Superman Through the Ages! Forum

I don't think it's merely the fantasy of super-power that draws people to the comic book super-heroes. There are other elements involved, and one of them must be what I would loosely call "vigilantism". Taking the law into your own hands to defend someone, avenge someone, or challenge the system is a powerful fantasy, and all the super-types do it. It's merely a matter of degree.

Most super-types think they are doing the right thing. Batman is just as convinced about his mission as Rorschach is. Despite several latter-day versions of Superman where he cries a lot into his mother's apron, the Man of Steel is just as determined as The Punisher. Who has decided how each one should go about righting those perceived wrongs? Each one has ultimately decided for himself. The only real difference between Batman and Rorschach is the number of people who approve of their actions. You would have to dig a bit deeper to find fans of Rorschach, but no doubt they're there. Superman has probably the biggest approval rating amongst members of the public, but since when did having the biggest public approval mean you are automatically right? Or, to put it another way, does public disapproval automatically mean you're wrong?

Superman and Batman perceive a need for their services and then go out and take care of business. Rorschach and The Punisher do the same. The only difference between them is Superman and Batman have the approval of more people.

Because they all think they're right, and because they all act outside the law (no matter the degree), they're all just as crazy as each other. A vigilante is a vigilante.

It is not a popularity contest it is the fact that those two murder people and Superman and Batman do not.

Making a citizen's arrest is legal, gunning anyone down in cold blood is not.

I wasn't thinking about their methods at all, and that was part of the point I was making. I was thinking about the state of mind of someone who goes out looking for other people breaking the law, then uses physical force to subdue them. On occasion, they all go looking for someone who hasn't broken any laws at all, but some personally subjective idea of what constitutes correct behaviour.

Interestingly, there may be a very interesting comparison here with Golden Age Superman and Rorshach. Superman often used intimidation and interrogation tactics on underworld informants that Rorshach could never dream of. Likewise, Superman was viewed as a public menace and hounded by police, especially on the radio version.

But there is one big difference between Golden Age Superman and Rorshach: if GA Superman saved me, I'd feel safe. If Rorshach saved me, I'd be just as scared of him than whatever he saved me from, and pray to God he doesn't notice my three day expired Driver's Liscense or the Playboy magazine I've got in my bachelor apartment. Golden Age Superman slapped around gangsters and mad scientists, and he was the kind of guy you don't mess around with, but unless you're a bad guy he's got no problem with you. Rorshach is more like a wild dog: he can turn on anybody. Being around Rorshach is hazardous to your health.

I'd have to say Roschach is pretty crazy in a way Superman and Batman are not. For one thing, there's his abnormal, psychosexual anxieties about women, and then there's his paranoia.

You are correct when you say Roschach, Superman and Batman are at their core men that operate outside the law - though perhaps a more accurate way to put it is "without official legal sanction." Superman has an S-Shield, not a badge. However,  Rorry's Manichean way of looking at things is frightening and something Superman and Batman don't have. I can hardly see Superman hassling a man because of his peach pit cancer medication.

Likewise, Superman and Batman are characters that pride themselves on the fact they have a working relationship with official law and order. It was a deliberate and very unusual situation when Batman was forced to run and hide from cops when Ra's al-Ghul framed Batman for murder during Len Wein's tenure on DETECTIVE, or when the Tobacconists Club got a cease-and-desist letter against the Caped Crusader. Even THEN, Batman was working with public approval, if not police approval. Superman, likewise, is someone that very much believes in the sanctity of law. He won't use the fact there are a few bad laws to disobey them all.

And that, fundamentally, is the difference between Rorshach and Superman. Both are uncompromising types and tough guys that play by their own rules. If Superman doesn't like the parameters of a situation, he kicks the game away and plays his own. But at the same time, there are certain things Superman won't do even if he thinks he's in the right.

In the Silver and Bronze Ages, Superman and Batman WERE deputized agents of the law.  I'm not positive, but I THINK they both were in the Golden Age, too, and Superman is in the Modern Age. 

So, that makes what Superman does legal, doesn't it? 

Not if you think about all of the laws Superman (and Batman) break in the course of a regular adventure.  Illegal search and seizure, surveillance/privacy violations, trespassing, Miranda violations, kidnapping, assault, assault with deadly weapon, uttering threats, etc etc.  And don't forget that wearing a mask when you commit a crime is another crime.
 :)

not true for Superman:

http://superman.nu/wiki/index.php/Superman#The_Relationship_with_the_Law-Enforcement_Establishment

I have always interpreted that as meaning Superman is deputized.  That is not the same as saying he is exempt from the same restrictions (beyond jurisdiction) that other law enforcement officials are subject to.  Thus, he can apprehend criminals just like a regular beat cop of FBI agent, but every time he uses his x-ray vision without a warrant or scares someone into confessing a crime or gets a confession without reading the criminal his or her rights he is exceeding his authority and acting like a vigilante.

I would have to agree with you. At the height of his relationship with the authorities (in the Silver Age and Bronze Age, I guess), if he did not follow the correct law enforcement procedures, how would the accused ever be convicted in a court of law? The case would be thrown out, surely?

Although, if you read some of those old comics, it's plain that Superman got away with a lot of things that a police officer would never get away with, eg. grabbing someone and effectively arresting them without reading them their rights or even saying the words, "I am arresting you." Imagine how many people were assaulted by Superman, technically speaking. But I don't have a problem with that. I trust Superman a lot more than I would trust the average cop, and maybe in the Silver Age the authorities understood that Superman is the most honest and dependable law enforcement officer of them all -- I certainly did. Imagine Superman giving testimony in a court of law: if he said he saw you commit the crime, your goose is cooked. Superman would never lie about something like that, and everyone knows it. Even more than being "deputised," the Man of Steel obviously had some sort of dispensation that an ordinary officer of the law could never have. And rightly so.

I just wanted to let you and everyone know that it was this thread that led me to try and complete this section of the Superman entry:

http://superman.nu/wiki/index.php/Superman#The_Relationship_with_the_Law-Enforcement_Establishment

It is not done yet, but it already answers a lot of questions.

You'd think it'd be a straightforward subject... But of course it isn't.

The funny thing about this is that it reads like so many other excuses of fascism.  Used to describe anyone besides the most perfect being on Earth (Superman) it would be kind of scary.  I felt (feel?) the same way you do about Superman --he never lies or if he does, he has a good reason, usually as part of a convoluted plot to expose some bad guy (and it will turn out that he was really telling the truth in a metaphorical way).  In the fairy tale world of Superman comics, where all cops are honest and the legal system functions as intended, boy scout Superman makes perfect sense and is completely trustworthy.  Only in the comics! :)

Fun shameful anecdote:  years ago I tried to beat a parking ticket, taking the stand and declaring that I was not parked in the no-parking zone.  The judge declared that since the cop who wrote the ticket (and who actually showed up in court) said I was, then he would have to take his side.  Now I'm sure there is a legal term for the judge doing that (taking the side of a deputized agent of the law over some joker who thinks he can park wherever he wants), and I agree that this is an area where what we laughingly call civilization would break down if there weren't these seemingly arbitrary distinctions made by those with power.  But the thing that got me was the reason the judge gave for believing the cop: I had something to lose by lying (whatever the fine was, say $20) whereas the cop had nothing to lose (or gain) by lying.  Of course, a logical fallacy --the cop had everything to lose if it turned out he was making up parking violations willy-nilly and then lying about it in court: his job, respect, etc.  I think the judge slipped up there but of course I never pursued his faux paux.  I was such a little kitten.  But it illustrated to me how fragile the system is and how we could possibly mis-place trust in it.

Post-September 11, do you really think Superman would have a cozy relationship with law enforcement anyway? Think about it...he's an illegal alien, he's guilty of at least some vigilantism, and certainly some cops would be motivated by jealousy of him. They'd be looking for a way to get him into Guantanamo Bay, and he wouldn't be entitled to legal representation. Defense contractors might even lobby to bomb the North Pole until he turns himself in. A conscious effort by any party to portray Superman as a suspicious foreigner in the media would probably work, to an extent.

If Jerry Siegel were alive, maybe he would write a story about that.

P.S. Before it comes up, as for Superman's "world citizenship" declared by the UN, it could be rejected by even one veto in the security council. And that depends whether it was a binding resolution in the first place.

Another real world/comics paradox --the comic book U.N. is exactly what the name says it is: united.  Plus, you can be sure that in the comics, Superman has helped the leaders of each nation at some point.  I think there is a fanfic story from Sam hawkins on this site about that ...

DC is really missing out --they could have a big crossover event like Marvel if they took your idea and ran with it.  Beats Frank Miller Dark Knight version.

The U.N. is worse than useless. They're a bunch of academic tossers who enjoy having meetings.

For Superman to accept anything from the U.N. is ten times more contemptible than any "government lackey" perceptions in the world of "Dark Knight Returns".


How can an American living in America be an illegal alien?

The U.N. has at least kept democracies from fighting each other. As for Superman, he wasn't born on U.S. soil and he's never been naturalized.

But you see my point. Our government, post September 11, hates the UN like you. Why would they not also have something against Superman, a resident alien?

I see your point, but you are contradicting yourself. Being "naturalized" is nothing more than the government saying you now have citizenship. If you dislike your government and don't trust it, talking about the merits of Superman being "naturalized" is absurd.


Noted, but I think that is nonsense. If you can point to a clear-cut example, I'm willing to change my opinion.

And we all know who the most frequent user (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power#United_States) of the "veto" power is...

I'm not seeing your point. If the government said that Superman is a citizen he is...but they didn't so he isn't. The merits of the process do not matter, only the process itself. Many people are citizens who distrust their government.


The primary goal of the U.N., as founded in 1945, is to prevent wars by making countries at least go through other nonviolent processes first: talks, sanctions, embargoes, etc. The goals of its founders were frustrated during the Cold War because the US and Soviet Union and their allies (The First and Second World) took absolutist positions on issues and supported dictators who supported them. It is a documented fact that democracies do not fight each other, but during most of the Cold War the U.S. was not interested in promoting democracy...only non-communism.

Since the Cold War, however, U.N. peacekeeping efforts have intensified. According to the Human Security Report 2005, there has been:

- A 40% drop in violent conflict.

- An 80% drop in the most deadly conflicts.

- An 80% drop in genocide and politicide.

These corrolate with increased U.N. activities. That is not to say that the U.N. hasn't embarassed itself, or that the structure of the Security Council isn't outdated. But the U.N. has made a difference. In addition, the U.N.'s World Food Programme feeds 100 million people a year.

Put it this way. If you don't think your government is legitimate, how can they legitimise someone in your eyes? It's nonsense. If they tell you "this person is acceptable" and "this person is unacceptable", why would you believe them, and what difference would it make? Suppose the government agreed with your opinion, that Superman is an illegal alien, and they ordered him by authority of the law to leave the United States and not come back -- should he go? If you think he should stay regardless, then you don't believe in the very "naturalization" process you're talking about. If you think he should go, you do believe your government is legitimate.

Me, I think it's all hogwash, this business of Superman being an "illegal alien" and (shudder) an "immigrant". RUBBISH!  >:(

Gangbuster, I know you are sincere about the U.N. and the supposed good they are doing, but I still don't have my example, and statistics compiled by academics are yet another example of what I'm talking about. The average P.T.A. meeting has done more for the world than an average week at the U.N. We will just have to disagree. As I said, if you give me one real example, a real "case", I may change my opinion.

Ha ha --example please? ;)

States cannot act morally.  But then again, most of us can't either, in the "purest" sense.

I guess so... you've already made up your mind. One of my best friends was a U.N. peacekeeper in Bosnia in the early 2000s, and he seems to think he made a difference. On the other hand, as a teacher I've been to many parent meetings, and in most cases, they make no difference in student behavior, grades, etc.

While it's true that a school is a government and the U.N. is not, it's a decent analogy. In a school you have teachers and students who really do not care about the welfare of the organization, and sometimes even embarrass it. The parents that we talk to usually do not change their ways...but sometimes they do. The U.N. is no different, just on a larger scale.