If Superman decided to conquer the Earth (to help it) would Lois stand by him?

[Ra-El]

I think Superman wouldn't have to conquer the world. I think people would follow him willingly especially if he turned his fortress to an idea factory where he shared cures for disease, fool proof economic plans, and moral philosophies that make sense.
I think the old Superman Red/Superman Blue comic is how Superman would ultimately change the world.

It could work if the majority of the world decided to legally give Superman supreme power. Like, country after country changing the constitution to give control to mak laws and enforce it to Superman.
So he runs the world, some minority may oppose him, but 90% of humanity is happy with him in charge. He is actually making things better, why would anyone be against it if not by principle? But, if everyone else wants to follow him, what gives the opposing 10% the right to fight against it?

[Steel Inquisitor]

It could work if the majority of the world decided to legally give Superman supreme power. Like, country after country changing the constitution to give control to mak laws and enforce it to Superman.
So he runs the world, some minority may oppose him, but 90% of humanity is happy with him in charge. He is actually making things better, why would anyone be against it if not by principle? But, if everyone else wants to follow him, what gives the opposing 10% the right to fight against it?

Even if the majority wanted to, and they won't, random people don't have the power to "give" to make Superman Lord President of the world. DC is modelled after our political systems, and we have absolutely nothing remotely like that - the only people who got that sort of power in the past got that by waging wars on other nations - this is how nations like England and Roman Empire maintained control over humanity. No country is going to that to their own constitutions, they'd be blocked by other political parties and changing things like in America is incredibly difficult to bypass congress, as in something like 3/4 of congress needs to vote on passing that and we haven't had that longer than any of us have been alive. It'd be a "miracle" event in politics just in America to occur due to how impossible it is. 90% of humanity won't simply accept his rule even if they like Superman, they don't even do that in the comics. The only people who go that far are the Superman cultists who turned up after he died. Except we don't know how he would make things easier, this is a hypothetical and we have absolutely no platform to base what he'd do on and how he'd accomplish things. Being morally right won't make everyone on Earth unquestionably surrender their authority to him, politicians and governments don't give up power that easily. How did you to only 10% disagreeing with him on being their supreme ruler? Just because people love him as a super-hero doesn't automatically translate into everyone wanting him to be their political leader. And he'd get pushback from numerous people, like the Justice League, by doing this outside running for office, which he's not doing.

Edit: And that's not getting into how easily it will be for Lex Luthor to undermine this and turn the public against him since this is literally who he warned the public about Superman being. He'd be proving Lex was right!

[Johnny Thunders!]

I imagine it like a brand that people would embrace like Facebook or Apple.

[manwhohaseverything]

Even if the majority wanted to, and they won't, random people don't have the power to "give" to make Superman Lord President of the world.

The goverments are for the people,by the people and of the people.If enough people create a movement.Hell yeah!things could change.As said,indian subcontinent's history has had leaders like buddha,shankara,gandhi..etc. Who did through sheer debate and idealism in action. Conquering does'nt always mean physical subjugation.
"conquer somebody to defeat somebody, especially in a competition, race, etc."
it just means to defeat someone or something.In this case,an ineffective system. A single man took on an empire that spanned the globe without raising a fist.I have said it before,superman fights ideals with ideals.Intellect with intellect.Physical strength with that.Bringing a sword to a battle of the pens is pure barbarianism.Superman ain't that.

[Steel Inquisitor]

The goverments are for the people,by the people and of the people.If enough people create a movement.Hell yeah!things could change.As said,indian subcontinent's history has had leaders like buddha,shankara,gandhi..etc. Who did through sheer debate and idealism in action. Conquering does'nt always mean physical subjugation.
"conquer somebody to defeat somebody, especially in a competition, race, etc."
it just means to defeat someone or something.In this case,an ineffective system. A single man took on an empire that spanned the globe without raising a fist.I have said it before,superman fights ideals with ideals.Intellect with intellect.Physical strength with that.Bringing a sword to a battle of the pens is pure barbarianism.

Governments are complicated systems and there would be numerous variables Superman would have to "convince" to elect him their grand ruler - a fictional position on Earth. People do and movements do get a say, by participating in their countries systems (except for autocracies and dictatorships) someone being popular don't instantly make them president/prime minster/premiere/king. Why is Ghandi bought up? He lead an important movement for India's indepence from the British but he wasn't a politician and he didn't become India's leader when he was alive. Buddha was an immensely popular religious leader, but not a politician and Superman's appealing to the entire world not just India, and certainly not ancient India. Which Shankara? Shiva is a Hindu god and one who began at the top of the Hindu pantheon, and they didn't et there by simply convincing people to vote for it since democracy isn't a thing with ancient deities. Adi Shankara was an incredibly influential Indian philosopher with Hinduism. None of those examples have anything to do with this Superman hypothetical. This is about DCU politics, not philosophy or religion. Here it is, and it's the only real strategy Superman to be "King of the world" and even that has huge problems with achieving that goal. Ghandi inspired a movement he didn't do it by himself, millions followed him and he didn't become India's political leader. This also ignores India's government in choosing leaders in the present day, which involve elections. Superman's running to rule the world, not simply India. The last part sounds nice but has nothing to do what we're talking about, Supermnan's not fighting a super-villain in this scenario or winning an argument with Lex Luthor. And we still have no answers for why we should accept Superman as our ruler with your argument aside from "because he's Superman." Since that was ignored I'm going to assume there's nothing of substance with that angle. This discussion is about Superman becoming the leader of the world not becoming India's president or prime minister, those positions exist in the DCU and the real world - Superman becoming the leader of the world does not. And even if he did run as a politician in India or America he wouldn't win just by being Superman. He needs to have policies, knowledge and contacts of the governmental system to succeed and a campaign, he's not running to be a civil rights activist or a creation deity. As well as the fact this ignores how many of his super-villains will under his "campaign" (which won't even be a normal political campaign for a position that doesn't exist in the DCU) and exploit when he's busy to harm people. It'd be Lex's birthday present.

The only people near this would be conquerers like Alexandra the Great, Julius Caesar and Temüjin Borjigin and even they didn't conquer every square inch of the Earth.

[manwhohaseverything]

The only people near this would be conquerers like Alexandra the Great, Julius Caesar and Temüjin Borjigin and even they didn't conquer every square inch of the Earth.

You forgot genghis khan,Yeesh!.All i am saying,was there is precedence for a leaders conquering without sword.I brought in these cause you thought Moses wasn't a good enough argument.Also i meant adi shankara who travelled across india just debating and defeating opponents.Why would i mean shiva?that would be wierd .My definition is much broader than yours.People are the same through out the world whether it's india,japan,england or tajikistan. Only cultures differ.Ofcourse,he had millions behinds him.That millions started with One.And so will superman.If his ideals,his proposal and what he seeks to accomplish has value.People will automatically follow him.We don't accept him because he is superman.we accept because he has travelled the universe and seen countless system.He seeks to impliment something better.Simply put this.@Johnny Thunders! borrowing this.There is no need for a king of the world title.Just a better structure.

I think Superman wouldn't have to conquer the world. I think people would follow him willingly especially if he turned his fortress to an idea factory where he shared cures for disease, fool proof economic plans, and moral philosophies that make sense.
I think the old Superman Red/Superman Blue comic is how Superman would ultimately change the world.

[Steel Inquisitor]

You forgot genghis khan,Yeesh!.All i am saying,was there is precedence for a leaders conquering without sword.I brought in these cause you thought Moses wasn't a good enough argument .My definition is much broader than yours.People are the same through out the world whether it's india,japan,england or tajikistan.Ofcourse,he had millions behinds him.That millions started with One.And so will superman.If his ideals,his proposal and what he seeks to accomplish has value.People will automatically follow him.We don't accept him because he is superman.we accept because he has travelled the universe and seen countless system.He seeks to impliment something better.Simply put this.@Johnny Thunders! borrowing this.There is no need for a king of the world title.Just a better structure.

Temüjin Borjigin is Genghis Khan. Not leaders relevant to this thread, none of them have anything to do with being politicians and they all don't have the same obstacles or barriers to their goals. You agree Moses wasn't a good example, good. But what was your argument with Moses? All you said that he was like Moses and moved on without explaining why that makes Superman someone who should rule the world. The definition is being stretched to absurdity, so much so it's getting off-topic when the thread is about Superman attaining a specific leadership and not a single example suited that purpose. No, politics in countries are not the same and they definitely don't allow their elected leaders to also run other countries, short of positions like emperors and those are extinct now. They have their own cultures, and their own political systems and Superman wouldn't be running in any of them since his mission would fail if he simply became a head of state in a single country in an action since it's not "conquering" anything and he's trying to run the world in this hypothetical. Millions which helped India's problems with civil rights, he wasn't running for president. But what are they? And they need to pursuade every government in the DCU to bend the knee to him by choice. But your argument hinges on Superman being himself as enough to do this, there is nothing else there to convince us. Idealism, proposals and gaols by themselves are great but mean nothing in politics without substance and certainly not when the goal is to make oneself the leader of the entire Earth. The only people who accomplish this get it by force, this is why super-villains try to route. People won't automatically follow Superman he's influential and popular, he's not the Purple man. So have countless aliens in the DCU, that didn't make them anymore suited to controlling humanity through politics. Except we don't know what that "something" is in this hypothetical, we do have stories which delve into Superman choosing that path as a politician, and they end in tears. Superman's accepted as a super-hero, not a politician and this would make him the top politician in every country. A position he'd make himself, as well. A political structure with him being the ultimate arbitrator of what every human's life will be like in the DCU, that's not what Johnny was advocating.

[manofsteel1979]

Generally speaking, no I don't see Lois supporting Clark in such an effort.

However, it depends on how Clark is trying to achieve his goal. Is he literally taking over the world as a benevolent dictator, or is he doing something a little less obviously evil and flawed? Every story we're talking about here has gone the "tyrant" route, from Justice Lords to Red Son to Dominus to Injustice, and in all of those Lois has rightfully left him (if she's not already dead).

But Clark representing earth in the United Planets (a position he sort of fell into) presumably comes with some political power and clout (we've seen him commit earth to at least a few policy decisions), and Lois is perfectly fine with that.

So "Supreme Leader Superman" isn't anything Lois would get behind, but "duly elected President Superman" might be another story. But that's a tale I don't think we've ever really seen, outside of a couple old Silver Age "What If?" issues.

It seemed like that is the direction Bendis was heading towards to set up 5G (president Superman). Of course that is likely going away and swept under the rug after December.

[The Kid]

Realistically, yea it'd be tough for anyone to do that. But if you're talking about an immortal God-like being who's creating the cures to diseases, eliminating poverty, uplifting billions to high standards of livings, eliminating homelessness... it's a whole different ballgame.

Marvel and DC both try to roughly have worlds that resemble ours and have the superheroes just be a part of it in their stories. In an AU like this, I'd like to see one of the potential futures of having an altruistic, caring God who doesn't just protect the status quo but uses his power and tech to truly change the world. Imagine if corporations and governments refuse to take Superman's help because of greed/capitalism and then their marginalized step up to the leaders because they know Clark is offering them a much better world than what they live in. He doesn't need to conquer anyone since in this story, the people will be behind him

[Robanker]

Realistically, yea it'd be tough for anyone to do that. But if you're talking about an immortal God-like being who's creating the cures to diseases, eliminating poverty, uplifting billions to high standards of livings, eliminating homelessness... it's a whole different ballgame.

Marvel and DC both try to roughly have worlds that resemble ours and have the superheroes just be a part of it in their stories. In an AU like this, I'd like to see one of the potential futures of having an altruistic, caring God who doesn't just protect the status quo but uses his power and tech to truly change the world. Imagine if corporations and governments refuse to take Superman's help because of greed/capitalism and then their marginalized step up to the leaders because they know Clark is offering them a much better world than what they live in. He doesn't need to conquer anyone since in this story, the people will be behind him

Looking at how he was in the Golden Age, Superman would have been called a commie saboteur inside of a year. He probably would have lead to a very bloody revolution with how volatile the world was at that time, if not directly than with people using him as a figurehead. Most superheroes, if allowed to operate on the level they do in their comics, would have upended society as a whole.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Looking at how he was in the Golden Age, Superman would have been called a commie saboteur inside of a year. He probably would have lead to a very bloody revolution with how volatile the world was at that time, if not directly than with people using him as a figurehead. Most superheroes, if allowed to operate on the level they do in their comics, would have upended society as a whole.

Golden Age Superman was very low powered in that time period, all the government would need is a missile in his vicinity and he'd be dead, Silver Age Superman is a whole other matter and he wouldn't be doing that. Despite being the same character.

[Kuwagaton]

The problem with King of the World or Justice Lord Superman, or Injustice Superman is that they're all written with the intention of turning the reader against Superman and Lois in those stories is just there to make sure everyone knows where things sit morally. It's been decades since King of the World and the modern DCU sort of resembles some kind of psuedo dystopic future like Mortal Kombat or Resident Evil or something. The world has all of our problems and then a bunch of sc-fi stuff that adds a bunch of other problems to the mix.

While it's clearly set up to show he isn't being our Superman, I have to say that I was rooting for him in King of the World.

[manwhohaseverything]

Looking at how he was in the Golden Age, Superman would have been called a commie saboteur inside of a year. He probably would have lead to a very bloody revolution with how volatile the world was at that time, if not directly than with people using him as a figurehead. Most superheroes, if allowed to operate on the level they do in their comics, would have upended society as a whole.

I told you,be careful what you wish for.Superman wouldn't like jon being like luffy.He would be one heck of a head ache for clark.

Golden Age Superman was very low powered in that time period, all the government would need is a missile in his vicinity and he'd be dead, Silver Age Superman is a whole other matter and he wouldn't be doing that. Despite being the same character.

That's wrong.Clark became strong enough to no sell nuclear testing.The guy was always looking for a challenge.here is superman circa 1944-1946.This was during the second world war propaganda era.


a bit of american way(Cough!Cough!Superman being pro nuclear test in an action comics issue)

[JAK]

They sort of answered that question 20 years ago in the "King of the World" arc, and Lois did indeed turn against him,writing a critical piece on him when it appeared he stepped over the line. Granted ultimately it turned out Dominus was manipulating and then ultimately even briefly impersonated Superman,but it clearly answered this question.

The answer is no.

Yep - and even though Dominus was controlling him, it showed that it's not in his character to do it, organically. "still the same Superman" and "decides to control the world" are mutually exclusive.

While it's clearly set up to show he isn't being our Superman, I have to say that I was rooting for him in King of the World.

I was, too (at first, anyway)!

[Ascended]

It seemed like that is the direction Bendis was heading towards to set up 5G (president Superman). Of course that is likely going away and swept under the rug after December.

Indeed, the entire direction is likely to be dumped with the new creators.

And if that happens it'll be a massive loss for the character. Clark engaging in galactic politics as a representative of earth is a natural evolution of the Golden Age social crusader, merging the fire and passion for positive change he used to have with the more even-minded, polite approach we're accustomed to today. It could have been (and could still be) a new Renaissance for Superman; a natural next step in his life and a stepping stone towards renewed popularity and relevancy. Gods know that in today's world we could use a Superman who's a little more hands on.

I will totally understand if Jon is de-aged back to ten years old. I'll even agree with and support that. I'm sure Clark's identity will become secret again, even though I feel it makes sense for the character at this stage of his life (and many future tales and Elseworlds lend the idea precedence). But if DC pulls Clark out of the United Planets and his growing role in politics....I'm gonna see that as proof that they really don't give a rat's ass and are happy to let the brand continue to decline.