|
BrianWilly posted:I'm not following this part. If civilian vigilantes are "appointed" by a democratically-elected government and ultimately answer to its decrees, how is it not functioning as part of the democratic system? It's a slightly different method of law enforcement, but I'm not seeing where in this process that the system itself has been invalidated. If the majority of all parties involved agree on how to do things, isn't that the very definition of democracy? Nobody "appointed" Superman. Nobody pointed to a random guy off the street and said "you're an alien born of another world and here to inspire/save humanity". Superman could/would be Superman regardless of how the public or the government views him. This has been (at the very loving least) problematic in the past. See also: superdickery.
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 21:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 06:42 |
|
|
"Also, hey, Peter Parker, we held a vote and assigned you to be bitten by the radioactive spider. But remember, with great powers comes great responsibility. Good luck!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
api call girl posted:"Also, hey, Peter Parker, we held a vote and assigned you to be bitten by the radioactive spider. This is exactly what Captain America's origin is though
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
Dacap posted:This is exactly what Captain America's origin is though That selection process was undemocratic as gently caress and made during wartime. It's kind of a fascistic power fantasy used against actual fascists. I dunno.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:Giving superheroes a pass is one thing, actively cooperating with them is another. In many books, including the recent Injustice game, the superheroes are seen openly working with the cops. They're allowed to interview criminals in jail and so forth. There are police procedures for cooperating with criminals, police informants and the like. To the extent that the DC Universe police go beyond those limits, that's simply police corruption. BrianWilly posted:I think we have to allow that there is some sort of legal process that allows for civilian vigilantism in the DCU or else we have to say that every officer of the law is shirking their responsibility for not constantly trying to hunt down all superheroes, and I'm not talking about the unstoppable god types, I'm talking about B-listers like Hawkman and Blue Beetle. To loop back around to this, I think it's asking a lot to suggest that we should assume that what it would take to make civilian vigilantism legal - an act by a legislature, if not a constitutional amendment - happened off-screen/off-panel. Dacap posted:This is exactly what Captain America's origin is though Captain America, to the extent that he operates as a member of the US military on foreign soil, is an exception to this general discussion. He's an exception for such obvious reasons that it sort of proves the point in regards to Superman, Batman, etc. Once Steve Rogers starts following his own orders we have a problem, of course.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 21:29
|
|
|
Speaking about Captain America's origins...should we bring in Truth and Grant Morrison's Weapon Plus program? Heh. Probably just keep it to the movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 21:38
|
|
|
api call girl posted:"Also, hey, Peter Parker, we held a vote and assigned you to be bitten by the radioactive spider. Considering the kind of poo poo that being Spider-Man makes you put up with it seems like a situation where you'd be better off just run away to Canada to escape the superhero draft.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 00:51
|
|
|
Bob Quixote posted:Considering the kind of poo poo that being Spider-Man makes you put up with it seems like a situation where you'd be better off just run away to Canada to escape the superhero draft. I'd have given up at Brand New Day or whatever at latest. Aunt May? You had a good run. I'm gonna spend the rest of my days in the Alaskan wilderness, web-trapping moose for dinner.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
api call girl posted:I'd have given up at Brand New Day or whatever at latest. Aunt May? You had a good run. I'm gonna spend the rest of my days in the Alaskan wilderness, web-trapping moose for dinner. I probably would have bailed either at the Gwen Stacy tragedy or that whole clone debacle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 05:44
|
|
|
Bob Quixote posted:Considering the kind of poo poo that being Spider-Man makes you put up with it seems like a situation where you'd be better off just run away to Canada to escape the superhero draft.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 08:04
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:There are police procedures for cooperating with criminals, police informants and the like. To the extent that the DC Universe police go beyond those limits, that's simply police corruption.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 08:17
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:Why? It's a speculative universe. The point is to see what it's like when we change certain facets of our universe. We know this universe periodically does create legislation having to do with costumed vigilantism because the JSA was put on trial during the McCarthy era for not revealing their identities, but then years later you have this oft-cited bit of fun. Legislated policy on this sort of thing evidently changes with the times, and costumed heroes have been around since the Depression in this universe; all else being equal, isn't it also a lot to suggest that the system simply never got arsed to assimilate to the situation and that law enforcement working alongside superheroes shows corruption? Like, that's a pretty clear contortion of the situation. But... the 12th Amendment has to do with the Electoral College and choosing the President and Vice President? Or is that 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 12:51
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:Why? If we're going to say that fundamental changes in the relationship between humanity and superheroes can happen without direct or indirect reference on-screen/on-panel, then we should drop this conversation because the fictional context is unknowable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 14:27
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:Does Marvel go through a lot of reboots and retcons? Surely hasn't actually gone through every lovely thing that has happened in the character's entire 40-year run. Marvel doesn't re-boot but instead has a sliding time scale where the characters remain relatively at the same age and instead the events in their lives get compressed together in a nonspecific way. So yeah, Spider-Man has put up with an unending stream of bullshit and it all counts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:If we're going to say that fundamental changes in the relationship between humanity and superheroes can happen without direct or indirect reference on-screen/on-panel, then we should drop this conversation because the fictional context is unknowable. We know the points where and how this universe diverges from ours -- "superheroes exist" -- and we know for a fact that this fictional universe has occasionally enforced legislature about superheroes; sometimes to take away their privileges, sometimes to grant them more privileges. We know, from the panel that I posted, that at some point there was legislature created that allows even masked vigilantes to participate in the legal process. We know that the JLA has a working relationship with the UN, that there is a city-sanctioned Flash museum, that Green Lantern participates in parades, and that there's a dang bat-signal sitting on the roof of the GCPD. What we don't know are the technical details of the laws that would accommodate this, or how far those laws would technically stretch (in all likelihood they would change based on the writer in question and the specific needs of the story). But given what we know, your suggestion that law enforcement would be corrupt by accommodating superheroes is not somehow less of a leap than my point that superheroics probably stopped being functionally illegal at some point in the last seventy fictional years. I'd honestly consider it a bit more of a leap. You don't think that at the very, very, very least, the city of Metropolis has probably given Superman any official sanction to keep peace at some point? All of which is getting a bit besides the original point, which was the assertion that Superman has no qualms about acting outside of a democratic system. And I would argue that, on the contrary, he's very mindful to keep his actions within the purview of the state. It may be up for debate whether he succeeds in that endeavor, and just like in real life there's debate about that matter in-universe; someone like Lex Luthor would certainly claim that Superman should be given far less leeway from the system, and people like the Daily Planet staff will probably argue otherwise. And that's democracy for ya. Someone mentioned that what makes Superman Superman is that he will always do the right thing even if the authorities were against him. And that may be true. And that's why he works as hard as he possibly can do make sure the people in charge knows he's on their side, so that he'll never be put to that test. Which makes him a more interesting character imo, not less.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 16:02
|
|
|
Bob Quixote posted:Marvel doesn't re-boot but instead has a sliding time scale where the characters remain relatively at the same age and instead the events in their lives get compressed together in a nonspecific way. Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Sep 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 16:03
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:All of which is getting a bit besides the original point, which was the assertion that Superman has no qualms about acting outside of a democratic system. And I would argue that, on the contrary, he's very mindful to keep his actions within the purview of the state. Considering the numerous crimes he commits against not just the people but the machines of the State, Kal-El demonstrates that he serves none but himself. His mindfulness only extends to determining what actions will please him best. BrianWilly posted:It may be up for debate whether he succeeds in that endeavor, and just like in real life there's debate about that matter in-universe; someone like Lex Luthor would certainly claim that Superman should be given far less leeway from the system, and people like the Daily Planet staff will probably argue otherwise. And that's democracy for ya. Kal-El is an alien invader who consistently puts all of humanity at risk for destruction in the worst case, in the best case he only offers a soft oppression that will smother all of humanity beneath his 'gentle care'. The opinions of his sycophants does not invalidate these facts. BrianWilly posted:Someone mentioned that what makes Superman Superman is that he will always do the right thing even if the authorities were against him. And that may be true. Kal-El consistently seeks to do what serves him best, which to the narcissist is of course 'the right thing', or if you are generous he does what he feels is the 'right thing'. Which is, of course, distinct from what our human morality and ethics might decide is 'the right thing', but Kal-El has never valued anything human as an authority over himself.* BrianWilly posted:And that's why he works as hard as he possibly can do make sure the people in charge knows he's on their side, so that he'll never be put to that test. I don't believe we watched the same footage, did we? I certainly did not see Kal-El's efforts at cooperating with the 'people in charge' so perhaps you can fill me in. *If you are looking for a true hero that always does the right thing even when the government disagrees, look instead to Captain America.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 16:11
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:All of which is getting a bit besides the original point, which was the assertion that Superman has no qualms about acting outside of a democratic system. No, the original point, as stated by you, was that Superman "believes in the efficacy of the democratic system." If we're now saying that this democratic system, off-panel, has affirmatively granted Superman free reign to enforce his own vision of justice free of conflict with them, well, I suppose he would find that pretty effective. Of course, it says nothing of what he'd think of real-world democracy, which doesn't grant extraordinary power to masked vigilantes, killing the metaphorical aspect of the character, but who cares about that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 16:21
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:No, the original point, as stated by you, was that Superman "believes in the efficacy of the democratic system." If we're now saying that this democratic system, off-panel, has affirmatively granted Superman free reign to enforce his own vision of justice free of conflict with them, well, I suppose he would find that pretty effective. Of course, it says nothing of what he'd think of real-world democracy, which doesn't grant extraordinary power to masked vigilantes, killing the metaphorical aspect of the character, but who cares about that? And I wouldn't say it gives him "free reign to enforce his own vision of justice"; he's still expected to abide by rules.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 16:31
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:And I wouldn't say it gives him "free reign to enforce his own vision of justice"; he's still expected to abide by rules. If these rules conflict with what his morality dictates, what does he do?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:Even then, time is a bit weird. Peter Parker aged about 10 years between 1962 and the late 80s, but has basically been stuck in this period of being not-quite-thirty for over twenty years. Its even weirder when you consider that certain events crucial to a characters backstory remain fixed in time - so Magneto is always a survivor of the Holocaust even though that happened 70 years ago and they have to find bullshit in-universe ways to keep him young and vital when he'd probably be bending spoons and loving with peoples wheelchairs in a nursing home by now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:If these rules conflict with what his morality dictates, what does he do?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:Like, what rules from a democratic society are we talking about here that hypothetically conflicts with Superman's morality? Will Superman assist in the capture and trial of an alleged criminal for a crime that will result in the death penalty? I.E., is his devotion to our democratic decision to kill people in certain contexts more important than his personal belief that killing people is wrong?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
If I were writing the story, and the suspect has legitimately committed crimes that warrant a death penalty? I'd say Superman would help...and then he might make "leniency for the suspect" an inarguable condition for his aid, or arrange for a way to "conveniently" deposit the guy somewhere without the death penalty (which is nearly everywhere in the DCU, for better or for worse). Part of the fun of writing Superman, after all, is finding the third option, a way for him to do his job without compromising his ideals. And honestly, even if it comes to all that, I don't think Superman would be all that pressed if the guy really does wind up on death row. He's expressed disdain for the death penalty before, and if worse comes to worse he'll argue for leniency in the courtroom, but unless he's out there actively campaigning to dismantle it, it'd be hypocritical for him to be torn about the law doing its job. He might be sad, but not nearly to the point of revolt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
I think Superman the Animated Series answered this perfectly. Dude's just fine if an rear end in a top hat murderer ends up on Death Row.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
edit: Nevermind, could be seen as inflamatory
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:And honestly, even if it comes to all that, I don't think Superman would be all that pressed if the guy really does wind up on death row. He's expressed disdain for the death penalty before, and if worse comes to worse he'll argue for leniency in the courtroom, but unless he's out there actively campaigning to dismantle it, it'd be hypocritical for him to be torn about the law doing its job. He might be sad, but not nearly to the point of revolt. So Superman has less of a dedication to the sanctity of life than a number of European and South American governments, which actually will refuse extradition unless the death penalty is off the table. If that's your picture of the character, then I suppose you're right that he'd be able to work within our laws.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
If your picture of Superman flies across the world forcibly dismantling all execution chambers and setting death row convicts free, then I suppose you're right that he wouldn't be able to work within our laws. That's a moot point however, considering Superman doesn't do that, whether it's "my" picture of him or not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 18:15
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:If your picture of Superman flies across the world forcibly dismantling all execution chambers and setting death row convicts free, then I suppose you're right that he wouldn't be able to work within our laws. That's a moot point however, considering Superman doesn't do that, whether it's "my" picture of him or not. This is a really weird way to respond to my post considering I was very specific that I was discussing the low bar, which according to you Superman would not meet, set by other countries refusing to extradite to the United States if the death penalty is on the table.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
The part that makes me pause is that it's the twelfth. This amendment for superheroes apparently predates the one outlawing slavery. Were there even costumed crimefighters in the DC canon then?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:If your picture of Superman flies across the world forcibly dismantling all execution chambers and setting death row convicts free, then I suppose you're right that he wouldn't be able to work within our laws. That's a moot point however, considering Superman doesn't do that, whether it's "my" picture of him or not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:This is a really weird way to respond to my post considering I was very specific that I was discussing the low bar, which according to you Superman would not meet, set by other countries refusing to extradite to the United States if the death penalty is on the table. See, when we contort the context, everyone loses. I do like how you ignored the entire first part of my post talking about how Superman would find a way around the situation. Although I do stand by my latter points: Superman is not so obsessively anti-capital punishment that he would fight the state on it. Unless he is fighting the law tooth and nail both as Clark Kent and as Superman -- which he doesn't -- he has no room to stand on when states exert their lawful authority on the matter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:So your picture of Superman would let a known murderer roam free to harm or kill others, when he has the power to prevent this, just so he doesn't have to indirectly subject this maniac to the law of the land as decided by a jury of his peers? Or otherwise how would your picture of Superman handle this? By ignoring the situation until it goes away? I think a Superman with an authentic respect for individual human life would dismantle the apparatus by which the state kills its own citizens. I think that the reason he isn't depicted as doing so has more to do with the realities of publishing in the 20th and 21st century than any sort of coherent context or characterization. BrianWilly posted:I do like how you ignored the entire first part of my post talking about how Superman would find a way around the situation. Although I do stand by my latter points: Superman is not so obsessively anti-capital punishment that he would fight the state on it. Unless he is fighting the law tooth and nail both as Clark Kent and as Superman -- which he doesn't -- he has no room to stand on when states exert their lawful authority on the matter. I didn't respond to it because any moral situation can be resolved without compromise or conflict if you allow a fictional context designed to create that outcome. It's a perspective that robs the actions of these characters of any moral weight. Responding to "How would Superman handle X" with "He'd ask everyone to be nice and they would" can be written, but then there's no point in talking about the ideologies that these characters operate in from any sort of "what would he do" perspective. And of course he has standing. He has a moral standing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:I think a Superman with an authentic respect for individual human life would dismantle the apparatus by which the state kills its own citizens. I think that the reason he isn't depicted as doing so has more to do with the realities of publishing in the 20th and 21st century than any sort of coherent context or characterization. Heroes who refuse to kill their enemies and always try to find a different, clever solution to their problems are very commendable, interesting characters. Heroes who blindly refuse to kill and just stubbornly stick to that anemic catchphrase of "killing is wrong!" without actually thinking about it and thereby causing more problems than they solve? Are not. To me, an aversion to killing criminals should be informed by intelligence and introspection, and not because that's "just the way it is, end of story." And the way you're portraying Superman's stance, here? Kinda falling into that latter category, sorry. It is possible to respect the sanctity of life while also not losing your poo poo over the fact that not everyone shares the same thoughts on the matter, that some people believe harsh crimes deserve harsh justice. Both of the Flashes (Wally and Barry) and Wonder Woman all believe in capital punishment. Do they not respect the sanctity of life? What's Superman going to do when they advocate for it? Beat them into submission? If Superman is so revolted by the concept of capital punishment, there are quite a number of ways he can influence public opinion against it, both as Superman and as Clark Kent. And y'know what, I'd love to read that story sometime if it ever comes to pass. What Superman wouldn't do is fly around forcibly destroying the democratic process and all its works because that's what he thinks will get him his way. That's just not his character despite how much you think it is for, like, literally no reason ever depicted. It's like if someone said of Professor Xavier, "Hey y'know what, if he really wants peace he should just mind-control everyone into being peaceful!" Yeah, umokay, good point, but that's not the bloody character! BrianWilly fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Sep 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 21:03
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:"Moral standing" is subjective. This may be a great time to remind you that not everyone actually believes that capital punishment is morally wrong -- in fact, The Wikipedia tells me 63% of Americans were in favor of it at last count -- so trying to depict it as a type of objective immorality that Superman would topple the United States for is kind of pushing it, to say the least. You realize it's possible to have a difference of opinion over public policy and yet not descend into violent insurrection over it? This is a ridiculous straw man. I didn't suggest overthrowing the United States, I suggested eliminating its ability to perform executions. BrianWilly posted:causing more problems than they solve Causing more problems than they solve? Where are you getting this from? BrianWilly posted:To me, an aversion to killing criminals should be informed by intelligence and introspection, and not because that's "just the way it is, end of story." And the way you're portraying Superman's stance, here? Kinda falling into that latter category, sorry. No, I believe Superman should have killed Zod. That's taking a life with intelligence. I'm suggesting that Superman shouldn't be complicit in having someone killed out of retribution, and as a warning to others, instead of in self-defense or the defense of another. BrianWilly posted:It is possible to respect the sanctity of life while also not losing your poo poo over the fact that not everyone shares the same thoughts on the matter, that some people believe harsh crimes deserve harsh justice. I'm not suggesting anyone lose their poo poo. The guy can throw a continent into space, I don't think dismantling some electric chairs is going to be a burden. BrianWilly posted:Both of the Flashes (Wally and Barry) and Wonder Woman all believe in capital punishment. Do they not respect the sanctity of life? It would seem that way. And certainly not to the superhuman extent that is normally attributed to Superman. BrianWilly posted:That's just not his character despite how much you think it is for, like, literally no reason ever depicted. I never claimed that was his character. edit: Arguing what a moral demigod who is associated with the values that Superman is often associated with would do in a "realistic" context does not, I believe, require me to limit myself to only those actions Superman himself has been depicted as doing in comics. Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Sep 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
Yeah, the point is that comic book Superman is the defender of a particular form of neoliberal status quo rather than of justice, the sanctity of life, etc. The fact that he works for the government, shrugs helplessly at executions, fails to solve hunger and poverty, etc. reveals not that it's wise and moral to shrug helplessly at homelessness and state-sanctioned murder but that the character himself is falling short of his supposed ideals. That conception of Superman is precisely the sort of person who would realize that providing free power would cost some factory workers their jobs and therefore do nothing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 21:51
|
|
|
Both of you seem really enamored with the concept of a Superman who does whatever he pleases in his personal crusade against perceived wrongdoings and damned be the consequences, i.e. A Supervillain. Yeah, just go and toss all those electric chairs in the sun like it's no big deal. It's not as if those things belong to anyone who would panic and retaliate when godlike beings descend and start issuing ultimatums. It's not as if there aren't also other godlike beings around who wouldn't be called upon to defend the world against a blatant act of aggression like that. There's no straw man here. A Superman taking it upon himself to dismantle government property and undermine legal democratic procedure in the name of his own will would be deemed an enemy of the state and summarily brought down by any means. Is it actually difficult to comprehend why a sane, circumspect person -- much less Superman -- wouldn't rush to a radical decision like that? I'm actually starting to think I'm being pretty masterfully trolled here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
"I don't like it any more than you do, citizen - but we must remember, those electric chairs are someone's property." -Superman
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
"...and then the convict found guilty for multiple counts of child molestation and murder was put to death. Superman felt bad, but decided not to start a war about it."
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 06:42 |
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Yeah, the point is that comic book Superman is the defender of a particular form of neoliberal status quo rather than of justice, the sanctity of life, etc. The fact that he works for the government, shrugs helplessly at executions, fails to solve hunger and poverty, etc. reveals not that it's wise and moral to shrug helplessly at homelessness and state-sanctioned murder but that the character himself is falling short of his supposed ideals. Truth, Justice, or the American Way
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 23:12
|
|
