If Superman exists and went bad....

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-

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.

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.

If Superman exists and went bad....

Jhaelen

First Post

Ryujin

Legend

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

Ryujin

Legend

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

Ryujin

Legend

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

Ryujin

Legend

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

Wild Gazebo

Explorer

Similar Threads