If superman isn't vigilante,then what is the purpose of the secret identity?

[Robanker]

Yeah, i think you are right. Though it would be really funny for someone to hate the Clark Kent id, while claining to respect Jerry Siegel & Joe Shuster. Seeing that they based Clark Kent on themselves. Anyway back to having fun on these boards. Cut him some slack you say? Ok will do. Sometimes i take things way too seriously.

Everyone on here is passionate about these characters so we all get a little too into it sometimes.

And it's fair considering Clark was thinnest during their incarnation as well since he mostly was someone to shed so Clark could become Superman. Clark got developed more towards the end of the Silver/Bronze age. Not saying he was just glasses and a suit before that, but he started actually differentiating a bit later in life from the earliest stuff and I think manwhohaseverything enjoys the earliest incarnations most.

[Alpha]

Manwhohaseverything
Just wanna say that talking to you actually did make me understand a little better some of my own opinions about Clark, this has been an interesting conversation.

[manwhohaseverything]

You are obviously bullet proof when it comes to your opinions. Do you ever respond to what someone actually says? Or do you always respond to the opposite of what they actually say?

Ok.Am i getting you wrong?You said,superman would either have to play intellectually dumb with superpowers or be actually himself which is smart with superpower and gain scorn,right?I said,the latter is for the best.Lies cannot build bridges.what did i get wrong?

Yeah, i think you are right. Though it would be really funny for someone to hate the Clark Kent id, while claining to respect Jerry Siegel & Joe Shuster. Seeing that they based Clark Kent on themselves. Anyway back to having fun on these boards. Cut him some slack you say? Ok will do. Sometimes i take things way too seriously.

Which clark kent is the question.For me,clark kent became superman.glasses id,(act or no act) will never be superman or real clark kent.Superman is a champion.Clark kent with glasses is just a dude.

English doesn't seem to be his first language so sometimes he comes across harsher than I think he intends, so give him some slack there.

Yeah!it's not even my fifth language,actually.I picked up a lot.
Edit-Also,i don't believe i was arguing from just a goldenage paradigm or silverage one.To inspire people you need to act.Action inspire,speeches does not.I just don't find superman inspirational.i find bibbo inspirational,though.Yeah!the whole mellowing down thing is just boring.Also,assertion of Masculinity Should not be seen as inherently toxic is my view.Lois lane also has many of the attributes that are normaly connected to masculinity.People say he is inspirational.The writers practically drill it into our heads that he is .But,i don't feel it.Therefore the stories don't mean anything to me.It's as simple as that.Also,i don't care if you think i am being rigid.But,am i really the rigid one when i have accepted most things as long as it works for me and in general?

[manwhohaseverything]

The difference here is that you think Superman is required to be publicly accessible and i don't. He could simply say to people "Sorry, go ask Wonder Woman or Captain Marvel, I'm off duty", but he also has the right to just avoid the situation by not advertising he is Superman. And the easiest way to not advertise is not making his private life as Clark public information.




Why go to all that trouble when you can just avoid the crowds? Superman just maintaining his already separate identity as Clark avoids that need.



It's not a question of them being able to threaten Superman.

1)While being near Superman is always a risk, even if his ID isn't public, a public Superman will attract more attacks than one who isn't public. Plain ol' Clark Kent can eat at the corner deli without worrying someone is going to start a fight. And if someone is looking to attack plain ol' Clark they aren't using attacks meant to level entire blocks. He can just sit back and eat his lunch at that deli and not worry about any collateral damage.

2)Collateral damage. Even if I'm not able to muss Clark's hair any attack I make can hurt people around him.

3) And while it might not be in my best interests to target Superman's freinds, criminals aren't necessarily going to think that far ahead. Unlike a police officer there are going to be lots of articles covering Superman's life- where he grew up, where he lives, etc. Plus you are going to remember that Superman arrested you more than if Officer Muldoon, Sgt. Friday, or Lt Columbo arrested you.



I don't see a lie about something that has no effect on me as unethical. If my friend wants to tell me about some wild adventure that never happened- it does me no harm. If my barber tells me his name is Joseph, but he is actually Johosaphat or even Bob, makes no difference to me. And if my neighbor chooses not to tell anyone that he is a retired CIA operative claiming instead that he was a librarian, what does it matter. I only care if someone gives me false information that I have a right to know.



No, I mean the first time Clark realizes that there is some things he has to hide. Whether that is baby Clark not flying when other people can see him, Golden Age Clark hiding his strength from classmates so as not to attract attention, Chris Reeve not being able to join the football team or Henry Cavill being told that he shouldn't have saved those kids on the bus. Every version had a long period between learning that they had to hide their powers and adopting an identity where they could publicly show everything they could do. And that creates a mindset of being one person (Clark) in public and another (Superman) in private or in costume.

He might have a right to live a private life.But,I don't think using lies and double life to get that right is ever going to sustainable.Let's see,i have right to practice religion or free speech.But,does that mean i can say anything?There are exceptions and restrictions in even america to first amendment.Does that mean i can live my life like in any of the holy books or whatnot?The state would intervene.

Because ideals have costs.But,that doesn't mean we give up on them.

Collateral damage is a good point.I will give you that one.But still,The god tier guys don't bother anyways.I don't believe,metallo and the likes can have enough fire power to get past any of the defenses clark has to harm anyone around him.I mean,he is called superman for a reason.Anyways.Even if they do,Haven't superman been attacked with people around and death happening?Heck!the infamous scene in bvs has it.People die regardless of superman having an id or not.

How is clark kent id ok then?He is a reporter who writes about himself as a third person.

yes,he learns that there are things to hide.Because the society wasn't ready.But,i felt there was always a promise that there would be a time when superman would be able to play football or race locomotives.It was only till then he has to hide.I mean,legion future is that promise in writing.Also I saying, that mindset was never meant to be seen virtue or something voluntary.It was always something thrusted upon him. But with a dream and promise of a future,where he doesn't have to.So,haven't we reached that point now?

[Jon Clark]

He might have a right to live a private life.But,I don't think using lies and double life to get that right is ever going to sustainable.

How is it not sustainable when both Superman and Batman have actually sustained the dual identity schtick for 80+ years?

Let's see,i have right to practice religion or free speech.But,does that mean i can say anything?There are exceptions and restrictions in even america to first amendment.Does that mean i can live my life like in any of the holy books or whatnot?The state would intervene.

Because ideals have costs.But,that doesn't mean we give up on them.

Not sure exactly how this whole section applies to Superman.

Collateral damage is a good point.I will give you that one.But still,The god tier guys don't bother anyways.I don't believe,metallo and the likes can have enough fire power to get past any of the defenses clark has to harm anyone around him.I mean,he is called superman for a reason.Anyways.Even if they do,Haven't superman been attacked with people around and death happening?Heck!the infamous scene in bvs has it.People die regardless of superman having an id or not.

But less of them die when Superman is able to spend time in an identity where no one gunning for Superman is looking. And part of my argument is that even if no one dies in the battle, Superman might still prefer to skip the whole battle.

How is clark kent id ok then?He is a reporter who writes about himself as a third person.

That is one of those things where as an omniscient reader I know Clark isn't abusing his position. The same way in fiction I can applaud someone "planting" evidence against someone I know is guilty, but would have an issue with it in real life where I can't know that the "planted" evidence is just balancing the scales where a crook otherwise escapes justice. Some one in the DCU might find Clark unethical for writing those stories, but that person also cannot know that Clark hasn't slanted the story the way we readers can know it. And for me the guy who knows all of the objective facts is the one best able to decide if Clark has harmed anyone by not revealing his connection to the story.

learns that there are things to hide.Because the society wasn't ready.But,i felt there was always a promise that there would be a time when superman would be able to play football or race locomotives.It was only till then he has to hide.I mean,legion future is that promise in writing.Also I saying, that mindset was never meant to be seen virtue or something voluntary.It was always something thrusted upon him. But with a dream and promise of a future,where he doesn't have to.So,haven't we reached that point now?

I never saw it as a temporary thing. For me, Clark (and Bruce, Barry, Pete Parker ...) go to their grave with the public never knowing that the civilian and the super-hero were the same guy.

In my mind the Lone Ranger lives out his life and never reveals that John Reid survived that ambush. He might hang up the mask and take on another name as a regular guy with that new name being on the gravestone, but it never crosses his mind to let anyone know who was under the mask.

If Don Diego De La Vega doesn't die as Zorro then he eventually hangs up the sword and mask, but never confesses that he was ever Zorro.

[Jon Clark]

How is it not sustainable when both Superman and Batman have actually sustained the dual identity schtick for 80+ years?



Not sure exactly how this whole section applies to Superman.



But less of them die when Superman is able to spend time in an identity where no one gunning for Superman is looking. And part of my argument is that even if no one dies in the battle, Superman might still prefer to skip the whole battle.



That is one of those things where as an omniscient reader I know Clark isn't abusing his position. The same way in fiction I can applaud someone "planting" evidence against someone I know is guilty, but would have an issue with it in real life where I can't know that the "planted" evidence is just balancing the scales where a crook otherwise escapes justice. Some one in the DCU might find Clark unethical for writing those stories, but that person also cannot know that Clark hasn't slanted the story the way we readers can know it. And for me the guy who knows all of the objective facts is the one best able to decide if Clark has harmed anyone by not revealing his connection to the story.



I never saw it as a temporary thing. For me, Clark (and Bruce, Barry, Pete Parker ...) go to their grave with the public never knowing that the civilian and the super-hero were the same guy.

In my mind the Lone Ranger lives out his life and never reveals that John Reid survived that ambush. He might hang up the mask and take on another name as a regular guy with that new name being on the gravestone, but it never crosses his mind to let anyone know who was under the mask.

If Don Diego De La Vega doesn't die as Zorro then he eventually hangs up the sword and mask, but never confesses that he was ever Zorro.

And I know about things like Tony Stark, but:

1) it was his choice. He didn't until Civil War take an attitude that guys like Spider-man didn't still have a right to keep their identities hidden. And Stark has several times prior to that taken efforts to restore the secret of his identity after it had been made public.
2) I always thought that Marvel sort of preferred ditching the secret IDs which is why only Daredevil and Spider-man are ever shown to have negative consequences to revealing the identity. Stark doesn't have the government prosecute him for the crimes during Armor Wars after finding out that it was never a rogue employee but Tony Stark in the suit from day one. They never prosecute him for any financial issues with paying himself a salary to be his own "body guard" for years.

[manwhohaseverything]

How is it not sustainable when both Superman and Batman have actually sustained the dual identity schtick for 80+ years?



Not sure exactly how this whole section applies to Superman.



But less of them die when Superman is able to spend time in an identity where no one gunning for Superman is looking. And part of my argument is that even if no one dies in the battle, Superman might still prefer to skip the whole battle.



That is one of those things where as an omniscient reader I know Clark isn't abusing his position. The same way in fiction I can applaud someone "planting" evidence against someone I know is guilty, but would have an issue with it in real life where I can't know that the "planted" evidence is just balancing the scales where a crook otherwise escapes justice. Some one in the DCU might find Clark unethical for writing those stories, but that person also cannot know that Clark hasn't slanted the story the way we readers can know it. And for me the guy who knows all of the objective facts is the one best able to decide if Clark has harmed anyone by not revealing his connection to the story.



I never saw it as a temporary thing. For me, Clark (and Bruce, Barry, Pete Parker ...) go to their grave with the public never knowing that the civilian and the super-hero were the same guy.

In my mind the Lone Ranger lives out his life and never reveals that John Reid survived that ambush. He might hang up the mask and take on another name as a regular guy with that new name being on the gravestone, but it never crosses his mind to let anyone know who was under the mask.

If Don Diego De La Vega doesn't die as Zorro then he eventually hangs up the sword and mask, but never confesses that he was ever Zorro.

with a story that barely moves and constantly reboots.This time they just choose to move past the third act.They migh reboot and revert status again soon.But as of now,i believe clark has grown past needing the glasses in my opinion.

i was saying.Right to private life is not absolute and if truth is the ideal clark strive to live by then he should and would be ready to face the consequences,putting it in practice.

I don't view superman as person who avoids battles.His whole story is about a never-ending battle for truth and justice.Some battles need to be fought.if a person and people around him are being hounded for being themselves,not even being inappropriately.Then that society is corrupt.Confronting that evil is a requirement.So,superman coming out would be a statement.Sure,that might have costs.But,the alternative is living with a festering wound.

true,context does matter in stories.But,just because a reader from dcu(in-universe) doesn't know the reality.Doesn't mean it ceases to be unethical.People have the right to know the source.Normally,stories give justification for unethical choices as a literary mechanism.stories usually have other ethical means being exhausted.here it's not like that is my point.Also regarding the police man thing,we live in a digital world now.Everything is public.Criminals can access data about police officers and people close to them.So,it would be just as easy as getting superman's family details.

that would be true for zorro or batman for that matter.But,clark?he has another added layer.His alien origins and the fact that some of the struggles siegel and shuster had to face coming through in characterisation,for example-superman's return to krypton.I don't think an alien living and dieing in hiding is appropraite or hopeful or optimistic ending.It would only be tragic,granted i wouldn't mind that as well.It needs to be also noted that batman and zorro are inherently rich.Them leaving all that behind as charity is very much a symbolic gesture, sacrifice and absolute lack of greed is being showcased.Clark on the other hand is based on hugo danner as well.That guy had tragic end where humanity never accepts him and he dies being struck by lightning.If i was going for a happy ending,they would need to go for something else.John carter is also excepted in to the martian society as well,if i remember correctly.

[Jon Clark]

i was saying.Right to private life is not absolute and if truth is the ideal clark strive to live by then he should and would be ready to face the consequences,putting it in practice

Despite the radio show (and later TV show) pushing it, I never bought the "Truth" as a primary value for Superman. The very fact he at any point in his life had a dual identity or associated with other heroes who did undermines that. If Superman valued "truth" to the extent that he couldn't live with his own dual identity then following through he'd see it as his duty to also expose Bruce as Batman, Barry as the Flash, etc;. Even Lois who seems to be a champion of the public getting the whole truth has never thought revealing Superman's dual ID as a necessity. She supported Clark's decision to do so, but has never been shown to advocate doing so until Clark chose to do so.

Outside of cases where the public is actually being harmed or some other crime (than fraud) is being committed Superman has never been shown to value the truth over someone else's right to their own secrets. He allowed a criminal who had assumed another alias of Superman's, Jim White, to take the fact that he wasn't the "real" Jim White to the grave because of the effect it would have on a woman both Superman and Barnes' loved. He kept the fact that the Earth 1 Luthor's identity secret from his sister, Lena Thorul Colby because he and Lex both felt it was better for her not to know. In his debut appearance he actually kept even the existence of a Superman secret when quaestioned by George Taylor. So there have always been things Superman valued more than the truth- and i can accept that the fact Superman walks the streets disguised as a regular Joe could be one of those things he puts above "the truth"

I don't view superman as person who avoids battles.His whole story is about a never-ending battle for truth and justice.Some battles need to be fought.if a person and people around him are being hounded for being themselves,not even being inappropriately.Then that society is corrupt.Confronting that evil is a requirement.So,superman coming out would be a statement.Sure,that might have costs.But,the alternative is living with a festering wound.

I'm talking about avoiding battles as in not causing one where one is not needed. Why announce his location to every one looking for a fight with Superman as opposed to keeping his location under wraps until he has a location where there is less chance of collateral damage? Having Clark as a way to walk past someone looking to attack Superman is a sound strategy. And it is a way to accomplish things that need to be done without attracting attention. Clark can get a burger at McDonalds without attracting any attention. Superman walking into the same McDonalds turns lunchtime into a mob scene.

true,context does matter in stories.But,just because a reader from dcu(in-universe) doesn't know the reality.Doesn't mean it ceases to be unethical.People have the right to know the source.Normally,stories give justification for unethical choices as a literary mechanism.stories usually have other ethical means being exhausted.here it's not like that is my point.Also regarding the police man thing,we live in a digital world now.Everything is public.Criminals can access data about police officers and people close to them.So,it would be just as easy as getting superman's family details.

I'm saying that as someone who can look through the 4th wall to judge Superman's actions I make my judgement about the ethics of his reporting on his own exploits from a different perspective than I would inside the DCU. I can see that while not adhering to the letter of "the reporter's code", he is not violating the spirit of it. He technically is doing a "bad thing" but it is in the same category of "bad thing" for me as Robin Hood committing "armed robbery". It's an excusable violation of ethics.

that would be true for zorro or batman for that matter.But,clark?he has another added layer.His alien origins and the fact that some of the struggles siegel and shuster had to face coming through in characterisation,for example-superman's return to krypton.I don't think an alien living and dieing in hiding is appropraite or hopeful or optimistic ending.It would only be tragic,granted i wouldn't mind that as well.It needs to be also noted that batman and zorro are inherently rich.Them leaving all that behind as charity is very much a symbolic gesture, sacrifice and absolute lack of greed is being showcased.Clark on the other hand is based on hugo danner as well.That guy had tragic end where humanity never accepts him and he dies being struck by lightning.If i was going for a happy ending,they would need to go for something else.John carter is also excepted in to the martian society as well,if i remember correctly.

You have your view of the endpoint of Superman's career. I have mine. They are incompatable. I see a Superman dynasty that is still using dual IDs in 2465, while you see something where Superman just becomes another person on the street albeit a famous one with impressive abilities and his successors are as much celebrities as politicians or police,

[manwhohaseverything]

As said, bending your idealism due to circumstances and practical reasons/limitation is one thing.I don't think clark likes batman,flash,..etc.Clark understands their situation is comparable to his own.Heck!unlike clark currently these have more legitimate reason.Especially batman who could easily be put behind bar.So,he doesn't say anything.Because he knows at the end of the day these guys want to do something right and good.It's a compromise.The secret id his or anyone for that matter always was.You make compromises,that doesn't mean you give up on the ideal.while,that clark has shown he makes compromises with his ideals.My argument is that there is no legitimate reason anymore for clark to compromise or for allowing clark to have that contradiction other than the collateral damage point you raised.

Ideals aren't about strategic goals.They are about ethics and value system.Because he or anyone like clark has a right to live as himself without having to hide fearing life.Those who want to attack him for being himself are festering wounds of the society that is hidden.They need to be exposed and dealt with,in order for the society to continue healthily.So,i feel this battle is not to be avoided.It's not about,strategy.It's about an ideal.Strategies are created to carry out so that ideals can be applied in real world.Clark can have strategies and use his intellect and all resources to deal with anyone attacking him at burger place or anywhere.He could even use systems to stop any info about himself being using auto deletion tech or even jamming systems.that was just an example.He can contingencies.

is it?robin hood is provided the previous literary justification i mentioned.The exploitation of by the rich,unethical taxation and the system being in their hands lead to robin hood existing.What's clarks's excuse?He's got none is my point.He could literally not report about himself and anything related to him.Anyone,from the planet that doesn't know clark is superman can cover superman news.Superman can just be an evidence provider.Heck!people won't even be needing to rely on the word of a vigilante .They could just rely on the facts and evidences provided by any reporter from the planet.Use ron troupe or steve lombard or something.(It could even be a funny gag steve lombard exposing corrupt.Fighting for truth and justice ).Clark could and should just be reporting about other things.a Scathing report about plastic being dumped on the ocean or a guy from laos disarming land mines from the cold war era so that people can live normal life there or an actress who performs her last act on stage before the theatre being torn down.Actually stand up for the little guy and telling the stories about obscure events.A compromise to an ideal requires a practical limitation.Otherwise,he should drop the "fight for truth and justice" thing as whole.

I don't see a superman dynasty(if it's gonna happen).getting a secret id.Also,i didn't say they are gonna be police or politician.All i am saying,These people will be allowed to be themselves twenty four seven.Clark would be able to play football out in the open,There would be others joining him without having to wear masks.Their career is gonna their choise.They can be musicians for all i care.Behold!Music man is born.

[Tom Kalbfus]

What would the Daily Planet do with a reporter named Superman? Also the secret identity protects those close to him that his enemies could use as hostages. Also if Superman is a celebrity all the time, he is not very relatable.

[Steel Inquisitor]

As said, bending your idealism due to circumstances and practical reasons/limitation is one thing.I don't think clark likes batman,flash,..etc.Clark understands their situation is comparable to his own.Heck!unlike clark currently these have more legitimate reason.Especially batman who could easily be put behind bar.So,he doesn't say anything.Because he knows at the end of the day these guys want to do something right and good.It's a compromise.The secret id his or anyone for that matter always was.You make compromises,that doesn't mean you give up on the ideal.while,that clark has shown he makes compromises with his ideals.My argument is that there is no legitimate reason anymore for clark to compromise or for allowing clark to have that contradiction other than the collateral damage point you raised.

Except your argument is that they should be open for business to the public by being Superman with no down time. Can't get a burger without Metallo showing up and killing people, because that's going to happen when Superman isn't hiding - he's a walking target, and that's just Metallo. Why wouldn't he like other super-heroes? It makes sense he'd have a rough relationship at first with Batman but they eventually grow into best friends and colleagues. Superman is one of the most social super-heroes in the DCU, everyone loves the guy and he loves them. His networking ability as Clark Kent and Superman is incredible. Why should Batman be in prison when he does exactly the same things Superman's doing, just with no powers and a bigger wallet? That's not a compromise, that's having friends, allies and colleagues - like Superman would sell out the JLA to the government because they're vigilantes? Why? Clark is compromising his ideals by being Clark Kent because of all the reasons Jon mentioned, Superman being Superman every minute of every day would drive him insane and leave him vulnerable for longer with no down time. That's just being practical. It's like how celebrities choose to use aliases and disguises in public to hide from the papparrzii and stalkers.

Ideals aren't about strategic goals.They are about ethics and value system.Because he or anyone like clark has a right to live as himself without having to hide fearing life.Those who want to attack him for being himself are festering wounds of the society that is hidden.They need to be exposed and dealt with,in order for the society to continue healthily.So,i feel this battle is not to be avoided.It's not about,strategy.It's about an ideal.Strategies are created to carry out so that ideals can be applied in real world.Clark can have strategies and use his intellect and all resources to deal with anyone attacking him at burger place or anywhere.He could even use systems to stop any info about himself being using auto deletion tech or even jamming systems.that was just an example.He can contingencies.

It's not about Clark's ideals, entirely, it's about having a private life and not getting friends and family members murdered by super-villains and living in peace and quiet. This isn't about his right to do things, sure he has the right, he also has the right to choose having a private life. As if that's a burden, rather than his Superman identity who would cause more grief than being Clark. He won't be able to do much about the people who want to destroy him if they to him first and never let up for him to recover form every fight. He'd get physically weaker being attacked constantly, more stressed, less access to friends like Lois who would be in more danger by simply knowing him as Superman and more reliant on people like J'onn posing as Superman to be a decoy for people who level buildings like nothing. That's how his enemies win. In fact, this strategy is how Bane won in Knightfall. But he shouldn't have to, and even if he succeeds there will be people injured or dead just because he chose to eat a burger. That'd cause tremendous guilt since Clark would be the one putting them in danger. He already does strategies too defeat villains in the "real world" as it is, it's not like he does nothing when Brainiac shows up on Earth. He'd be spending more time on contingencies and recovering then he does now, energy wasted all so he can eat a burger.

is it?robin hood is provided the previous literary justification i mentioned.The exploitation of by the rich,unethical taxation and the system being in their hands lead to robin hood existing.What's clarks's excuse?He's got none is my point.He could literally not report about himself and anything related to him.Anyone,from the planet that doesn't know clark is superman can cover superman news.Superman can just be an evidence provider.Heck!people won't even be needing to rely on the word of a vigilante .They could just rely on the facts and evidences provided by any reporter from the planet.Use ron troupe or steve lombard or something.(It could even be a funny gag steve lombard exposing corrupt.Fighting for truth and justice ).Clark could and should just be reporting about other things.a Scathing report about plastic being dumped on the ocean or a guy from laos disarming land mines from the cold war era so that people can live normal life there or an actress who performs her last act on stage before the theatre being torn down.Actually stand up for the little guy and telling the stories about obscure events.A compromise to an ideal requires a practical limitation.Otherwise,he should drop the "fight for truth and justice" thing as whole.

Robin Hood was an outlaw who had an army and lived far away he didn't just live in Sherwood where the Sheriff could send men to kill him at a moment's notice. He wasn't a super-hero, Robin has never fought enemies like Superman has. He gave up his life to do this but some adaptions have him use his Loxley identity to spy on enemies up close - and he lives in times where cameras don't exist. Marian was in danger as soon as the Sheriff knew what she meant to Robin, as well. Sure he doesn't have to report on himself as Superman, but he has to make a living and he's technically not lying when his source is Superman. He also is able to do things like get up close to enemies like Lex as Clark without Lex catching on so he's got the advantage for once. That would be lost outing his secret identity. How is Clark not standing up for the little guy as a reporter? As if he's Daily Planet's gossip columnist rather than the reporter who uncovers things like Lex's latest criminal scheme. Reporters also have their niches, he won't be able to cover all those topics since they're random topics. He might be able to do it as a blogger but that's a massive step down from his position as the Daily Planet's second best reporter. The first being Lois. How does that compromise affects him standing up for truth and justice? Not reporting on global warming doesn't make that not true, it's just not his beat as a journalist. It's just a random justification that because Superman ins't doing whatever means he's not doing anything - saving the world as Superman and exposing criminal activities as Clark Kent means nothing.

I don't see a superman dynasty(if it's gonna happen).getting a secret id.Also,i didn't say they are gonna be police or politician.All i am saying,These people will be allowed to be themselves twenty four seven.Clark would be able to play football out in the open,There would be others joining him without having to wear masks.Their career is gonna their choise.They can be musicians for all i care.Behold!Music man is born.

Already happened, Superman's dynasty was a huge thing in Post-Crisis. DC One Million revolved around that. Morrison did this again in All Star.



And they would be attacked by enemies from super-villains to criminals and the pararrazzi won't let them go to out in public in peace. Privacy will be a foreign concept unless they want to stay in the Fortress of Solitude. The last part is nonsense. Their choice has been to have secret identities, why is that not respected?

[Jon Clark]

As said, bending your idealism due to circumstances and practical reasons/limitation is one thing.I don't think clark likes batman,flash,..etc.Clark understands their situation is comparable to his own.Heck!unlike clark currently these have more legitimate reason.Especially batman who could easily be put behind bar.So,he doesn't say anything.Because he knows at the end of the day these guys want to do something right and good.It's a compromise.The secret id his or anyone for that matter always was.You make compromises,that doesn't mean you give up on the ideal.while,that clark has shown he makes compromises with his ideals.My argument is that there is no legitimate reason anymore for clark to compromise or for allowing clark to have that contradiction other than the collateral damage point you raised.

So Batman is justified in protecting himself from legitimate authority (put behind bars, but Superman isn't justified in being protected from illegitimate authority (enemies attacking him at any point). You do realize that as written Batman could as easily evade the GCPD even if they knew he was Bruce Wayne as Superman could protect himself from Metallo? In fact the guy who built Brother Eye can probably defend himself better than Superman against being arrested. And if Clark is knowingly protecting the identity of a wanted fugitive like Batman, isn't this going to make Clark equally liable to prosecution? So we wind up back at the original vigilante reasoning for Clark needing a secret ID.

Ideals aren't about strategic goals.They are about ethics and value system

And value systems have hierarchies. Clark can have ideals that outrank being 100% truthful. And those values might require keeping his Clark Kent activities separate from his Superman activities. For example Lois' right to her job. Remember from whatever point she learned his ID her Superman stories are equally unethical. Superman revealing his identity any point after she writes that first knowing unethical story causes him to put her in danger.

.Because he or anyone like clark has a right to live as himself without having to hide fearing life.Those who want to attack him for being himself are festering wounds of the society that is hidden.They need to be exposed and dealt with,in order for the society to continue healthily.So,i feel this battle is not to be avoided.It's not about,strategy.It's about an ideal.Strategies are created to carry out so that ideals can be applied in real world.Clark can have strategies and use his intellect and all resources to deal with anyone attacking him at burger place or anywhere.He could even use systems to stop any info about himself being using auto deletion tech or even jamming systems.that was just an example.He can contingencies.

But those strategies impact other people. If all they fail Clark isn't the one who pays the price. Is it ethical of Superman to live openly if doing so subjects people he interacts with to risk? Is Superman now required to not go out to dinner, go for a walk, live in Metropolis, etc because any criminal might decide to attack him at any moment? He might have some strategy he feels will work, but Joe Average on the street or at the McDonalds may not. Remember even after years of seeing the result there are crooks who still shoot at Superman- no reason to assume they won't shoot at Public Clark and hit you or your loved ones.

is it?robin hood is provided the previous literary justification i mentioned.The exploitation of by the rich,unethical taxation and the system being in their hands lead to robin hood existing.What's clarks's excuse?He's got none is my point.He could literally not report about himself and anything related to him.Anyone,from the planet that doesn't know clark is superman can cover superman news.Superman can just be an evidence provider.Heck!people won't even be needing to rely on the word of a vigilante .They could just rely on the facts and evidences provided by any reporter from the planet.Use ron troupe or steve lombard or something.(It could even be a funny gag steve lombard exposing corrupt.Fighting for truth and justice ).Clark could and should just be reporting about other things.a Scathing report about plastic being dumped on the ocean or a guy from laos disarming land mines from the cold war era so that people can live normal life there or an actress who performs her last act on stage before the theatre being torn down.Actually stand up for the little guy and telling the stories about obscure events.A compromise to an ideal requires a practical limitation.Otherwise,he should drop the "fight for truth and justice" thing as whole.

Clark's justification is that Peery assigned him to report on those stories. Clark did not have the option to choose his own stories, he'd have been fired for not doing the job. Same with Lois. Technically both of them should be fired as soon as Clark reveals his identity as i said above.

Could Clark (and Lois) have avoided the problem by not reporting on Superman? Only if they either refused stories they were assigned (and got fired), told Perry the truth (and put him in a bind), or found another line of work.

I don't see a superman dynasty(if it's gonna happen).getting a secret id.Also,i didn't say they are gonna be police or politician.All i am saying,These people will be allowed to be themselves twenty four seven.Clark would be able to play football out in the open,There would be others joining him without having to wear masks.Their career is gonna their choise.They can be musicians for all i care.Behold!Music man is born.

Except wahtever they choose without a secret ID they are always under the same threats as the last generation that was a superhero. Jon's daughter will always be a target of Superman's enemies (Jon or Clark) because she can't put the genie back in the bottle.

And Clark can never openly play football unless either there are other metahumans involved or you have a lopsided game. The secret ID or lack of secret ID doesn't change that