So he should only help America? He doesn't belong to any nationality. Rather than pledge an alliegence to just one nation, he should pledge his alliegence to the protection and the survival of innocents all across the globe. As a hero of the people of earth, he should do whatever it takes to ensure that people have access to the necesseties of life, the resources of the world, instead of letting armies take over and control everything, and dry up the resources. If he's not allowed to get involved, then by that logic, he shouldn't rescue anyone, right?It's not Superman's place to just end the poverty or war of a country that he has no business being involved in.
I strongly disgree with that logic. I think if people are being killed, regardless of the country, he should stop it from happening.
I'm sorry but I don't really understand any of this. He's supposed to selflessly save lives. It has nothing to do with who he's doing it for. There shouldn't be any bias agenda distorting this very simple and very logical decision. Save the people. That's what's important.He may have helped the poverty-strucken people take back their country but he didn't do it for them. It's the old saying about giving a man a fish vs. teaching a man to fish.
As for that saying, I get what it means, but how did Superman teach anything useful or moral, or set a good example in any way? I don't think he taught the nation anything.
I'm not expecting Superman to kill or anything. In fact, It'd be a more accurate representation of a good, moral hero if he didn't kill.And that's exactly the point. Just because Superman is Superman that doesn't mean what he thinks is the right thing to do is actually the right thing to do. He simply disliked the general for embarassing him and being condescending to him so he did the same thing to him in return, while at the same time helping the country in a way he thought wasn't going against international treaty or whatever.
As for not going against treaty or whatever, what treaty would that be? Are you saying that if there's a legislation in place saying he can't get involved in a war, he should abide by that, regardless of how many people die from war?
Please, if there's an overlaying complexity to this very simple reasoning of morale and saving people who need to be saved, what is it? What is it that's more important that sustaining the needs of the people and making sure no one is killed?
I get that. But they're different for the sake of realism. Not just because it's different. Batman falls off ledges because he's not a particularly good Batman yet. He's not even much of a detective yet, let alone the world's greatest detective. So he's not quite the iconic symbol he'll inevitably be.Keep in mind the characters in Earth One are brand new at this super hero gig. Superman makes decisions that are sort of grey and Batman falls off of ledges while trying to run down a perp... They're not perfect, and that's what makes them so awesome.
And I see that in Superman as well. I think by the time their respective Earth One trilogies have ended, they will then indeed be the iconic status that everyone konws them for. And I applaud DC for finally having the balls to try and build their heroes up to that status, slowly, whilst making them all the more relatable and convincing. So I can see why and how Superman may have made the bad decision to let the killing continue. But it came across as though he was an idiot. Readers tend to want to see characters learn something and come out of their struggles as a better man by the time the story comes to a close. Not state how he hasn't learnt the right thing to do. It's as though he's accepted the deaths of millions, and thus let millions more die, simply because that's what happens, that's normality, that's real life. 'I should just ignore it because it hasn't got anything to do with me. Even if I can save millions of lives, it's not my responsibility.' I wouldn't say he was ignorant, but it's still not how I think a book should've ended. It was like Superman was turning into a selfish villain who 'got his own back' against someone who embarrased him. That's what's called an emotional response. Emotions tend to cloud logic, and then we create a human agenda in our minds, which is generated by a personal desire. The ending of the book, with Superman letting the warfare continue, was the perfect example of personal feelings distorting a set of values and preventing a good, logical decision to end suffering. Instead, he retaliated, with authoritarian force, and then left the country to fuck itself up.
Overpopulation? You really don't think they have enough land and good weather to sustain the needs of the people there? America wastes more food that it consumes. And yet look at the vast amount of land you don't use and feel doesn't need to be harnessed by growing crops on it or setting up solar panels up down your massive deserts. You guys ignore all that potential energy and resources, regardless of the amount of it you consume. If the popluation of the people was so difficult to sustain why not adopt better managment of your land? You don't seem to have much of a problem sustaining your consumerism, America, so I don't see why anyone else would have a problem. Besides, killing people would only acheive the same results as not feeding them. Think about this for long enough, and you'll realise that it all comes down to profit, rather than the managment of resources. Superman is just letting the cycle of war and death continue.Ah, but you also need to think about what saving all those lives could result in. Overpopulation, which leads to starvation, which leads to death and misery. There's a general rule when it comes to human beings and war: It sucks, but it's a good way to keep the population of the planet in check...
Balfro, listen to what you're saying. You're trying to justify a good reason for millions of innocents dying. You're trying to argue that Superman is right to let millions of innocents get gunned down.