Poll: Do you want Jon to survive the post-Bendis era?

[Steel Inquisitor]

No, its not. Superman is supposed to be the messianic figure that creates the moral structures that creates a utopia(heaven aka legion future).right?ofcourse, he has dogma.he is only human.Everyone has thought patterns. When taken to the extreme it becomes dogmatic. Everyone has such tendencies .Modern superman cannot handle someone killing so much so that he couldn’t even be friends with hitman tommy. I am fairly he would be on the other side of Jason's actions. He cannot handle stealing, i am fairly certain modern superman would be against robin hood or green arrow. Justice is a tricky thing. So much so a series based on piracy is always talking about justice. So? Lex is right. Goku would definitely agree with him. Fairly certain batman would as well.That's always been why lex is interesting. He makes a valid point. Only because he wants what superman has. So that's kinda bad. Goku wouldn't want to be superman. So he would actually be morally right opposite for superman. Just because lex says it doesn't mean it's wrong. People need to stand on their own two feet. What superman does is "follow my example".i fail to see in that as healthy. Questioning everything is what humanity does.

No, he's supposed to be an inspiration for humanity to reach the stars and improve ourselves, as well as helping stop villains mortal authorities are powerless against. The FBI aren't going to do much against someone like Metallo. There are depictions which delve into Christian imagery, but that's typically in the movies and it's reduced to imagery like Superman falling while having his arms outstretched like a cross (Superman Returns), and Clark sitting next to a picture of Jesus (Man of Steel). His origins of escaping Krypton and being found and raised by the Kents imply Moses.

But which Superman are we discussing? There are several mainstream versions in the comics, as well as those in other media. General Superman philosophy is achievable but that would entail examining them all and finding their commonalities for a shared dogma. Tommy's kind of a terrible person even aside from the killing, as in he spies on women naked via X-ray vision without their consent and gloats about it in front of them - he did this to Wonder Woman when he was auditioning for the JLA. Superman would tolerate him and try to inspire him but a friend? No.

Robin Hood was in the past fighting a corrupt government, a folk hero. Not the same context. He's friends and colleagues with Green Arrow in multiple incarnations of the DCU, they regularly serve on the Justice League together. Superman doesn't like lex because he's a corrupt super-criminal, he's disappointed how Lex has wasted his life when he could be the hero he claims he is. It's got nothing to do with ambition in itself, Lex hasn't got ambition the wants dominance. He wants to be a king, who's answerable to nobody - many versions are upset about Superman because he shows how much of a fraud Lex is. Lex could be the best of humanity, but he's just an arrogant, narcissist who uses everyone. Superman would get along with Goku, but wouldn't approve of how he kills people. He's admire how Goku trains himself and his determination - it'd remind him of Batman, who does the same thing in the DCU. Lex doesn't "question" things he wants them to bend to his will, if he sees someone as an obstacle he tries to murder them.

Becoming an authoritarian leader is hardly the danger. Its the other end i am talking about. Superman creating moral structures that are rigid. Its not easy being contrarian, believe me.Superman creating a value system with heresy and blashempy as concepts is my problem.

With the absolute power Superman has becoming a tyrant is a natural danger, he shifts the pendulum of politics if he shifts his focus on altering society by his strength. It's become a common trope explored in comics for years. It ultimately doesn't matter east his ideologies are it's how he uses his strength to shape society is that are - if you don't agree in him he'll punish you. It's taking vigilantism to the next step. It's how we get super powered gods and kings.

As said, superman was more than in action comics #1. Moreover, just because superman obeyed a law in one instance(and broke it by trespassing and assaulting) doesn't mean he wasn't an anarchist, as such doesn't mean he the thought the world of rules. Especially when The weak were persecuted. His objective wasn't to obey the law.That just happened by coincidence in that instance and more importantly that was needed to protect the weak at that time . Superman is a strongman from space fighting for the weak. He has an objective and theorey. Anarchists value action more than theory. They have objectives and try to implement their theory in practice.It's not just blind "break the rules!! Yeah! My man!" . I view the superman concept itself as praxis by the real clark kent(not glasses persona) .There are many types of anarchists. But, they have one thing in common.

I'm sure JAK is just using that as a single example, not that that was the sole time Superman did that during that time period. Superman knew the world had "rules" because he lived life normally as Clark Kent, which he exploited subtly to find justice.



He wasn't just about brute force, he used his brain to catch the bad guys while maintaining his identity. He follows society's as Clark Kent, that's why it's important for him to be a reporter.

Anarchists lack of theory is why they're so disorganised while Superman is very organised. He plans ahead, he doesn't just go with his gut and strike blindly hoping he got the job done. Nor are they that good at implementing them in practice.

[quote]"power should wherever possible be uprooted and eliminated".

Micel Foucault isn't an anarchist as far as I know, he is a Leftist and briefly a Communist before turning on them for their despicable attitudes about LGBT and Jewish people. And signed a 1977 petition to the French parliament to lower the consent laws between adults and minors below 15. I suggest using quotes from someone less problematic.

Anarchists exists to resist power and power based violence (direct or structural). Superman takes power out of the equation. He makes every kind of power structures irrelevant. He was a gladiator for the little guy as he was one of them.Bare in mind, if i was the only one who thought superman was an anarchist. I might have considered i might be wrong. Still am not discounting that happening . Regardless, you can view him as whatever. It's only a label. It doesn't mean much. What means much to me is this. Superman to be written with this basic principle.

Superman is power itself, he just has the ability they lack because they're people in the real world. Except he doesn't do that, Superman still needs the government to look after the homeless and the marginalised since he can't fix everything by himself. He doesn't take over the governments functions in society. But what kind of anarchist is he? There are numerous versions of anarchy. Labels mean things, if people didn't think he fit in that box they wouldn't be putting him in boxes like anarchy.

"those who break the rules are scum, but those who abandon their friends, their ideals and principles are worse than scum"
Superman would break rules if need be to help the weak and carry out real justice.

Wasn't able to find who did that quote, who said it?

Superman does break rules, but he also has a history of working with authorities. What is "real justice" in this context?

You know i felt the same sentiment.i was flabbergasted that this was superman as well. But on the reverse.the books actually made me feel like what? what the heck! Is this thing??? There is a dramatic shift in characterisation especially when comicscode came to be. Especially, when i got to read bill finger origin. I was like what is happening here? Obey the law? help the police???? What the hell is happening?Clark is being asked by his good father pa kent to be a vigilante/criminal??? Moreover,he is asking him to obey the law and fight crime assisting the police? I was like, this doesn't make a knick of sense. It instantly turned me off. It was only when i got a different superman that was an alien asking some wierd questions about generally everything that it made me actually find a reprieve.

Super-heroes being vigilantes as well as helping the police have been a thing longer then we've been alive. So much so it's a trope in fiction for vigilantes to have a "friend on the force." It makes sense in that it's easier to that bad guys with assistance from authorities who can fill in gaps and cover more ground, because even Superman can't do everything.

[manwhohaseverything]

Anarchists lack of theory is why they're so disorganised while Superman is very organised. He plans ahead, he doesn't just go with his gut and strike blindly hoping he got the job done. Nor are they that good at implementing them in practice.

"power should wherever possible be uprooted and eliminated".

Micel Foucault isn't an anarchist as far as I know, he is a Leftist and briefly a Communist before turning on them for their despicable attitudes about LGBT and Jewish people. And signed a 1977 petition to the French parliament to lower the consent laws between adults and minors below 15. I suggest using quotes from someone less problematic.



Superman is power itself, he just has the ability they lack because they're people in the real world. Except he doesn't do that, Superman still needs the government to look after the homeless and the marginalised since he can't fix everything by himself. He doesn't take over the governments functions in society. But what kind of anarchist is he? There are numerous versions of anarchy. Labels mean things, if people didn't think he fit in that box they wouldn't be putting him in boxes like anarchy.

No, that's not just in movies. That also happens in comics as well. All star superman rings any bells to you. That doesn't take much.

Postcrisis or modern superman is the examples i had chosen.Be that as a may, You say he is terrible but i don't believe a superman would be about categorisation of people into boxes as good and bad.Even Christians hate sinner more than the sin.

Dude, there is a template to it. Superman pre-enlightenment era thoughts basically say "intead of wasting time on getting better or competing, try doing good" or "those who seek power might get it but power might not use it to the benefit the society" . Lex is many a times a self made man who has become arrogant. Goku is a selfmade man devoted to his craft so much so he achieved egolessness(ultra instinct). He saves people but that's not what he does all the time. He has given himself to a craft. Goku seeks power and loves competition. Superman doesn't compete and actively doesn't think much of such things or training for that matter. Guess what a society modelled after superman would be like?Yeah! They wouldn't value competition or training thereby human effort. At the extreme end they would see figures who seek power with suspicious and disregard . Moreover, green arrow and superman disagree heavily many a times over many things.

Or Vigilantism could become total anarchy not absolute authoritarianism. Like say the jokerised batman. The next step can be anything. You just assumed superman would be taking the step to be spacehitler. But, that's not the talking point here. I am talking about another possibility of evil Superman,superman and his followers institutionising the worst form of the church by being the example people should try to be or else.

Did i say, he didn't know rules existed? Anarchist might lack a single axiom, might be disorganised. But that doesn't mean they can't be classified. The classification itself means there is a pattern to what they do.Moreover, Michael foucault not being an anarchist doesn't matter. Whether he is educated on the subject is what matter. Its like this i can define Conservative if i know what their patterns are. Moreover, you can discredit his life. But, that doesn’t hold wait when we are talking about academic works. It's whether he is right or wrong that matters. You didn't do that. For instance, the friend-enemy distinction was a political and philosophical concept by a nazi Carl Schmitt .noam chomsky defined the anarchism as tendency to detect structures of hierarchies, authority, domination and challenge them. Finally, so what? Anarchists shouldn't think at all is that what you are getting at by saying "superman thinks things through" . Please. From what i know, moore has identified himself as an anarchist many times. Does that mean he doesn't think or plan?

Labels don't mean anything. That's my view of what a particular character of fiction is. For instance, donner read superman comics and thought he is savior figure like jesus. Byrne made postcrisis superman a super republican and he was trying to channel many of the goldenage comics. Does "superman is power" negate what i said? Nope. Anarchist generally recognise there would be some power structures that are legitimate enough for functioning society. So, i say superman himself qualifies until he proves himself to illegitimate .Batman has worked with joker as well and he needed joker in death metal as well. Does that mean Batman likes the concept of joker's existence?you can say the same for lex and clark. Does that mean clark endorses lex's want to be centre of the world?nope. Luffy works with marines as well.So, superman can work with government, use their resources and still not be onboard with government or control like that. As said, anarchist generally do believe in some authorities . They don't agree what, though . Finally, what school of anarchism you ask? I don't know. I haven't really thought about it that hard enough . He is an outlaw. He opposes government and control . He is for equality in socialist kind of way as well.Make what you will after reading the books.

[JAK]

Had a VERY long post freeze halfway though when trying to add a picture, and I don't feel like retyping. Until I feel like it again, I'll just leave this here to show Superman actively rebutting the kind of blind following you accuse him of:
RCO017_1469388770.jpg

[manwhohaseverything]

Had a VERY long post freeze halfway though when trying to add a picture, and I don't feel like retyping. Until I feel like it again, I'll just leave this here to show Superman actively rebutting the kind of blind following you accuse him of:
RCO017_1469388770.jpg

I am not accusing him of anything. I am only just trying to give a possible alternative to superman's savior like existence. He doesn't create a utopia. Its just human tendency to be at awe with such figures and not be critical about them.And i know the books tackle it even secret origins had it. But, i don't think books have tackled and created narrative based off on it to the larger convincing extent. I read these issues for what it's worth created moments of self examination. But, that's it. I want a real palpable opposition to be created for the story to interesting.A narrative warning. Stories that actually challenges superman as a concept itself and reaffirm it if it stands tall afterwards. Something like the dostoevsky's books. Either way Superman could create a monster. He doesn't necessarily have to be a monster himself for a bad outcome to come about.

Also, i don't really believe in utopian visions from the religious right or unreligious left . Has there ever been a time when superman's tomorrow been ever critically examined? Is it just a better tomorrow or a true utopia? I know superman's alien existence might have been due to cynicism of siegel in believing a superman could be good if he were human. Can an alien create a utopia? Moreover, can a utopia really exist in every sense of the meaning ? Ofcourse, its all just an imaginery exercise at the end of the day. A laugh tale.Finally, i don't want it to be boring. That would be the real sin. Making an entertaining story should be first priority for any story teller.

Edit-I am fairly certain something in the concept of modern superman begs to be deconstructed(not just by me). Why? What? I am not sure. Its like more i read the character in depth,more i want to take him apart and maybe put him back together. I don't have this urge with other characters to say the least. Maybe it's because of the lack of entertainment quotient for me . It's like i view the character as something fundamentally wrong in some way or has something fundamentally wrong with it someway because i can't get a kick out of it. I don't exactly know why that is. It has become a pattern with me. It's not healthy.

[JAK]

I am not accusing him of anything. I am only just trying to give a possible alternative to superman's savior like existence. He doesn't create a utopia. Its just human tendency to be at awe with such figures and not be critical about them. And i know the books tackle it even secret origins had it. But, i don't think books have tackled and created narrative based off on it to the larger convincing extent. I read these issues for what it's worth created moments of self examination. But, that's it. I want a real palpable opposition to be created for the story to interesting.A narrative warning. Stories that actually challenges superman as a concept itself and reaffirm it if it stands tall afterwards. Something like the dostoevsky's books. Either way Superman could create a monster. He doesn't necessarily have to be a monster himself for a bad outcome to come about.

You kinda are, though. You've said that his ideas are dogmatic, that people follow him without question, that he's not really helping them, and that Lex is right. None of that is really true, in a larger sense. Also, about the bold portion: that applies to any and all versions of Superman. Generally-speaking, he doesn't have a savior-like existence. It's just that the imagery has been laid on too thick and some writers have run with it. If those things stopped, any seeming connection would, too.

But I don't think "I'm not a god" needs to be the main story focus much of the time - addressing it once in awhile and stopping the iconography (with - *maybe* - the rare instance of it once every...I don't know, 5 years or so, lol) would do wonders.

Also, i don't really believe in utopian visions from the religious right or unreligious left . Has there ever been a time when superman's tomorrow been ever critically examined? Is it just a better tomorrow or a true utopia? I know superman's alien existence might have been due to cynicism of siegel in believing a superman could be good if he were human. Can an alien create a utopia? Moreover, can a utopia really exist in every sense of the meaning ? Ofcourse, its all just an imaginery exercise at the end of the day. A laugh tale.Finally, i don't want it to be boring. That would be the real sin. Making an entertaining story should be first priority for any story teller.

Boring is subjective, though. Boring could just mean "not for you." Also, you've brought up "utopia" a lot lately. How exactly do you think he's trying to build a utopia? We haven't seen a major story with him doing that actively since "For Tomorrow," and that was panned pretty quickly at the time (saved only by Lee's art). Most of the time, the only idea of a utopia he has in his head is a day when he's not needed and he can relax. That's pretty basic stuff, imo. It honestly does strike me that you seem to be seeing something that isn't there - or isn't there to the extent you think it is.

Edit-I am fairly certain something in the concept of modern superman begs to be deconstructed(not just by me). Why? What? I am not sure. Its like more i read the character in depth,more i want to take him apart and maybe put him back together. I don't have this urge with other characters to say the least. Maybe it's because of the lack of entertainment quotient for me . It's like i view the character as something fundamentally wrong in some way or has something fundamentally wrong with it someway because i can't get a kick out of it. I don't exactly know why that is. It has become a pattern with me. It's not healthy.

Here's the problem: Superman has been deconstructed. Multiple times. The reason it doesn't seem to stick is that they go in with a (imo) warped idea of what Superman's core is, and it never quite comes out right. DC/WB almost categorically pick the worst people to do so, in the worst ways possible. They find people who see the pseudo-religious iconography and the superficial stuff and think that's the "deep end" of Superman's psyche when they're still in the kiddie pool. That's a big part of what's led to what can seem like a "Superman-as-Christ" permeation.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Superman really started hurting when DC/WB - as a company mentality - actively started to see Superman exactly as you've said: that the character is the problem. It started not too long before Didio came on, but ramped up while he was there. You could feel it. They were almost ashamed of the character, en masse. They saw him as a solid brand for marketing t-shirts/etc, but not much else. Superman Returns (and, in ways, New52) is a direct product of that mentality, and (imo, though not others) MoS is both a response to and an absorbtion of that mentality.

It's only in the last few years that this has started to shift. It's been 15 long years, and they've still only partially turned the corner, but I can tell. And even how far they've come feels good (though, again, the corner's not turned all the way).

Superman has always (to me, anyway) existed in his own space. He's part of DC, but he's not a favorite to the (quote-unquote) "average comic fan mentality." He's always been more mainstream than that. While other comics sold better in comic shops, Superman sold better on the newsstand. That's an important distinction, imo, and it speaks to who much of Superman's "base" is. Not that general comics fans can't like him - a number of them certainly do - but he'll never win any popularity contests in that world. I've certainly made my peace with that long ago.

Where I do agree is that Superman's presentation could use a retooling, specifically to fit this more mainstream demographic. Give him a more 3d, living/breathing world with a rich supporting cast who have lives/etc. The late 80's struck this balance decently well, imo, and with proper marketing could have done even more. Heck, if DC hadn't been so event-driven after DoS/RotS/RoS, they could have gone back to more of that style than they did and it would likely have been much more solid. Having a team of people working together seems to bring about better ideas, too. I'll grant that I have more of an affection for the Triangle Era and that does shape my opinions, but a lot of the framework seemed to be generally solid.

At some point, I think it's fair to ask yourself if you really enjoy a character and want to continue to consume that content. I stopped doing so in 2011 because that felt like the apex/culmination of the "character is the problem" shift (at least in the marketing), and I'd been reading since 1991. So sometimes we have to take a break or drop something entirely (except for the parts we like, we'll always have those). Just wanted to mention that, because it happens to more of us than you think. If you decide to do that, maybe check on the character every few years (or when a new team comes on board) to see if you like it - if not, maybe next time. By 2013, I honestly wasn't sure I'd want to read a new Superman comic again - and here I am, knee deep in them again, lol. So you never know.

[Ascended]

About the closest Clark ever gets to seeing a "utopia" is the Legion's future......which is still full of villains, division, corruption, etc. It's far from a utopia (otherwise there'd be no need for the Legion) but humanity has taken a few big steps forward, and many of the social ills of today (racism, sexism, etc) don't really exist in most versions of the 30th century. That's Clark's "realistic best case scenario" future; one where we haven't built paradise but have at least pulled our heads out of our asses a little bit. Generally speaking Clark doesn't imagine he'll live to see a perfect world, he just hopes he'll live to see one where he doesn't have to put on a cape to keep people safe from each other.

Clark has an idea of where he wants humanity to go, and he works on helping us get there, but the crux of the entire thing, and I think perhaps manwhohaseverything misses this point, is that Clark knows he can't *make* that happen. Forcing people to bend to his worldview is exactly the kind of thing that would ensure we never actually achieve the Legion's future. It's the exact opposite of this "dogmatic" idea our good fellow poster seems to have. Clark knows where he wants the world to go, but he also knows the world has to make that choice, he can't make it for us; all he can do is provide an example for others to follow. Which is no different than what any of us do; "be the change you want to see in the world" and all that. Sometimes I'll pay for the groceries of the person in line behind me, or I'll help someone broken down on the side of the road. Those are my personal little "Superman" moments where I help a stranger simply because I can and it's right to do, and at their core my actions are little different from Clark's...he just works on a *much* bigger scale. But we're both just doing what we're capable of to help other folks out. Superman is just capable of doing a lot more than I am.

And I agree with JAX as well that Clark doesn't need a deconstruction; he's been deconstructed for decades, mostly unsuccessfully. What he needs is not to be dissected (again) but to be put back together, with an eye towards taking what worked in the past (his entire past, not just one particular era) and updating it for today. A critical eye needs to be turned on the franchise, but not as a method to taking things apart piece by piece, but as a method of deciding how the franchise works in the 21st century.

[Vordan]

Yeah we’ve got a crap ton of “deconstructions” that tell us why Superman sucks: Injustice, the DCEU, the Boys, maybe Rocksteady’s SS game. We need a reconstruction now, someone who will come on board and rebuild Superman across multiple mediums. I’m fine with the odd bit of deconstruction here and there, I loved Jeff Loveness’ deconstruction of Clark revealing his identity to Lois, but Loveness reconstructed Clark at the end of that story after tearing him down. That’s known as a “decon-recon switch” and if we have to have more deconstruction, I’d prefer it take that form.

[Laufeyson]

Wow, you still need to deconstruct Clark? Is Injustice, DCEU, The Boys, Miracleman, and That Elseworlds Superman with Katmandi are not enough? I mean if anything he needs to be reconstruction, because his DC really slacking off at his reconstruction. They really just forget to reconstruct Superman that they left him into his blandest setup forgoting the deconstruction of his character.

[Laufeyson]

Yeah we’ve got a crap ton of “deconstructions” that tell us why Superman sucks: Injustice, the DCEU, the Boys, maybe Rocksteady’s SS game. We need a reconstruction now, someone who will come on board and rebuild Superman across multiple mediums. I’m fine with the odd bit of deconstruction here and there, I loved Jeff Loveness’ deconstruction of Clark revealing his identity to Lois, but Loveness reconstructed Clark at the end of that story after tearing him down. That’s known as a “decon-recon switch” and if we have to have more deconstruction, I’d prefer it take that form.

Jeff Loveness writes Clark? Where?

[manwhohaseverything]

Yeah we’ve got a crap ton of “deconstructions” that tell us why Superman sucks: Injustice, the DCEU, the Boys, maybe Rocksteady’s SS game. We need a reconstruction now, someone who will come on board and rebuild Superman across multiple mediums. I’m fine with the odd bit of deconstruction here and there, I loved Jeff Loveness’ deconstruction of Clark revealing his identity to Lois, but Loveness reconstructed Clark at the end of that story after tearing him down. That’s known as a “decon-recon switch” and if we have to have more deconstruction, I’d prefer it take that form.

Injustice, boys, ss.. Etc aren't deconstructions. They are mere parodies or something meant to say the concept of a superhero or superman is only as good as one bad day or some it's laughable from the get go. It's mocking the concept itself. It's not trying to weigh the claims made by the superman story all its pros and cons. Red son might be deconstruction. One punch man isn't a deconstruction. It's also a parody of superheroes, manga protagonists.. Etc. One punch man even asserts the value of the superhero. So, it's laughing with us and concept itself not at us.That might be why that's fun. Others aren't fun for the superhero audiences.By your logic one punch man would be deconstruction .The watchmen is another deconstruction.

Those other takes exist because superman isn't valuable to wb as a hero that batman is.And also fundamentally people see a white knight in superman now a days. There is a pattern that links white knights to two face these days.

This is for romantic stories. But, as the video says "Authenticity matter. It separates real nice guys from the fake ones ". Many a times clark comes of as fake. It's due to some bad portrayals like the justice league movie, dark knight returns, injustice ... Etc. So the guy gets turned into two-face like harvey dent.

On the flip side, Snyder's superman is a deconstruction in that he has his own vision for a superman like byrne, donner... Etc.That's it. Sure, you may not like what he does. Personally,think the character is boring and not much of a swashbuckling do-gooder . But, calling it a deconstruction is a bit much.
All i am saying is that it's not as if i want to pick apart superman. But, there is pattern for people to pick him apart. That's it. Moreover, if i do want some deconstruction it would be something like dostoevsky's works.That generally tells the value of clark as christ figure.But,it does it in a way that's tangible like the grand inquisitor, the idiot.. Etc

I view modern superman like the idiot(its not derogatory)

The title is an ironic reference to the central character of the novel, Prince (Knyaz) Lev Nikolayevich Myshkin, a young man whose goodness, open-hearted simplicity and guilelessness lead many of the more worldly characters he encounters to mistakenly assume that he lacks intelligence and insight. In the character of Prince Myshkin, Dostoevsky set himself the task of depicting "the positively good and beautiful man."[1] The novel examines the consequences of placing such a unique individual at the centre of the conflicts, desires, passions and egoism of worldly society, both for the man himself and for those with whom he becomes involved.

[Vordan]

Jeff Loveness writes Clark? Where?

He wrote a two part JL story right before the last issue, and he wrote some Superman stories in anthologies. Google his name + Superman if you want to find them.

[Laufeyson]

He wrote a two part JL story right before the last issue, and he wrote some Superman stories in anthologies. Google his name + Superman if you want to find them.

Oh, now I remember the anthology one is DC Summer Special, right? the One with Daniel Kibblesmith. Yeah, that is very good. I should check the JL though.

[magha_regulus]

I want Jon to be acknowledged as the anomaly he is. I want his origins in Convergence to be a fully acknowledged part of his character.

[manwhohaseverything]

I want Jon to be acknowledged as the anomaly he is. I want his origins in Convergence to be a fully acknowledged part of his character.

That would be pretty damn good.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Injustice, boys, ss.. Etc aren't deconstructions. They are mere parodies or something meant to say the concept of a superhero or superman is only as good as one bad day or some it's laughable from the get go. It's mocking the concept itself. It's not trying to weigh the claims made by the superman story all its pros and cons. Red son might be deconstruction. One punch man isn't a deconstruction. It's also a parody of superheroes, manga protagonists.. Etc. One punch man even asserts the value of the superhero. So, it's laughing with us and concept itself not at us.That might be why that's fun. Others aren't fun for the superhero audiences.By your logic one punch man would be deconstruction .The watchmen is another deconstruction.

Deconstructions come various forms, including parodies. Even parodies can have serious storylines and scenes, like Judge Dredd. That's a parody/deconstruction of America's brutal justice system and how draconian its government. A key storyline was about Dredd finding the last US president, who started World War 3 who was a George W Bush parody - this was not a funny tale.

Those other takes exist because superman isn't valuable to wb as a hero that batman is.And also fundamentally people see a white knight in superman now a days. There is a pattern that links white knights to two face these days.

Superman is valuable to WB, he's just not their top performer any longer. The only person I know who dislikes "boy scout" super-heroes is Zach Snyder. Everyone else thinks that interpretation is bland, and this varies on the interpretation - Superman TAS is beloved.

Can you please explain what you mean by "white knight?" I've asked this previously and haven't gotten an answer.

On the flip side, Snyder's superman is a deconstruction in that he has his own vision for a superman like byrne, donner... Etc.That's it. Sure, you may not like what he does. Personally,think the character is boring and not much of a swashbuckling do-gooder . But, calling it a deconstruction is a bit much.
All i am saying is that it's not as if i want to pick apart superman. But, there is pattern for people to pick him apart. That's it. Moreover, if i do want some deconstruction it would be something like dostoevsky's works.That generally tells the value of clark as christ figure.But,it does it in a way that's tangible like the grand inquisitor, the idiot.. Etc

Snyder's Superman is definitely a deconstruction, and an attempt to define Superman for a generation, it was just a failed attempt. Snyder's Superman evokes imagery blatantly to Superman, but except that's as far as it goes. He's also interprets Superman along the lines of the Greek gods and how detached he is from humanity - the latter is more about exploring Superman in depth rather than just sticking with imagery. Imagery by itself is not a deconstruction, it's about how the hero, supporting characters and the villains act.

I view modern superman like the idiot(its not derogatory)

That's an unkind view of Superman, that's the parody people view him as who hate the character. It's like how Aquaman was defined negative in pop culture by Super Friends as the useless guy who talekd to fish. The very same person who bench presses Deathstroke like nothing.