SilentMan

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps. Actually there is. Far more reliable than torture. Divination magics. If your team has it`s own version of Doctor Strange, entreating Cosmic Entities should provide necessary information. Here is one example: EDIT: I suppose invoking herald of Satannish is a bad idea but otherwise magic should get the job done

Re: Your Definition Of A Super Hero? Isn`t this more like DC thing than Marvel thing ? In MU the government has been portrayed as increasingly corrupt and even in Silver Age there was some degree of suspicion between authorities and superheroes. They submitted themselves to law, sure but it was more like "we can`t avoid it" rather than "Government is Good"

Re: What do you call "Four Color"? Frankly, there is one villain who is much more annoying than Joker in that regard. It is often asked why Batman does not kill Joker but locking him in Arkham is a kind of punishment, even for a short while. That villain is Dr.Doom. He has caused all kinds of havoc and yet there is always: "he has diplomatic immunity"-********.It should work for the first time sure but not unlimited times. Then there is the excuse that Doom is too powerful to defeat but if FF can handle him, multiple hero teams together should as well and back then Doom was not that tough. It is one thing when heroes fail to catch the villain but when the US Government always tell them that villain must be allowed to escape....

Re: Where have all the Superheroes gone? Actually, it started considerably before that. Originally Batman and Superman were both rather violent. But then angry parents complained and publishers decided to play safe rather than risk losing sales. In many genres "heroes" are effectively Rebels Against Society. In fantasy, characters on occasion fight City Watch or military of one nation or another. Same goes for space operas, military and cop shows.Even when character supposedly works for authorities, there is still rebel mentality. Yet very soon superheroes had to become Pro-Establishment figures. One reason supposedly was that comics were too violent for kids.Maybe.But another probable reason is that anti-establishment mentality might eventually lead kids to disrespect their parents and that´s unacceptable.

Re: US Government's reaction to superhumans I DID state that for 99 % of superhumans it would life as usual. It is remaining 1 % you have to worry about. Real world equivalents definitely exist, no powers of course, but with similar mentality. Check out this link. http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/ I suppose so. But not totally unjustified.

Re: US Government's reaction to superhumans Let´s consider first what cynicism is: An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others: the public cynicism aroused by governmental scandals. A scornfully or jadedly negative comment or act: “She arrived at a philosophy of her own, all made up of her private notations and cynicisms” (Henry James). Cynicism The beliefs of the ancient Cynics. I suppose that Hermit meant first definition. So… I do not consider it cynical because cynicism is about ATTITUDE and that article is a prediction of what would happen if superhumans existed. How did nations came into existence ? And why nations have a right to exist ? Let`s assume that there is say 10 000 powerful superhumans in the world. 99 % of them choose to have ordinary jobs and lives. That 1 % would at least try to change things. At least some governments would collapse. Four Color fans want superhumans to be superheroes (follows Comics Code rules, respects the law, etc) or supervillains (pretty much the opposite). That`s OK. But in a “realistic” setting there would be no “superheroes” or “supervillains”, just people furthering their own agendas. In the modern era, the most important form of political organisation is the nation-state.It is a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area and representing a population, organization that "(successfully) claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory," In a world with powerful superhumans, nation-states may well lose importance,even to the extent superhumans start treating them as if they were the equivalent of street gangs. People who act with anything resembling real world psychology are not automatically sociopaths but they will not be Four Color boyscouts either. Nope. But in comic book setting heroes win and governments survive because of Script Immunity. In a "realistic setting" superhuman might rob a bank or kill public official and get away before anyone would be there to stop him. Besides if "realistic" equivalent to General Zod existed, there would be NO equivalent to Superman. "Lets see, if I fight him, I risk death or at least serious injuries if I lose; If I win and defeat him, people will blame for anyone who gets killed in crossfire, all destroyed properties, Government will try to arrest me for vigilantism and then there will be lawsuits."

Re: The Worst character in comics Superman: can do anything, defeated by nothing.If there is something he can´t do, writers just give him yet another power. New example of lameness is ability to grant powers to normals.It works only under blue sun...for now. Here is a post written by metalwarrior1975 which shows problems with Superman. http://www.kryptonsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63390&page=4&highlight=unbeatable

Re: A 'realistic' supers world? Probably, though not inevitably. Remember that Founding Fathers were technically criminals. They are now considered patriots because they won. Captain Megaton might end up as a winner.In a "realistic" setting, nations do not get Four Color Status Quo-benefits and if superhumans appeared first in medieval era, modern nations do not necessarily exist. Yes, if they find out that there is more Supers protecting the nation than there is Supers willing to join them. In a realistic setting USA does not win just because it is USA. No script immunities here.Of course, Supers do not get them either. No, it isn´t. But the entire idea of having superhuman powers (in many cases) is being a one-man army. You could be running your company if you could beat up everyone there and all cops and all soldiers and… you get the idea. "Improve" and "ruin" are a matter of personal values; some people would like to return to anarcho-primitivism.Then there is pro-choice vs pro-abortion,pro-gun rights vs pro-gun control,etc. "Realistic" world has criminals and possibly successful revolutionaries but superhero and supervillain are Four Color concepts.

Re: Realism vs cynicism The world's reactions to superhumans Nexus, the point of that comment was that government is so strict about its monopoly in use of force that even a man whose only power is levitation could be prosecuted for that alone (for disturbing peace). It was not about Iron Age vs Silver Age. It was not about cynicism vs hope either. If superhumans actually existed, would government allow them to use their powers at all, unless they work for government ? As for acceptance vs non-acceptance. There is a setting where superhumans have been registered and accepted for a long time and it worked really well. Forgotten Realms-setting; the nation of Cormyr. Wizards are registered, accepted and treated as important part of society.I suppose that reason is that in this world there is no dividing line between superhumans and normals.If a man wants to be a wizard, he must find a competent tutor and study hard. Potentially nearly everyone can be a wizard. In most settings supers are separated from normals ("we can´t accept them because they are not us"). Then if something is not Silver Age it is not automatically Iron Age.There is also non-four color people with powers option which doesn´t fall into either category.

Re: Pulling Authority & Other Genres Then he changed his mind Maybe.I picked up that text from Comics in Context #34: Knight Makes Right by Peter Sanderson Like i said, in other genres heroes kill just as much villains. The Simbul wants Thay eradicated from face of Faerun. The Doctor wanted Daleks eradicated and in episode 165 - Dalek attempted to finish the job. When it comes to real world, the state has near-monopoly when it comes to use of force. But when a nation goes to war, the public has often approved with full knowledge of consequences. When soldiers went to WW1,WW2 or Vietnam, do you really think that public believed that everyone comes back alive and unharmed ? Do you think that public believed that soldiers could defeat enemy by non-lethal measures. Yet public approved of wars in many countries and if soldiers came back as winners, they were applauded for it. Tyrant is a strong word, with loaded connotations. In ancient Greece, it originally was an ethically neutral term (some tyrants were seen as good, some as bad), designating only that a person had successfully overthrown an established government and arrogated the law unto himself. Later, tyranny became aligned with the more modern senses of cruel despotism or oppressive dictatorship. Whether you think good or ill of him, the tyrant is a ruler who believes he can and should operate above the law. Yet there are people who think democracy is tyranny of majority.Then there is people who believe Supreme Court is judicial tyranny and even President Bush is a tyrant.Even American-style republic has opponents (who are not arabs or Neo-Nazis either). Everyone who does not get his way in this world can call his enemies bullies and tyrants and demand his freedom.Freedom and tyranny are ultimate loaded rhetorical concepts without strict,universally accepted definitions. He never had to since writers solved every problem with power boosts, writer´s fiat and deus ex machinas. There was one story where Lex Luthor actually defeated Superman for a short while by stripping Superman his powers. Since Status Quo demanded Superman´s victory, Superman simply started kissing Lois lane and thanks to power of love Luthor´s power-nullifying machine stopped working. How about Wanted or Empire.They are about out-right villains. Never met the man.Never talked to him.

Re: Pulling Authority & Other Genres Which proves that the entire genre is static and rather limited in scope. If Superman kills, he is not a hero anymore. If Superman becomes deadbeat dad, he is not a hero anymore. If Superman refuses to save his worst enemy, he is not a hero anymore. If Superman changes world, he is not a hero anymore. If Superman refuses to respect law and authorities, he is not a hero anymore. Serial format simply is stagnant format. If anything radical happens, fanboys cry foul (Hal Jordan as Parallax,Superman as energy being) Here is an article which suggests that entire concept of hero should be dropped. http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=moto&article=113

Due to unfortunate circumstances, your team has lost nearly all of its financial assets (and this means everyone in your team). You have enough to take care of basic needs but that´s all. You find out that another large scale disaster will soon happen and aside from your powers/skills, stopping disaster will require significant resources. (Perfect example of this Fantastic Four; they have been in financial trouble more than once and many of their more powerful enemies can defeated only by using Reed´s devices.If Reed was destitute...)

Re: Pulling Authority & Other Genres Nobody has so far answered to my comment. Why should the STARDARD for heroism in supers genre be different than every other genre ? Real world US military afterall nuked Hiroshima and destroyed Dresden. I suppose they are villains too. Authority ARE villains if you use Silver Age Comics Code-standard. But when this genre was invented in Action Comics #1, Superman was violent anarchist. In the first 2-3 years of Superman comic books and comic strips, the Man of Steel was a far cry from the character we know today. Described by co-creator Jerry Siegel as "a thorn in the side of the establishment", this Superman's tagline was not, "Truth, Justice, and the American Way," but rather "Champion of the Oppressed." Instead of super-villians and space aliens, he used direct action to fight slumlords, munitions manufacturers and their lackeys in government, warmongering heads of state, and the execution of innocent people. Within three years, DC had seized control of the character and began transforming him into the toothless symbol of status quo "justice" we've known for decades.

Re: Pulling Authority & Other Genres Idea there was: 1.In other genres protagonists are killers.Supers were killers before Comics Code 2.In other genres they want to change world if they have power. Simbul and Elminster would change world to their image.Rebels in Star Wars also wanted to create their own Alliance of Free Planets. 3. In real world nearly every nation was founded upon conquest.Including United States and Israel. Main reason that standards are different in this genre is publishers and editors were worried about reactions from politicians and angry parents. As far as i see , Comics Code is overrated. Miracleman forced his "good intentions" on a society, whether they want it or not. "Forcing 'good intentions' on society." Well, that's what we humans do. That's power. I mean, only by society's own forced good intentions do we get that stealing, killing, etc. is wrong. There is no REAL right and wrong. There is no REAL good and evil. Just as there are no REAL unalienable rights to anything... except maybe death. For now. We all act selflishly by what we perceive as right. So, if someone had God-like powers, and he thought society would benefit by forcing his intentions on it, I couldn't really say that's a "corruption" of power. It's just the natural employment of power. In Dark Knight Strikes Again, Superman rejects humanity and its laws: "Ma. Pa. You were wrong. . . . I am not one of them. I am not human.""It took my own daughter and my darkest rival – my despised opponent – to teach me – I am not human." "And I am no man's servant. I am no man's slave. I will not be ruled by the laws of men.""I am no man. I am Superman." Green Lantern also accepted the "shadow" side of superherodom that Batman represents. Green Lantern says that Batman was right: "Of course we're criminals. We've always been criminals. On this planet we have to be criminals." In other words, the superheroes cannot cooperate with human government; they must stand in opposition to it. Face the facts, in other genres th Authority would be considered heroic. 1.Millar, Ellis and their kind are right. 2.Comics Code is dumb.It should never have existed. It´s time to go back to original Superman who opposed cops,killed dictators and demolished buildings. Further: In other genres heroes kill,destroy and interfere with politics(if they can, Jack Bauer even kidnapped President).As do villains.Hero is just a slightly nicer villain. In supers genre difference between heroes and villains is that of restraint.Don´t kill,do not change world. Joe: You know Superman.If you and Luthor were in another, abandoned planet, you could kill him there.No laws and American public would never know. Superman: I would. Joe:That is difference between you and him.You restrain yourselves and your enemies benefit from it. Are superheroes lawful stupid ?

This is for mid-level (X-men,Fantastic Four) and high-level(JLA,the Authority) teams.It does not concern street-level. Your team gets massively powerful Artifact as a gift from extraterrestials.What will you do with it ? 1. Exact function of Artifact depends on your campaign world.("roll dice,get item from artifact table"). It is ultra-valuable in any case. 2. Artifact is beyond anyone´s ability to damage in your world. 3. Various secret conspiracies find about it and do nearly anything to get it. Original idea: This happened to Mandrake the Magician´s ancestors.Travelers from space gave them the crystal cubes with "infinite power to light the earth - or split it".

Re: Pulling Authority & Other Genres Real reason is that the owners of comic book companies believe that traditional comics sell better, which may be true. X-men do not:"Maybe Magneto is right after all, let´s conquer world and enslave humanity. Namor,Hulk and Silver Surfer mostly despise humans. Human Torch:"Why we spend so much time saving the world? So many of them do everything to ruin it." Hercules and Thor:"Mortals do not deserve our protection anymore". Pre-Crisis DC Universe did.Marvel US Government is corrupt and untrustworthy and civilians are hate-filled ingrates. Marvels limited series #4:Reason for humanity's apparent disregard for its heroes, courtesy of Jameson - a mixture of jealousy and insecurity, knowledge that everyday, average humans cannot compete with the selfless heroism and nobility displayed by the Marvels. Wildstorm is even more corrupt;government once destroyed an alternate Earth just to test their experiment. Post-Crisis DC is not as corrupt; but villains are becoming more Iron Agish and heroes´ attachment to Silver Age-morals makes them look like impotent fools. Which either means your campaign-style resembles Pre-Crisis DC or you are ignoring lots of facts. Nobody publishes comics like that anymore. Post-crisis Batman is insane.Supes believes in unworkable ideals(which DID work in Pre-Crisis universe).

Re: Pulling Authority & Other Genres No, my point was: 1. Beings capable of dealing with extraterrestial spacefleets would not be stopped by US military. 2. This genre can work without reducing superbeings into status quo-revering boy scouts. 3. Original Superman was an anarchist before that dumb Comics Code. I do not support or object to any real world political philosophy. It´s just that in a world with powerful supers; Joe Average would be a second-class citizen, supers would be aristocrats and Joe Average a serf(this is not support for monarchism either). Check out Mutants and masterminds official boards. There are lots of arguments by Wanderer and Robertliguori which have supers to reduce normals to second-rate status

Re: Superheroes, Power and Responsbility It is always: Heroes can´t stop WW2 because they can´t do it in real world. Heroes can´t prevent famines because they can´t do it in real world. Heroes can´t cure diseases because they can´t do it in real world. Please check: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main.ReedRichardsIsUseless

Re: Superheroes, Power and Responsbility There have been some exceptions. For example Miracle Man who solved all world´s problems and established Utopia. There is argument that imaginary world which does not match real world to a point would not be accepted by readers. Well, there is Judge Dredd-comic.In Dredd´s world unemployment is between 90% and 99%(population is on lifelong welfare) ,robots do most of work and most important course in schools is Study of Unemployment (how to spent your life when you are not allowed to do anything). Main reason humans have to grow up is that there is nothing more advanced than adult humans in real world.In fictional worlds humans might as well be locked up in zoos. And yes,Superman could change world, according to DC editors he is invincible and all-powerful. Joe Casey (comic book writer) states that Superman can re-arrange the Solar System and tear a star apart. "I've always seen Superman as this completely over-the-top, fantastic character who has no limits whatsoever," writes Casey. Unencumbered by mental blocks, "Superman is unbeatable."

Re: Superheroes, Power and Responsbility PIS = Plot-Induced Stupidity To keep Status Quo, writers prevent characters using their abilities to full potential or using creative solutions. 1. Nearly any situation should be easily solvable by the Flash, since he can move hundreds and hundreds of times faster than anything else on earth. 2. If Batman does not want kill Joker, just recruit Doctor Fate. "Thanks to this handy spell, if Joker escapes he is automatically teleported back to Arkham." Of course, this means no more Cool Joker-stories. 3. If Superman does not want to make humans dependent on him this what Bob Ingersoll said: The reason Superman gives is that he doesn't want to retard man's development by making man too dependant on a superman. That reason is buffalo bagels. Mankind has a viable solution for nuclear arms control, arms reduction. The problem is that reduction requires a system of verification, which has eluded us. Verification would be no problem to old X-ray eyes. (And Superman's other super senses would compensate, if someone started putting their weapons in lead silos.) Mankind has a solution for pollution, installing scrubbers and other pollution control devices on pollution creators. There are some truly effective scrubbers in the planning stage, which are not being used, because they would be so ungodly expensive to install. Superman could install them at a fraction of the cost. Mankind has several potential solutions to the hunger problem, the creation of higher yield crops, advanced hydroponics or converting presently unarable land into farm land are among them. Development of the first two is only just beginning however a good source of irrigation could turn acres of desert into farms. One suggestion for the water source is move an iceberg to the desert. But that would cost more than it book to produce all four Star Wars movies and their Special EditionsTitanic combined. Quite a lot more to be honest. Superman could fly an iceberg to the Sahara at no cost, letting the ice attone for that whole Titanic thing, and still get home for breakfast. And just because we'd be using Superman in the solutions, wouldn't mean we were too dependant on him or that he was retarding development. We use the sun, it isn't retarding development. Rather, because it is there, we develop solutions to problems incorporating it. Just as we could develop solutions to problems incorporating Superman, because he was there. We wouldn't be waiting for Superman to solve our problems, we'd just be coming up with solutions he could help us implement, and is that too much to ask? Superman doesn't help solve the world's problems, because he's a wimp, who doesn't want to take responsibility for his actions.

Re: Superheroes, Power and Responsbility I agree with robertliguori. Personally i believe life is supposed to be about competition and perseverance. We set ourselves more or less rational goals, do our best to achieve them as our capabilities and limitations allow.Sometimes you win,sometimes you lose and then you try again and work harder. But we are not supposed to blame world which does not owe anyone success or happiness. In Marvels comic book limited series are revealed some of the motives for humanity's apparent disregard for its heroes, courtesy of Jameson - a mixture of jealousy and insecurity, knowledge that everyday, average humans cannot compete with the selfless heroism and nobility displayed by the Marvels. In real life human race is nr.1; no doubts about it but in fictional realities it goes like this: Nr.1 goes Cosmic Beings: Marvel: Eternity,Death,galactus,etc. Dc:Spectre,Presence,Lucifer,etc.Fantasy settings: gods like Ao or Eru Ilúvatar.Space Operas: Q,Metrons,etc: Nr.2/3 Demigods on earth like Jla and Authority and extraterrestial supercivilizations(which one is more important is disputable). Nr.4 ordinary humans 1. In Marvel and Dc common humanity is still treated as dominant factor,though they are not powerful and competent for that position anymore.Reason for this is publishers´ "world outside window and do not change status quo" policies 2. If JLA or Authority can deal with extraterrestial spacefleets, US military should be irrelevant. "They have nukes,big deal, we can handle Death Star" 3. If Joe Average can not compete, he can´t, so what. In RL men have sent women to kitchen, children to kindergarden,blacks to slavery, mentally ill to asylums. In these fictional worlds it is Normal man who must now be the loser. Captain Atom:Armageddon #3 Captain Atom:What sort of thing is that to say ? Only human ? I´m human or i least i was but even now even with these powers, it´s the man inside that matters. U.S president: That´s touching, it really is. But it doesn´t apply here.Here, it´s others- the one like you and majestic-who matter.They are the ones who decide who runs things, the ones that decide who lives and dies and who goes home. Here, normal people, even normal people with the word "president" in front of their name. They don´t count too much in the grand scheme of things.Here, we answer to a higher authority. World does not automically become dysutopian hellhole if there are few levels of power above humanity. Comics are escapism but it does not require PIS.

Why is it wrong if Authority-like team decides to take over ? In every other genre heroes are ruthless killers. a) Fantasy: The Simbul wants destroy the nation of Thay and Elminster in The Shadow of the Avatar Trilogy considered destroying entire realms of men. b)Horror: Not a lot heroes, but Abramah van Helsing DID kill. c) Space Opera: Entire worlds are destroyed. Dr.Who happily destroyed the Dalek fleet. d) Military & police: Use lethal force when necessary. e) Pulp,Noir,Modern Action: Same goes here.James Bond and Jack Bauer are ruthless killers. Even in soap operas lethal force has been used and main characters, "heroes" or not don´t mind bucking the system and opposing authorities. Here is article about this subject: (http://www.killallthewhiteman.com/) The Pacifying Protagonist: Serial Media and the Birth of a New Hero Archetype OR Why Doesn’t Spidey Smoke Them Bitches? OK, first, to totally destroy any mystery, or for those of you who just want easy answers, most superheroes don’t kill simply because it would be really bad for business if the characters kept killing off their best foils. That’s a big part of why this new type of hero IS so new, dating, at the absolute earliest, to the late nineteenth century. But I am getting ahead of myself, the Pacifying Protagonist is not yet born. First, if we’re going to establish that the Pacifying Protagonist is new, we have to cover what hero used to mean. Fortunately, Dictionary.com is like 90 years out of date as a dictionary (seriously, it’s using an old dictionary that’s fallen into public domain), we can use it to get a good idea of what Hero meant in Days of Yore. 1. a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities. 2. a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or ideal: He was a local hero when he saved the drowning child. 3. the principal male character in a story, play, film, etc. 4. Classical Mythology. a. a being of godlike prowess and beneficence who often came to be honored as a divinity. b. (in the Homeric period) a warrior-chieftain of special strength, courage, or ability. c. (in later antiquity) an immortal being; demigod. Most of these Heroes are known far less for what they saved than for what they changed, destroyed, or achieved. A Hero was someone who killed evil (and not so evil) kings, stole treasure, incited riots, lead rebel armies, and generally did the things that would be made the domain of a comic book villain. Now, retroactively, we’re going to call these heroes Disruptive Heroes. Hercules, son of a God, forced to live as a common human who achieved Godhood through a series of trials that largely consisted of seeking out monsters to kill or trap, and stealing Genji, a boy of noble birth, forced to live as a common human who, becomes a military officer, works his way upward socially, and sleeps with pretty much everyone Jesus, the son of a god, brought up the son of a carpenter, who successfully alters the entire course of historyEven King Arthur, famous far more than most heroes as a hero of peace, is the son of a king, forced to live as a commoner*, who assembles an army of the greatest warriors in the world (read: England) who wage a bunch of amazing feats, and then it all falls apart. Heroes, all across the world, with varying degrees of historical verisimilitude, have always been people who went out and changed things, radically. They changed their lives, they changed the world around them, they nailed all the fly hunnies, they stole shit, and sometimes they tore down existing governments. Now how many of these apply to say, Superman? Something very fundamental about what makes a hero a hero has changed. Why? The Industrial Revolution and the birth of the middle class. Suddenly, books are not nearly so rarefied an item. Reading is something people are doing for fun in huge numbers, and all new heroes are being created, for the first time, as recurring characters in on-going projects. Sherlock Holmes, Captain Nemo, Alan Quatermain**, Zorro, Tom Sawyer and others. But we’re not quite there, these characters are recurring, but they tended to go on isolated adventures and had the occasional reoccurring nemesis, but for the most part they fit with the classic Disruptive Hero ideal. Even Superman, our measure of the modern hero, was far from the “big blue boyscout” we see him as now. Hell, the first issue of Action Comics has him smashing up some guy’s car just to scare the dude. Not exactly the peak of nobility. It was the start of the change though. More and more writers realized that for a hero to have a long life in the extremely speedy worlds of Radio, Pulp magazines, and comics, the villains had to live. As a result, the heroes were moved from the role of the adventurer who sought out his enemies and took on a reactive role, a defender of the establishment. After all of this, I’m left wondering: did the hero become an agent of the status quo SOLELY because of the difficulty of keeping an active adventure character compelling after hundreds or thousands of serialized stories, or are there other reasons, social influences, that might have changed our concept of a hero from an agent of change and upheaval to a force for stasis and maintenance? What does that say about us? What does it say that when Warren Ellis writes The Authority, about a team of Superheroes who actually stop wars, remove dictators and feed the hungry, that the reaction is a mixture of acclaim and fear, after all, who put them in charge? Who elected them hero? *There is a theme here. Maybe you have caught it at this point. In order to avoid making the average person believe they too had a right to engage in this disruptive activity, heroes tend to have some kind of special birth, meaning that while it’s possible to relate to their circumstances, by no means are you expected to cause a ruckus like this guy did. **All three of the proceeding characters are in Alan Moore’s League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. This is because Alan Moore is a genius. Even Superman was killer originally. Mark Waid :"I thought I knew everything about Superman. Then I read the stories reprinted in this volume, many of them for the first time, and my eyes widened with every page-turn. If I expected to glean here the adventures of a calm, well-reasoned guardian of The System, I was clearly flipping through the wrong book. Within these pages I met a head-bashing Superman who took no prisoners, who made his own law and enforced it with his fists, who gleefully intimidated his foes with a wicked grin and a baleful glare. A Superman who reveled in his strength, who clearly enjoyed raising a little hell and who didn't care who got in his way as he bounded through Metropolis meting out his own brand of justice. Was I surprised? When I see bullets bouncing off Superman's chest, I don't expect them to be coming from the guns of policemen. Whoever this was in the red cape, he was no super-cop. He was a super-anarchist. How could he have started out so different?". There was an article Superhumans pulling an Authority.Lots of people considered Authority to be nothing but sociopaths. I disagree. Ultimately all superheroes and even all superbeings must be criminals. PhoneniXforce: Just being a super powered individual would get you into so many law breaking situations you would quickly be labeled a 'Super Villian' without even really trying. The simple act of Flight would be enough for you to violate so many laws that the goverment would want you put away. Think about the no fly zones that you would constantly be flying in. City streets are the most obvious but we could get into the details like the legality of flying under ones own power and if it requires a liscense to do so. Then let's go to things like Super Strength. Unless you are exceptionally careful and vigilant you would destroy things without even trying. You could cripple someone you where simply trying to be intimate with, a hug could crush a rib cage. Telepathy you could never use since it would very well be a violation of privacy. These are just a few of the powers that are not even seriously offensive (Like Strike and Blast). In a real world things would spiral very quickly for a super human. So quickly that unless they had the patience of a saint they might quickly go the whole Magneto route and simply not accept societies rule of law. Conclusion: 1.If Authority are villains since they break the law so are Jla-members. 2: It would be better to get rid of Comics Code 3. Rule of law is for Joe Normals, not demigods who should be by definition too much for mortal authorities to handle 4. Difference between heroism and villainy should be moral rather than legal and independent of human society and the existence of planet Earth. My solution to Marvel Civil War would have been: 1.Anti-regs overthrow government 2. Captain America and Avengers create their own nation By the way, i have read comments written by wanderer and robertliguori and for most part i agree with them. 1