# If Superman exists and went bad....



## Morrus (Jul 18, 2015)

Could we handle him? Assuming there are no other superheroes and ignoring the Kryptonite get-out clause on account of it being a far too boring answer. What would happen if Superman existed and he went bad and decided he wanted to rule Earth?

1) If you are Kal-El, what is your strategy for world domination?

2) If you are a [fictional] first world leader, what is your plan to prevent this, assuming alliance with the Kryptonian is not an option?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 18, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Could we handle him? Assuming there are no other superheroes and ignoring the Kryptonite get-out clause on account of it bring a far too boring answer. What would happen if Superman existed and he went bad and decided he wanted to rule Earth?




It depends upon which iteration of the character, but largely, the answer would be no, we couldn't stop him.  At best, we could annoy him and thwart his plans on a micro scale, since he is not omniscient or omnipresent.  But we don't have a weapon that could take (most versions of) him down.



> 1) If you are Kal-El, what is your strategy for world domination?




If I'm really evil?  Kill all the world leaders in one day- and I mean ALL national monarchs, executives, or legislators- at super speed, recorded on my Go-Pro, uploaded to YouTube.  Go to UN and have press conference declaring my leadership of the earth.

If someone makes a peep, make an example of them.  Seal their nuclear missile silos with concrete, metal or just my heat vision.  Sink their subs first, then the surface ships.  Heat vision their aircraft.  Take out satellites as needed.

"Who else wants to negotiate?"



> 2) If you are a [fictional] first world leader, what is your plan to prevent this, assuming alliance with the Kryptonian is not an option?




We have nothing I know of that can slow him down, much less, stop him.  The only solution I can think of is to find a way to keep him from absorbing the solar energy that powers him so he runs out of energy...without him noticing.  That means:

1) a clear coating that is flexible, light, skin-like, odorless and easily applied.

2) some kind of toxin or other ingestible that prevents him from metabolizing sunlight.

Neither, I think, is particularly likely.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 18, 2015)




----------



## Cor Azer (Jul 18, 2015)

How quickly does Superman depower when out of sunlight?

Because if it's fast enough, that "clear covering" doesn't need to be that clear. Glomp him with enough coloured paste to obscure him from the sunlight, and then... crosses your fingers.

Of course, that assumes that he's the Superman we know from comics, and that we know his powers are solar-derived. Any changes in that, and humanity is out of luck.

Hmm... is Superman immune to diseases? Probably human ones. Otherwise we could go with the Cordelia special, and run around with a big box that says "Ebola!" on it


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 18, 2015)

He depowers very slowly.  We know he doesn't depower perceivably overnight, at the very least.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 18, 2015)

Yeah, I think the "quickly paint over Superman" tactic has been thoroughly debunked. As has the "throw a sheet over him!" strategy, despite the stupid Nuclear Man scene in Superman IV.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 18, 2015)

Morrus said:


> What would happen if Superman existed and he went bad and decided he wanted to rule Earth?




Hm.  Now I wish I had read "Favored Son" which is "What happens if Superman came to Earth in Communist Russia....



> 1) If you are Kal-El, what is your strategy for world domination?




In the modern day?  The "kill all the world leaders, upload it to YouTube, barge into the UN to make a speech" approach is pretty good.

Except... well, it has a major flaw.  You are Superman.  You are good at kicking butt and chewing bubblegum.  Administration on a national scale is not part of your skillset.  You need to have human world leaders running things for you.  So killing them all, while dramatic, is not a great move.

So you don't kill the leaders.  You kill all the *media* figures.  All the movie and TV stars.  All the top reporters.  Oprah and a few others get handled in very flamboyant style, just because.  And tell the world leaders that they'll be next unless they give in to your demands.  Oh, and take out all the nuclear weapons, just in case they want to try a scorched Earth approach.

Not that I understand what your demands are.  You are Superman.  What can these humans do for you?  You are already more powerful than anything these humans can build.  What is the *point* of domination?  Lex Luthor can want to dominate because there are things that humans under his dominion can do that he alone cannot.  But that's not so for Superman.



> 2) If you are a [fictional] first world leader, what is your plan to prevent this, assuming alliance with the Kryptonian is not an option?




By the 1970s, in-canon Superman could take a direct nuclear blast.  Heck, he could fly through the center of stars.  There is *nothing* on Earth that can harm him.  No poison, no force we can generate.  Nothing.  Nada.  Zip.  Zero.  Zilch.  Goose egg.  I don't think you can prevent his takeover, except by threatening to scorch the Earth so it is just another rock.  Be ready to lose some cities to prove that you mean it.  But, of course, he can stop that too.

By what I noted above - maybe it really doesn't matter.  Really, for the bulk of humanity, does having Superman at the top of the food chain matter *at all*?  Depending what he wants, maybe you just feed most of the profits of the top 1% of earners in the world, and just leave it at that - what else is e goign to ask of us?  Maybe the vast majority of the planet goes on just like it does every day.

But, let's assume he's going to be a complete sadist, and torture people by the thousands and stuff, cause he's bad.  Superman really wants to rule, you can't stop him.  But, can you *depose* him?

Maybe.  Here's my idea - Superman is *not* an administrator, and the world is big.  It should be possible to do things he doesn't know about.  So, assume you can put together a modest biological laboratory without him finding out about it.

Now, you collect some super-poop.  Yes, you need Superman's waste products.  Because those will contain the only potential weapon on Earth to use against Superman.  Kryptonian gut flora - we are going to try to give Superman the Kryptonian equivalent of dysentery, which can be fatal.  

The prospect of a Kryptonian with explosive diarrhea may be one of the most disgusting things I can imagine.  A horrible way to destroy a city, but, hey....


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 18, 2015)

Killing Evil Superman

Perhaps we could design a red solar radiation weapon...whatever that is, it has worked in the comics, as I recall.

Appealing to his ego and the fact that he is the only one of his kind in the world, it is possible we could get a sample of his genetic material (possibly via Umbran's clever method) in order to "create offspring" for him.  That means we might be able to clone an adversary for him that is his equal, or design a Kryptonian-specific illness or pathogen.  That last one is risky, though, if it mutates into something that could affect humans...



> The prospect of a Kryptonian with explosive diarrhea may be one of the most disgusting things I can imagine. A horrible way to destroy a city, but, hey....




With apologies to Larry Niven, "Man of Steel, Planet of Charmin"

As for:



> Except... well, it has a major flaw. You are Superman. You are good at kicking butt and chewing bubblegum. Administration on a national scale is not part of your skillset. You need to have human world leaders running things for you. So killing them all, while dramatic, is not a great move.




We really don't know his motives, but this much is clear: why should he care about administration?  He only needs as much food as a normal human being to survive, near as we can tell.  He could hand-pick all the people he needs to run things his way to make him happy.

Because he certainly doesn't need all the moving parts of a democracy.  He's dictator of the world for life, however long that may be.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 18, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> We have nothing I know of that can slow him down, much less, stop him.




Nukes slow Superman down.  You wouldn't be able to use missiles, because Supes would just avoid them or take them out, but discrete delivery mechanisms are possible if one doesn't care about collateral damage.  If you prepare a red sun room beforehand and deliver the package properly, you can probably nuke Superman into severe weakness and cart him off to the red room until he depowers before executing him.

Edit:  Now I'm probably on some kind of list for using the word Nukes online talking about disabling a fictional comic book hero turned dictator.  Ah, the world we live in.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 18, 2015)

> Nukes slow Superman down.




Not the version who flies through suns and pushes planets around.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 18, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Not the version who flies through suns and pushes planets around.




Has that version ever been hit by one?  So far as I know, the only time Superman has been hit by one is in the Dark Knight Returns.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 18, 2015)

Edit: Double-posted for some reason.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 18, 2015)

1) I believe he had

2) even if he hadn't, flying through stars- as he did- involves many orders of magnitude more energy than a mere human nuke.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 18, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> 1) I believe he had
> 
> 2) even if he hadn't, flying through stars- as he did- involves many orders of magnitude more energy than a mere human nuke.




More energy, yes, but not necessarily the same kind of energy.  I'm not terribly knowledgeable about the differences in the energies given off by the fission and fusion processes, but I assume there is some difference.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 18, 2015)

Mainly in how it is produced and the byproducts of fission vs fusion.

(The whole red sun energy vs yellow sun energy is pure comic book science, look too closely at it, and that way lied madness.)


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 18, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Mainly in how it is produced and the byproducts of fission vs fusion.
> 
> (The whole red sun energy vs yellow sun energy is pure comic book science, look too closely at it, and that way lied madness.)




Sure, but since the OP ruled out kryptonite and other superheros, I was going with the only thing I know of that is man-made and that has nearly killed Superman in one of the comic sources.

You could also try to fight him with magic.  The OP assumes that kryptonite and other superheroes do not exist, but he did not specify that we do not live in a comic book reality where magic and the supernatural may exist.  Or, to put it more bluntly, the absence of superheroes doesn't mean the inability for those things which enable them to exist.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 18, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Hm.  Now I wish I had read "Favored Son" which is "What happens if Superman came to Earth in Communist Russia....




Red Son, you mean?  I have it; it's pretty good.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 18, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> He could hand-pick all the people he needs to run things his way to make him happy.




He could... if he wants the planet to be run very poorly.  It isn't like his circle of friends is loaded with good, but toadying, administrators.

So long as he gets what he wants, he'd be better off letting the planet run itself, like normal.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 18, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Red Son, you mean?  I have it; it's pretty good.




Yep.  Already corrected.  Thanks.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 18, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Hm.  Now I wish I had read "Favored Son" which is "What happens if Superman came to Earth in Communist Russia....
> 
> In the modern day?  The "kill all the world leaders, upload it to YouTube, barge into the UN to make a speech" approach is pretty good.
> 
> ...




No, you kill the leaders. You need the bureaucrats, because they actually keep things running. The leaders are relatively immaterial, but killing them would make for good theatre.

Since we have absolutely no way to defeat a "Superman", the only way to win is to deny him victory. That means dying. I doubt that everyone would have the willpower to kill themselves, just to deny him his victory.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 18, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> Nukes slow Superman down.




Depending on the version, no, they don't.  In Dark Knight Returns, one does slow him down - but that event is not terribly consistent with other portrayals of his powers.  Not that consistency is really their strong suit.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 18, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Since we have absolutely no way to defeat a "Superman", the only way to win is to deny him victory. That means dying.




Well, again, this comes down to *why* he's doing this.  We don't actually know what constitutes victory for him.  He must have some goals other than "control", right?

Though, honestly, let's say he doesn't.  What happens after he wins?

He gets really, really bored. 

Maybe we deny him victory by him becoming so bored that he just leaves.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 18, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Well, again, this comes down to *why* he's doing this.  We don't actually know what constitutes victory for him.  He must have some goals other than "control", right?
> 
> Though, honestly, let's say he doesn't.  What happens after he wins?
> 
> ...




I was going by the original post stating that his goal was "to rule." You can only rule if there's someone to rule over, hence my comment.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 18, 2015)

How bored he gets depends on the nature of the evil he has become, I think.  If he turns like one of those sexual/sadistic serial killers, he might enjoy having a few billion victims to work with for quite a while.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Jul 18, 2015)

It all depends on the version. If you go all the way back to the very beginning he's quite vulnerable. You wouldn't even need a nuke. But hardly anyone thinks of him that way. As for the magic idea, no. The OP specified us, and we don't have any working magic. At least, none that has been confirmed by science.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 18, 2015)

Ed_Laprade said:


> As for the magic idea, no. The OP specified us, and we don't have any working magic. At least, none that has been confirmed by science.




Humanoid alien life that becomes superpowered by a yellow sun hasn't been confirmed by science either.  The existence of Superman inherently involves shifting the us from the real world into an us from a fictional or comic book world where simply being an alien can allow one to become superpowered by the rays of a different colored sun.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 18, 2015)

To put Morrus's original post in context, the original "Superman" was a villian:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Reign_of_the_Superman


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Jul 20, 2015)

.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 20, 2015)

Legatus_Legionis said:


> The only way to defeat a "superman" is to make him want to leave us alone.
> 
> Just like in the film "StarGate", Ra was forced to leave a rebellious Earth back in its history.
> 
> ...




Part of the difference there is that Ra from StarGate could actually be killed by any weapon that can kill a human.  The sarcophagus could revive him, but only if those who revolted left enough to put in there.  That made revolt a much more real threat to Ra than it would be to superman.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 20, 2015)

Lex Luthor would be our hero.   

Think it would be same.  Governments would just report to him.  Sure, every now and then he would have to punish someone but overall, he'll sit around and watch.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 20, 2015)

Hand of Evil said:


> Lex Luthor would be our hero.
> 
> Think it would be same.  Governments would just report to him.  Sure, every now and then he would have to punish someone but overall, he'll sit around and watch.




I've seen more than one convincing piece on how Lex Luthor is actually an anti-hero, who wants to keep humanity from being dependent upon a 'greater power' to keep itself safe.


----------



## tomBitonti (Jul 20, 2015)

So ... don't we run into the problem of plot protection?

After all, Superman is invulnerable as a plot device.  From the same way of thinking, going by the movies, he is incapacitated by trickery, and saved not particularly by super powers, but by the moral failings of his foes.  That, of course, emphasizes his moral virtue, and, since he is "As American as Apple Pie", American virtues.

Making Superman evil breaks the plot assumptions.  By definition, an evil Superman is a contradiction in terms.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Morrus (Jul 20, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> So ... don't we run into the problem of plot protection?
> 
> After all, Superman is invulnerable as a plot device.  From the same way of thinking, going by the movies, he is incapacitated by trickery, and saved not particularly by super powers, but by the moral failings of his foes.  That, of course, emphasizes his moral virtue, and, since he is "As American as Apple Pie", American virtues.
> 
> ...




Well, aren't you fun?


----------



## GrayLinnorm (Jul 20, 2015)

This reminds me of a joke:

A man was walking the street when he comes to a bar.  There is another guy hanging around the bar.

The second guy says "Did you know this is a magic building?"

"Really?", the first guy says incredulously.

"Sure", says the second guy.  You can fall off it, and you can't get hurt".

"I don't believe you", says the first guy.

"I'll prove it to you", says the second guy.  He goes upstairs to the roof of the bar and jumps off.  Sure enough, he lands unharmed.  "Now you try it".

So the first guy goes up to roof, jumps off --- and is killed.

The bartender comes out, looks at the dead guy and says to the second guy, "Gee Superman, you're a real bastard when you're drunk!"


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 20, 2015)

I always liked that joke.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 20, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Well, aren't you fun?




It seems to me that his logic is flawed, by way of being self-referential:

1) Superman's invulnerability is a plot device - in other words, it is there to enable a particular plot playing out.
2) Superman is saved by the moral failings of his foes - this is the plot the device is intended to bring about!  

This, therefore, is not a chain of logic, but merely a restating of the same point:  Superman's power is a plot device.  That's the base assumption.

What plot that device will be used to tell is a choice by the author, not a general assumption, as is shown by precedent in the aforementioned Red Son.  If he's grown up in the Soviet Union, he is *not* being used as a stand in for American virtues.  But, it is still a Superman story. 

Superheroes are modern mythology - myths are used to tell different tales as the times and cultures change.  Telling a different type of story is not necessarily a contradiction in terms.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 20, 2015)

Umbran said:


> It seems to me that his logic is flawed, by way of being self-referential:
> 
> 1) Superman's invulnerability is a plot device - in other words, it is there to enable a particular plot playing out.
> 2) Superman is saved by the moral failings of his foes - this is the plot the device is intended to bring about!
> ...




I agree.  I'd put it more simply though: plot devices belong to stories, not to characters.  Good writers will write different stories with different plot devices.  And if a writer is so constrained in his craft by Supes' invulnerability, maybe writing isn't the best career choice for him!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 20, 2015)

Besides..."Evil Superman" stories have been told for a long time...it's just that most of them were told by other comic book companies, using _their_ versions of the character.

Still, none that I know of were really close to the scenario posted at the beginning of the thread.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 20, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> So ... don't we run into the problem of plot protection?
> 
> After all, Superman is invulnerable as a plot device.  From the same way of thinking, going by the movies, he is incapacitated by trickery, and saved not particularly by super powers, but by the moral failings of his foes.  That, of course, emphasizes his moral virtue, and, since he is "As American as Apple Pie", American virtues.
> 
> ...




Well yes and no. Could you imagine the Superman of "Justice League: Gods and Monsters" wanting to rule the world? The son of Zod?

[video=youtube;HYSxN4ezhO4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYSxN4ezhO4[/video]


----------



## Morrus (Jul 20, 2015)

Does anyone remember the Elseworlds graphic novel where Kal El lands in Gotham and becomes Batman?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 20, 2015)

Rings a bell.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 21, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Does anyone remember the Elseworlds graphic novel where Kal El lands in Gotham and becomes Batman?



Superman: Speeding bullets.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 21, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Superman: Speeding bullets.




Yes! That's it! I need to reacquire that.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 21, 2015)

It's pretty cheap on Amazon.


----------



## colinfit20 (Jul 21, 2015)

Two words... Mrs Kent.

Is it bad I really hate that Man of Steel movie for effectively ruining what I thought was the whole reason for why Superman was the hero he's presumed to be?

Even that Red Son book at least demonstrates he was raised over there with moral scruples and the idea he'd go bad well I still won't play that game or read that comic based around that idea.

Okay if I was Superman I would take steps to hide both my identity and also eliminate anyone that threatens to discover or reveal the truth that there was someone ruling the world after all anyone can take the spotlight but the real power is behind the throne especially if they don't know who that is nor if they're the same person!

Its amazing how easily acts of god can be used as an excuse after all you're better off not turning the masses against you since you do like being able to get a decent nights sleep and go out for a meal let alone dating since you're hardly going to want to remain childless after all.

There's plenty of bad guys out there who can serve as your catspaw that it really wouldn't make sense NOT to take advantage of.

As to fight off this kind of benevolent shadowy power, you really need to work even more behind the scenes to locate and correlate what's going on trying to stay hidden until you can locate the true threat but even when you do given the world as it is wouldn't you be more inclined to coax that foe into acts that actually benefit everyone?

Lex Luthor doesn't want us reliant on such a power, usually because he wants to be the one in charge and isn't above using dirty tricks to remains there, his problem is that his ego interferes with his judgement.

And given enough time they will find out his weaknesses.


----------



## megamania (Jul 21, 2015)

An evil superman.......

We could not stop him.    Before "we" as a nation could even begin to fathom what we were facing it would be over.

As to how-

As someone else mentioned- take out world leaders in a very public fashion.  Declare yourself the world leader.  Within weeks new religions would form based on him as a god and to some a savior.

But then what?  He would be bored within a week.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 21, 2015)

megamania said:


> Within weeks new religions would form based on him as a god and to some a savior.




I hadn't thought of that, but you're probsbly right.


----------



## megamania (Jul 22, 2015)

.....and somewhere, a family of billionaires were minding their own business, a clash with the evil superman occurs.  Two parents are killed leaving an eight year child behind.... one with a need of vengeance and justice growing.........


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 23, 2015)

Magic would have to be real, as that is one of Superman's weakness.  If that became know, could see guerilla mages / freedom fighter-mages.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 23, 2015)

Hand of Evil said:


> Magic would have to be real, as that is one of Superman's weakness.  If that became know, could see guerilla mages / freedom fighter-mages.




At the very least you would have millions of people _trying_ to make voodoo dolls work.


----------



## JWO (Jul 23, 2015)

How to avoid Superman ruling the world? Give him nothing to rule over by setting off all the nukes.


----------



## JWO (Jul 23, 2015)

I just don't think there's anything we could do. We'd be screwed.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 24, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Could we handle him? Assuming there are no other superheroes and ignoring the Kryptonite get-out clause on account of it being a far too boring answer. What would happen if Superman existed and he went bad and decided he wanted to rule Earth?




As with all 'superhero battle' questions, it depends on the version of the character. If it's the modern interpretation of Superman, then we humans could probably take him down, given some time and ingenuity on our part, and a little luck. Depending on how much luck, the cost might be high, but we could do it. The Golden Age Superman could probably be taken out, eventually, by military-grade weaponry. 

If it's the Silver Age version, then we're boned. There's no language on Earth that could adequately express the degree to which we'd be boned, as well. Without access to Kryptonite or Magic, there is no means to oppose him.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 28, 2015)

Has nobody watched the "Megamind" movie? We wouldn't need to do anything. Eventually, Superman would just get bored and leave Earth.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 28, 2015)

Jhaelen said:


> Has nobody watched the "Megamind" movie? We wouldn't need to do anything. Eventually, Superman would just get bored and leave Earth.




Well in "Megamind" it was a bored good guy. If it was a bored evil superguy then the boredom might come from having exhausted the supply of 'flies' from which to pull off the 'wings.'


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 29, 2015)

Actually, I was thinking about Megamind, i.e. the super-villain, after he (falsely) believed he'd killed his nemesis, i.e. the super-hero dude.
Sure, for a while he was enjoying himself and wrecked a few buildings and stuff, but he soon grew bored because there was no one that posed a threat to him anymore.

(I just realized that I perhaps should use spoiler tags in case someone hasn't watched the movie, yet?! Oops.)


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Jul 29, 2015)

.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 29, 2015)

As posited, no.

And even if the answer was yes, again, how much help they would be depends on which iteration of each of the characters involved in the conflict.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 29, 2015)

Jhaelen said:


> Actually, I was thinking about Megamind, i.e. the super-villain, after he (falsely) believed he'd killed his nemesis, i.e. the super-hero dude.
> Sure, for a while he was enjoying himself and wrecked a few buildings and stuff, but he soon grew bored because there was no one that posed a threat to him anymore.
> 
> (I just realized that I perhaps should use spoiler tags in case someone hasn't watched the movie, yet?! Oops.)




[sblock]That's because he enjoyed the interplay with the good guy more than the actual evil acts. When the good guy was gone he had to try and create another. There is no good guy for Evil Superman to miss duking it out with, in this supposition.[/sblock]


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 30, 2015)

Legatus_Legionis said:


> If Superman existed, would that then not logically then mean other comic-book characters do exist too?
> 
> Would we not have then a Batman or Wonder Woman or Green Lantern, etc. to even the scales of good vs. bad?




The OP's question states that other super heroes don't exist.  However, the presence of Superman does mean that the nature of the universe must be shifted toward that of a comic universe such that superheroes could exist, even if none did at that time.  So it is possible that a superhero could rise up from the wrongdoings of an evil superman.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 30, 2015)

Legatus_Legionis said:


> If Superman existed, would that then not logically then mean other comic-book characters do exist too?



I suppose the posited scenario is more similar to the situation in the 'Watchmen' comics: While there may be several other 'superheroes', none of them has any actual superpowers, so they're no match for Dr. Manhattan / Superman. Interestingly, Watchmen demonstrates, how humanity might still be able to get rid of a superhero gone bad, although it requires that superhero to have a conscience or at least empathy.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 30, 2015)

Jhaelen said:


> I suppose the posited scenario is more similar to the situation in the 'Watchmen' comics: While there may be several other 'superheroes', none of them has any actual superpowers, so they're no match for Dr. Manhattan / Superman. Interestingly, Watchmen demonstrates, how humanity might still be able to get rid of a superhero gone bad, although it requires that superhero to have a conscience or at least empathy.




Except that in "Watchmen" there really wasn't a bad guy. Even the "villian" had good motives. His methods were the issue and to say that he was conflicted would be a rather large understatement. Unfortunately this didn't play in the movie. None of these characters had "gone over to the Darkside." Even Doctor Manhattan, though rapidly growing away from his humanity, had a little empathy left.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 30, 2015)

Well...Ozmandias had speed, strength- and arguably intellect- beyond human capabilities, and actively killed millions (as opposed to allowing millions to die) to avoid global nuclear war.  That makes him both a superhuman and a villain.  His intellect is powerful, but his hubris thinks that only his immoral plan will be effective in achieving the desired goal.  The road to hell, as they say, is paved with good intentions.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 30, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well...Ozmandias had speed, strength- and arguably intellect- beyond human capabilities, and actively killed millions (as opposed to allowing millions to die) to avoid global nuclear war.  That makes him both a superhuman and a villain.  His intellect is powerful, but his hubris thinks that only his immoral plan will be effective in achieving the desired goal.  The road to hell, as they say, is paved with good intentions.




Is it Hubris if he was, in fact, correct? It seems to me that the classical definition of Hubris involves it being a weakness, typically resulting in someone's downfall. He succeeded, despite being gutted by what he had to do in order to achieve that success.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 30, 2015)

Hubris only means excessive pride or self-confidence, it does not require failure.

Yes, his method worked, but as we know from real-world history, his plan to blow up NYC wasn't the only possible way to avoid WW3 in the 1970s.  Without any authority, he killed millions in a classic ends-justifies-means gambit that happened to be effective.

He was unwilling or unable to see that there were other options at were as likely to be as effective at achieving his goal without cratering cities, despite not being omniscient.  He even took steps to bamboozle Dr. Manhattan who was darn close to omniscience himself, because he knew Dr. Manhattan would object to the plan.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 30, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Hubris only means excessive pride or self-confidence, it does not require failure.
> 
> Yes, his method worked, but as we know from real-world history, his plan to blow up NYC wasn't the only possible way to avoid WW3 in the 1970s.  Without any authority, he killed millions in a classic ends-justifies-means gambit that happened to be effective.
> 
> He was unwilling or unable to see that there were other options at were as likely to be as effective at achieving his goal without cratering cities, despite not being omniscient.  He even took steps to bamboozle Dr. Manhattan who was darn close to omniscience himself, because he knew Dr. Manhattan would object to the plan.




Perhaps in that obviously divergent history it was the only way? World history and politics had gone down a rather different path. Three more terms of Nixon era brinkmanship. The existence of a "doomsday weapon" in the form of Doctor Manhattan. I think that, for the point of story, I'm willing to give the guy who could out manoeuvre what is effectively a god a break.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 30, 2015)

> I think that, for the point of story, I'm willing to give the guy who could out manoeuvre what is effectively a god a break.




I'm not.  It made for a good story, yes, but he's still a mass murderer of the highest order.  I'd be hard pressed to find a philosophy that would consider his actions moral and justified.

EDIT: let me clarify-

Instead of using his vast intellect to convince Dr. Manhattan that disarming the world's military forces of their capacity to wage a world war- which Dr. Manhattan could probably do- Ozymandias instead murdered millions of people and framed Dr. Manhattan for the crime. He doesn't care (much) who gets hurt as long as his plans come to fruition.

In a sense, he is an active analog to Satan opposed by an aloof analog of God.

And remember, the story has an unanswered question: what happens if the info in Rorschach's Journal is deciphered and published?  Will Ozymandias's efforts crumble to naught like his poetic predecessor's empire when the truth is revealed to be a murerous hoax?  

I think there is an element of foreshadowing in the choice of Ozymandias as a character name...  It is possible that all Ozymandias has done is create a brief reprieve, and the alliances he forged in lies will melt in the crucible of revealed truths.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 31, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm not.  It made for a good story, yes, but he's still a mass murderer of the highest order.  I'd be hard pressed to find a philosophy that would consider his actions moral and justified.
> 
> EDIT: let me clarify-
> 
> ...




Then again "sacrifice one to save many" is a common trope used as a test of a hero. 

As to the connection to the name, I would say that answers the question regarding whether the notes are decoded. IMHO the plan fails not because it is in and of itself flawed, but because it is discovered.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 31, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Then again "sacrifice one to save many" is a common trope used as a test of a hero.



And it is something that happens in real life as well.

HOWEVER, in most cases the _HERO_ does not start off by placing the would-be sacrifices into harms way _as the necessary prerequisite of achieving his goal_- the trope is presented as a choice between bad options that he must make the call on.  Nor does the Hero conceal his role in the sacrifice.  Nor does he blame another for his action.  Nor might the plan be jeopardized if the Hero's true role and actions were to be uncovered.

The Hero usually doesn't find it necessary to trick semi-divine, semi-benevolent, nearly omniscient beings into not interfering with his plan.

The plan is Machiavellian- not heroic- in its inception and execution.  He wanted to do it his way.  Only.


> IMHO the plan fails not because it is in and of itself flawed, but because it is discovered.




I would say that the requirement that- for the plan to succeed- you must commit an atrocity AND successfully blame it on the blameless makes for an inherently flawed plan.  If the truth is ever revealed, it could make the duped discard the progress made, and return to previously belligerence.  Possibly even more pissed off than before.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (Jul 31, 2015)

2

As a world leader, I would search for anyone Superman cared for deeply or loved.  While he was occupied by his new hobby of world domination I would capture said people.  I would then implant wireless detonation explosives in each captive giving the trigger to many different people in many different places.  I would then attempt a negotiation demanding he kill himself (or exile himself) to save his loved ones.  I would go out of my way to make him believe that the contract will be honored even going so far as offering up my own life as well (or as ransom).  

Not sure about the context of this Superman turn; but, it is the only thing I can thing of.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 31, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And it is something that happens in real life as well.
> 
> HOWEVER, in most cases the _HERO_ does not start off by placing the would-be sacrifices into harms way _as the necessary prerequisite of achieving his goal_- the trope is presented as a choice between bad options that he must make the call on.  Nor does the Hero conceal his role in the sacrifice.  Nor does he blame another for his action.  Nor might the plan be jeopardized if the Hero's true role and actions were to be uncovered.
> 
> ...




Have you read much Batman over the years? He leans pretty hard on the Machiavellian side and is still considered a hero. The difference is in scope. In this case I would liken the decision to having a nuclear missile full of children hurtling toward a national capital, with its destruction being the only viable solution to the problem. But that's where our opinions diverge. I think that the character had a high enough level of intelligence to recognize an inevitable conclusion. You don't think it was inevitable.

The point if the story is that Ozymandias fails, or at least we can presume that he did, as a result of his plan being revealed by a hero who is either less "morally flexible" or can't see and act upon a larger picture, depending upon your point of view. Perhaps a little from column "A" and a little from column "B"? Maybe that's the point?


----------



## Umbran (Jul 31, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Have you read much Batman over the years? He leans pretty hard on the Machiavellian side and is still considered a hero. The difference is in scope.




I think the difference is in that Batman rarely kills, even when he's being Machiavellian.  Ozymandias arranged the death of millions, and a frame-up to boot.  That's not just scope difference, but qualitative difference.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 31, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Ryujin said:
> 
> 
> > Have you read much Batman over the years? He leans pretty hard on the Machiavellian side and is still considered a hero.
> ...




In addition, those that Bats kills _are not innocents._

(And yes, I have read a lot of Batman over the decades.)




> I think that the character had a high enough level of intelligence to recognize an inevitable conclusion. You don't think it was inevitable.



Arguments against the inevitability of his plan:

1) while intelligent, he failed to recognize the possibility that his plan was flawed.  Despite not being omniscient, he acted as if he were.  Just as he outwitted Dr. Manhattan to implement his plan, he was in turn outwitted by Rorschach, who may completely undo it. 

2) As mentioned, in order to implement his plan, he both concealed it from Dr. Manhattan AND framed him for the cause.  The one being who could propose and execute viable alternatives or ensure that his plan was successful beyond a few years was nullified and driven away from Earth.

3) neither Ozymandias nor Dr. Manhattan is omniscient, but Dr. Manhattan is much closer to it than Ozymandias is.  Yet Dr. Manhattan didn't sacrifice himself to implement a version of Ozymandias' plan in order to stave off  WW3, and was "disappointed" in the fact that Ozymandias would implement it himself.  While it is true that Dr. Manhattan becomes aloof to the concerns of mere humanity, it is clear that his aloofness was a gradual development, given the story presented.  At some point post gaining his powers, he still thought and acted benevolently.  So arguably, given his power and knowledge, his rejection of a similar plan isn't purely a result of not wanting to help in such a plan, but also that such a plan would ultimately not achieve the desired goal.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 31, 2015)

I just wanted to point out that being "Machiavellian" doesn't necessarily mean that a character isn't a "hero", in and of itself. 

I'm just going to bow out now. You aren't going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you. We've gone 'round the same points a couple of times now, so that's it for me.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 1, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> I'm just going to bow out now. You aren't going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you. We've gone 'round the same points a couple of times now, so that's it for me.



Read and understood, but...


> I just wanted to point out that being "Machiavellian" doesn't necessarily mean that a character isn't a "hero", in and of itself.



The word does not necessarily mean that, no, but the connotations within the textbook definition of the word are pretty antithetical to the normal concepts associated with heroism:



> Mach`i`a`vel´ian
> a.	1.	Of or pertaining to Machiavelli, or to his supposed principles for conduct of government, as enunciated in his tract The Prince; politically cunning; *characterized by duplicity, political expediency, unscrupulous cunning, or bad faith;* crafty.
> n.	1.	One who adopts the principles of Machiavelli; a cunning and *unprincipled* politician.
> Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, published 1913 by C. & G. Merriam Co.



(Emphasis mine.)


----------

