You assume everything between our universe and this parallel universe (of an already fictitious world with numerous fictitious cities) is directly 1:1. That's a flawed assumption to make, and all applications of said train of thought are therefore unreasonable. This is the last time I'm going to repeat that as a response to the same point you keep trying and failing to make.
Usually people who are steadfast in their borderline-trolling obtuseness have at least some way of peeling the onion to go deeper into their lunacy. You just repeat the same thing over and over without addressing literally anything people throw at you unless you can reply with pedantry and "oh really?".
Everyone in this forum would do right to just put you on ignore and let your close-minded obtuseness burn itself out without attention being paid. In fact, that's what I wholly recommend for anyone who doesn't enjoy arguing with a brick wall that somehow gained some form of sentience.
he could get lost int he crowd >_>
in all seriousness though let's wait and see before we start freaking about the president lying to us about his secret identity
plus come on if you can't make an exception in this instance then that speaks volumes about your relationship with him miss Lane :P
AND SOMEONE who read that annual with pres supes
they label me a villain cause of how I express my feelings
I just wanted to chime in to say I don't give a shit if this Earth's Superman/President conceals his identity, even with a disguise like wearing glasses. Looks awesome - plus, in real life, politicians lie constantly.
My brother and sister of the atom.
We are the X-men, and we stand together
I originally posted here speculation that if Superman was elected POTUS, the American people had the right to know who they were voting for on purely ethical grounds. I posed the question that if Superman believes in truth, justice, and the American way, then he should abide by those principles regardless if they are codified or not. If he doesn't and he wants to engage in ethically dubious behavior, that's fine. But I should be able to say he's engaging in ethically dubious behavior. If he wants to be Superman/POTUS without a secret identity at all, that's fine as well. The implications of that character choice should be explored as well.Usually people who are steadfast in their borderline-trolling obtuseness have at least some way of peeling the onion to go deeper into their lunacy. You just repeat the same thing over and over without addressing literally anything people throw at you unless you can reply with pedantry and "oh really?".
I have not just replied with "oh, really?" statements, including my responses to you. The bottom line of most of my posts has been to question whether readers should be expected to accept Superman as POTUS as an admirable and ethical figure if he consciously chooses to lie to the American people. Notice I didn't say Superman will lie to the American people. I've been very clear to qualify my statements and speculations with the requisite ifs one expects in a speculative conversation. I have never said I know what will happen or what will be in any sort of definitive way. I am taking the basics of what I do know about Morrison's AU and asking questions. I am asking questions I hope the comic addresses because I believe it's rich territory to explore. A writer shouldn't make Superman the President of the United States and not examine the many possible implications of that narrative decision. Morrison chose to make his AU Superman the POTUS, so his story should help me understand why that choice was made and use it to explore the character in new ways.
I have already made this argument (e.g. "Superman also has the option to NOT run for office because he recognizes the problems and risks associated with it. He doesn't have to be the President." AND "The bottom line for me is that Superman should never even consider running for office. Being the leader of the free world and the world's greatest supehero wouldn't be a problem if Superman chose not to seek the office of President of the United States.").If the Constitution is amended (Demolition Man) and he's forthcoming with his identity (Action Comics Annual 3) then would your argument be that he shouldn't be Superman [u]and[/i] the President of the United States, even though the people have voted him in to be?
I may have at some point, but I don't recall enough of it to speak about it with any authority.Out of curiosity, have you read Action Comics Annual 3?
Originally Posted by adkalIn that comic (Action Comics Annual 3) he becomes the President of the United States.Originally Posted by misslane38
He doesn't seek the office.
Everyone knows Clark Kent is Superman. (You'd have to be in a coma to not know)
He brokers international treaties, restores the federal reserve, initiates the development of wider and better access to solar energy and, basically, initiates widespread change for the better.
The Guardians even offer him a Green Lantern ring. He turns it down - already uncomfortable being the most powerful being on the planet physically and politically he didn't want to risk the saying 'power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely' from being made true through him.
Basically, Pete Ross was running for President and asks Clark (not Superman, Pete doesn't know at this point) to help with the campaign. If I remember correctly, Clark is initially reluctant to do so as he doesn't feel he should be 'endorsing' anyone but he believes in what Pete stands for and it will be Clark helping not Superman.
The campaign's going well but Clark gets a little...distracted, I guess. Initially he would scan the crowds for weapons, just in case, but at one stop he doesn't do as thorough a search and misses a gun-man. The man opens fire and a couple of bullets hit Pete before Clark can shield him...and when he does shield him..
Well, suffice to say, everyone now knows that Clark Kent is Superman.
Pete, Lois, Martha etc convince Clark to run in Pete's stead.
Lex, of course, is against this and points out that Superman is an alien and so cannot run for President. However, this is the Birthing Matrix Superman and, according to STAR Labs and others, the 'alien' was born on American soil when the matrix opened. So, no, no law was changed or overlooked.
You're welcome.Thanks for filling me in, by the way.
(Please note, it's after 3:30am and I'm going by memory, so apologies for any errors in the above synopsis)
Now, can we safely assume that every line of the Constitution in President Superman's world is the same as ours? No, of course not - the assumed similarity to 'the world outside your window' doesn't really go that far. Still, if we're meant to take this character as an actual moral paragon within the context of his world, it wouldn't hurt to have a nod to that being an explicit difference, because the question is out there in the back of many readers' heads, and if it were the same, then the character couldn't in good conscience run for or accept the position. Judging the moral status of fictional characters in terms of their actions and choices within their fictional worlds is certainly fair game; can't have a good discussion of Raskolnikov in Crime & Punishment, otherwise.
Not worried, though, since this is exactly the kind of detail that Morrison does tend to pay attention to. If his intent is to have Super-Prez be a moral paragon, there'll probably be a line of caption or dialogue in there somewhere addressing it; if his intent is to have the guy's moral status be questioned by the story, that'll probably be part of it.
Space_Butler is right. There have been various alternate Earths throughout the years where the history varies greatly from the main Earth, much less our Earth. And there is no reason that this version of Superman cannot run for public office without letting people know of his dual identity to protect his own loved ones. We cannot just safely assume that the Constitution in this universe is the same as ours or not. We can hypothesize that it is, but until it becomes an actual issue, who gives a good goddamn? Which then takes me to misslane38 who says that only bad Presidents lie, I hate to say this, but that's probably far from the truth. After all, FDR was considered a good President, but he lied about his health. Kennedy was considered to be a good President, but he was screwing women left and right. Who is to say that Washington, Lincoln or any other so-called good President didn't lie to the American public in their tenure?