Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
Oh they'd all decry anyone doing something that goes against their agenda. We need look no further than any number of outrage articles about Superman saving Mexicans, giving up his (honorary) citizenship to protect America from his actions, or Jon being bi.

It was just a joke, aimed at the republican "armed bystander" mentality. Those guys would probably be fine with a superhuman vigilante taking the law into their own hands....as long as that person agreed with them on everything. And the democrats wouldn't be much better about it. But it was just a snide little comment, don't take it too seriously.



Haven't been to the LCS in a few weeks, so no, and it'll probably be another week or two before I find the time (new job, very time consuming). But I heard about Waller and Peacemaker. And we see stuff like that all the time. Sam Lane, even when he isn't a two-dimensional Thunderbolt Ross rip-off, is usually against the idea of superheroes because they lack accountability, the Squad shows us what government does with superhumans when the public isn't watching them, etc. So I don't believe for a moment that a de-powered League *wouldn't* have Uncle Sam going after them. The usual status quo gives heroes a degree of protection due to public support and raw power, and the government still does what it can to control superhumanity. A weaker League would only mean the government can do more to them. And a weaker League means fewer lives saved, so that public support might not be as rock solid either, giving government a little more wiggle room to act semi-openly.
Figure you could easily have Superman convince them they have nothing to fear. Like in the MAN OF STEEL movie for instance. Just an example.