selling anything. He pushed himself after cause he wants to beat superman.I don't view anything bad in that. I find it pretty damn admirable. I would have gone for that as well.I don't particularly care for swooning over superman. I would wanna beat superman, in my own way. As said, lex being ambitious isn't a negative for me. It's when he gets tunnel vision that the guys slips into obsession. If he was altruistic,he would be better figure than clark.

[Superlad93]

My point still stands given the fact that his greatest showing of personal drive, and unparalleled science are after Superman shows up.

Historically, the upper limits of Lex's intelligence have constantly been shown to all appear in direct response to the stimulus that is antagonizing Superman.

It can then be generally agreed upon that a Lex who doesn't feel the need to kill Superman is less likely to achieve relatively as much.

Doesn't make him a bad character. Quite the opposite, it's actually part of what makes him one of the all time great antagonist. But it's possible that you should've reworded your thread. Should've said something to the tune of "if Lex were as passionate about saving the world as he were about killing Superman..." then the answer would be yeah, he'd likely overtake the likes of Superman and Batman.

[manwhohaseverything]

My point still stands given the fact that his greatest showing of personal drive, and unparalleled science are after Superman shows up.

Historically, the upper limits of Lex's intelligence have constantly been shown to all appear in direct response to the stimulus that is antagonizing Superman.

It can then be generally agreed upon that a Lex who doesn't feel the need to kill Superman is less likely to achieve relatively as much.

Doesn't make him a bad character. Quite the opposite, it's actually part of what makes him one of the all time great antagonist. But it's possible that you should've reworded your thread. Should've said something to the tune of "if Lex were as passionate about saving the world as he were about killing Superman..." then the answer would be yeah, he'd likely overtake the likes of Superman and Batman.

Not really, if it hadn't been superman he would have found some other goal. A goal is all that lex needs. And he always sets one. It just so happens that the guy in red undies became one this time. For instance, an altruistic lex would have found cancer quite engaging. He would have gotten on that. These idea that lex needs superman is bogus.The difference he would have done the job for others this time, not just himself.
Moreover, it isn't an either or situation. He can still want to help (i find the idea of saving the world, naive and arrogant) and want to beat superman.As said, a tree. not an eagle.

[Superlad93]

*shrugs* ok, if that's your stance.

[Kuwagaton]

The thing that was never clear after Crisis was just how Lex became a billionaire. We are told he got the money from his parents' insurance and then designed an airplane (the Lex-wing) that was the foundation of Lexcorp. But how much of Lexcorp's day-to-day business resulted from Lex's continuing efforts and how much was just inertia wasn't clear. He seemed in many stories to be more of a businessman/politician than a scientific genius.

He was a brilliant scientist with "breakthrough" work in chemistry and technology on top of his ruthless corporate behavior. His ability to oversee the work of his underlings meant he kept his eyes sharp and his legal and physical coercion meant an iron fist on his researchers. His synthetic Kryptonite at first could stun Superman, and then his second iteration was fully functional before Dominus rendered it inert. He had Sam Lane's wife injured in a chemical accident and used the treatments he came up with as leverage on Lois. Pretty easy to imagine how being a scumbag with pharmaceuticals can build an empire.

Then there's buying and selling companies like the DP and acquisitions like we saw in the Hostile Takeover. Here's a neat article from when the whole thing was kicking off

https://www.tulsaworld.com/archive/s...aedc9b801.html

[llozymandias]

One of the broken aspects of Superman, and perhaps a reason why some writers choose to present Superman as a dumb jock, is that he has greater potential intellect than Luthor. The best thing Luthor does, Superman technically can do better. So if both men did everything the same, Superman is going to do it better. Luthor's ability to surpass Superman in one field would be the result of extra concentration in that one specific thing while Superman spreads himself thin. So if you take the representation of Superman who's god tier at everything, the answer is no. If you take a more simple-minded version of Superman, the answer becomes less clear.

This is one reason i prefer pre-coie, both Lex & Kal were super-geniuses. It's just that Lex was more brilliant. Lex (at 15, or slightly younger) created a working antidote for kryptonite. Something Superman, who at that time was "more intelligent than an army of einsteins". could not do after decades of research & experiments.

[llozymandias]

a heroic Lex would basically be like Batman, who's both in and out of universe kinda the go-to for human powerless heroes. Well I guess you could argue that Lex is usually more self made than Bruce who usually inherits his cash. But besides that detail, Batman does rival (and in some ways surpass) Superman in a lot of ways. But I guess it's not just power that makes Superman shine, it's also his personality. Would altruistic Lex still be an ******* like in post forever evil phase? That kinda might stunt him in the public eye the way it does with MHA's Endevor. So it really depends on how different good guy Lex is, and what we are measuring that would make him better or worse than Superman.

Batman is nowhere near being Lex's intellectual equal.

[Yoda]

In most incarnations Lex would have to be a completely different character. Even when he does start out as a billionaire and successful businessman before Superman shows up it's usually shown or at least implied to have been acquired through bad acts or outright evil. LexCorp is routinely shown to screw over nearly everyone he comes in contact with, whether through testing or development that kills people, to stealing work from scientists. And of course there's the whole angle where he likes to screw with people just for fun, like that diner story. I don't think he's ever been shown to have the capacity to be a better person than Clark.

Plus, isn't the idea that Lex is a "better" person because he acquired all his wealth and knowledge where Superman was "handed" his powers actually a big part of Lex's whole MO (and ignores the fact that being a super genius is as much a "superpower" as being able to fly)? And it misses the point that that isn't what makes Superman Superman?. The idea generally being if you took away Clark's powers he'd still be trying to help people, while Lex would still be a petty, miserable person.

[manwhohaseverything]

In most incarnations Lex would have to be a completely different character. Even when he does start out as a billionaire and successful businessman before Superman shows up it's usually shown or at least implied to have been acquired through bad acts or outright evil. LexCorp is routinely shown to screw over nearly everyone he comes in contact with, whether through testing or development that kills people, to stealing work from scientists. And of course there's the whole angle where he likes to screw with people just for fun, like that diner story. I don't think he's ever been shown to have the capacity to be a better person than Clark.

Plus, isn't the idea that Lex is a "better" person because he acquired all his wealth and knowledge where Superman was "handed" his powers actually a big part of Lex's whole MO (and ignores the fact that being a super genius is as much a "superpower" as being able to fly)? And it misses the point that that isn't what makes Superman Superman?. The idea generally being if you took away Clark's powers he'd still be trying to help people, while Lex would still be a petty, miserable person.

Have i said lex is a paragon of truth and justice in main universe? No. He doesn't have to be. Lex has all the qualities required and potential to be a better superman. If he were altruistic. Even though, a ruthless business man he can still be that.Tony stark made weapons. His company and shield had stolen tec from scientists as well. So, the idea that lex is irredeemable is false.

He might be trying to help people. Helping people in which way?isn't it condescending to think people can't solve their own problems?Even if that were true. he doesn't solve something we can't. So which is it? He helps people or it looks like he is helping people.Be that as a may, that still leaves the the fact that a guy who gets constantly stronger without any effort is complecent, passionless and lazy. Usage of power isn't the only factor of judge of character. How its being refined also is a judge of character. Lex can change and become "better". But, can clark himself change or acknowledge his shortcomings? If its a yes,Then lex cannot be a better superman. Otherwise,lex can and there is no doubt in my mind be the better man.

[Yoda]

How is it condescending for a powerless Clark to still try to help people, but altruistic for Lex to do the same?

[manwhohaseverything]

How is it condescending for a powerless Clark to still try to help people, but altruistic for Lex to do the same?

Well, lex isn't trying to solve problems people can solve themselves.is he? He only helps when asked and even then there is a limit.He wouldn't exactly dance same dance verbatim. The dude is more pragmatic and a problem solver.So, yeah! It's altruism. As for clark, it depends on writer. If clark is doing the helping cause of his complex. Then it ain't altruism.

[Yoda]

Well, lex isn't trying to solve problems people can solve themselves.is he? He only helps when asked and even then there is a limit.He wouldn't exactly dance same dance verbatim. The dude is more pragmatic and a problem solver.So, yeah! It's altruism. As for clark, it depends on writer. If clark is doing the helping cause of his complex. Then it ain't altruism.

Altruism is "the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others." Selflessness concern for others isn't "helping when asked and only up to a limit." There's nothing selfless about that type of conduct. Pragmatism isn't selflessness.

The fact that you think Clark only helps people because of a savior complex is pretty gross.

[manwhohaseverything]

Altruism is "the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others." Selflessness concern for others isn't "helping when asked and only up to a limit." There's nothing selfless about that type of conduct. Pragmatism isn't selflessness.

The fact that you think Clark only helps people because of a savior complex is pretty gross.

Well, there is something called acting according to the need.If my selflessness makes the people or the other dependent and weak. Then i am not being selfless. I am being selfish, acting to get acceptance and praise.Pragmatism isn't selflessness. True. But, Nothing says pragmatism and selflessness are mutually exclusive terms.You can call my opinion on superman gross.it is'nt exactly wrong. Why does have insatiable need to save people? Beats me. Clark! World will be fine without superman. I mean, spider"man" is guilt ridden kid, grasping at viglantism and calling it "responsibility". Bruce is a rich guy beating up "scum" and scaring kids in a Halloween costume . In a way, clark is in good company. They all need serious help. Sheesh!

[Frontier]

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.

Well, there is something called acting according to the need.If my selflessness makes the people or the other dependent and weak. Then i am not being selfless. I am being selfish, acting to get acceptance and praise.Pragmatism isn't selflessness. True. But, Nothing says pragmatism and selflessness are mutually exclusive terms.You can call my opinion on superman gross.it is'nt exactly wrong. Why does have insatiable need to save people? Beats me. Clark! World will be fine without superman. I mean, spider"man" is guilt ridden kid, grasping at viglantism and calling it "responsibility". Bruce is a rich guy beating up "scum" and scaring kids in a Halloween costume . In a way, clark is in good company. They all need serious help. Sheesh!

...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.