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

[Restingvoice]

Like lets just say Superman says he seen enough and decides he wants to take control of the world to make it a safer place. He still has all of the characteristics she fell in love with he just wants to conquer the Earth. Would she stand by him?

Eehh... since this is already out of character for Superman himself, then I can go with either for Lois

Real answer's no

[Vordan]

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.

Everyone is rooting for a hero who decides to change things at the start because the status quo in comics is horrifying. Millions die every year from cosmic attackers or Lex & Joker deciding they need to prove a point. No one has a problem with him killing Lex or Joker. Those two have such a large body count, and prison in the DCU is such a joke, that both deserve to be killed. So in order to establish why this is wrong the writer then has to have Supes or Bats or wherever go on to do a bunch of heniously evil stuff in order to justify why the status quo is a good thing.

[Agent Z]

Everyone is rooting for a hero who decides to change things at the start because the status quo in comics is horrifying. Millions die every year from cosmic attackers or Lex & Joker deciding they need to prove a point. No one has a problem with him killing Lex or Joker. Those two have such a large body count, and prison in the DCU is such a joke, that both deserve to be killed. So in order to establish why this is wrong the writer then has to have Supes or Bats or wherever go on to do a bunch of heniously evil stuff in order to justify why the status quo is a good thing.

Really? Cause the debates I've seen on this topic tell quite a different story.

[manwhohaseverything]

Everyone is rooting for a hero who decides to change things at the start because the status quo in comics is horrifying. Millions die every year from cosmic attackers or Lex & Joker deciding they need to prove a point. No one has a problem with him killing Lex or Joker. Those two have such a large body count, and prison in the DCU is such a joke, that both deserve to be killed. So in order to establish why this is wrong the writer then has to have Supes or Bats or wherever go on to do a bunch of heniously evil stuff in order to justify why the status quo is a good thing.

i have a problem with him executing people.There is self defense and then there is crap where the dude starts to go around killing whomever he likes.If prison and justice system sucks in dcu. the rational fight should be taken to them.So,they can correct themselves.Do what it's required inorder to keep civilians safe.

[The Kid]

I'm kind of in the middle. I very strongly oppose the death penalty in real life but considering how easily supervillains apparently break out of prison, it does get silly. Comic book logic dictates that villains will always return hence them not dying but then again, even if Superman did kill Lex, he would just come back to life soon for the exact same reason he currently never dies. So in that sense, I would prefer Superman not be an executioner if the end result would be Lex and co. coming back anyway

That said, in the context of the OP, I would make the story somewhat realistic in that the villains don't keep coming back. When Superman puts Lex away, it's for good and he's done. Locked up for life in a prison designed by Superman from the fortress with no possibility for escape. So in my hypothetical story, Lois would support Superman because I think she does care about justice overall and this Superman may be 'taking over the world' but he's not a cartoonish villain committing violence like in Injustice. He's helping make the world a better place and transforming society into a greater place for all marginalized and suffering people. Lois would fully support him IMO

[PCN24454]

I'm kind of in the middle. I very strongly oppose the death penalty in real life but considering how easily supervillains apparently break out of prison, it does get silly. Comic book logic dictates that villains will always return hence them not dying but then again, even if Superman did kill Lex, he would just come back to life soon for the exact same reason he currently never dies. So in that sense, I would prefer Superman not be an executioner if the end result would be Lex and co. coming back anyway

That said, in the context of the OP, I would make the story somewhat realistic in that the villains don't keep coming back. When Superman puts Lex away, it's for good and he's done. Locked up for life in a prison designed by Superman from the fortress with no possibility for escape. So in my hypothetical story, Lois would support Superman because I think she does care about justice overall and this Superman may be 'taking over the world' but he's not a cartoonish villain committing violence like in Injustice. He's helping make the world a better place and transforming society into a greater place for all marginalized and suffering people. Lois would fully support him IMO

Naturally, this point is rendered moot because villains can still come back to life. Of course, that also means that they probably shouldn't be so squeamish about trying to kill them.

[The Kid]

Naturally, this point is rendered moot because villains can still come back to life. Of course, that also means that they probably shouldn't be so squeamish about trying to kill them.

Yea that's what I was basically saying. If the endgame is them coming back anyway, I'd rather Superman (or Batman) not kill them even if it looks silly with comic book stories

[Ascended]

Yea that's what I was basically saying. If the endgame is them coming back anyway, I'd rather Superman (or Batman) not kill them even if it looks silly with comic book stories

It all depends on the character and story, sometimes a no-kill code can be interesting and compelling, sometimes it's just a weird, comic book-y way to ensure the popular villains always survive.

My preference, generally speaking, is for the hero to not be *able* to kill their rogues. If Barry Allen simply lacks the skill and speed to kill Zoom, then the overwrought ethical hand wringing of lethal force is a moot point. You avoid the self-righteous pontificating that can often accompany a no-kill code (see Action 775) while ensuring the villain always lives to fight another day, but also remains a truly viable threat.

In Clark's case, I find the no-kill code a interesting example of his hypocrisy. He *has* killed, in almost every incarnation and continuity, but still touts the code as if it were a unbreakable oath.

[manwhohaseverything]

It all depends on the character and story, sometimes a no-kill code can be interesting and compelling, sometimes it's just a weird, comic book-y way to ensure the popular villains always survive.

My preference, generally speaking, is for the hero to not be *able* to kill their rogues. If Barry Allen simply lacks the skill and speed to kill Zoom, then the overwrought ethical hand wringing of lethal force is a moot point. You avoid the self-righteous pontificating that can often accompany a no-kill code (see Action 775) while ensuring the villain always lives to fight another day, but also remains a truly viable threat.

In Clark's case, I find the no-kill code a interesting example of his hypocrisy. He *has* killed, in almost every incarnation and continuity, but still touts the code as if it were a unbreakable oath.

i agree,it also helps in selling the villain as an actual threat for superman ala darkseid or doomsday.Superman can't kill these guy.He can't kill brainiac.Heck!parasite and metallo might be immortal as well.

As for it being a hypocrisy.It could be.The dude is never called out on it.The writers seem to be on clark's side.

[Will Evans]

I’d rather see Superman conquer Apokalips for the greater good. With Lois at his side.

[The Frog Bros]

I’d rather see Superman conquer Apokalips for the greater good. With Lois at his side.

Maybe he'll be conquering Warworld in Future State...

[DochaDocha]

Everyone is rooting for a hero who decides to change things at the start because the status quo in comics is horrifying. Millions die every year from cosmic attackers or Lex & Joker deciding they need to prove a point. No one has a problem with him killing Lex or Joker. Those two have such a large body count, and prison in the DCU is such a joke, that both deserve to be killed. So in order to establish why this is wrong the writer then has to have Supes or Bats or wherever go on to do a bunch of heniously evil stuff in order to justify why the status quo is a good thing.

This was an issue I had with the whole Justice Lords arc. So, Superman felt justified in killing Lex, and BOOM! free speech is disallowed? A Superman who advocates killing bad guys automatically leads to a totalitarian state?

That escalated quickly.