If Superman exists and went bad....

[Jhaelen]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Ryujin]

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.

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.

Have you read much Batman over the years? He leans pretty hard on the Machiavellian side and is still considered a hero. The difference is in scope. In this case I would liken the decision to having a nuclear missile full of children hurtling toward a national capital, with its destruction being the only viable solution to the problem. But that's where our opinions diverge. I think that the character had a high enough level of intelligence to recognize an inevitable conclusion. You don't think it was inevitable.

The point if the story is that Ozymandias fails, or at least we can presume that he did, as a result of his plan being revealed by a hero who is either less "morally flexible" or can't see and act upon a larger picture, depending upon your point of view. Perhaps a little from column "A" and a little from column "B"? Maybe that's the point?

 

[Umbran]

Have you read much Batman over the years? He leans pretty hard on the Machiavellian side and is still considered a hero. The difference is in scope.

I think the difference is in that Batman rarely kills, even when he's being Machiavellian. Ozymandias arranged the death of millions, and a frame-up to boot. That's not just scope difference, but qualitative difference.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Have you read much Batman over the years? He leans pretty hard on the Machiavellian side and is still considered a hero.

I think the difference is in that Batman rarely kills, even when he's being Machiavellian. Ozymandias arranged the death of millions, and a frame-up to boot. That's not just scope difference, but qualitative difference.

In addition, those that Bats kills are not innocents.

(And yes, I have read a lot of Batman over the decades.)

I think that the character had a high enough level of intelligence to recognize an inevitable conclusion. You don't think it was inevitable.

Arguments against the inevitability of his plan:

1) while intelligent, he failed to recognize the possibility that his plan was flawed. Despite not being omniscient, he acted as if he were. Just as he outwitted Dr. Manhattan to implement his plan, he was in turn outwitted by Rorschach, who may completely undo it.

2) As mentioned, in order to implement his plan, he both concealed it from Dr. Manhattan AND framed him for the cause. The one being who could propose and execute viable alternatives or ensure that his plan was successful beyond a few years was nullified and driven away from Earth.

3) neither Ozymandias nor Dr. Manhattan is omniscient, but Dr. Manhattan is much closer to it than Ozymandias is. Yet Dr. Manhattan didn't sacrifice himself to implement a version of Ozymandias' plan in order to stave off WW3, and was "disappointed" in the fact that Ozymandias would implement it himself. While it is true that Dr. Manhattan becomes aloof to the concerns of mere humanity, it is clear that his aloofness was a gradual development, given the story presented. At some point post gaining his powers, he still thought and acted benevolently. So arguably, given his power and knowledge, his rejection of a similar plan isn't purely a result of not wanting to help in such a plan, but also that such a plan would ultimately not achieve the desired goal.

 

[Ryujin]

I just wanted to point out that being "Machiavellian" doesn't necessarily mean that a character isn't a "hero", in and of itself.

I'm just going to bow out now. You aren't going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you. We've gone 'round the same points a couple of times now, so that's it for me.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm just going to bow out now. You aren't going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you. We've gone 'round the same points a couple of times now, so that's it for me.

Read and understood, but...

I just wanted to point out that being "Machiavellian" doesn't necessarily mean that a character isn't a "hero", in and of itself.

The word does not necessarily mean that, no, but the connotations within the textbook definition of the word are pretty antithetical to the normal concepts associated with heroism:

Mach`i`a`vel´ian
a. 1. Of or pertaining to Machiavelli, or to his supposed principles for conduct of government, as enunciated in his tract The Prince; politically cunning; characterized by duplicity, political expediency, unscrupulous cunning, or bad faith; crafty.
n. 1. One who adopts the principles of Machiavelli; a cunning and unprincipled politician.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, published 1913 by C. & G. Merriam Co.

(Emphasis mine.)