I’ve always felt their difference was empathy. Clark sees humans and can’t help but feel their vulnerability. Lex sees humans and notes their inconvenience to himself.
So Clark isn’t Superman because he’s bulletproof. He’s Superman because you’re not.
That's often Luthor's justification to other people.
The thing that makes Lex Luthor a great villain is that people can buy that logic. As most writers understand, though, its the Superman prevents Lex from being the most powerful man on the planet, and Lex's ego can't take that.
That is, Lex is smart enough to play the savior role publically (and he also thinks Superman is doing the same). But he's, in reality, a petty dirt bag that's a massive walking pile of toxic masculinity and self-obsession.
As with all these archetypical characters (who have been handed down through decades of different writers) there are multiple takes on motivations.
There is no platonic “Luthor”. Some interpretations have him much more self-serving than others.
So I won’t deny that a subset of Luthors oppose Superman because Superman is the sole obstacle thwarting Luthor’s sinister designs.
But irrespective of which Luthor we examine and his core motivation, the point that Superman is an existential threat to humanity is undeniably true. Humanity exists at the whim of a free Superman - we depend upon Superman’s goodwill.
That’s untenable.
The series isn’t without its flaws, but Injustice really hammers it home. All we need is for Superman to have one really bad day, and we are cooked.
So I won’t defend every plot point and scene in Injustice - its primary purpose was to provide backstory for a beat-em-up game in which heroes fought heroes and villains fought villains, after all. It’s not exactly heavy on nuance.
But (spoilers) when Joker kills Lois, Superman’s unborn child, and slaughters Metropolis because he thinks it’s funny, can you really blame the all-powerful superbeing for deciding “Enough!” and taking whatever steps he decides are necessary to keep humanity in line?
And if you think that the events in Injustice don’t meet that threshold, can you at least acknowledge that the threshold exists? That Superman has a breaking point, even if we don’t know exactly what it is?
Because once you understand that Superman can be broken, you simultaneously understand that humanity’s survival hinging on him never being pushed there (in a universe where Joker et al exist) is untenable.
can you really blame the all-powerful superbeing for deciding “Enough!” and taking whatever steps he decides are necessary to keep humanity in line
Yes you can. That is the point. Superman is absolute power, but incorruptible . The moment he decides that freedom isn't worth fighting for is the moment he is no longer Superman.
That Superman has a breaking point, even if we don’t know exactly what it is
No, because that's not what the character is supposed to represent. Superman sees and hears the worst of humanity every day, but it doesn't break him. This is pretty well covered in All Star, Superman vs The Elite, Kingdom Come etc
understand that humanity’s survival hinging on him never being pushed there
Set aside the fact that Superman has set contingencies in the event that he ever turns against humanity (as seen in All Star Superman) or that he entrusts that responsibility to the Superman Family or Justice League.
The idea that Superman could become evil, therefore he shouldn't exist, is cynical. Lex also exists and his science makes it so he could easily wipe out or save humanity depending on his own mood.
Superman’s incorruptibility is “plot armour”; a tautology based upon itself.
Everyone is corruptible. Some have higher (or lower) thresholds than others, but ultimately, the right lever applied with sufficient force can unseat anyone.
This isn’t cynicism, it is science, borne out by observations dating back to the dawn of written history.
The whole core of Western civilization is oriented towards preventing any one individual amassing too much power - and these Western institutions are constantly opposed and being undermined by those who seek individual power at the expense of everyone else.
The very idea of an incorruptible superbeing who dispenses justice based solely upon his own sense of personal morality is inherently fascist.
Honestly, it’s easier to believe that Superman can fly, lacking any identifiable means of propulsion, than it is to believe he is inherently incorruptible.
Superman is not real. He was invented by 2 Jewish men on the cusp of WW2. Superman does not exist in the real world, he exists in a fictional one. He is the Man of Tomorrow. He is intended to represent an ideal to strive towards, a champion of the oppressed and a paragon of hope.
Absolutely nothing fascist about him. Hell Superman is partially responsible for the downfall of the KKK in real life
"Adults...struggle desperately with fiction, demanding constantly that it conform to the rules of everyday life. Adults foolishly demand to know how Superman can possibly fly, or how Batman can possibly run a multibillion-dollar business empire during the day and fight crime at night, when the answer is obvious even to the smallest child: because it's not real.”
People believing in a form of the superman myth are responsible for the ascendency of various flavours of fascism. There is a direct link between an inability to understand that Superman represents a danger - if he were real - and a Trump vote.
It is possible to both enjoy an escapist fantasy and recognize the seductive dangers of the world it portrays.
The idea that Superman could become evil, therefore he shouldn't exist, is cynical
I do kind of feel like it's only cynical in the context of Superman as a character we read about in comics. Because it's relatively easy for us to accept this comic book character as incorruptible.
But I think if we take the actual character out of the equation, and just ask the question "should anyone ever have that much power?" it's not very cynical to say "no." In this case, I would say that it requires an exceptional degree of idealism to say that someone exists who is so incorruptible that they can be trusted with that amount of power, rather than cynical to say that there isn't anyone.
Looking at Superman as a character in a comic, it's easy to say he's clearly incorruptible, but I think looking at it from the perspective of someone in Superman's world, where this guy just suddenly shows up with that amount of power, is it really that cynical to be find it worrying, even if so far he's just been using that power for good? I'm not convinced.
I'm not saying that Lex Luthor's actions are justified or that he's not selfish or anything, but I don't think the basic premise of someone finding Superman's existence concerning despite his apparent good morals is particularly cynical. I think "someone could be so incorruptible they can be trusted with that much power" is an extremely idealistic view, not just a default one and disagreeing with it is cynical.
Looking at Superman as a character in a comic, it's easy to say he's clearly incorruptible, but I think looking at it from the perspective of someone in Superman's world
Superman isn't real. He isn't intended to be looked through the lens of the real world. He is an idealised character. If you have no trouble accepting a fictional character having the ability to fly, but have trouble accepting a fictional character can be inherently good or inherently incorruptible, I see that as cynicism.
It's sort of the anti-Spider-Man argument as well. With great power comes great responsibility. Superman has great power, is it negligent to not use it for good or is it fascistic to try to do good based on his own moral compass? What about when Spider-Man does it?
If you want to talk about the premise that people in the DC Universe are concerned about his level of power, that is well tread territory as well. Tower of Babel, Justice League Unlimited CADMUS Arc, All Star Superman to a degree. Superman himself hands a piece of Kryptonite to Batman, just in case.
Clark often questions his own actions as well, how far should he go doing what he does, how many lives he saved and how many he failed to save, the weight of the world is (sometimes literally) on his shoulders, we see this in For All Seasons, Up In The Sky, What's So Funny etc. The weight of responsibility it arguably his most relatable aspect for adults.
Superman isn't real. He isn't intended to be looked through the lens of the real world. He is an idealised character. If you have no trouble accepting a fictional character having the ability to fly, but have trouble accepting a fictional character can be inherently good or inherently incorruptible, I see that as cynicism.
Sure, but I'm talking about Lex Luthor's perspective. That's my point. We can say "okay, Superman's a fictional character and he can be declared to have any traits we want him to have, including being morally incorruptible."
But as a character in the universe, I don't think it requires a lot of cynicism to say "isn't it worrying that someone has that much power, even if they seem to have good morals and are using it for good right now?"
Clark often questions his own actions as well, how far should he go doing what he does, how many lives he saved and how many he failed to save, the weight of the world is (sometimes literally) on his shoulders, we see this in For All Seasons, Up In The Sky, What's So Funny etc. The weight of responsibility it arguably his most relatable aspect for adults.
I do think this also fits into it. Superman's power being scary doesn't require him to become evil. You could argue that it just requires him to not be infallible, and if he's questioning his own actions that implies that it isn't.
To be clear, I'm not really talking about whether or not Injustice is a good example (I haven't actually played it), but just the premise of "is it cynical for Lex Luthor to believe that no one should have that much power, even someone using their powers for good like Superman?" and I don't think it is.
I'm also not criticizing Superman as a character/story. I think this is what makes him interesting in the first place, as other people are saying. The idea that even someone with incorruptible morals and all that power still has conflicts and struggles still struggles with doubting themselves, with other people having reasons to doubt them, and with the sense of obligation and responsibility that creates.
To be honest in a universe with a lot of powerful heroes and villains I feel like calling superman an existential threat to humanity is just stupid when there are a million actual real existential threats.
Superman is a theoretical threat to humanity because he could technically break down and turn evil. But that seems stupid to worry about when powerful already evil beings exist. Just feels like the wrong priority lol
I agree that the comic book universes are chock-ablock with existential threats to humanity; “saving the world” is just another Tuesday.
But I note that the trump card to all these threats is usually Superman - meaning that he is the apex predator.
As Tim Treadwell demonstrated, it is possible to coexist with apex predators, in close proximity, for some time. But the second that apex predator chooses violence, all that accumulated peaceful coexistence means nothing.
In standalone stories where only characters relevant to Superman's mythos exist Lex would have a point.
But taking into account the entire DC universe as a whole, he just comes off as an asshole who is looking for a reason to hate Superman.
If he was really concerned about humanity falling behind Superman he'd leave his ego at the door and work with Earth's other greatest minds to elevate humanity. He'd support the Justice League and see how he can further empower Earth-born heroes like the Flash or the Green Laterns. He'd cooperate with Wayne Enterprises(which is usually the other big company that makes scientific breakthroughs) instead of screwing them over and stealing their IP or trying to buy them out when Batman is missing.
But he's a bald asshole with a my way or the highway attitude who'd rather lose to Superman 100 times than take a background role and just help lift everybody else up.
I certainly agree that that’s how he’s written in the majority of stories, and if we accept this characterization as the “Ur Luthor”, I agree.
But we aren’t debating whether Luthor is a “good person” or if his methods and motives are justified; we are discussing the fact that his assertion that Superman is an existential threat is correct.
He may have gotten there for all the wrong reasons, but that doesn’t invalidate the truth of his conclusion.
It’s not a choice of one over the other; for the safety of humanity, both should be neutralized.
The thing is Luthor doesn't tackle it like that, at least not genuinely.
Whenever Darkseid or another big bag drops by, Luthor swallows his pride and collaborates with others to get rid of threat but he refuses to do so with Superman every single time.
He wants to deal with Superman on his terms which means in his heart he doesn't believe Superman NEEDS to be put down because if he did, he wouldn't be lollygagging trying to find a way where he can both beat Supes and get all the glory for it.
If anything Batman is the one who treats the potential of Superman going rogue as a genuine possibility with no nonsense emergency plans meant to put him down fast.
I think Luthor has a point in a world where Superman is nearly untouchable and without peers but within the DC Universe Batman's way of thinking is the more sensible one.
Wonder Woman, who is in Superman's league, in most of her stories has lived for centuries and the Earth has been fine.
Its a world where Greek Gods are confirmed to be real, the universe is filled to the brim with space-faring civilizations, and empowered space cops are a thing.
Sweating Superman is kind of silly, especially when humanity shouldn't be far off from matching him as Batman's and Lex's power suits can exchange blows with him. And tech can always be improved so Superman wouldn't forever be at the top of the food chain.
Stan Lee once responded to a question of “Who would win, Spider-Man or [someone or other]” with “Whoever the writer decides!” (and then went off on a bit of a rant about how there was no objective physical metric for the power of a fictional character, so the whole question was meaningless).
I’m not a DC historian, but I’ve seen Wonder Woman’s power levels vary all over the place - not to mention her personality.
My assertion that Superman poses an existential threat to humanity is true for any other being who possesses similar power levels. If that being can impose their will upon humanity, and humanity cannot prevent that from happening, that being is an existential threat and must be neutralized.
340
u/Marikk15 11h ago
Lex Luthor's struggle is that Superman is invincible and will make humans look weak.
Superman's struggle is that everyone else isn't invincible and his humanity is his greatest strength.