Who was in the wrong here?

Who was in the wrong here?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Ultimately Manchester Black was, but Superman proving Manchester wrong doesn't make him right.

I'd say it's the governments and law enforcement agencies failings to adapt to world with Metahumans in it by recruiting their own or legislating them into the existing laws.

There should be government sanctioned super teams that have jurisdiction to exercise lethal force, with oversight from a governing body.

It's not the perfect solution, nor the idealistic approach but it's a realistic take on crime and punishment in a world where humans aren't subject to the same limitations as ours.

You're forgetting about the Superman factor, user.
A single man tips the scales in terms of powerhouse in the entire world hence why he sees it as his responsibility to not enact lethal force.

No, it does make Superman right, it just also makes a lot of world governments wrong as well. Keep in mind Superman is not responsible for policy or law, it's not his place to change the world, it's to keep the world turning so people can make those choices for themselves.

Which is why he needs to be folded into an existing chain of command.

The 90's and early 2000's.

And who's going to make him?

>Keep in mind Superman is not responsible for policy or law, it's not his place to change the world, it's to keep the world turning so people can make those choices for themselves.

Unless of-course the people making the change are other metahumans then of-course it's his business.

The whole 'might makes right is bullshit' angle IS bullshit. Might makes right isn't a philosophy it's a goddamn law of the Universe. The only reason the governments of the world can do what they want and Superman is powerless (read below) to stop them is because they are mighty and decide what they wanna do.

And when I say Superman is powerless to stop them, I obviously don't mean physically. They just have such a monopoly on morality that if Superman did overthrow them he'd be 'evil' but anything they do is justified just by virtue of them being the Government.

The state is the religion of the 21st century.

kelly for giving superman lobotomy powers

He would always be at the top if command is by power, and considering his humanitarianism and anal dedication to preserving life I would say he sits pretty fucking close to the top if authority went by morality. Unless you mean he should follow trump's orders because he was born in America? Or the U.N. because he helps internationally? Hell, there are intergalactic federations he has done good by in the past, why stop at human chain of command?

A political superman is a lame superman.

he doesn't.
his entire attack on the Elite is a fake out to show them how it feels to have that kind of force levied against them - supes thinks it through and takes them down humanely

England Man

Where is this from?

Superman is supposed to fight the bullies ,wherever they're from.

A movie that had a great ending fight but was boring and by-the-numbers until then.

Manchester Black was, but Supes didn't actually do shit to argue against him.

>haha I beat you in a fight and took your powers so i'm right haha i'm superman

He wanted him to be confronted by his own mortality like he was doing with everybody else.
And as it turns out, it doesn't feel too good.

Joe Kelly for writing this shit.

Fuck off tony

Superman really showed him.

how good it feels is utterly irrelevant to whether it's right or wrong, though

He actually does depower him in the film.

Read Squadron Supreme, it's might interesting

What is the measure of right or wrong? Not saying you're making a invalid point but the right and wrong comes from somewhere, so what it is?

Fuck off Ellisfag

Name one national leader in DC who's metahuman status ha not caused problems.

The movie was fucking stupid. The Elite kill Villians. So Supernan proves them wrong by ... Beating them up. But that changes nothing. They were still right to take out Atomic Skull. Just because they weren't gifted with as big a stick, doesn't mean they weren't using it better.

Obviously Manchester.

If this had been an actual face off between Superman and The Authority (first run) then it would be an interesting ethical grey area kind of. But The Elite are a strawman written from the ground up to be ethically inferior to Superman.

It was an okay story, but if you're writing a grey morality tale it's sorta important to make some shades of fucking grey.

You want an actul good take on the issue, watch justice league monster and gods.

One might complain about the titular characters not actually being the original ones, but even then each take of those new version are interesting exploration of the DC lore.

I don't know if it was intentional, but it was interesting seeing a "trump" inclined Superman having been raised by immigrants.

Me. I'm always in the wrong.

I don't think Zodman would actually like Trump all that much. He may be a cock with too big an ego but he also knows what it's like to be the little guy, versus someone who spent his entire life being the richest guy in the room, and doing everything in his power to keep it that way. Big personalities tend to clash, not meld.

The main conflict can only happen by the citizens of metropolis not making sense. Superman essentially functions like a cop. It's his job to detain threats while preserving as much life as possible which includes the ones he stops.
If superman were holding back against Atomic Skull and as a result, Skull vaporized some people, then yes it's Superman's fault for not using an appropriate amount of force to stop him while saving innocents. But what really happens is Superman fully contains the situation on his side everything went fine. It doesn't make any sense that anyone would complain to Superman because it was the governmental side that failed to either contain Skull or execute him if that were impossible, but for some reason they're not protesting to City Hall, they're going to Superman.

It's just like if a criminal broke out of jail, protesting at a cop's house for why didn't they execute the criminal, it's nonsense.

The point of winning wasn't to prove might makes right, it was the exact opposite. It was to show that a Superman exercising the power to execute his enemies is a legitimately terrifying thing for everyone involved. It's the same thing as saying cops should have the power to use lethal force freely instead of as a last resort.

For the Atomic Skull comparison, imagine a man with a gun started making threats but was quickly tackled to the floor and disarmed by the police. Then because he was dangerous, the cops decided to just shoot him in the head instead of booking him, it'd be completely monstrous.

>It's the same thing as saying cops should have the power to use lethal force freely instead of as a last resort.
They don't?

Sup Forums really needs to learn what cops are actually legally able to do and not do

Why would command be by power, that makes no sense.

lmao you must be a non-American

The britfag, on account of being a britfag

Not if you're white

it's not just /co that needs to learn that

No he doesn't. He only temporarily shuts down his powers, same as in the comic.
Superman didn't do anything wrong. If anything it was noteworthy the extent to which he made sure not to seriously harm or kill anyone.

Except you know if that guy is un containable and will break out and go about murdering. Oh and that gun is actually a nuclear bomb. That is a part of him.

What did Atomic Skull want anyway?

He was contained, the problem is when they tried to move him to a less secure facility to use him like a generator. Metropolis isn't known for having an overtly corrupt government like Gotham, there's no reason why the people are asking Superman to kill him instead of their mayor.

Both, atomic skull should have been left to his business

Superman, he shouldn't have been jobbing to Atomic Skull

So Taskforce X?

What's interesting, is that Kelly wrote both the original story and the film.

He chose for Supes to make both decisions in each context. In a finite film, it's understandable to keep Manchester out of the way for good.

>facts

>Government
>has monopoly on morality

No.

>>haha I beat you in a fight and took your powers so i'm right haha i'm superman

That's not the point at all

They're forced into it. More like the 50 States initiative in Marvel.

They were kinda forced into it too. Cloud 9 was, anyway.

that's literally the point of a government

Not de jure.

No.

Hahaha no.

Name another reason for having a government then (hint: there is none)

The Authority are still ethically-inferior to Superman.

I don't think that you understand what "morality" is.

Pants.

And a utility belt.

What's right and wrong. The government decides this through law. this is the only reason governments exist.

The government doesn't determine "what's right and wrong".

Yes they do, we gave them that power through letting them make laws. Socialist sheep either gobble it up willingly or are too dumb to become anarchists

>Superman gets to choose who can and can't use their powers

Couldn't he give them a choice to be "proper" superheroes and help the planet? They were good guys to begin with. He just didn't like their methods.

Manchester Black was wrong by default the second he wore a butcher's apron for a shirt.

He can beat the crap out of them, why shouldn't he be able to tell them what to do?

Yet it's what actually happened

Wow, are you dumb. The government can only determine legality, not morality. The government is not a moral agent.

And how is anarchy unworkable?

*workable.

goddammit

>The government can only determine legality, not morality

With a state legality and morality are synonyms

>And how is anarchy unworkable?

It isn't, I'm an anarchist. we need to destroy the government to stop them being able to decide morality.

Nope.

1) No.

2) You didn't read my follow-up where I corrected myself.

How is anarchy workable?

See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

>What's right and wrong. The government decides this through law. this is the only reason governments exist.

That's it. I've seen the stupidest post on the internet.

Government exists, at it's core, exists as an extension of a persons right to defend the infringement of their rights by others. One has the right to protect themselves from murder, and thus has the right to band with others in order to ensure mutual protection of that right to life. This is the root of government in any human society. That's why the government exists, not to dictate what is right or wrong. Government exists because of what is right or wrong, what is right or wrong does not exist because of government. It would not go away without government either, the government is simply an enforcement measure and what it enforces is entirely dependent on the times and the agenda of those running it. Nothing to do with morality.

>what is right or wrong does not exist because of government

No, but while a government exists it gets to decide it through threat of force

guys, can we go back to arguing about superman

Which is my point. Government is simply a tool for enforcement. What exactly it enforces changes.As is very clear, it is not always a moral agent.

Oh, Honey, no. Don't do that.

>As is very clear, it is not always a moral agent.

it''s the only one that matters, which means it may as well be