DC's Most villanous hero..?

[Silverstein]

A wise poster once said...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristotle
I don't know, I think all we're doing is demonstrating that any bad guy can be made to look sympathetic or unsympathetic based on the words you use. I suspect none of us will be convincing anyone, as our very language in how we justify and argue is being shaped by our preconceived opinions on the question.

If that's the case then the question must be asked....Who is the most villanistic hero? Aristotle raised a good point there. Really it's all POV and wording.

Superman is supposed to BE justice and heroism. He's the modern day hercules. BUT is it heroic that he hasn't flown into africa and taken out tyrants and dictators that deny their own people food? And who says he'd have to kill them, if he took them at night and flew them to some far away island, that would be enough time for the country to feed it's people and work without said "leader". I know it's more complicated but you understand where I'm going with this? But instead of fighting real crime he plays games with people like Toyman.

What about Batman? Is it heroic to not kill Joker? Yes it's murder, but it's a childish notion to think you can stop crime and save a city like gotham without removing the criminal elements. Even children that read his comics know the phrase "If you want to make an omlette, you've got to crack some eggs."

Every murder after Joker got out of prison for murder is Batman's fault to me. Because Batman is being a hypocrite to in one hand say that he is working outside of governments and the police because they are corrupt and often wrong, but in another breath leave the fate of the criminals he aprrehends to said corrupt government. "Okay. I tried it your way, usa failed me. Nothing is going to be done about him? He gets away with it because he's insane? Not tonight. Batarang to the throat!!"

And lastly about batman, in Hush I think Gordon stops him and says if you kill the joker then when will it stop who will you have to kill next? That's stupid because the Joker is not like anyone else.


Anyway my point is....any of these heroes that claim to be "good" are only good because they are fighting people that are eviler. Or considered "evil". So who, out of all of DC's hero roster, is the most villanous?

 

[Joker]

Deadshot. Next question.

 

[Harlekin]

Deadshot isn't a hero.

 

[Mladen]

I've raised the point here a few times that Bruce Wayne is wasting his time and resources when he should be focusing his resources on fighting government crime and other legalised forms of criminal behaviour (the things which cause petty criminals to turn to crime in the first place, namely, economic desperation and inescapable social situation). Imagine if he focused all of that insane dedication of staying up late, brooding at his computer and beating up muggers (small revenge, the occasional supervillain) to cleaning up the city through political and economic means (after all, he has the ludicrous amounts of money, influence, and intelligence to do so... he could run for freaking President, and REALLY do something helpful).

I think if the public realised that Bruce Wayne is Batman, they might be a little peeved that he wasn't being a bit more useful as Bruce Wayne. "hey, thanks for stopping Two-face from murdering some guy, but hey, I live in squalor and can't find a job, the cops won't protect me from thieves unless if I pay protection. The Mayor is corrupt, the police-force is 80% crooked, the mob runs the streets, but wow, good job capturing the Joker and placing him back in that easily-escapable asylum run by an insane administrator. Your father (who was driven to helping Gotham's infrastructure, the poor, disenfranchised etc) would be utterly ashamed you spent that $200,000 dollars on a new custom sonar bat-ear instead of, hey, funding a dozen scholarships." If Batman is so social conscious, he's going about it in the same way that a poor man could (and does.... there are a lot of poor heroes in the DC-verse)... a rich man should do so much more if he wants to call himself a 'hero'.

Whats worse is that he and other heroes define their moral code by their political setting. batman follows the letter of the law over his own judgdment. if he can't 'arrest' somebody, he can never exact justice on say, a crooked politician, or a well-protected mobster with good lawyers. He moans that murder is never justifiable, but is totally fine with the idea of state-sanctioned murder (execution of criminals, and any war), so his strict moral code is entirely dependant on what society he lives in. If he sees a political or lawful injustice, he will not act against it.

He functions outside the system, but stills follows the rules of the system, which seems to defy the purpose... Whats the point, he might as well wear a badge and uniform? Frank Miller's batman is the obvious exception, as is Green Arrow.

Then again, if we remember the ACTUAL meaning of the word hero (in regards to the original mythic heroes)... Usually an individual endowed with amazing strength or physical power (intellect isn't necessary), not particularly altruistic, entirely selfish, often murderous on a whim (usually over some petty thing), an exaggerated sense of self-entitlement and importance, actively seeking fame and fortune, fiercely nationalistic and always warlike.... So, superheroes could be a LOT worse.

 

[The Question]

1) Villainistic isn't a word.

2) Neither of the examples you gave seem particularly villainous. Shortsighted? Naive? That's arguable. But they're not actively doing harm. They're passively letting bad things happen in morally complex issues where, especially in the Superman example, action could result in things getting much worse. Odds are, if Superman started deposing dictators left and right, it would plunge the region into civil war.

 

[Sakuraba]

You might say the Spectre. But that's just justice done right.

 

[Sawyer]

Superman is, by far, DC's most villainous hero...

 

[The Leaguer]

 

[Czar Colossus]

Superman is, by far, DC's most villainous hero...

They don't make 'em like that anymore.

 

[Manic]

Black Adam. One could argue that he was justified when he took over his homeland of Khandaq and overthrew its corrupt leader, but damned if every superhero in the community didn't hate him for it.

The whole "avenging my wife and brother-in-law by killing everyone who happens to be standing nearby, including children" thing was straight-up villainous, though.

 

[Noir]

Vigilante Circa Adrian Chase/Alan Welles era.

Next question..

 

[Harlekin]

Spectre's a pretty good choice, he did raze an entire country and everyone in it.

 

[chamber-music]

Superman is, by far, DC's most villainous hero...

I love how old superman was kind of an jackass.

 

[The Question]

Black Adam. One could argue that he was justified when he took over his homeland of Khandaq and overthrew its corrupt leader, but damned if every superhero in the community didn't hate him for it.

The whole "avenging my wife and brother-in-law by killing everyone who happens to be standing nearby, including children" thing was straight-up villainous, though.

I don't think I'd really call Black Adam's massacre villainous. Horrible, ****ed up, and evil? Yes. But villainy, to me, implies a certain level of planning and rational thought, even if it's a kind of rationality that only makes sense to the user. Adam was acting out of pure grief.

 

[Silverstein]

I don't think I'd really call Black Adam's massacre villainous. Horrible, ****ed up, and evil? Yes. But villainy, to me, implies a certain level of planning and rational thought, even if it's a kind of rationality that only makes sense to the user. Adam was acting out of pure grief.

what about Ragman for most villanous hero? He's like a green ragman version of spawn. He kills criminals and crooks or rather....makes them suffer by living in his costume for years until their "sins" are forgiven. He does this as part of his "heroism". But from the perspective of his "victims" they are just that....victims. How do we know these criminals and sinners wouldn't have made amense afterwards without rag's interference?

 

[hippie_hunter]

 

[GoldenAgeHero]

where did that come from?

 

[Laplace_Zombie]

Countdown, some weeks from now

 

[hippie_hunter]

where did that come from?

Technically Red Robin is DC's most villainous hero. Black Adam and Superboy Prime killed far too much to be considered heroes (Black Adam killed millions and Superboy-Prime far beyond the trillions).

Jason Todd on the other hand was part of the Gotham drug trade even though he fought against it and forbade his dealers from selling to children. He attempted to kill Onyx. Beat up Tim Drake. Posed as a murderous Nightwing. Teamed up with Brick in Star City.

However despite this, he helped take down Black Mask's criminal empire. He does take part in fighting crime and saving people. And even though he took up the Red Robin mantle, he still kills.

He definetely qualifies as DC's most villainous hero.

 

[Kitsune]

 

[Manic]

Ignoring Superman's use of the word "blackest," I'd like to point out that Superman doesn't just commit sabotage. He commits super-sabotage.

 

[Noir]

Superman.. He doesn't admit it, but he has got Metropolis and maybe even the entire world dependent on him, by fighting all of our battles for us Superman and all the other heroes for that matter are stopping human evolution and nature in its tracks but teaching people to not fight for themselves as the Justice League will do it for them..

 

[The Question]

what about Ragman for most villanous hero? He's like a green ragman version of spawn. He kills criminals and crooks or rather....makes them suffer by living in his costume for years until their "sins" are forgiven. He does this as part of his "heroism". But from the perspective of his "victims" they are just that....victims. How do we know these criminals and sinners wouldn't have made amense afterwards without rag's interference?

We don't. The thing about Ragman, and since he was mentioned earlier, to a much larger degree The Spectre, is that he doesn't serve justice. He serves old fashioned, old testament style vengence. Justice is about maintaining a balance, keeping society running orderly. Vengence is much more primal, passionate, and inherrently irrational. It's all about sharing your pain or the pain of others with those who cause that pain in the first place. I personally don't think it's a good or moral way of going about things, but I also admit that it's an entirely human and understandible way of doing things.

 

[The Leaguer]

 

[Silverstein]

Why do people(you) keep posting that image around the boards, are there no other images of superboy prime?