[BlueCon] - Super Hero Discussion

[Millon]

People would fear them, Gov'ts would try to capture them. They'd have no choice but to become villains in their own defense. 

[Daruya]

That's a good point, Mills, and one that is probably spot-on.  Governments would see them as potential weapons (for them to utilize at their own whim/discretion) and the average person would fear them.

[reyler]

Powerset: I'd go with flight, personally. Have you ever had those dreams? Those are bar none the best dreams to have, and to be able to do that for real? As far as alignment, I'd probably be completely neutral. I've read enough comics to know that it's practically unheard of to develop superpowers and not put on a costume and either fight crime or cause it, but my neutrality would probably tie back into the choice of power: the ability to leave all of everyone else's crap behind.

 

Marvel vs DC: If I had to choose, I'd go Marvel, simply because of the difference in perspective. Marvel started out more in the ballpark of "humans who also have superpowers", while DC was for the longest time "superpowers in the shape of humans". Now i'll grant you that the competition forced DC to drift more towards character-focused work, and that Marvel hasn't been very consistent on their own grounds, but I've always felt them to have a higher number of characters that were more relatable overall.

 

Lethal force: I'm with Mills on this one. Hell, the only reason much of the technically illegal costumed vigilantism in comics is tolerated in-universe is because supers are essentially making citizens' arrests. Villains dying because something happens in a fight is one thing; villains dying because the hero straight up decided they needed to is another, and even governments that were permissive towards costumed vigilantism would shut that right down the second it started being a thing. Sure, there would be a percentage of the population that would be fine with that sort of thing (see: the comments on every single violent crime news story wherein the commentors are advocating ignoring due process and simply executing the accused), but even police are not beyond the law when it comes to killing suspects (damn near close to it, though, it seems). And, let's face it, the only reason a vast majority of the characters who are captured and periodically escape to cause mayhem once more do so is for narrative usefulness; in reality the insanity defense would not protect nearly as many of them from standard incarceration, most of them would probably be on death row, and only those whose powers make incarceration exceedingly difficult would be able to regularly escape.

 

On an aside to that last one, I recall a lot of angry moralizing about Superman killing Zod. This was mostly from the same people who complained if Wolverine wasn't killing everyone in sight. Yes, there's following canon characterizations and all that, but how is it that Superman killing an active threat is morally repugnant and deserving of condemnation, while Wolverine can casually gut every underling the villain has and still be considered a hero?

 

As to official response should superpowers start cropping up, I think extermination and immunity are both extremes that would never be allowed. I'd expect legislative restriction, the degree of which would depend on who was getting the powers, where they were coming from, and what they were doing with them. 

[Red2111]

honestly i think it would be a mixture of all of the scenarios Marvel & DC have put to us.

 

i think that we'd see something along the lines of the Mutant Registration story arc in Marvel.

 

the "Hero's" would be vigilantes for the most part.  some would work with the police and government (like Cap), others would go on their own to clean up the streets like Batman.   people would go from fearing them, to loving them, to envying them.  the government would see them as a threat and try to control them or dispose of them.

 

then something like Speedball would happen and cause the popular opinion to turn against the Hero's and we'd get the "Mutant Registration Act", as the government would have enough of the public backing them to finally jump on the Hero's and get control.

 

Which would lead to a civil war, like we see in the Marvel universe; and would end in the Hero's eventually becoming our Overlords out of resentment to our societys, all in the name of establishing peace.

[Millon]

Until super powers started poppin up like weeds the only time we'd see anything would be in tabloids. Superhumans would be shut down HARD to the point that even rumors would be hard to find. Until it starts occurring often enough that it can't. By then, Governments would already have the research and possible pre-existing military trained superhuman attack forces to quell any type of uprising or free will for any following super humans. After that, it would be aggressions between countries with the strongest superhuman armies. Then, Captain Atom, or Firestorm LOSE IT and go all nuclear and BOOM! That's all folks! 

[SinisterDeath]

 

Day 1 -

If you could choose 1 super power, what would you choose and why?  How would you use your super power?  Would you be a good guy, a villain or a merc?

I would choose Rogue's Super Power. The power to acquire new powers, and use them to there fullest potential.

 

I wouldn't be either. To quote D&D, I would be Chaotic Neutral. 

 

 

Day 2 -

In the debate between DC versus Marvel, which universe is better in your opinion.  Also, who is your favorite: X-men, Avenger, Justice Leauger, favorite DC & Marvel hero/villain?

Marvel, because DC is far to Gods vs Humans for my taste. The human characters in marvel are in generally better than the godlike characters of DC. 

Superman is a very rigid and boring character. The only limits he has, is to his personality. Most people only really care about Batman in DC, the rest are mostly lame burgers.

 

 

 

Day 3 -  

do you think the willingness to kill, to do what ever needs to be done to get the job done, is what makes a villain; or do you think that in certain scenarios, its okay for the good guy to use the last resort of killing.

The thing I love about batman, is the fact that he never intentionally kills. It makes his character very interesting, purely from a morality standpoint.

 

But the thing about comics are.. Even if someone dies. They never stay dead.

So from a purely logical comicbook point of view, the smart decision is to not kill your enemy... Simply because they almost always seem to come back stronger. (regardless if they are a good guy or a bad guy.)

 

Look at Jean Gray. She died, and came back as a God.

Superman died, and he came back even stronger.

Green Goblin died and became something stronger.

 

You kill, it leaves a power gap. Sometimes you're better dealing with the enemy you know 5 years from now, then the enemy who takes his place a year later!

 

 

 

take the recent Superman movie, where Superman kills in the end.  for a hero that basis his entire code around "i'll not kill" seeing him snap the neck in an un-avoidable situation was jarring to many fans.  Do you think this makes him less "Superman" and just a Vig with a moral compass.

It was an absolute travesty. Played out nothing more then shock value, and ultimately redundent. The fight sequence alone killed billions! Yet he took one death he directly caused to be staggering? Why not the deaths of the billions he killed indirectly?

 

Which reminds me of Transformers. I hate the new ones. Optimus Prime was a total Douche Nozzle. He literally allowed entire cities to be wiped off the face of the earth to prove to humanity that they needed the autobots. I can't even pretend that makes him less evil than Megatron!

 

 

Adding onto that, reading the "Mutant Registration" comics, a shield agent asked Captian America this question:

 

"Spiderman locks up Doc Oc 100 times a week, only to have Doc bust out again and go out and kill hundreds of people.  At what point is the blood of those innocents on Spidermans hands because he doesn't do what needs to be doing?"  (by "needs to be doing" the shield agent is implying killing Doc Oc)

 

this is a great philosophical question, especially in a realm with such super hero's and super villains.   at what point does the refusal of the heros to kill the villains put the blood of the innocent on the heros hands?

Perhaps the question should be, Why doesn't the justice do something to prevent the villian from escaping? (Execution) 

Spider-man isn't the judge, jury and Executioner (like Judge Dredd) rather, he is a free-lance keeper of the peace. (Police essentially)

If he just starts killing everyone he deems evil, that doesn't make it justice, or lawful. So why doesn't the justice system decide "okay, you've killed 50,000 people.. I think we are going to put you in a gas chamber."

 

 

 

what is your opinion on the world that Sanderson has created?  How the societies in that world have evolved (or devolved)?  How Sanderson treats the powers of the Epics (some having one one power, while others have layers of powers)? 

Dunno, haven't read it. Still waiting for the other books in his 'chronicles series' to come out..

 

 

 

Adding onto this, if Mutants and Aliens and Gods and Super Intelligent people started coming about, like what we see in the DC and Marvel universes, how do you think it would effect our society?  Would they be our overlords, like in Sandersons series? would we fear and respect and cheer for them as vigilantes like in Gotham? would we hold them up as the symbol of our society and rever/worship them like in Metropolis?  Use them as the worlds police like in Avengers?  Or the route that Xmen takes, where we try to "cure" them and eventually Register them and imprison them?

Probably none of the above. 

Comics are all about entertainment, and pushing sales. So I highly doubt half the stuff we read about would happen if those kinds of people came into existence. 

 

 

 

How do you think the citizens and governments would try to keep a balance of power? Extermination, Legislation or Immunity?

Probably depends on the country, and if it were even possible to do any of it.

[Aniere]

 

Walking all over the gray area right now.

 

I don't know what the "point" is, if there is an exact number of people needing to be killed before the hero is blamed. Super Heroes are all about fighting the villains, without them there would be no epic comics or cartoons, just some stories. In a realistic sense, if you can't keep a person locked up and rehabilitated, then the only thing to do would be to end them. A human being, in real life, can't break down brink walls or murder an entire city with their eyeballs, so this doesn't necessarily apply to them.

 

But, at what point does Doc Oc stop being a confused and hurt human being and start being a plague needing a vaccine?

 

 

this is a discussion about super hero's, so the argument of "well in IRL" isn't exactly apt ;) lmao

 

the moral question is this.  Spiderman knows prison wont contain Doc Oc, because Doc Oc keeps breaking out of prison and going back on killing sprees.

 

because Spiderman knows this, but refuses to kill Doc Oc and instead continues to send him to prison (ie lets the cycle continue and the death toll get higher).  at what point is it Spidermans fault that Doc Oc is still taking innocent lives.  at what point, if ever, is the blood of those innocents on Spidermans hands; because he refused to go against his moral code and just kill Doc Oc.

 

 

For the record, I know it's not about real life. I just panic when my words can be misunderstood. o.o

 

Mills makes a good point. D= Mills wins.

 

Anyway, the next question, the only thing I can think of is the x-Men stories. I mean, usually super heroes are loved by all and the hero of the city, while x-Men (at least on Marvel to my knowledge) is the only part where people are hated for having powers. Maybe the government would make nice little camps for them to go to and "relax," where they won't be bothered. What about when the people with powers become so numerous, they are just the general populace? If the powers continued to be born into people, eventually, they would be normal. As if they had always been. We could have a world like in WoT, where Aes Sedai (while not loved), are not uncommon. Maybe we can take all the people with powers and have them swear to do no harm. x3

[WildTaltos]

Adding onto this, if Mutants and Aliens and Gods and Super Intelligent people started coming about, like what we see in the DC and Marvel universes, how do you think it would effect our society?  Would they be our overlords, like in Sandersons series? would we fear and respect and cheer for them as vigilantes like in Gotham? would we hold them up as the symbol of our society and rever/worship them like in Metropolis?  Use them as the worlds police like in Avengers?  Or the route that Xmen takes, where we try to "cure" them and eventually Register them and imprison them?

 

How do you think the citizens and governments would try to keep a balance of power? Extermination, Legislation or Immunity?

as ive never read anythin from brandon sanderson other than the end of the wot, cant realy comment on his story. the other question, depends on what one you are talking about and in what society. mutants obviously exist in real life (not talking about people who can teleport or some other overtop nonsense but genetically abnormal individuals) and they are either pathologised and marginalised and often treated like crap (as often in the modern society) or they can be held up as blessings and revered as in some more traditional societies (though here too they can be demonised).

 

aliens, no idea.

 

super intelligent people sort of goes along with mutants and depending on how sociable they are and where they are fortunate enough to be born, they might either get enough recognition that they are admired by society but not allowed to do very much (because most domesticated societies depend on general stupidity and docility to hold them together so such a person would necessarily be regarded as dangerous and even in more "wild" societies the extremely intelligent are regarded with some degree of awe and fear and are hence hedged in by spiritual obligations and sometimes even tabus) or they might not get much of any opportunity except for the illicit sort and become something of a villian (as one of my friends put it, extremely intelligent people often times have severe emotional problems and at times get involved in crimes because they are usually ostracised or harassed by the less-intelligent society).

 

gods, if by that mean human-like incarnations of them that readily manifest some of their powers, i think, if any of them came in this day and age, i couldnt imagine they would have any purpose in coming so other than tear apart modern civilisation or cause it to be drastically altered as, while all gods reserve some free wil towards humanity, they also have their tabus/"thou shalt nots" and i cant think of one that modern civilisation doesnt drastically violate in regards to what i know as the gods anyways.

 

so basically for two of them (mutants and super-intelligent people), isnt hard to see how certain societies would react based on what amounts to already extant/equivalent representatives. aliens depends on what imagine as aliens (because that can be anything from a mindless killer mass such as the blob or bacteria or unrealistically humanoid things), while gods, as i dont see any supernatural villian for them to fight here right now, i could think their only purpose would be directed upon humans themselves, whether to intstruct or punish or something of both.

[Red2111]

i love the discussion so far ^_^  such insightful and well thought out answers

 

 

todays question is building on yesturdays.

 

 

in Disney's "The Incredibles" super hero's were eventually shunned from society because society got fed up with cleaning up their messes.  The movie Hancock also showed how a populace can grow to hate a super hero that causes unnecessary damage to property.

 

At what point, or how long after the imergence of a super hero, do you think it would be before the good will and tolerance of the people run out?

[SinisterDeath]

i love the discussion so far ^_^  such insightful and well thought out answers

 

 

todays question is building on yesturdays.

 

 

in Disney's "The Incredibles" super hero's were eventually shunned from society because society got fed up with cleaning up their messes.  The movie Hancock also showed how a populace can grow to hate a super hero that causes unnecessary damage to property.

 

At what point, or how long after the imergence of a super hero, do you think it would be before the good will and tolerance of the people run out?

I think that's highly variable on the volatility of the super-villain's involved.

Destroying half the city to stop a bank robbery? The Hero is way to enthusiastic.. Destroy a City block, prevented the worlds destruction/all human life being wiped out? Worth it.

[Millon]

the way the world stands now? With the hype built up around ANY dramatic story, all the BS we are bombarded with in social media and such? They'd be hated from the start. Would lead to mass vigilantism from norms and such thinkin they can get away with whatever they want because all the supes seem to. HELL! if Astro boy defeated and alien invasion there would be groups protesting for pro-alien rites! There'd be television commercials of sad aliens with Ani DeFranco singing in the back ground. It would be a mess. 

[WildTaltos]

i think it depends on what sort of "super hero" it is. if its someone like batman who is just a vigilante, people woulld probably turn against him fast regardlesss whether he helps alot because that seems how it is for most vigilantes, authorities dont like their power taken from them so they aer quick to condemn anyone who takes the law into their own hands and turn the sheepish mob against them too through the media. if its someone like superman who is like a god, that may go interesting places - in fact, ive always found the superman figure unrealistic because knowing the human psyche, such a figure would probably be regarded as a god and quite quickly revered as such rather than regarded as just a hero or something like the neighbourhood copper, and gods are forgiven quite a lot especially when they can so explicitly and consistently demonstrate their might to their followers. 

[Ryrin]

i love the discussion so far ^_^  such insightful and well thought out answers

 

 

todays question is building on yesturdays.

 

 

in Disney's "The Incredibles" super hero's were eventually shunned from society because society got fed up with cleaning up their messes.  The movie Hancock also showed how a populace can grow to hate a super hero that causes unnecessary damage to property.

 

At what point, or how long after the imergence of a super hero, do you think it would be before the good will and tolerance of the people run out?

 

 

Quickly.  I think people under stress (needing a Super Hero's services) want to resolve things as quickly as possible to get back to their normal lives.  

[Turin Turambar]

i love the discussion so far ^_^  such insightful and well thought out answers

 

 

todays question is building on yesturdays.

 

 

in Disney's "The Incredibles" super hero's were eventually shunned from society because society got fed up with cleaning up their messes.  The movie Hancock also showed how a populace can grow to hate a super hero that causes unnecessary damage to property.

 

At what point, or how long after the imergence of a super hero, do you think it would be before the good will and tolerance of the people run out?

It depends on the situation with the "hero". Take Hancock for instance. He had a drinking problem, an anger problem and was very careless in what he ran into and how he acted. He was basically a bullying vigilante at the beginning. But at the end he had taken steps in the right direction to use his gifts to truly protect people even from himself. I thin that he turned his situation around in a very positive way and could see him retain the good will of the public as long as he didn't regress. 

 

As far as the amount of destruction created, you need to take into account what the result would have been had the hero stood aside and allowed the bad people to have their way and how that would affect civilization. An example would be Avengers. Now they ended up destroying large amounts of New York City, but had they allowed the invasion to occur the entire planet would have been enslaved and or killed. So although the cost was high the alternative was worse. At least in my opinion. 

 

There might be other scenarios that the reward might not justify the cost but for the most part those situations probably don't require the hero to resolve anyway. Or could be served by allowing the criminal to "get away" and track to a more remote location and handle them there.