View Poll Results: Would she?

Voters
49. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    6 12.24%
  • No

    43 87.76%
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 72
  1. #31
    Ultimate Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    19,547

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by Ascended; 12-01-2020 at 08:51 AM.
    "We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another, as if we were one single tribe."

    ~ Black Panther.

  2. #32
    Astonishing Member DochaDocha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,634

    Default

    I'm still hoping for a story where the world begs Superman to become leader of the world, and Superman begrudgingly accepts it, and ends up hating it more than he initially thought. But in a story like that, where Superman was requested to take leadership, I think Lois would say do it because he really is qualified for the job. But I doubt we'll see that story for a long time because it's more acceptable to make a story where Superman is wrong.

  3. #33
    Savior of the Universe Flash Gordon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    9,021

    Default

    Is his plan to emancipate people and lift the population of Earth up into something more humane and just? Is he going to structure a new societal apparatus based on the needs of the common person and not just profit centers of power? If so, yes! If it's just another boring story about Superman going power mad- that's a hard no.

    I mean he's Superman, sure she would.

    All that said, I do not think Kal-El is one to want power or to seek it. He speeds out after saving the day just as fast as he sped in.
    Last edited by Flash Gordon; 12-01-2020 at 01:01 PM.

  4. #34
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,220

    Default

    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.

    Like wise I've seen a full blown embrace of Kings, Queens, Emperors ect in Supeheroes. The Amazons, Black Panther, Thor, Atlanteans, etc. People seem to embrace powerful monarchs with gusto.

    I'm not talking about some run of the mill villain version of Superman but the Superman we've come to know basically looking at the world around him and going "drastic times call for drastic actions". Is Lois really going to turn on him knowing full well that he more than likely would end up creating a better world than they one they currently live in. Is she really fine with the borderline hell hole they live in? She seems fine with all the other kingdoms of the DCU world. Isn't she a pragmatist herself?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    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.
    I didn't really think much of how he might go about doing it but it's definitely close to "classic" Superman in behavior. Would be some kind of bloodless, peaceful revolution as best he could manage it. Maybe hypnosis of heads of state all over the world seeding power to him or something along those lines. But yeah it's definitely a Superman in direct control of the future of the world type deal.
    Last edited by The World; 12-01-2020 at 03:17 PM.
    Rules are for lesser men, Charlie - Grand Pa Joe ~ Willy Wonka & Chocolate Factory

  5. #35
    My Face Is Up Here Powerboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,725

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adekis View Post
    Ever read Alan Moore's Marvelman?

    At the end of that story, Marvelman and co. take over the world, and it ultimately ushers in a new golden age, but there's a lot of lingering questions about what it means to be human, the fact that we're kind of leaving humanity behind, and ultimately it's ambiguous, we can be sure that Marvelman is better than Margaret Thatcher, but we still maybe shouldn't be totally sanguine about losing everything we once had. In some ways I think it's the furthest conclusion of Jerry Siegel's original claim that Superman is fated to "reshape the destiny of a world."

    Anyway, I still don't totally think Superman would do that in the first place. I still don't think he would "take over the world". He would absolutely influence the world to fit more with his ideals. I mean imagine being eight or twelve or something and seeing first-hand the future rebuilt in your own image, with the Legion! He's probably been chasing that future ever since. But I don't think he would do it by totally undermining and replacing democracy with a benevolent dictatorship. He wouldn't take over by force.
    There's also the original version of Marvel's Squadron Supreme with the SS alias the Justice League taking over the world or nation for it's own good only to have Batman/ Nighthawk point out the fatal flaw that it can only work with them there enforcing it by, well, by force.
    Power with Girl is better.

  6. #36
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    4,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    Best we have doesn't mean best solution.The moment we stop searching for better we become stagnant.And stagnation isn't something world needs to solve it's problems.
    Democracy is slow in policy making.it requires consensus. This idea that democracy can't go tyrannical is also wishful thinking.Just because I might not have an answer.Doesn't mean an answer isn't needed.
    This is a non-answer since we know Superman's not going to bring in a new kind of ideology in leading the world. He's Superman, and being Superman isn't the definition of a new form of governance. Skipping right to the tyrannical part is neither new in politics or shown to get better results than democracy. Superman appointing himself king of the world won't do this.

  7. #37
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Inquisitor View Post
    This is a non-answer since we know Superman's not going to bring in a new kind of ideology in leading the world.
    Well yeah!It is a non-answer.Having no answer is better when you are searching.
    Well then,have fun doing absolutely trivial nonsense .who said being superman isn't?(not that superman needs to)is based on Moses.The guy that codefied the "thou shall not kill" rule thing that Superman clings to.Finding a new alternative to democracy or something that can fix problems with it ,does not mean a monarch.Finally,why do you don't believe western style democratic systems can't go tyrannical?populism is a thing.it had lead to major atrocities aso well.Every system can go tyrannical.Monarchy is an archaic form of governance. If he is Superman I am sure the guy should be able to propose something better than things we have.

  8. #38
    Black Belt in Bad Ideas Robanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    7,986

    Default

    No, she'd tell him he lost the plot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    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.
    Elected leaders don't "conquer" the people they're in charge of leading, so I don't think there's a version of this where Lois doesn't feel betrayed by Clark.
    Last edited by Robanker; 12-01-2020 at 10:04 PM.

  9. #39
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    4,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    Well yeah!It is a non-answer.Having no answer is better when you are searching.
    But you're not searching, Superman is being presented as the answer. A character who won't be creating anything except making himself a global despot.

    Well then,have fun doing absolutely trivial nonsense .who said being superman isn't?(not that superman needs to)is based on Moses.The guy that codefied the "thou shall not kill" rule thing that Superman clings to.Finding a new alternative to democracy or something that can fix problems with it ,does not mean a monarch.Finally,why do you don't believe western style democratic systems can't go tyrannical?populism is a thing.it had lead to major atrocities aso well.Every system can go tyrannical.Monarchy is an archaic form of governance. If he is Superman I am sure the guy should be able to propose something better than things we have.
    How Superman governs and discussing the various forms of government isn't being "trivial" it's acknowledging the stakes of what happens when Superman conquers the world. Superman is not the kind of moron, even if he were a despot, to make things up with his ideology for ruling the world because that'd be an incredibly distraction for him to figure out and if he's truly doing it for the right reasons he wouldn't let millions die until he knew the shape of what his reign would look like. He's inspired by Moses, not actually Moses. How Superman came to that rule was because of the Comics Code not because he was based on Moses. But just making Superman "king of the world" won't mean he'll do that and the times he has done that has been generic tyranny with the addition of a ruler who will destroy opposition with his laser eyes. I didn't say it would lead to monarchy, only tyranny. Of course democracies can become tyrannical but they don't start off like that and Superman declaring himself king of the world is skipping over the democracy. The world isn't voting for Despot Superman, he's taking that by force. Except for all the times we've have this storyline and he didn't. Injustice Superman and Lord Superman did not have any better alternatives than what we have now because they're Superman. And Lois, if she's written faithfully, would try to stop him the second she heard about him doing this. This is like Superman becoming Darth Vader.

  10. #40
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    34,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The World View Post
    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.
    The intention of these stories is to show why resorting to simplistic solutions for complex problems is a bad thing. It's just unfortunate that they often use Superman with Wonder Woman and other heroes often joining him.

    Like wise I've seen a full blown embrace of Kings, Queens, Emperors ect in Supeheroes. The Amazons, Black Panther, Thor, Atlanteans, etc. People seem to embrace powerful monarchs with gusto.
    1. These characters have also shown that monarchy is far from perfect. Themyscira had at least two civil wars pre-flashpoint and that isn't even getting into what the Amazons did in the New 52. Wakanda has had civil wars and we've been shown problems like xenophobia, sexism and rape culture. Atlantis has had no less than five battles for the throne, most of them post-flashpoint and Kelly Sue DeConnick recently criticized this in an interview before making Atlantis a less standard monarchy. Jason Aaron's Thor showed all kinds of issues with Odin's rule and it's been pointed out that Thor doesn't really like being a king.

    The only fiction where monarchy is truly embraced is in Disney movies. Wakanda recently became a constitutional monarchy and even Themyscira was a democracy at one point.

    2. None of these characters are doing what King Superman, Justice Lord Superman or Regime Superman are doing. Diana, Arthur, Thor and T'Challa aren't trying to take over the world (Diana and Thor aren't even running their own countries most of the time).

    I'm not talking about some run of the mill villain version of Superman but the Superman we've come to know basically looking at the world around him and going "drastic times call for drastic actions". Is Lois really going to turn on him knowing full well that he more than likely would end up creating a better world than they one they currently live in.
    What reason does she have to believe he would? Just because the DCU is messed up doesn't mean Superman alone is going to improve it. Especially since he will have the one thing that makes tyrants so dangerous - lack of oversight and accountability.

    Is she really fine with the borderline hell hole they live in?
    How is this a question? Of course, she isn't but that doesn't mean Superman is a better option.

    She seems fine with all the other kingdoms of the DCU world.
    She's criticized Wonder Woman in the past and she definitely would not be fine with expansion and totalitarianism.

    Isn't she a pragmatist herself?
    She is. Which is why she'd see what Clark is doing as a bad idea.



    I didn't really think much of how he might go about doing it but it's definitely close to "classic" Superman in behavior. Would be some kind of bloodless, peaceful revolution as best he could manage it. Maybe hypnosis of heads of state all over the world seeding power to him or something along those lines. But yeah it's definitely a Superman in direct control of the future of the world type deal.
    The only difference between this and all the other evil Supermen we've seen is that he's being subtle about this. If you had Luthor, Brainiac or Darkseid doing this, it would be no less evil and prone to disaster.

    Your idea only works if Superman is perfect and flawless and we know that to not be the case.
    Last edited by Agent Z; 12-01-2020 at 10:32 PM.

  11. #41
    Astonishing Member The Kid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The World View Post
    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.

    Like wise I've seen a full blown embrace of Kings, Queens, Emperors ect in Supeheroes. The Amazons, Black Panther, Thor, Atlanteans, etc. People seem to embrace powerful monarchs with gusto.

    I'm not talking about some run of the mill villain version of Superman but the Superman we've come to know basically looking at the world around him and going "drastic times call for drastic actions". Is Lois really going to turn on him knowing full well that he more than likely would end up creating a better world than they one they currently live in. Is she really fine with the borderline hell hole they live in? She seems fine with all the other kingdoms of the DCU world. Isn't she a pragmatist herself?



    I didn't really think much of how he might go about doing it but it's definitely close to "classic" Superman in behavior. Would be some kind of bloodless, peaceful revolution as best he could manage it. Maybe hypnosis of heads of state all over the world seeding power to him or something along those lines. But yeah it's definitely a Superman in direct control of the future of the world type deal.
    I honestly would love to a miniseries where Superman does kinda become a supreme leader of the world and uses it as a force for 'good' to ensure peace and prosperity to the marginalized and oppressed everywhere. The philosophical dilemmas present in that situation would be fascinating to read about

    Autocratic rule doesn't work but when we're dealing with a potentially immortal and all-powerful being like Clark... well that kind of throws the whole dynamic of the situation quite a bit. Let's say afterwards that there isn't war, capital isn't put above labor, those in power (your governors/presidents/administrators) are held accountable, systemic discrimination is eliminated over the world, poverty is eliminated, etc.. I'm not sure what Lois does. It really is incomparable to Justice Lord or Regime or any of the other dictator Superman since those guys are usually blatant bad guys who don't even pretend to care about helping people. Red Son Superman possibly being the exception there but it doesn't really delve into the idea of Superman potentially creating a 'utopia'

  12. #42
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Inquisitor View Post
    But you're not searching, Superman is being presented as the answer. A character who won't be creating anything except making himself a global despot.



    How Superman governs and discussing the various forms of government isn't being "trivial" it's acknowledging the stakes of what happens when Superman conquers the world. Superman is not the kind of moron, even if he were a despot, to make things up with his ideology for ruling the world because that'd be an incredibly distraction for him to figure out and if he's truly doing it for the right reasons he wouldn't let millions die until he knew the shape of what his reign would look like. He's inspired by Moses, not actually Moses. How Superman came to that rule was because of the Comics Code not because he was based on Moses. But just making Superman "king of the world" won't mean he'll do that and the times he has done that has been generic tyranny with the addition of a ruler who will destroy opposition with his laser eyes. I didn't say it would lead to monarchy, only tyranny. Of course democracies can become tyrannical but they don't start off like that and Superman declaring himself king of the world is skipping over the democracy. The world isn't voting for Despot Superman, he's taking that by force. Except for all the times we've have this storyline and he didn't. Injustice Superman and Lord Superman did not have any better alternatives than what we have now because they're Superman. And Lois, if she's written faithfully, would try to stop him the second she heard about him doing this. This is like Superman becoming Darth Vader.
    Yes,I am.A Superman Narrative at the very least can discuss various current forms of governance and of the past.If nothing else.And come to its own conclusions.

    Actually,no.Comics code had nothing to do with clark's moses parallels.Comics code just removed the radical elements of the character so that he can be dumbed down.That's it.For instance,superman who was a vigilante changed to become a hero. Later on,the alien side and immigrant narrative was emphasised. With likes of maggin,Moore..etc that complexity was expanded on and built up.Finally,just because you have only read same dogmatic 'superman becomes space hitler' doesn't mean every individual in the world thinks the same or has the same opinion. Superman could 'conquer' with sheer debate and a plan for a better system like the Buddha did Indian subcontinent.He didn't throw one punch.Nobody said anything about laser eyeing .those are your preconcieved notions because you have only read about people conquering with swords.Only those brutes that attack/prey using physical force on the weak and aren't will to listen to reason need force.Those that demand debate needs that.

    my question was simple 'what does clark bring to the table?' .if he brings something better as a superman would.He would naturally be some sort of leader figure.
    Last edited by manwhohaseverything; 12-02-2020 at 04:10 AM.

  13. #43
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    4,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    Yes,I am.A Superman Narrative at the very least can discuss various current forms of governance and of the past.If nothing else.And come to its own conclusions.
    This isn't a narrative where Superman becomes the elected president of the United Planets, that isn't controversial in the least because Lois would be ok with those circumstances. The only forms of government applying to this hypothetical is Superman ruling the world by himself through force. Any political ideology where Superman does this will make him look bad, since this are the actions of despots like Regime Superman. This is what numerous super-villains he fights do every day. And the "searching" part for this discussion hasn't been examining what ideologies a Superman who would do that has been that whatver he comes up with will be fine simply because he's Superman, a Superman who would conquer the world.

    Actually,no.Comics code had nothing to do with clark's moses parallels.Comics code just removed the radical elements of the character so that he can be dumbed down.That's it.For instance,superman who was a vigilante changed to become a hero. Later on,the alien side and immigrant narrative was emphasised. With likes of maggin,Moore..etc that complexity was expanded on and built up.Finally,just because you have only read same dogmatic 'superman becomes space hitler' doesn't mean every individual in the world thinks the same or has the same opinion. Superman could 'conquer' with sheer debate and a plan for a better system like the Buddha did Indian subcontinent.He didn't throw one punch.Nobody said anything about laser eyeing .those are your preconcieved notions because you have only read about people conquering with swords.Only those brutes that attack/prey using physical force on the weak and aren't will to listen to reason need force.Those that demand debate needs that.
    I didn't say it was, and it's telling how your not describing why Superman is inspired by Moses, it's not about politics it's about their origins. He wasn't Moses in a circus strongman costume. Vigilante and hero are very blurred in comics, they're virtually interchangeable terms. This isn't solely about evil Supermen, it's about how people who do those things in the real world aren't good people. Conquering has a specific meaning, and Superman would have to engage in Regime/Lord Superman antics to become the master of the world and stay there. He'll be killing millions of people, crippling governments, starving cities, destroying economies to cow the world into surrendering to him. Superman's not talking the world into submission and there's nothing stopping him consulting with governments for changing the world for the good as a consultant his influence is very strong but even that wouldn't guarantee him succeeding since he's not that good of a talker. Conquer has a very precise connotations and its not something used liberally as a social good. Superman isn't owed allegiance merely though talking, there will always be those who disagree and when he does commit violence on those who disagree he'll become the next Regime Superman since he'd lose what trust he had and the fact there is no political position in our world or DC's only makes it harder since he'd be making it up and doing that makes him a tyrant.

    my question was simple 'what does clark bring to the table?' .if he brings something better as a superman would.He would naturally be some sort of leader figure.
    Except this doesn't explain anything - what does he offer besides being Superman and why is he so easily excepted in your argument if you're not sure how he would govern?

  14. #44
    Astonishing Member Johnny Thunders!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    WGBS
    Posts
    2,535

    Default

    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.

  15. #45
    Ultimate Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    19,547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The World View Post
    I didn't really think much of how he might go about doing it but it's definitely close to "classic" Superman in behavior. Would be some kind of bloodless, peaceful revolution as best he could manage it. Maybe hypnosis of heads of state all over the world seeding power to him or something along those lines. But yeah it's definitely a Superman in direct control of the future of the world type deal.
    I think the "how" of it is critical. Clark's "classic" behavior is to avoid taking political power and direct control of humanity. I think if Clark, even at his most benevolent, said "Y'know what, this whole 'leading by example' thing isn't working, I gotta take a more direct hand in events" is basically him admitting his mission has failed. Isn't it supposed to be about humanity making the decision to be better, on our own, and not because Superman made being a ******* illegal?

    I can see Clark ending up in a political position of some kind, or otherwise taking a more direct hand in policy making. Either through happenstance (like how he ended up UP representative) or intent, it's something I *can* see Clark eventually doing, if the circumstances were just right. And I don't think it'd automatically be the most awful thing that could ever happen. But by putting himself directly in our decision making processes, he'd basically have to give up the Never Ending Battle as he (and we) have envisioned it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Robanker View Post
    Elected leaders don't "conquer" the people they're in charge of leading, so I don't think there's a version of this where Lois doesn't feel betrayed by Clark.
    I get what you're saying but given current events? Semantics.
    "We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another, as if we were one single tribe."

    ~ Black Panther.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •