Jane's Superhumans

[Kristopher]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Good lord, I don't run or play in superhero games that are realistic. Part of the appeal of the superhero (aka Champions) genre is that the protagonists are (usually) stronger, braver, and more idealistic than normal folks, and that the antagonists are more than morally-bankrupt half-wits who turned to crime because they're too stupid to keep a real job.

 

I prefer a bit more complexity in my fiction.

[nexus]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

The solution to all this is quite simple and I'm surprised no one has come up with it before now.

 

Giant Robots.

[Kristopher]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

A: I CAN"T BELIEVE YOU GUYS HAVE POSTED THIS MUCH WHILE I WAS OFF FOR 3! DAYS!

 

b: "This act only affects Paranormals..." as someone else pointed out, where the dividing line is drawn and how it is measured could cause MAJOR complications, and have serious ramifications for the policies and the public reactions to them.

 

That might have been me.

 

"This law only applies to ________." is the first warning sign that someday, that law or one like will apply to you.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

The solution to all this is quite simple and I'm surprised no one has come up with it before now. Giant Robots.

 

Klaatu Barada Nikto!

[Metaphysician]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Wouldn't the nukes and the command structure supporting them be his first likely targets? He can move at hypersonic speeds and tear through silo walls' date=' locate subs underwater, etc. He was trained by the government, you'd figure he knows a bit about their command structure. He might start by taking out a few smaller nuclear powers in order to test out his strategy with relative safety. Except for Russia and the US, the other nuclear powers can be disarmed relatively quickly.[/quote']

 

Given his vision powers don't seem especially long range, he'd have a hell of a time *finding* any of the boomers.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

It's been a busy thread. It is entirely possible that I missed whatever you refer to' date=' and I did explicitly make an allowance for that in my reply. Do we need to argue about it? I'm more than happy to concede the point and let it go.[/quote']

 

Fair enough. Just saying, I was specifically replying to what one guy said.

[Chuckg]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Super-Hearing. Soon as he's underwater, he might do better than we'd hope.

[Kirby]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Super-Hearing. Soon as he's underwater' date=' he might do better than we'd hope.[/quote']

I have no idea who we're talking about (probably a typical interruption ), but hearing underwater is very much different than on land. Sound travels farther, but not necessarily clearer nor easier to find directions. For humans at least. Plus, despite the comics, if you can have super hearing, there are other things in the water. Just because Supes can hear someone screaming for help in Metropolis ten blocks away, doesn't mean a real person would be able to block out ALL of the sound between the two.

 

But again, I have no idea who we're talking about here. So I'll go back to observing.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Super-Hearing. Soon as he's underwater' date=' he might do better than we'd hope.[/quote']

 

Superman could, but Hyperion has never demonstrated anywhere near the degree of power and skill needed to do that. To date, the only uses of superhearing have been to hear what was being discussed in another room, and when he focused very carefully to pick out the sound of Blur moving, which required total concentration and still only worked over a relatively short distance.

[nexus]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

I got the impression Hyperion could see for a fairly long distance. I recall him watching a couple making from several miles away (at least well outside of normal visual range) threw any intervening obstacles.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

The solution to all this is quite simple and I'm surprised no one has come up with it before now.

 

Giant Robots.

 

well, chicks do dig giant robots.

[Kirby]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

well' date=' chicks do dig giant robots.[/quote']

I thought it was hairy apes?

[nexus]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

well' date=' chicks do dig giant robots.[/quote']

 

Repped.

[nexus]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

By the estimation in the comic, if Hyperion went ape the death toll would be in the millions in a few days. They didn't seem confident in their ability to stop him once he got started and that seemed to be assuming a random rampage not a calculated attack. I think he's a fairly good canidate for a world beater, if he wanted too be but its not inarguable.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

There are various characters in the comics, both hero and villain, who might have the capability to pull it off.

 

A Silver Surfer trapped inside a planet wracked by conflict might decide he'd had enough, and impose a Pax Radd on the earth.

 

IIRC, Magneto did various scary megascale effects that conventional forces seemed powerless to counter. In Exiles he had become a ruthless tyrant, about to slam an asteroid into the planet.

 

Xavier, Nate Gray, Moondragon and a few others all demonstrated the potential or actual ability to use their powers on a massive scale.

 

Dr. Destroyer could actually survive a 20d6 RKA nuke hit--if his force barrier extender is up, he takes all of about 4 body after defenses are subtracted and reduction applied. Sure, he'd take about 75 stun, and some more from the KB, but he'd get to his feet after a turn or two. Actually, seeing him walk out of the mushroom cloud from a low-yield tacnuke would likely constitute brown-trousers time for most viewers, super and non-super alike

[Phil]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Which doesn't mitigate the contradiction in using a gun-control comparison while claiming the side to put it into effect would be the side opposed to gun-control.

 

Not a contradiction, as the party on the right of american politics is not necessarily reflective of the entirity of right wing thought, but I admit the mistake of associating gun-control with left-right political axis.

[Phil]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

And' date=' to eliminate issues of trust, have two or more telepaths do the scanning.[/quote']

 

Talk about breaches of civil liberties! People are concerned with lethal superheroes walking the street, but dont see mind-reading as the ultimate invasion of privacy?! Of course, this seems to take several leaps of logic forward:

- it assumes we can trust the mind-readers. The system would need checks and balances to ensure that there was no way for individual prejudices to influence results. Quid custodiet ipsos custodes? - who watches the watchmen?

- it assumes we can objectively evaluate the results of mind-reading. If there was a risk of them being inaccurate, that risk would need to clearly evaluated so as to avoid miscarriages of justice, misdirections by judges and so forth. Such evidence would probably be initially heard 'in camera', without the jury being present. If reliability could be proved, jury trial would be phased out entirely.

- it assumes it is necessary to pry into someone's private thoughts. I think you would need to establish a specific need in each case. There would need to be guarantees that mindreaders would only go so far and not record or take advantage of information they learn.

 

More than anything, of course, this highlights how every existing norm of society, every so-called human 'right', would needs be different in a world where one 'man' can control your actions, another can fry you with a thought and another can walk around invisible.

[Phil]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

"This law only applies to ________." is the first warning sign that someday' date=' that law or one like will apply to [i']you[/i].

 

Maybe. I'm not so concerned about "this law applies _______", where that status is an imperical fact, and armed with that knowledge the checks and balances of democratic society can more easily come into play. I'm more concerned about "this law applies to people the government consider to be terrorists", because of the subjective judgement involved in this.

[Phil]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

There are various characters in the comics' date=' both hero and villain, who might have the capability to pull it off.[/quote']

 

Seems to be an obsession here with direct use of power. That is the craziest way to overcome the military - their main asset is their physical power. The question changes if other supers will resist, but I'm assuming the question is one super in the world and no others.

 

Mentalists with a modicum of mind control, if targeted effectively and stealthily, would have little problem taking out the world's military in the year by setting them against each other. Someone like Batman would be able to turn the military in on itself, set of nukes and the like - might struggle to get it all done in a year. Ra's Al Ghul, Lex Luthor, Vandal Savage, Kingpin - if motivated, they could do it too.

 

Any speedster worth his salt would be able to reap untold damage. You talk about responding with nukes, but that assumes he stays in Country A, takes out their military. Moves to country B, takes out their military. A speedster (or fast flyer) could take out a military camp here, another one there and so on.

 

Then again, all you'd really need is a megascaled EB. How many points for 10d6, megascaled to the world, no range, stun only?! Could probably be even cheaper with 2d6 continuous....

[Metaphysician]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

I got the impression Hyperion could see for a fairly long distance. I recall him watching a couple making from several miles away (at least well outside of normal visual range) threw any intervening obstacles.

 

A couple miles away still won't cut it. There's a *lot* of ocean out there.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Not a contradiction' date=' as the party on the right of american politics is not necessarily reflective of the entirity of right wing thought, but I admit the mistake of associating gun-control with left-right political axis.[/quote']

 

Ah, didn't realize you might not be American.

 

Yeah, right means different things elsewhere, though frankly, I find most allegedly "right-wing" groups in Europe to be just a different shade of socialist. . .

[Metaphysician]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Talk about breaches of civil liberties! People are concerned with lethal superheroes walking the street, but dont see mind-reading as the ultimate invasion of privacy?! Of course, this seems to take several leaps of logic forward:

- it assumes we can trust the mind-readers. The system would need checks and balances to ensure that there was no way for individual prejudices to influence results. Quid custodiet ipsos custodes? - who watches the watchmen?

- it assumes we can objectively evaluate the results of mind-reading. If there was a risk of them being inaccurate, that risk would need to clearly evaluated so as to avoid miscarriages of justice, misdirections by judges and so forth. Such evidence would probably be initially heard 'in camera', without the jury being present. If reliability could be proved, jury trial would be phased out entirely.

- it assumes it is necessary to pry into someone's private thoughts. I think you would need to establish a specific need in each case. There would need to be guarantees that mindreaders would only go so far and not record or take advantage of information they learn.

 

More than anything, of course, this highlights how every existing norm of society, every so-called human 'right', would needs be different in a world where one 'man' can control your actions, another can fry you with a thought and another can walk around invisible.

 

1. I said "two or more" telepaths. Thats specifically to deal with the issue of trust

 

2. It wouldn't be all that difficult to scientifically determine the level of accuracy of any given telepath. Parapsychologists already have procedures; the only difference is, now they wouldn't be dealing in the hundredths of a percent difference range.

 

3. Even if you couldn't receive appropriate approval for the suspect, ever considered that the person being read might be the *victim*?? Assuming a living victim, telepathic scan could confirm who the perpetrator was, to the best of the victim's actual knowledge.

 

4. Why, exactly, are you taking a discussion about courtroom usage of psionic powers as an opportunity to blather about amoral wandering superhumans??

[Metaphysician]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Maybe. I'm not so concerned about "this law applies _______"' date=' where that status is an imperical fact, and armed with that knowledge the checks and balances of democratic society can more easily come into play. I'm more concerned about "this law applies to people the government consider to be terrorists", because of the subjective judgement involved in this.[/quote']

 

What if there is no reliable test to tell whether someone is metahuman?? What if the only way is by measuring their capabilities??

 

Not all metahuman powers are obvious and flashy, after all.

[Lightray]

Seems to be an obsession here with direct use of power. That is the craziest way to overcome the military - their main asset is their physical power. The question changes if other supers will resist' date=' but I'm assuming the question is one super in the world and no others.[/quote']

I agree. It's also the bluntest instrument to maintain world-rule (or nation-rule).

 

Also, destroying all those military assets is a very inefficient means of conquest. Much more efficient to make all those into your military assets.

[Phil]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

1. I said "two or more" telepaths. Thats specifically to deal with the issue of trust

There are 12 people in a jury to minimise the risk of them being corrupted or dishonest. You want to replace this with just 2 telepaths?

 

3. Even if you couldn't receive appropriate approval for the suspect, ever considered that the person being read might be the *victim*?? Assuming a living victim, telepathic scan could confirm who the perpetrator was, to the best of the victim's actual knowledge.

Which raises questions of delusion, interpretation, subconscious memory construction, hypnotism and so forth. This also potentially falls foul of current restrictions on 'hearsay' evidence - rather than A accusing B, Z says that A's mind accuses B.

4. Why, exactly, are you taking a discussion about courtroom usage of psionic powers as an opportunity to blather about amoral wandering superhumans??

My, what a friendly person you are. I was merely commenting that the issues of telepaths in court rooms was a further illustration of how existing rights, such as the right to jury trial/trial of your peers, right to privacy/private life, as well as previously discussed rights such as the american right to bear arms are challenged when you dramatically change what is meant by human. You, on the other hand, were merely being rude.

 

Which reminds me of a comic - cant recall which, may have been the Joker on trial - where the defendant claimed he couldnt be tried because it would be impossible to get a jury of peers.