Comics I fear for the current status of Superman.

[Spike_x1]

No parasite isn't a joker/carnage type psycho, if he kills there is a reason. He isn't simply a murder he has ambitions beyond that.

Not necessarily. In his first appearance after turning purple and killing a subway train full of people, Superman asked him why he did it. The Parasite's response was simply "because they were there?"

Unless there's a bigger scheme going on, Rudy will kill indiscriminately and without any form of remorse, either because someone is pissing him off or he's hungry. More than likely, it's both, though.

 

[The Question]

Or, as I said, it could be for thrills. He is the type who'd get into a fight for fun, so giving him powers that can, theoretically, enable him to take on the entire JLA at once makes such atempts at thrill seeking infinitely more lethal to the general public.

 

[gildea]

Hell, one time a group of criminals were breaking him out of prison, and he showed his graditude by draining them all to death.

Thats him feeding though, its justified.

He's still at planet moving strength levels in All Star. The fact that he can't go through the sun doesn;t effect his strength levels.

I didn't say it affected his strength levels I was using it as an example to show he is not quite the same as pre crisis superman.

He hasn't moved a planet yet.
For me to accept he is at planet moving levels in all star you need to prove it by doing 2 things
a) specifying the size of planet we're talking about
and b) specifying how much it weighs and how much force is needed to alter its orbit

Until then you're just making a rather large assumption.

I don;t see why Superman can't be equal with Wonder Woman and J;onn and still be the greatest.

As I've already said, because then he is operating on a lower level.

As would I. But that doesn't make him the greatest. I'd rather have The Hulk take on The Juggernaut, but I think Captain America is still the greatest hero in Marvel.

But you would rather have someone else do the heroic thing?

I find it odd that your definition of heroism actually doesn't give any weight to the heroic acts a hero can perform.

But his morals are all that counts in the "greatest hero" arguement. Someone can be the most powerful hero in the world and still be a compkete dick.

And someone can have the best morals in the world but be completely in capable of being a superhero.
Its a combination of both truth told but all the morals in the world are simply not enough to save the earth sometimes, I don't care how good your morality is.
I don't think many superhero comics are based around philosophy and morality professors.

How much power he has doesn't relate to how good a hero he is.

As i've said repeatedly of course it does simply because it governs how many threats you can respond to and how you respond to them.

Way I see it, Superman can be the best and still be equal with Wonder Woman and Martian Manhunter. And really, I prefer it that way. I want Clark to have peers, not subordinates.

Ok in which way is superman morally superior to martian manhunter?

 

[gildea]

Unless there's a bigger scheme going on, Rudy will kill indiscriminately and without any form of remorse, either because someone is pissing him off or he's hungry. More than likely, it's both, though.

You claim its indiscriminant but then give two possible (and logical) reasons for it.

Logical contradiction.

 

[The Question]

Thats him feeding though, its justified.

It's hardly justified. He doesn't need to drain people to death to survive. He could easily feed off of other sources. He drains people to death because he enjoys it.

I didn't say it affected his strength levels I was using it as an example to show he is not quite the same as pre crisis superman.

He hasn't moved a planet yet.
For me to accept he is at planet moving levels in all star you need to prove it by doing 2 things
a) specifying the size of planet we're talking about
and b) specifying how much it weighs and how much force is needed to alter its orbit

Until then you're just making a rather large assumption.

No, I'm not. All Star is basically writing pre-crisis Superman. He's at planet moving levels, even if not stated.

But you would rather have someone else do the heroic thing?

I find it odd that your definition of heroism actually doesn't give any weight to the heroic acts a hero can perform.

Of course it doesn't. How powerful a hero is is the worst way to judge how heroic he is. Wonder Man greatly dwarfs Captain America in terms of power. However, Captain America is a better hero, because he is by his very nature more heroic. That's what matters.

And someone can have the best morals in the world but be completely in capable of being a superhero.
Its a combination of both truth told but all the morals in the world are simply not enough to save the earth sometimes, I don't care how good your morality is.

And yet saving the earth doesn't instantly make him the best hero. It simply makes him very powerful.

As i've said repeatedly of course it does simply because it governs how many threats you can respond to and how you respond to them.

And as I've said repeatedly, that doesn't instantly make him a great hero. Simply a more powerful one.

Ok in which way is superman morally superior to martian manhunter?

Really, he's not any more morally right. But still, that's not the only factor. The way Superman can lead and inspire people, that's what makes him the best. And really, I don't think he needs to be far above the others at all. He should have peers, not subordinates. Otherwise, having a League in the first place is completely pointless.

 

[gildea]

It's hardly justified. He doesn't need to drain people to death to survive. He could easily feed off of other sources. He drains people to death because he enjoys it.

The killing or the energy kick?

Cos he doesn't need to drain to kill.

That said i'm not really disputing that just the idea that he would suddenly go on a mad killing rampage. He's a petty thug with amazing powers but he still has petty thug wants, money, possesions women.

Having said that make a character that powerful and give him a carnage or joker like mindset and you have a damned intersting superman arc.

No, I'm not. All Star is basically writing pre-crisis Superman. He's at planet moving levels, even if not stated.

Having researched this a bit you may actually be correct in that his strength level is enough to lift the largest planet in this solar system (jupiter). Depending on morrisons definition of quintillion (american or british). Regadless earth should be well within his weight range.

I simply don't have the knowledge of physics to work out how gravity works in.

What I will say though is regardless of strength I don't think someone of supermans size can move a planet because he simply go through it instead. However I don't think thats actually your point (ie. its more the level of strength than the actual ability to move a planet) So I concede the point of all star superman being able to move a planet.

Of course it doesn't. How powerful a hero is is the worst way to judge how heroic he is. Wonder Man greatly dwarfs Captain America in terms of power. However, Captain America is a better hero, because he is by his very nature more heroic. That's what matters.

Ok next time I'm attacked by doomsday I'll stand behind cap.

What would cap do that makes him more heroic than wonderman anyway?

And as I've said repeatedly, that doesn't instantly make him a great hero. Simply a more powerful one.

Implying that to be a great hero you don't actually need to do anything heroic just have good morals.

I could sit all day in my living room and do that.

I'm sorry I think it's perfectly valid (in most cases) to judge people on what they do.

Its how most people in the world are judged.

I don't think he needs to be far above the others at all. He should have peers, not subordinates. Otherwise, having a League in the first place is completely pointless.

Not really even superman can't be everywhere at once, and being the best hero doesn't make you infallible. Plus some do have attributes superman doesn't have, telepathy, shape shifting, magic, strategy, etc etc etc.

I'm also curious as to your definition of subordinate being solely based on power does that you conisder batman a subordinate to even your weakened preference of superman??

 

[The Question]

The killing or the energy kick?

The killing. Though, maybe both.

Cos he doesn't need to drain to kill.

That said i'm not really disputing that just the idea that he would suddenly go on a mad killing rampage. He's a petty thug with amazing powers but he still has petty thug wants, money, possesions women.

He also liked to watch things die when he's bored.

Ok next time I'm attacked by doomsday I'll stand behind cap.

That's not my point at all. Being the most powerful does not make you the best hero. It simply makes you the most powerful. Yes, a high powered individual is more likely to save you from a threat like Doomsday than Captain America. But I'd be damned if you say that that makes them better heroes.

What would cap do that makes him more heroic than wonderman anyway?

Because he's Captain-****ing-America. He is by his very nature more heroic than Wonder Man.

Implying that to be a great hero you don't actually need to do anything heroic just have good morals.

I could sit all day in my living room and do that.

That is not what I said at all.

I'm sorry I think it's perfectly valid (in most cases) to judge people on what they do.

Its how most people in the world are judged.

You're not judging Superman on what he does. You're judging him on what he's capable of.

Not really even superman can't be everywhere at once, and being the best hero doesn't make you infallible. Plus some do have attributes superman doesn't have, telepathy, shape shifting, magic, strategy, etc etc etc.

Still, having a Superman who completely dwarfs Wonder Woman and Martian Manhunter on the League with them makes the team pointless. I'd rather have Superman working with them than doing their jobs for them.

I'm also curious as to your definition of subordinate being solely based on power does that you conisder batman a subordinate to even your weakened preference of superman??

In terms of battling big scary monsters, **** yes. There's pretty much nothing Batman can do against AMAZO.

 

[gildea]

Because he's Captain-****ing-America. He is by his very nature more heroic than Wonder Man.

Thats not an argument.
Thats just saying he's better because you say so.

I'm asking why

That is not what I said at all.

I didn't say it was I said it was implicit because it is.

You're not judging Superman on what he does. You're judging him on what he's capable of.

Technically true however given that we tend to learn in comics what heroes can do by seeing them do it rather than being told I think the correlation is strong enough that and what you do is governed largely by what you can do I think i'm operating on a sound enough logic.

Still, having a Superman who completely dwarfs Wonder Woman and Martian Manhunter on the League with them makes the team pointless. I'd rather have Superman working with them than doing their jobs for them.

Pointless right up until a telepathy or shape shifter is required or the need to compel someone to tell the truth (and so on)
Everyon brings something different to the table but supes brings the most muscle and the ideals.

In terms of battling big scary monsters, **** yes. There's pretty much nothing Batman can do against AMAZO.

A limitation then to his ability to act a superhero. Which means therefore that the concept of "best" has to include power levels. Simpy because the "best" superhero by definition should be "better" than other heroes in the actual PROCESS of being a superhero.

It amazes me that your blind to the inherent contradiction that the best superhero can be allowed to be inferior to others in the actual acts and jobs involved in being a superhero.

 

[The Question]

Thats not an argument.
Thats just saying he's better because you say so.

I'm asking why

Christ, because he's Catain America. I don't know how to explain it any better than that.

I didn't say it was I said it was implicit because it is.

You are completely missing the point of what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that how good a hero does not depend on what you are capable of nor how spectacular or large scale your feats are. It's about how heroic you and your actions are. A fellow could have the power to save the world and even do it a few times and still be a selfish *******, while a non powered hero does things on a smaller scale yet is self sacrificing, kind, and honorable. Which would you say is the better hero.

Technically true however given that we tend to learn in comics what heroes can do by seeing them do it rather than being told I think the correlation is strong enough that and what you do is governed largely by what you can do I think i'm operating on a sound enough logic.

No, you're not. As I said, what someone is capable of doing doesn't instantly make them a better hero. Captain America can't dissarm 20 bombs in different locations over the city before the explode. Quicksilver can. But would you really say that Quicksilver is a better hero than Cap?

Pointless right up until a telepathy or shape shifter is required or the need to compel someone to tell the truth (and so on)
Everyon brings something different to the table but supes brings the most muscle and the ideals.

Still, think about it. If Superman can solve most of the problems by himself, it shouldn't be the Justice League. Just Superman and some guys he calls on when he needs a telepath or a shapeshifter.

A limitation then to his ability to act a superhero. Which means therefore that the concept of "best" has to include power levels. Simpy because the "best" superhero by definition should be "better" than other heroes in the actual PROCESS of being a superhero.

No. That's complete bull****. In terms of role on the League, Batman is less important than Superman because he can do less. But that doesn't make him a better or worse hero.

It amazes me that your blind to the inherent contradiction that the best superhero can be allowed to be inferior to others in the actual act of being a superhero.

There is no contradiction. You're telling me that if The Punisher was the most powerful hero on Earth, you would consider him the best?

 

[gildea]

Going to bed so i'll just take these 2 points.

There is no contradiction. You're telling me that if The Punisher was the most powerful hero on Earth, you would consider him the best?

No because the punisher doesn't do heroic things.
I've already said that strength of character is important as well. You're only concentrating on one part of what i've said. Its ideals and ablity each is as important as the other but only one of them governs your actual ability to act as a hero.
We don't give gold medals to athletes who operate on the best morals rearding their sports we give them to those who are the best at their sports. The best hero whilst morality governs their actions is judged by how well they can superhero.

Its a results based business, like everything else.

No, you're not. As I said, what someone is capable of doing doesn't instantly make them a better hero. Captain America can't dissarm 20 bombs in different locations over the city before the explode. Quicksilver can. But would you really say that Quicksilver is a better hero than Cap?

No because of his actions past and present. But he has the potential to be a better hero than cap because of his powers.

Queston for you:
2 heroes both have the personality of Cap
one has the abilities of cap the other has the abilities of superman

who is the better hero?

 

[The Question]

No because the punisher doesn't do heroic things.

He saves lives. He fights evil. Sounds somewhat heroic to me

I've already said that strength of character is important as well. You're only concentrating on one part of what i've said. Its ideals and ablity each is as important as the other but only one of them governs your actual ability to act as a hero.
We don't give gold medals to athletes who operate on the best morals rearding their sports we give them to those who are the best at their sports. The best hero whilst morality governs their actions is judged by how well they can superhero.

Comparing a hero to an athlete doesn't work at all.

Its a results based business, like everything else.

It's not a ****ing buisness. And results don't make you a better hero. Quicksilver could defeat a giant monster while Cap couldn't. Cap's still a better hero.

No because of his actions past and present. But he has the potential to be a better hero than cap because of his powers.

No, he doesn't. At his core, Cap's still a better person. And that's what counts.

Queston for you:
2 heroes both have the personality of Cap
one has the abilities of cap the other has the abilities of superman

who is the better hero?

I'd say they're about equal.

 

[Spike_x1]

You claim its indiscriminant but then give two possible (and logical) reasons for it.

Logical contradiction.

By indiscriminately, I meant that he doesn't care WHO he kills. He has no preference. If he's hungry or mad at them, it does not matter who they are, he'll kill them without blinking an eye.

 

[gildea]

By indiscriminately, I meant that he doesn't care WHO he kills. He has no preference. If he's hungry or mad at them, it does not matter who they are, he'll kill them without blinking an eye.

fair enough I misinterpreted you sir.

 

[gildea]

He saves lives. He fights evil. Sounds somewhat heroic to me

He killed someone for jaywalking. He doesn't fight evil he kills evil, in a judge jury and executioner sort of way. Of course you knew I would type that stuff just there so I'm wondering the point of this offshoot of the debate.

Comparing a hero to an athlete doesn't work at all.

Course it does, I even gave an example to back it up.
Please at least provide some sort of argument rather than just claiming you're right.

It's not a ****ing buisness. And results don't make you a better hero. Quicksilver could defeat a giant monster while Cap couldn't. Cap's still a better hero.

I could find you plenty of quotes with heroes referring to it as a business. And results do count, who wants a hero to that always fails???????

Cap is a better hero because of his actions. I'm not not trying to debate cap vs quicksilver.

No, he doesn't. At his core, Cap's still a better person. And that's what counts.

No it just means he's a better person not a better superhero (referring to potential here not quicksilver as is).

I'd say they're about equal.

They are either equal or they aren't.

If they are "about" equal that means one is slightly better so tell me which one is slightly better superhero?


You seem to think that being a good person automatically equates to being a good superhero, which is nonsense because a large portion of the world would therefore be superheroes.

 

[The Question]

He killed someone for jaywalking.

When the hell did that happen?

Course it does, I even gave an example to back it up.
Please at least provide some sort of argument rather than just claiming you're right.

It doesn't work as an analogy. Athgletes are judges entirely on their physical prowess. Heroism can't be judged by how much you bench.

I could find you plenty of quotes with heroes referring to it as a business.

I think that's just what they call it. They don't actually think of it as a buisness.

And results do count, who wants a hero to that always fails???????

Failure doesn't mean someone isn't heroic.

No it just means he's a better person not a better superhero (referring to potential here not quicksilver as is).

How good a hero you are depends on how heroic you are, not how skilled you are.

They are either equal or they aren't.

If they are "about" equal that means one is slightly better so tell me which one is slightly better superhero?

You're being nitpicky. I'd say they're equal, then.

You seem to think that being a good person automatically equates to being a good superhero, which is nonsense because a large portion of the world would therefore be superheroes.

That's not even remotely what I said. How HEROIC you are makes you a good superhero. And how heroic you are has little to do with actual skill. Someone could be the most skilled super hero, but that doesn't make them the best super hero. Judging who the best hero is must be based on more intangible qualities. Otherwise, a complete selfish ******* could be considered the best super hero.

 

[GNR]

I'm enjoying Busiek's current take on Supes.

 

[gildea]

When the hell did that happen?

Dunno. They mention it here http://www.geocities.com/marvel_terror/punisher/punisher.html

It doesn't work as an analogy. Athgletes are judges entirely on their physical prowess. Heroism can't be judged by how much you bench.

No they're not athletes have to adhere to some fairplay rules. Regardless the point is that in ANY and EVERY field of endeavour you are judged on your performance, superheroing is no different.

I think that's just what they call it. They don't actually think of it as a buisness.

Of course they do.
Business can just refer to your occupation or trade. Cap america occupation : superhero.

Failure doesn't mean someone isn't heroic.

Indeed heroic failure and what not. It just means they suck at being a superhero.

You're being nitpicky. I'd say they're equal, then.

No I'm just trying to get something from your increasingly wooly answers

That's not even remotely what I said.

Oh no it is completely what you said. You claim you want heroism but you keep throwing morality around interchangeably and have said more than once something along the lines of "the best hero could be a dick"

Otherwise, a complete selfish ******* could be considered the best super hero.

Doesn't matter. Results and actions.



Cripes name 3 professions anywhere where people are primarily judged on something other than their performance in said profession!!
(I can think of 1 and even then its a stretch)

 

[The Question]

Dunno. They mention it here http://www.geocities.com/marvel_terror/punisher/punisher.html

I think that was during some mental breakdown he had.

No they're not athletes have to adhere to some fairplay rules. Regardless the point is that in ANY and EVERY field of endeavour you are judged on your performance, superheroing is no different.

Yes, it is. What makes you a good hero is not based on what you're capable of, but what you do with what you have.

Of course they do.
Business can just refer to your occupation or trade. Cap america occupation : superhero.

They don't think of it as a buisness because it isn't a buisness. Buisness implies monitairy gain. They may call it a buisness, but they don't actually think of it as one. It's just something they call it.

Indeed heroic failure and what not. It just means they suck at being a superhero.

Doesn't mean they're not heroic.

No I'm just trying to get something from your increasingly wooly answers

Yes, you are.

Oh no it is completely what you said. You claim you want heroism but you keep throwing morality around interchangeably and have said more than once something along the lines of "the best hero could be a dick"

No, I haven't said that at all. Please, I would aprechiate it if you would stop twisting my words around. How heroic someone is makes them the best super hero. Captain America is considered the best in Marvel because of how much of a hero he is, not because he can crush an armored tank with his bare hands.

Doesn't matter. Results and actions.

Yes, it does matter.

Cripes name 3 professions anywhere where people are primarily judged on something other than their performance in said profession!!
(I can think of 1 and even then its a stretch)

Heroism isn't a profession and isn't comperable to any profession. Stop trying to compare it to something when there is no comparison.

 

[gildea]

No, I haven't said that at all. Please, I would aprechiate it if you would stop twisting my words around. How heroic someone is makes them the best super hero. Captain America is considered the best in Marvel because of how much of a hero he is, not because he can crush an armored tank with his bare hands.

about to go to work so being brief.

Not twisting your words sir.
You're the one that broght personality into this when you said the guy could be a great hero but still be a selfish twit. There are other examples as well of you blurring your definition of heroism into the realms of personality.

As I said wooly answers, you've said above "cap is the best hero because of how much a hero he is" thats akin to saying he's good because he's good. You're not really making a case for your point of view as much as bludgeoning repetition.


Name 3 fields of endeavour where people aren't judged on their actual ability to perform that endeavour.

 

[The Leaguer]

I fear for the current state of Superman because this thread is sooooo laaaaaaame.

 

[The Question]

about to go to work so being brief.

Not twisting your words sir.
You're the one that broght personality into this when you said the guy could be a great hero but still be a selfish twit. There are other examples as well of you blurring your definition of heroism into the realms of personality.

I didn't say that. What I said is going by the way you describe it, a person could be a complete dick and still be a great hero.

As I said wooly answers, you've said above "cap is the best hero because of how much a hero he is" thats akin to saying he's good because he's good. You're not really making a case for your point of view as much as bludgeoning repetition.

I'm sorry, but I don't know how to explain it any better than that. Cap has always been portrayed as the ultimate hero. Brave, honorable, kind, never gives up, that sort of stuff.

Name 3 fields of endeavour where people aren't judged on their actual ability to perform that endeavour.

Why the hell do we have to compare heroism to something else when heroism is completely unique?

 

[Spike_x1]

Can't you guys just agree to disagree about your definitions of heroism? It seems that you both simply have different opinions about it, and neither of you are going to change the other's mind.

I mean, heroism is pretty much in the eye of the beholder.

 

[The Question]

I guess.

 

[Thespiralgoeson]

I for one rest in the camp that DESPERATELY wants to see some limits on Superman's powers. The dude should not be able to move planets, fly anywhere near light speed, nor should he be able to hear a spider spinning its web from across the galaxy. I'm sorry, but I'm with dpm07 in that I think that STAS/JL/JLU was the ideal interperatation of Supes.

On top of the fact that I just think it's friggin stupid to think of or see a humanoid being moving an object trillions and trillions times its own size, when you make Superman omnipotent, you do a tremendous disservice to the rest of the heroes in the DC universe. The Leaguer several times has said something along the lines of how "Superman should always be the best" and "if I wanted to watch a hero struggel physically I'd road someone else's stories etc..." I understand his point. It's part of Superman's charm. But here's my problem with that; Superman exists in the same universe as the rest of DC's heros and villains. It'd be different if Superman was a character like Spawn in his own universe aside from maybe a cross-over every few years, but this isn't the case. It's one thing for Superman to make the Blue Beetle look like heaping pile of feces by comparison, but the other heavyweights in the Justice League absolutely have to be on a level playing field with Supes. It just has to be that way for me. As The Question so eloquently put it, Superman should have peers, not subordinates. Also, for the sake of a character like the flash, who while not as engraned in our culture as Supes, is still very much an icon in his own right, Superman should NOT be as fast as Flash. Not even close really. I mean, that's all the Flash has. When you give Superman equal or greater speeds, you render the Flash competely useless and pointless.

Batman and Wonder Woman in particular come to mind. For me, ideally, they're all on equal footing. Maybe Wonder Woman isn't as strong as Supes, but she can give him a run for his money. Batman is a different story altogether. I think the two characters should always be seen as equals, and under no circumstances should this ever change. I think that's the way most of the more faithful writers intended it to be as well. Batman needs to be able even the odds with Supes and engage him in hand-to-hand combat if need be ala DKR or Hush. It just has to be. Whether you like Supes or Bats better, both characters are just too important to have such an enormous gap between them. It's why Superman entrusted Batman with the Kryptonite ring. Supes knows that Batman is as close to an equal as he has as far as heros go, and he knows Batman probably could defeat him if he really had to (not saying he would, but that he'd have a chance to) But really, what the hell kind of use is a kryptonite going to be to Batman if Superman can fly into outer friggin space and hurl and astroid at him from light years away?? Incidently, this is also the reason why I can't stand the idea of Superman having super-intelligence; he just can't be smarter than Batman. That's Batman's greatest asset. You take that away from him and make Superman smarter, you're just ruining Batman's character in the same way you ruin the Flash by making Superman faster.

I'm sorry, but Superman just has to be powered down IMO. The TAS levels were acceptable to me. It's the only way I can enjoy him. Otherwise I'm just bored to tears, and honestly just plain pissed off at DC that they would show such utter disrespect and contempt for a character like Batman by making him an insect compaired to the god-like Superman. Besides, if Superman is as powerful as he is pre-crisis or more, isn't it just stupid to call him the "Man of Steel?" Considering he can fly through suns and survive, wouldn't "Man of Steel" be an insult? Really, for someone that powerful, it'd be the equivalent of referring to Batman as "sissypansyfairymarshmellow-wuss" instead of "The Dark Knight." Superman is supposed to be faster than a speeding bullet and more powerful than a locamotive. Not faster than a beam of light wearing Nikes and more powerful than a supernova on steroids.

I'm also decidedly and supremely against just making Superman's villains stronger as opposed to him weaker. I mean, honestly people, Darkseid is powerful enough. Hell, why don't we start giving Batman superpowers while we're at it? The Leaguer mentioned Dragon Ball Z as a comparison, as if DC has to somehow compete with the DBZ universe. It's interesting that DBZ comes up in this discussion, because the main thing that I just COULD NOT STAND about DBZ was just how ridiculously overpowered the characters were. I mean honestly, for anyone who's familiar, it's just plain laughable. In the Sayain saga Vegeta is strong enough to destroy a planet just by pointing at it, and they progressively get EXPONENTIALLY more powerful as the series progesses. By the time the Buu saga starts, they're supposedly dozens, if not hundreds (hell, maybe thousands, it's so hazily defined) of times more powerful than they were when the series started, yet anytime these characters fight eachother, its a big deal when one of their attacks makes a huge crater, or creates a lot of smoke, as opposed to vaporizing Earth along with a big chunk of the rest of the solar system.

As such, if it were up to me, that is if I were the Superman writer/editor, Superman would always strain, if even only slightly, in slowing stopping a jet liner. Superman in flight should be superfast, like faster than most advanced fighter jets, but certainly nothing even remotely approaching light speed; I can accept the speed of sound (the Flash being a good deal faster than Mach 1). The super-senses I'm willing to give a little more on for no other reason that my favorite part of Superman Returns was seeing Supes hovering high above the earth listening for distress, just a beautiful scene. I do not, however, want him to be able to hear spider spinning its web from the other solar system. Superman should be able to survive a nuclear explosion, but just barely, ala Dark Knight Returns (one of my favorite sequences in the history of comics) Flying through suns is out of the friggin question! (Honestly people, that's just ******ed. Even IF he could survive the heat, the idea that his body could withstand that kind of gravity is just plain dumb. Even moreso when you consider that it was a red sun!) And for the love of god, the Omega Beams should never EVER bounce of his chest.

Basically my ideal Superman is the Michael Jordan of the DC universe. Pound for pound, he is the most powerful, but the other heavyweights, if they can't necessarily beat him, CAN hold their own against him.

I'm willing to compromise though. If I were writing it, Superman would normally be around TAS power levels, but say there's also other energies Superman can tap into that give him the god-like powers temporarily, but come at a price. Say if a being like Imperiex or the Anti-moniter is threatening the universe, Superman can briefly achieve his pre-crisis level power, but it starts tearing his body apart and nearly kills him every time, so he only uses it as an absolute last resort. Maybe he can't control when or how it happens either. Maybe it's spontaneous, or it's triggered by some major cosmic change or disaster. Just ideas.

These are just my views and my take on the character. I understand that part of Superman's appeal is just that he's so over-the-top in his superpowers. That many of his fans want him to be nearly omnipotent and put the rest of the heros to shame. I just don't happen to be one of them. If you disagree, that's cool. But please, I'd appreciate it if nobody would give a bunch of replies along the lines of "Superman is teh ****! Batman is his biatch!"

 

[The Question]

While I agree with most of what you said, I have a few points to make.


1) The reason people want Darkseid back at pre-crisis power levels isn't because they want him to be able to face Superman. It's because they don't want him to face Superman. Darkseid as a Superman villain is an insult to the character. Even pre-crisis, Darkseid greatly dwarfed Superman in terms of power, and was once able to take on the entire Legion of Superheroes, including two 18 year old Kryptonians, and fight them to a standstill. Darkseid should be a threat to the entire DCU, not just Superman.

2) With Batman, I do think Batman should be considered less capable than Supes in the areas where Supes excells Batman can't fight Mongul or save towns from natural disasters or anything like that. However, I do think they should at least be intelectual equals, if not Batman being Superman's superior.