The Superhero Debates: Round 2

Ryoutarou said:

I'm not so sure about that. Lex has always been a megalomaniac and it's just difficult to seem him leading a life that would lead him to be but about the smarmy guy he's always been.

Though, an interesting little tidbit is that in any alternate world where Superman is evil, Lex is always a good guy. I think he's always going to go after what gains him favor with the public.

Click to expand...

Lex Luthor is more of a guy who seeks power, he doesn't really care about what the public thinks of him.

The same applies to the Joker. If Batman had turned himself in, during the events of The Dark Knight, the Joker's reign of terror wouldn't magically stop, it's not like the Joker would leave quietly and not hurt anybody else. The villians are antagonists and are usually the ones to strike first, and then a hero rises up to stop them.

not to late to join is it?
of course the villain wouldn't stop right away but they do tend to try harder to win when there's some competition. anyone here watch megamind? they have some fun after winning but get bored eventually. try playing chess with someone and after you win (if you do) try to keep playing. kinda boring, right? eventually there'll be nothing left to do and you'll leave. the joker is kind of a terrorist. if he wins and there's no more hope, people will just give up and he'll be bored since he's not scaring anyone anymore. as for everyone talking of villians that do it legally, i wouldn't define them as super villians, villians? maybe, super? no.

Luthor is an interesting case as his motivations have been redone so many times it's difficult to say if he became a villain because of Superman. Although he did have control of majority of the crime in Metropolis and Superman didn't really bother him at all since he was just out saving lives until Superman got involved in some of Luthor's shady deals. So you could say that Superman actually changed Luthor from a crime lord into a super villain but I'm willing to bet he was going to launch a world domination plan whether Superman was around or not.

With that being said there are definitely more obvious examples of Superman enemies that were attracted to him like Mongul and Mister Mxyzptlk.

Miss Doronjo said:

Also like Batman, Batman seems to attract a lot of freakish enemies, but actually, he was a product of Gotham's spiraling crime problem, not a cause of it. Joker, Penguin and Catwoman seemed to be seasoned veterans of the criminal profession by the time Batman first encountered them.

Click to expand...

Joker was actually just a down on his luck comedian when Batman first encountered him. He needed money real bad as his wife was going to have a baby soon and he got caught up in this plan hatched by two robbers who would pay people to wear a red hood costume. This plan managed to fool the police and Batman into thinking that the red hood was the mastermind behind all the crimes, which ended up in the Joker's unfortunate accident to his face and the robbers killed his wife. So really the Joker is in a similar situation to Batman only he became a villain instead.

I think Gotham should just be ruled out in this debate since it's the city itself that really attracts heroes and villains. Even in Flash Point where Bruce is killed instead of his parents they end up making different decisions. His father became a merciless Batman and his mother became a Joker that went around killing children.

LilJz1234 said:

Lex Luthor is more of a guy who seeks power, he doesn't really care about what the public thinks of him.

Click to expand...

Lex Luthor can be conniving enough to the point where he'll play nice in front of the public eye and gain their trust for his own advantages behind the scenes. This is exactly what he's doing in Young Justice right now with The Reach. Whether that means he cares what the public thinks of him or not is questionable, but I think a part of him has always cared. For good intentions or not, having the general public's trust is a form of having power. So I guess you could say they almost go hand in hand for someone like Lex Luthor.

Having said that, if Superman had never come to Earth, I still believe Lex Luthor would have been playing his dirty little games and slowly growing towards power. It might not have happened at such a progressive rate as it did with Superman around, but his thirst for power and dealings would have taken him down that road I'm sure. With his resources in a universe where a mere mortal can gain the power of heroes by science, it would have been only a matter of time.

I was actually referring to his behavior to the comics, I didn't actually check the Young Justice series yet, so I didn't know about that one :C

And yea, I agree with you Aerilyn. My point was since Superman arrived on Earth, Lex Luthor tried EVERYTHING in his power to destroy Superman. And with the technology of the Kryptonite, his research have rocketed to the sky as opposed to having to always rely on Earth's technology.

Ok, here we go!

Alexial and I were up very, very late last night talking about Venom, the Secret Avengers, and other such concerns. We came up with a few conclusions that I believe will benefit this thread.

First of all, Spider Man and Venom have much less to do with each other than most people believe. It is true that Spider Man and Venom have fought time and time again, but those events lack drama and depth. Venom is an alien symbiote that requires a host to survive on Earth. Spider Man is a scientifically-caused genetic mishap. They just don't have the duality to make a good hero/villain pair.

The real hero/villain of the Venom saga is the host vs. the symbiote. Originally we saw Eddie Brock taken by the symbiote. His desire for revenge against Spider Man and the world that shunned him lined up perfectly with the inherent rage and lust for destruction the symbiote carries with it. They made a great team and were only separated when Marvel decided that Venom could be much more than a big, hulking villain for the Avengers to fight twice a year.

When Flash Thompson was introduced (particularly in the new "Venom" series), Venom took on a whole different light. Flash was crippled during his tour of duty as a soldier and no longer has legs. He also suffers from very severe PTSD, alcoholism, and several very strained relationships with those he loves. Venom gives him the ability to walk again, but it's desires don't line up with his at all. In a great twist, Flash's willpower is enough to overcome Venom's controlling influence and Flash is able to use the Venom symbiote to perform standard "hero-work" like putting out fires and stopping robberies.

As the plot thickens, Venom is recruited to be a member of the Secret Avengers. Dr. Pym comes up with a way to "neuter" the symbiote to make it more pliable to Flash's will. This allows Flash to wear the symbiote almost full-time, but introduces a whole new set of problems that don't really pertain to this discussion.

My point here, I suppose, is that Venom has serious potential that is finally being realized in the ongoing Venom and Secret Avengers series. Just imagine how many problems can be created and solved by the same "hero"! Flash Thompson as Venom re-defines the character and gives a human face to the symbiote and a symbiotic reflection of the broken human within Flash. Both have been worked to death in the Marvel universe over the past 20 years, but they're currently being given new life that could easily re-define both characters. Personally, I'm excited about it!

To bring this whole thing back to the actual topic at hand, I believe firmly that the villain came before the hero. Venom's existence validates the need for a Spider Man much more than the inverse. Because of this, true drama and storytelling can take hold in comics, books, and films about the subject. I think all literature began with an inherent evil and concluded with a necessary evolution of the hero. Comics and their characters are no different.

What do you think?

Well, of course heroes rise to the occasion because villains are causing problems in their societies (granted there are other reasons more prominent to them than that for choosing to become a super hero in the first place), but in most of these replies, the main arguments are "super villain was there, so hero came to stop super villain from continuing what super villain was doing." But that really wasn't the point of the debate, because that's pretty much something that]s a given. The point of the debate was, "because hero came to stop super villain from continuing what super villain was doing that caused hero to act, does that alone attract more super villains?" It's like that attract more bees with honey idiom, but in this case the bees are the villains and the honey is the superhero. I feel the topic wasn't really brushed up on by many people.

Patchisou Yutohru said:

The point of the debate was, "because hero came to stop super villain from continuing what super villain was doing that caused hero to act, does that alone attract more super villains?" It's like that attract more bees with honey idiom, but in this case the bees are the villains and the honey is the superhero. I feel the topic wasn't really brushed up on by many people.

Click to expand...

I'm sure in some cases it will attract other super villains, who are probably much worse. But I have issue with the 'does more harm than good' part, because taking the hero out of the picture doesn't mean the baddies will drop what their doing, going back again to The Dark Knight & The Dark Knight Rises bit on the Joker as an example. Just by existing in Gotham, Batman attracted the ire of the mob, who in turn unleashed the Joker onto Gotham City, a far worse evil than the mob itself. But without Batman, the entire city would have been lost before the Joker even got there, because Ras Al Ghul would have destroyed it.

Patchisou Yutohru said:

The point of the debate was, "because hero came to stop super villain from continuing what super villain was doing that caused hero to act, does that alone attract more super villains?" It's like that attract more bees with honey idiom, but in this case the bees are the villains and the honey is the superhero. I feel the topic wasn't really brushed up on by many people.

Click to expand...

Do you mean to ask if a hero's presence attract more villains (villains who are already around somewhere doing stuff), that is, help congregate them all in one area, or do you mean to ask if a hero's presence will encourage/create more villains? Or both?

I still think that comic villains are like real world bad people. Some are out to make a statement, topple governments, etc. and want to be seen by everyone so those types are going to try to do the worst they can (and in a comic world where it's possible to get superpowers that's what they'll aim for). But I guess when you do consider that super villains are a step up from regular villains like the real world has, there could be a tendency for villains to want to escalate to keep themselves on top. But I think they'd do that regardless of whether there was a super hero on the scene or not.

Patchisou Yutohru said:

Well, of course heroes rise to the occasion because villains are causing problems in their societies (granted there are other reasons more prominent to them than that for choosing to become a super hero in the first place), but in most of these replies, the main arguments are "super villain was there, so hero came to stop super villain from continuing what super villain was doing." But that really wasn't the point of the debate, because that's pretty much something that]s a given. The point of the debate was, "because hero came to stop super villain from continuing what super villain was doing that caused hero to act, does that alone attract more super villains?" It's like that attract more bees with honey idiom, but in this case the bees are the villains and the honey is the superhero. I feel the topic wasn't really brushed up on by many people.

Click to expand...

I would say it depends on the super villains. Because not every villains got the same mentality. Some would wanna become super villains so that regular people would be easy to get rid off and make their evil doings much more easier. But then we have the attention seeking criminals that would want to have super powers to get rid of the superhero that is protecting the city, and get attention saying 'Hey look at me, I defeated your beloved superhero'.

Patchisou Yutohru said:

The point of the debate was, "because hero came to stop super villain from continuing what super villain was doing that caused hero to act, does that alone attract more super villains?"

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Not unless the outside super villain might want something from said hero or has a personal vendetta against them; usually which happens after a hero and the super villain first meet. Otherwise, super villains are just like villains where they exist to create criminal acts of their own intent. Whether a super hero is there or not, that's likely not going to stop them from coming into a city and wreaking havoc among the people to get what they want.

Round 2 (Feb. 25, 2013 - Mar. 4, 2013):
Topic statement: Having super powers should give superheroes immunity from prosecution under human law

I think the important thing to consider is no one should be above the law. The laws that exist have been made and passed for a reason.

However, heroes are far from perfect. In order to protect the innocent and save the world, they have to break several laws. Some might say that makes them criminals as well instead of just vigilantes, but they are needed since they can accomplish things the regular law enforcement agents can't and are unable to given the restrictions of society.

Superheroes do have abilities and the willingness to go above and beyond but as citizens of the city, state or country they operate in, that doesn't mean they can do whatever they want. If it was truly believed heroes have the right to take matters into their own hands, wouldn't a superhero exemption clause be officially passed?

Having super powers should give superheroes immunity from prosecution under human law?

No? I don't see why they should just because they have super powers. Although I'm alright with the idea to run away from the law enforcers because most superheroes are vigilante. As much as they hate vigilantes, they gotta admit that those superheroes are doing a way better job at catching the crooks and stopping terrorists.

Should having superpowers give superheroes immunity to prosecution under human law?

Well from a logical standpoint, superheroes such as Superman or any "mutants" are not human and as such ARE immune from our laws in their current state. But that aside it would become necessary for the laws to change to encompass non-human superheroes/villains so they couldn't rampage for no reason.

However as has been said the bending of the law to save human lives would need to be allowed simply since in these worlds super villains also exist and would work well outside the law to take human lives.

Hm, no. In the real world you can't easily differentiate between 'hero' and 'villain'. I know it's part of how superheroes are supposed to act - outside the law and all of that - but it just wouldn't fly in the real world. I mean, vigilante justice is not a good idea when you've got a working society. Any yahoo might take it into their head that something or another is bad and then try to do something about it. Imagine all the screwballs today who still think Obama is a secret Kenyan Muslim terrorist and imagine if one of them had super powers. They'd think they were totally justified flying off into the White House and doing something stupid. No. Better to have the superheroes work within the system so that they can work with law enforcement. That way you can have a better idea of who is and isn't a real hero.

But there should be some leeway. Like if you had the power to fly or what, you should be allowed to get a license to do that.

Patchisou Yutohru said:

Round 2 (Feb. 25, 2013 - Mar. 4, 2013):
Topic statement: Having super powers should give superheroes immunity from prosecution under human law

Click to expand...

Umm.... no?

I can't think of why that would be the case.

Also, some super villains have super powers. I don't think we'd want them immune from prosecution

Definitely not. Just because one has super powers doesn't mean they're suddenly above the law. The Justice League knew that when they established the "No killing" rule. They may have abnormal strengths and abilities to help protect the world and its people, but they're no better than the enemy if they're out to kill.

However, there are certain laws superheroes and lesser powered heroes, Batman for example, are going to have to break and we as society are going to have to forgive them for. That's just part of the job. As a hero, you have to make tough decisions; decisions not everyone is going to like and decisions that aren't always going to play by the rules. If they're out defending lives and doing a whole lot better than local police, then who are we to stop them?

Overall, I see it as a bit of a give and take in this situation. So long as they aren't committing outrageous criminal acts such as taking the lives of others, then I feel like they can be forgiven for other smaller offenses. Otherwise, they're just as equal as humans under the law, superpowers or not.