He is not solving problems for us. He solving problems with us and as part of the society he lives in. Really? Would you ask Leonardo da vichi to not paint? Would you ask Shakespeare to not write? Would you ask Einstein to not be interested in gravity and physics? Would you ask goku to not train? Why does Superman differ? These guys are leaders as well in their feilds and the times. There are many kinds of leaders. You want superman as soon as some messiah who watches over people beating each other up? That was never the character. The character always acted, even when he messed up. Superman's philosophy is more action based.Why would he be disappointed?He isn't earth's or metropolis's father? He does what's right. If people want to do something else they can.If that leads to harm superman will be there to stop you or change your mind in anyway possible. Some people require getting knocked some sense,others require debate, some won' t change and have some justified stance that superman may disagree with. There in lies the conflict.Frankly, i am baffled i am having this debate. No wonder i think superman lost his fangs.
Please, that's nonsensical portrayal of a character. As hitman says, "
Superheroes are a joke". Superman was wayy more interesting as the strongman vigilante from space . Superman isn't earths nanny(a bad one. I mean, nanny's do generally interfere ).i have said this before there are many types of leaders. Superman doesn't need to be a politician to lead people. He can just be a people's champion who works as an independent agent. As for, destabilising governments. If superman sees people being oppressed with consent of the people or through his moral conviction he woulr act . The guy who took stalin and hitler by the belt should act (btw, this was printed when these guys were alive and very much powerful political entities. Not in the age where they are seen as just another villains that is allowed to be hit). None, of that has any bearing on what i am saying. The champion of the oppressed,acts to fight for freedom and against the corrupt. Superman isn't the authority nor black adam. He isn't interested in being a king or creating some totalitarian oligarchy. Didn't you read what i wrote? A guy could have power, use it and not control people/enslave them. That's superman . He just fights any corrupt establishment that doesn't have the welfare of its people in mind. And its upto the people of the nation to rebuild, if its destabilised. Superman would be there to help anr he is competent enough to control the chaos. Him being people's champion doesn't mean he would be a cult of personality either. He is a man of convictions and an idealist. If people have problems with real people being used.Sure, enough they can create fictional places and characters to get the point across.
Are you serious? The elite are a joke. Superman doesn't address the point in the story. What's so funny is bad example. Superman there was just against exectution or something( I am not really sure) . I have issues with the story as well. The only thing good about what's so funny is dreams speech. In it, superman specifically says he would never stop fighting and how dreams save us. Yet, superman isn't portrayed as the man of action most of the time. Honestly, this is why i think luffy is more superman than Superman in modern days. Clark is royalty. He doesn't do anything. He is lazy, complacent and too comfortable with himself . He is messiah on top of that. What an idiotic combination.
Man of rubber >>>>> Man of steel.
Luffy would punch any dictator in his jaws for his ideals, regardless of any consequences. As if superman is any more complicated. Its all just window dressing to say postcrisis superman and his stories are worth more. When in reality it ain't. It's wayyyy less.