Controversial Superman Opinions

[Stanlos]

I don’t mind Superman losing, Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, Batman, the Flash, Green Lantern, Supergirl, The New Gods, all those heroes can and have had their day with Superman. That’s fair to me, but sometimes, in a room full of heroes, Superman gets to be Superman.

I don't see Supes losing to that list. Only two of those named have a chance. Green Lanterns and the Fourth Worlders don't pose a real challenge to his raw power at all IMHO

[Johnny Thunders!]

For me it’s not just raw power and I do think that list has enough of it, for me it’s like Lex Luthor, Batman could be Lex Luthor in another universe. Green Lantern, if you think about it, couldn’t he just create constructs inside everyone’s skull? If you can see the color green arguably isn’t he already in your head so to speak?

[marhawkman]

My controversial Superman opinion for today is that Superman's No Kill Policy is not unreasonable at all given the vastness of his power and resources. It seems more than reasonable given his upbringing as well.

It's perfectly reasonable when not taken to an idiotic extreme. Superman simply has no morally justifiable reason to kill most of his enemies. There are exceptions though.

[Robanker]

Waid himself never wrote Flash to be that fast that Superman couldn't touch him, speed force was just a plot device to explain the inconsistent nature of Flash's speed.

Sure, but once you created an infinite reservoir of speed for the Flashes, it was only a matter of time. It's like arguing Tower of Babel wasn't really trying to be Batgod.

[Stanlos]

The Speed Force provided some comic book science to explain why the speedsters don't liquify people or damage the environment when they are zipping around

[Stanlos]

It's perfectly reasonable when not taken to an idiotic extreme. Superman simply has no morally justifiable reason to kill most of his enemies. There are exceptions though.

What are some of the exceptions in your view?

[Jim Kelly]

The Speed Force provided some comic book science to explain why the speedsters don't liquify people or damage the environment when they are zipping around

I think the Speed Force is too goofy to belong in the comic book science category. Hypertime, for all its loopy logic, still fits in the realm of comic book science. But once you get into the Speed Force, there's just no nub of scientific fact to base it on. The best Gardner Fox and John Broome comic book science always had some little bit of science fact that could then be embroidered to such an extent that it supported a wild premise. But what is the science that Mark Waid found? I think he made it out of whole cloth. I'd generously brand it as comic book metaphysics.

[Ascended]

My controversial Superman opinion for today is that Superman's No Kill Policy is not unreasonable at all given the vastness of his power and resources. It seems more than reasonable given his upbringing as well.

Agreed, mostly.

It is perfectly valid for Clark to not want to kill someone. I mean, who the hell actually *wants* to kill people? And it's fine for Clark to take great pains to avoid having to do it.

And a good chunk of Clark's rogues gallery can't really "die" anyway. We're talking about higher dimensional beings, the embodiments of cosmic forces, literal gods....you don't "kill" stuff like that. So a fair chunk of the villains, death isn't really an option, best Clark can do is throw them in the Zone, or the Source Wall, or whatever, and that's maybe as close to death as someone like Darkseid can get but it's not death as we mere mortals understand it.

But there *is* a line where it stops being reasonable and within character, and just becomes a big giant pile of stupid. We *are* talking about extinction level threats here, on anything from a global to a multiversal scale, and Clark drawing lines in the sand simply for the sake of his own conscience is wildly selfish and reckless. He has to at least be prepared for a worst case scenario, and willing to do what must be done for the sake of everyone under his protection.

And this is a rule that Clark breaks a surprising amount of the time anyway (not "often" but more than a lot of folks realize), despite his "rule" so I suppose when push comes to shove and Clark's back is up against the wall, he does make the difficult choice. But gods does he ever beat himself up for it afterwards.

[Stanlos]

I think the Speed Force is too goofy to belong in the comic book science category. Hypertime, for all its loopy logic, still fits in the realm of comic book science. But once you get into the Speed Force, there's just no nub of scientific fact to base it on. The best Gardner Fox and John Broome comic book science always had some little bit of science fact that could then be embroidered to such an extent that it supported a wild premise. But what is the science that Mark Waid found? I think he made it out of whole cloth. I'd generously brand it as comic book metaphysics.

Ok I see your point there. It's more in line with space magick than any real science. My head exploded from the goofiness of the Scott Snyder expansions with Slow Force and all the other ones.

[Stanlos]

Agreed, mostly.

It is perfectly valid for Clark to not want to kill someone. I mean, who the hell actually *wants* to kill people? And it's fine for Clark to take great pains to avoid having to do it.

And a good chunk of Clark's rogues gallery can't really "die" anyway. We're talking about higher dimensional beings, the embodiments of cosmic forces, literal gods....you don't "kill" stuff like that. So a fair chunk of the villains, death isn't really an option, best Clark can do is throw them in the Zone, or the Source Wall, or whatever, and that's maybe as close to death as someone like Darkseid can get but it's not death as we mere mortals understand it.

But there *is* a line where it stops being reasonable and within character, and just becomes a big giant pile of stupid. We *are* talking about extinction level threats here, on anything from a global to a multiversal scale, and Clark drawing lines in the sand simply for the sake of his own conscience is wildly selfish and reckless. He has to at least be prepared for a worst case scenario, and willing to do what must be done for the sake of everyone under his protection.

And this is a rule that Clark breaks a surprising amount of the time anyway (not "often" but more than a lot of folks realize), despite his "rule" so I suppose when push comes to shove and Clark's back is up against the wall, he does make the difficult choice. But gods does he ever beat himself up for it afterwards.

Sooooooooooooo where the stupid piles on--is it with things like Sun Eaters or Starbreaker? Or should he be offing the likes of Mongul, Mongul Jr, and Mongal?

How did you find his response to Diana's actions in SACRIFICE?

[Superfan90]

Sure, but once you created an infinite reservoir of speed for the Flashes, it was only a matter of time. It's like arguing Tower of Babel wasn't really trying to be Batgod.

But it's not infinite speed under Waid, its infinite energy and just going above lightspeed would put the speedsters to risk losing themselves in the speed force. Its the latter writers who confused it with infinite speed.

[marhawkman]

Sooooooooooooo where the stupid piles on--is it with things like Sun Eaters or Starbreaker? Or should he be offing the likes of Mongul, Mongul Jr, and Mongal?

How did you find his response to Diana's actions in SACRIFICE?

Depends on the situation. Is Mongul a direct threat to others right now? None of that "could he be a threat later" Bat-lunacy. Or "does he deserve to die?" Punisher-logic. No, "Is he a direct threat right now?" Do I NEED to kill him to save someone else?

This is why Superman killed Zod in MoS, and why he got into a fight to the death with Doomsday. In cases like that Superman WILL stop the bad guy even if he has to kill him.

[NaVi]

In my view, it is fine for Superman to kill under 3 conditions.

1: a monster without a mind.
2: last option, or kill or die him and all.
3: If they attack the family, it would not hurt that Superman would kill, I am not saying that he would just kill, but it would be possible to forgive that Superman would kill in that situation.

apart from killing, I would like a superman a little aggressive, who talks and tries to understand the villain on duty is very boring, because in the end it has no consequence in the superverse.

[marhawkman]

In my view, it is fine for Superman to kill under 3 conditions.

1: a monster without a mind.
2: last option, or kill or die him and all.
3: If they attack the family, it would not hurt that Superman would kill, I am not saying that he would just kill, but it would be possible to forgive that Superman would kill in that situation.

apart from killing, I would like a superman a little aggressive, who talks and tries to understand the villain on duty is very boring, because in the end it has no consequence in the superverse.

I LOVE moments where Superman is kind and caring to villains. To guys like Lobo and Kalibak it grinds their gear like nothing else. But in cases like Manchester Black and Major Disaster it erodes their willingness to fight him. In Major Disaster's case he joined the JL because of it!

[Ascended]

Sooooooooooooo where the stupid piles on--is it with things like Sun Eaters or Starbreaker? Or should he be offing the likes of Mongul, Mongul Jr, and Mongal

I think the only time where it's appropriate for Clark to take a life is when innocents are in direct, immediate danger and every other option has been exhausted; Clark can't use the Zone for whatever reason, he can't use diplomacy, he can't out-think or wear down his foe. If every single resource at Clark's disposal can't negate the threat, and that threat is putting lives in danger right now, then it's justified. Otherwise, no.

Moments where lethal force is justified include the MoS film and Our Worlds at War; in the film Clark had no resources to use, no way to contain Zod, and people were literally inches from death, while in OW@W the universe itself was moments away from being subsumed by the Brainiac/Imperiex merger and every other option had been exhausted. Moments where lethal force is not justified include Byrne's MoS and Injustice; with Byrne, the faux-Zoners had been stripped of their powers and were in a collapsing pocket dimension, with no way to escape it, while with Injustice Clark had already broken free from Joker's mind control and the immediate threat had passed. In both cases Clark wasn't thinking of the lives he could save, he was acting on his emotions.

How did you find his response to Diana's actions in SACRIFICE?

Considering that Clark had probably taken more lives than Diana at that point in continuity, it was abhorrent and hypocritical to the extreme. Max Lord proved a direct, immediate threat to the entire world and Diana's own life was very much at stake. She had used every trick available to her and they had all failed. Max had proven his ability to control Clark from any location on earth, bypassing any anti-telepathy safe guards at the Watchtower and Fortress. At that moment, Diana's only options were to kill Max or allow him to continue controlling the most powerful weapon in the galaxy.