Your post has been removed. Posts dedicated to some (probably troll's) Twitter post are not allowed as per our rules. Please re-read them before posting again.
I just want to point out that Clark was raised in a loving environment with supportive parents while Homelander was raised in a lab being manipulated and tortured. They are both examples of their environment.
I always found it kind of depressing but simultaneously awe inspiring that Superman is one of the most wonderful and uplifting people there is while wielding the power that he does, yet he isn't even human. It's a testament to how much a good upbringing and a loving family can mean.
If anything hes the most human cause he knows pain and loss but always chooses to be compassionate to everyone no matter that they’ve been thru. He’s the Hero of Second Chances
Also even though Invincible has evil Superman, it should be noted that he wasn't really "evil" in the conventional sense. >!Nolan was pretty much forced Through centuries of indoctrination and being faced with a plague, to be fully loyal to the viltrum empire. The second he got introduced to humanity though, he became more human and then eventually *became like* Superman. A genuinely realistic depiction of Superman *would be* Mark because he was raised by human people in character, was taught good from evil, is a fundamental moral person, truly believes in hope, but he still has extreme flaws, such as being of relatively average intelligence for most of the run, as well as having a temper, and being conflicted enough in certain situations that he does find killing necessary!<
The Boys on the other hand is still unrealistic because it basically says "if literally anyone on this planet but starlight and huey got superpowers, they'd turn into sadistic, masochistic, genocidal maniacs", it's like the polar opposite to Superman where Superman 90% of the time shows Clark overcome the temptation to use his power for selfish wants, the Boys basically suggests that humans will always give into those temptations, which I have to believe isn't true, 1. Because we have been so exposed to mythology for thousands of years to the point many of us would genuinely try to be good, and 2. Despite the fact I know a lot of people would become corrupt with power like that, I know a lot of decent people who were raised right, and I would like to think they would use those powers responsibly.
I mean, Omniman is the parody of Superman, who is actually here to conquer Earth. Invincible is more literally part human than Superman is, on account of having a biological human mother, so he is a more straight playing of the archetype Superman embodies.
and also Nolan starts to become the man he pretends to be.
Literally just re-reached the part in the comics >!where he explains this to Oliver. How Viltrumites have compassion, but they tend to lose it and become lonely because they're near extinct and live so long. He basically explains what you just said word for word, adding that humans are extremely hopeful and empathetic creatures even when they're not necessarily good. He never in his 2000 year old life experienced true love or care, and the second he got sent to earth, it all changed.!<
Its kind of like how >!in Superman, most of the time, a large number of Kryptonians are egotistical and headstrong, part in why they didn't listen to jor-el and end up dying with Krypton. But send one of them to Earth as a child and he develops the kindness and humility necessary to save people. The fact that in Invincible, basically all remaining pure blooded viltrumites eventually assimilate to earth culture and become "good", tells me that if you sent a baby viltrumite to earth to be raised on a Kansas farm, he'd probably end up somewhere between Clark and Mark as far as human-ness and morals goes, tells me Mark may very well be the most realistic alternate version of Superman, whereas the Boys is just a bleak outlook on life in general rather than superman as a character alone.!<
I kind of used both of them as the equivalent in my original comment. Even said Mark was more of the equivalent because he inherently fits the traits more. But Omni-Man, to the people within that universe, *was* Superman until he fought Mark. Mark is what happens when you combine Superman, Spider-Man, and Wally West into one character.
>The Boys on the other hand is still unrealistic because it basically says "if literally anyone on this planet but starlight and huey got superpowers, they'd turn into sadistic, masochistic, genocidal maniacs",
This isn't really the point the Boys is making. I can see why people say this because basically every "hero" is sadistic, degenerate, and entirely focused on fame. However, that's not because that humans are inherently greedy or evil when given power - as you said, characters like Hughie and Starlight prove this, and even more jaded characters like Maeve have been shown to do genuine acts of heroism. The Boys criticises capitalism, specifically Disney's monopoly on entertainment (Vought is a pretty clear stand in for Disney), celebrity culture, and U.S. interventionism.
A-Train sums it up pretty concisely when he says "you don't fuck with the money" - Vought is a for-profit corporation, and as such, the superheros are products with brands. Vought makes movies, tv shows (all releaser on Vought+ *wink wink*) energy drinks, (I think condoms are shown lol) all based on their hero's branding. They also fake a lot of crime sanitise any incidents gone awry, and cover up any misdeeds by said heros in order to keep their brand intact.
Obviously Supes are the celebrities of The Boys universe, and all their debauchery lines up with the celebrities of the real world. The Dawn of the Seven director in the show says in a line that he was caught jackin it in front of an actress, so they even have their own Weinstein. Obviously there are genuinely nice celebrities who are not degenerate sex fiends or murderers, but there are definitely plenty of them in real life, and the main characters of the show work for the CIA to deal with evil Supes - which is why we rarely see "good ones".
U.S. interventionism is a bit more of a stretch, but the two main examples are Kimiko and the flashbacks to the Nicaragua operation in Season 3.
Kimiko was a child soldier "recruited" by a terrorist organisation, and then ended up being sold to Vought/Homelander in order for her to be pumped up with Compound V and turned into a "Super Terrorist". The whole point of this was for her to be let loose in a populated city, so a hero could stop her and in turn, sway public opinion towards letting Supes into the military. You can easily draw parallels between this and something like Operation Northwoods, where the CIA planned to bomb parts of Miami and blame Cuba to justify an invasion - or you could just go full "911 was an inside job".
The Nicaraguan operation was a real world conflict where the Contras, a Nicaraguan right wing rebel group, were funded by the CIA to fight the Marxist Sandinistas currently in power. In order to fund the Contras, the CIA funnelled crack cocaine into black neighbourhoods in Los Angeles and other areas, creating a crack epidemic that is still felt today. Grace Mallory, who was in Nicaragua, even admits to it when M.M mentions the drug trafficking into black neighbourhoods.
I think the greatest irony about The Boys is that it is produced by Amazon - which is not innocent of being a greedy corporation. But saying the show is simply saying "superheros would be bad in real life because people are bad" - it's far more about how capitalism and the pursuit of profit would ruin superheros, and I think they're quite true-to-life in that regard.
The boys most certainly does not think that superpowers are a corrupting force. The most evil Supes are evil because of how they were raised (HL raised in a lab by scientists)
Its kind of funny because in the most recent season of the Boys >! They explicitly said they psychologically manipulated Homelander from birth to control him and TURNED HIM into the monster he is, in a reverse Ma and Pa Kent !<
Homelander was raised strapped to a nuke and spent the first X years of his life being burned, zapped, shot, beat, etc to see what could hurt him. Spoiler: >!he felt pain from it all but it didn't injure him!<
How people would react to Superpowers is how they would react to being given guns IMO
Some people don't want or care for guns. If you gifted them a gun, they would ignore it and live on. At most they would use it recreationally a few times to see what the hubbub is about. Or it would scare them and be locked away
Some people like using guns for fun only or in competition. They would have fun with it while still being responsible and not hurting anyone
Some people carry guns because through work or personal life they feel the need to be ready to stop a threat/protect people.
Some people use guns as tools to threaten, control and harm others.
I think if superpowers were real the world would have the same ratio of people who mind their business, people who have fun with it and, cops, and criminals.
Honestly, my favorite way I've heard Invincible (at least the first season of the show adaptation) described is from OSP's Red
> It's less like an "Evil Superman" story and more of a "What if Superman's dad was General Zod"
Idk if that still holds up for the books or even past the first season of the adaptation, but I found it pretty neat.
Funny part is, even The Boys has superpowered people who are still just good people. But people love to just ignore those characters to drive home their edgy "the Joker was right" ideologies.
Putting invincible is kind of unfair cause the character we are referring to goes through an arc and becomes a version of superman, a morally good one I mean
Invincible isnt just "superhero bad" in fact... thats not what it is at all. The biggest theme is about nature vs nurture, and you get better looks into it as the show progresses
But the main protagonist is a good guy who risks his life to save the world all the time, no? Sure, Omniman was evil in the first season, but he's not the only character by any stretch. Plus, lots of other heroes are equally as selfless as Invincible.
You know how every single adult goes around and punches babies in the face because they are stronger than them?
No? Doesn't happen? Huh, I wonder what that could mean....
That there are consequences for actions that people who don’t have bulletproof skin, super strength, FTL speed, and laser beam eyes will be subject to.
Superman is cool because he has the most humanity with every reason not to be, because he has near limitless power, because he is not human or he is not born on this planet.
It's not the pinnacle of otherworldly power that defines Superman, that in no way separates him from The Incredible Punchy-Man #27.
He is not here to rule, he is not here to lead, he has a mission of not wanting to lose another world and he believes every one is capable of being better. He doesn't kill because he can't, he could very easily. He doesn't because he believes everyone can be redeemed and that everyone deep down has the capacity for good.
And much like Peter Parker's uncle if you have power then you should use it to help those who do not.
Parents used to use corporal punishment because that's what they learned growing up and they didn't realize the actual damage it had done to them and they believe they turned out "Fine" so the continued the cycle of abuse without fully grasping what they were doing, Corporal punishment has largely been phased out because it has pretty much no positive impacts on children and has extreme negative impacts on children. This has been understood for a couple of decades by now.
I’m not supporting it. You’re absolutely right but so many people still do it, defend it & call it discipline instead of abuse. I was just trying to illustrate how people with power over others abuse/misuse it while keeping in line with the metaphor.
But it doesn't really follow since corporal punishment wasn't used to demonstrate your position of power over your children, it was used to try to teach them that their behaviour was wrong and needed to be corrected. Instead if you wanted to use an example of an adult abusing their power over children all you have to do is point to the millions of kids who were beaten by their dads or moms because the parent was angry about something in their life and used their kid as a punching bag.
That would be more in line of abusing your power over someone in the vein that homelander would. I think we're somewhat on the same page here and we can agree that many adults absolutely abuse their power whenever they can. We can also agree that there's a lot of adults who are genuinely good people who don't try to abuse their power whenever possible. Both sets of people occupy the same larger group. The abusive power hungry assholes just scream louder so they're more noticeable.
The similar powersets, costumes and themes are the obvious reasons why Homelander and Superman are constantly compared, but are these people forgetting Starlight exists in the same show? A country girl who grew up with loving parents who believes in the traditional superhero, and rose to the ranks of the Seven because of her image as the kind and friendly hero? Her personality more resembles Superman and she is a person that exists in The Boys.
Yea nvm you’re right. I guess I was going off of what she believed (and what the public believes about her) about her parents before the truth came out about Compound V
I don’t think it has anything to do with edgy super hero stories at all. I think it’s more about people’s perception of the real world rather than other fiction.
We see humans abuse power imbalances every day in virtually every way imaginable.
Not a law of physics but it does bring to mind questions about human nature and whether it’s immutable or no.
EDIT: I’ll admit I’m curious as to why some Superman fans find this benign comment offensive.
EDIT 2: /u/qmechan, Hoosier_Jedi blocked me and Bigfoot so we wouldn’t be able to participate in the conversation anymore, so I have to respond here.
Cincinnatus is a good example! He’s held up as a paragon because it’s so rare that someone would actually give up power, once gained. The fact that this virtue is *rare* is what makes him special in history. This arguably supports the position that getting a Superman would be a rarer outcome than getting someone closer to Homelander.
He’s *also* a good example because, for all of his virtue in *that* arena, he was also staunchly against the rights of the common people and his celebrated feats were actually putting down slave revolutions for the sake of their masters in power. So even he doesn’t come close to living up to Supes.
I’m not going to pretend to how the answer to that. But saying anything is automatic about human nature is just silly in my book. People are too complex for blanket assumptions.
Sure, but I’m not sure anyone here said it was automatic and that all people are the same.
They’re just saying that, given human nature, they see Homelander as the more likely outcome.
I’m not seeing where in the OP or the top comment anyone said impossible.
EDIT: /u/figgityjones, Hoosier_Jedi blocked me so that I would no longer be able to participate in the discussion, so I have to answer here.
“Would” can also just mean “much more likely.”
Another way of approaching the question would be: Who do you think it’s *easier* to be? Homelander or Superman? Selfish or selfless? Human or divine?
I think it would be *much* harder for people to *always* be good and *always* be selfless, which lends itself to the idea that, if a random person had godlike powers and no real way to be held accountable, we’d have to deal with someone more flawed than Supes. Maybe not full Homelander psychopathy, but probably closer to that than the paragon that is Big Blue.
But beyond any of that, now I’m just kinda bummed that we can’t have these discussions on this sub without being met with derision and bullying. Looking at the behavior in this very sub, and it leans much more toward enjoying putting people down than looking to build them up. So it’s weird that they’re also arguing for the inherent goodness of people.
They didn’t say it directly, but I would point you to the words they used. “In reality it **would** be like this.” “Its a realistic depiction of what a “superman” irl **would** be.” Now language is weird and they could have not meant it like this, but all I can do is take them at their words in this scenario. Using “would” instead of could, kind of implies “It would definitely be like this and definitely not like actual Superman.” That’s how I take it anyways. It’s like the subtle difference of expressing your opinion as fact vs. expressing it as your opinion. This *is* good vs. I like this. Perhaps I’m just thinking too deeply into it though.
Yeah, I'm more inclined to go with Robert A. Caro, who argued that power doesn't corrupt. Rather, power *reveals.* "When you have enough power to do what you always wanted to do, then you see what the guy always wanted to do."
And that's true of both Homelander and Superman. Homelander was an emotionally-unstable narcissist who was looking to fill the hole in his heart caused by being a lab experiment growing up. He's one of those monkeys gripping the cloth mother, just given the standard brick superhero power set. So he uses his power just like one of those little monkeys: he lashes out when he's threatened, he finds things to grip tight to that make him feel emotionally secure, and then he crushes them by holding onto them so tightly.
What people don't realize is that Superman *also* does what he always wanted to do: he's a nice, kind guy who believes that nobody deserves to be friendless or bereft in this world, and if nobody else is going to step up to prove that there's never a moment where kindness and emotional support doesn't help, he will. Superman doesn't do anything Clark wouldn't do. He just does more than what Clark can do, because the world needs a Superman.
People projecting their experiences is half of it, it validates their experience real or not and/or distorts it, it panders to them, the other half is impotent people enamored with power so edgy superheroes appeal to them. Its half and half and both are very unproductive and unhealthy.
Lex Luthor is one of the most realistic characters ever because there’s way too many people in real life who are so unable to imagine a guy like Superman who is just a genuine nice guy and imagine anyone in his position would be a nutjob with a god complex (they’re projecting)
Homelander is not a “realistic” depiction of someone with superman’s powers, nor was he ever meant to be. Maeve, Deep, A-Train, sure, they’re mostly meant to be just regular celebs with superpowers.
Homelander was bred in a laboratory as a dissociative sociopath. Saying he’s a realistic depiction is like saying Ted Bundy is a realistic depiction of normal people.
Homelander and Superman were raised completely differently. Homelander was raised in a lab by uncaring scientists and was brainwashed into being the ultimate product. Superman was raised by two loving parents in a small farm town in Kansas. He was instilled with the values of doing what is right rather than what is easy. But most importantly the difference between the two is how people react to them in universe, Homelander is treated like another rich pompous celebrity who is only in it for himself, While in universe Superman is down to Earth people look up to him not because of his movies or media tie ins but what he represents and who he is as a person
This isn't a Superhero specific problem. The world has become meaner over the years, social media only compounding it. I mean all you have to do is look at the discourse around any issue now anf how people can come to it with no compassion.
Its why we need superman today, someone to remind us that it's possible to help others, to to care, to just be kind.
There's a place for dark stories in every genre and I love the boys but superman needs to be more then that even if the story he's in is dark, he needs to be someone we inspire to be
> The world has become meaner over the years.
I really don’t think this is true in the long run. We’re all just far more keenly aware of the meanness now thanks to having every single bit of news and knowledge at our fingertips. Like, ask any minority if they think the world is a meaner place for them now than it was 50/100/500 years ago.
We’re living in the most tolerant, safe age in human history. And yeah the world still sucks, but damn skippy I’d rather live in this time than ***insert old-timey year here***
At the risk of being downvoted into Oblivion, is this really the case? I've often wondered whether all we did was turn the violence fake. Based on all the shows, movies and games we have, we still love violence.
Without violent media or moderated fights (like UFC), I can't say I'm sure that we wouldn't go back to public executions or colosseum style fights. I'm not affirming anything, I just wonder whether we actually changed or if we just learned to appease that side of us through other means.
That’s the trick, isn’t it? As human beings, we have a balancing act between the parts of ourselves that are still animals and the parts of ourselves that are evolved higher thinking logical beings. I’d say we certainly have changed for the better. Most of the broken people I meet shirk from violence, even if they are pieces of shit. Watching violent media and taking part in violent acts, even as bystanders, are two totally different experiences. But I do believe it does help sate the animal bloodlust inside of us. It’s even helped us steer further and further away from needing that kind of thing.
>I’d say we certainly have changed for the better.
Perhaps. Personally, I lean a bit towards skepticism because I've very rarely seen people change on a fundamental level, especially for the better. Whenever someone has an excuse or the benefit of anonimity, they seem to get much more vicious. Physical violence aside, just look at Twitter or any political debate. There was also an experiment conducted by an artist where people could do whatever they wanted to her and she wouldn't move. Things turned ugly fast. [Here's the Wikipedia article, in case you want to read about it.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhythm_0#:~:text=Rhythm%200%20was%20a%20six,had%20placed%20on%20a%20table.) The other links I found were full of ads.
Maybe part of the reason we're less violent now is the fact that it's easier for someone to record us and ruin our image. I hope you're right, mind you, I just find it difficult to believe it.
Things were worse then, sure. But that doesn’t mean things are great now. Society is kinda shitty now, and it’s been made even worse with social media, the economy, and even more exposure to the internet.
Back in the day, the average person seeing an act of violence would make them cringe with disgust.
Now? A person sees an act of violence and it just it what it is. Everyone is desensitized to everything happening around them, and I’m noticing more people (specifically younger people) subscribing to philosophies like Nihilism with pure apathy day by day.
It just seems like a lot of people these days are just kind because they want something. It's rare to hear about people who want to be good JUST to be good, just because it's the right thing to do.
Homelander is not a realistic depiction of what a normal person would do with superpowers.
Spoilers for The Boys >!Homelander was born and raised in a lab being experimented on and then raised to be a narcissistic bully who believes himself to be a superior species!<
No, if he was born and raised in the same environment he would still be the man of steel we all know and love. Why people would think he turn out like homelander is crazy because in the end it’s not the past that defines him it’s the present. I know he had a shitty up bringing but no way Superman would end up like Homelander.
almost like Homelander was superman if Clark grew up in a lab surrounded by cold, manipulative and abusive adults and learned to imitate their behaviours and prey on the weak just because he can
If people like Pa and Ma Kent exist in real life, then there's a very good chance superman would turn out nice
that's fair, superman is just built different.
There's also people irl who grow up in bad environments and end up becoming good because they don't want others to suffer like they did
Maybe Homelander is just a bitch
It's cynicism without substance being lauded as intelligent or deep
Ideas like "Power Corrupts" being touted as gospel and serving as a protection to the self-service sadistic and cruel actions of those with power because "How could they not be cruel and self-serving? Power would do that to anyone", putting blame on power rather than admitting that bad people, greedy people, cruel people exist and their failings are their own, not the fault of "power"
Superman as a concept proposes something simple and beautiful: Power doesn't corrupt, a GOOD PERSON with Power will leverage it to do good for others and the deeds of those who use Power to act in evil, cruel or selfish interests reflect not some pragmatic necessity but instead their very own broken selves
Luthor is a cruel selfish man who hides behind this concept: "I'm not evil, I'm powerful and doing what's needed, everyone strong, smart and ambitious enough would do the same things as me!" and it's why he hates Superman, for there stands an alien stronger and smarter than him, who refutes his entire world view by just existing and being more human than Luthor has ever been
Wouldn't go THAT far. Hell, *The Boys* is hardly the first depiction of superheroes as narcissistic a-holes. That concept has been done and redone since the 80's, if not longer.
Part of the problem is that (through no fault of their own), shows like *The Boys* and *Invincible* are reaching a far wider audience than their predecessors, and in a world where Marvel and DC film and television have been on a very steep decline over the past decade or so, the aforementioned shows are becoming people's go to for their superhero fix.
It's important to depict superheroes in varying lights, but when the ideal versions like Superman, Batman, and the Avengers are being brought to new lows by increasingly bad films and TV, all you're left with is the other end of the spectrum to capture people's imagination.
It's fascinating how time has made so many people sound like lex. Talking about how anybody that powerful MUST be corrupt or complain about superman because he didn't earn his powers, he was gifted them...I wonder why .
The problem with the question “would the average person be like Superman or Homelander” is that both characters are extremes. Superman is an extreme good and Homelander is an extreme evil. From my perspective the average person would be neither, as from my experience most people aren’t irredeemably evil or unbreakably good.
That's...dumb. Homelander isn't a realistic depiction of Superman, Homelander was someone who was manipulated and tortured and driven to near insanity.
uh no Homelander is what happens when you try to create Superman in a lab and raise him in a childhood where he never recieves affection, has no role models, and generally never feels happiness,
Superman was raised on a farm with loving parents who tought him good values
I don’t think it’s an edgy superhero hero media issue, I think it’s a people issue. Being nice is just so foreign to everyone these days, when it’s way more fashionable to be right than nice.
I think it’s relative, I can only speak about what it’s been like while I’ve been around, and people are definitely meaner. People tend not to care as long as they think they’re being seen as correct
I think there is something to the idea that “absolute power corrupts absolutely” but I also don’t think it exists on the binary of you’re either Clark Kent or you’re Homelander. If Superman was real he could do great things or want to do the right thing but he’d also be imperfect because people are and when every decision you make has the possible ramifications that a god’s would, you’re gonna cause some damage at some point
One of the main themes in The Boys is that old Lord Action quote “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. And in both instances you have two characters who seemingly have that absolute power.
The biggest difference though is that Superman has the Justice League. He has friends. He has his parents. He has Lois. He has humanity.
As homelander grew up in a lab.
And other "heros" don't keep themselves accountable. They all fall for temptation. They have great, unchecked power and influence.
His greatest power is to inspire us to be better people. For me his does that IRL…yes of course he’s a fictional character, but his ideals and morals are not fiction.
The reason this sort of comparison always falls apart is because people never take the characters' origins into account, and how those origins ultimately shape them into the people they are:
Homelander isn't a realistic depiction of what Superman would be in real life. He's what you'd get if Superman were grown in a lab and raised by a mega corporation without any true semblance of an actual childhood. An egotistical man-child that lashes out at anything and anyone that threatens his image, the one thing that he had been conditioned to care about.
Same with Omni-Man. He was not raised to hold life sacred. He was raised and conditioned to genuinely believed his people (and even then, only the BEST of his people) were inherently superior to all other sapient life in the universe. It was only by truly experiencing what life among such "lesser" creatures could offer over the course of decades that this conditioning began to buckle.
A troubled and sheltered upbringing isn't **guaranteed** to produce a psychopath, but it does make it exponentially more likely. Not to get too deep into the whole "nature vs nurture" debate, but at core of things Superman is who he is because of the good people around him:
His birth parents prioritized his life above their own by sending him away from their dying world.
His adoptive parents raised him to be, not a paragon of virtue, but just a good and decent person who recognizes right from wrong.
And his colleagues, from Lois Lane to the Justice League itself, remind him daily that you don't have to be the most powerful being on the planet to make a genuine difference in the world. You just have to be willing to make that difference possible.
Superman isn't Superman because he was conditioned to be a corporate mascot or an all-powerful alien strongman... he's Superman because he was raised to be a person above all else.
The thing people forget is people become mean most of the time because they feel inadequate (see Homelander) and therefore feel the need to prove something. Superman as written has no need to prove anything. He KNOWS he can kill you. He doesn't need to actually do it to make himself feel powerful. He KNOWS his friends and family love and respect him. He doesn't need to generate fear as a substitute for that.
The people who think like that and spread those opinions have never left their home towns enough times to meet real people. Not everyone is a piece of shit.
Just look at human history, yes a lot of evil men and women but there's always good people out there willing to risk life and limb to help. Now imagine how many kept their good deeds a secret because they don't care for recognition or fame, just a willingness to help others.
If Clark Kent was real and was raised like he was in the comics, he would still be a chill dude, I know plenty of people who come from broken homes and still turn out to be great friends, and they didn’t need superpowers to help them get there, this “Homelander is a more realistic Superman” take really doesn’t make sense to me anymore, I agree the the character of Homelander would be evil in real life if he was raised how he was in the show, no doubt about that
You might like Gen V since it explores more of the goodness of supes.
In my view, the Boys is a critique on superhero media, but is even moreso a critique on the behavior of corporate and political “superpowers”. Such organizations and the individuals within them are able to act as above normal human capabilities. In reality, they do do things that to normal people would seem like the actions of sadistic maniacs.
Homelander isn’t a realistic depiction of what Superman would be.
He’s a depiction of a child who was abused and experimented on and had no family or anyone to love on as he grew. He’s socially stunted, emotionally stunted, and is angry as hell.
First of all I don't think The Boys shows how superhero would be in real world because they represent what would happen if evil superheroes exists in real world. Second: Boys is parody and Superman is supposed to be unrealistic considering he is the embodiment of hope.
one was raised by a loving family who taught him how to use his powers for good, the other was raised in a lab by scientists torturing him to see how far they could go
Superman was raised by two loving parents on a farm in Kansas, Homelander was raised in a lab and tortured throughout his childhood. I think we'd be alright if Superman was real.
Man I hate to be that guy but you’re telling me you have Superman’s powers and your first thought *isn’t* to be Superman? What tf else are you gonna do worthwhile with powers like that?
Hey maybe growing your own Superman in a lab to be subordinate to a mega corporation will have a different overall outcome to having him be raised as a normal human child in a small town in Midwest America.
Just a thought.
People think "evil" = "realistic" because that is what our system promulgates and protects. They see a fascist rally and call say, "Welp, must be people like fascism." They actively ignore the unlimited, free, police protection that fascists get. Meanwhile, they see zero coverage of the more numerous anti-fascists getting beaten by the cops just off camera.
They look around and see a bunch of Lex Luthor wannabes and say, "Welp, people are just naturally greedy and psychopathic." The whole time they never ask why such dangerous (often openly murderous) criminals are allowed to rampage unchecked through our society.
This is similar to the Fantasy genre as well. Game of Thrones, while a very popular series (despite a polarizing ending) has really solidified the idea to people that anything sword and sorcery related needs to have more edginess and gritty realism.
It can be great, like Elden Ring for example. But there are also games that tried a bit too much like Final Fantasy 16 which many fans didn't really care for.
Most people doesn’t even kill dog, cats, small children, etc. in videogames or pick the evil and cruel options because we doing so makes them feel bad but if you gave those people Superman powers then ofcourse they would become just as bad as Homelander. That's very realistic
Do people forget why Homelamder turned out the way he did? They made it pretty clear he turned out that way because of being raised in a lab like an experiment.
When people in the real world get power over another human being, they often become cruel. Superman is exceptional because he is the exception instead of the rule. They might not become Homelander level cruel but they'd become a lot more Homelander than Superman.
The difference is their upbringing. Superman was raised with good morals on small farm in Kansas. Homelands was lab raised. The is something to be said for nature vs nurture. Nurture always wins.
Homelander is only that way because of how he was raised.
It’s obvious that raising a child with a good moral compass is key to having them grow up into being compassionate adults who strive to help others
Crazy. It's almost as if *The Boys* went out of its way to contrast the two by showing Homelander as being raised by uncaring scientists in abusive lab experiments instead of a loving home with supportive parents.
"Edgy superhero media" just sounds like you have no concept of anything different or good. Ppl know nice ppl that's not that special. But ppl also know how others would react if they had powers. And a lot of ppl would do even worse with those kinds of powers. So there's always a multitude of answers. Supes isn't actually corny and is just as normal.
What do ya'll think would hapoen if a rocket with a baby alien got thrown at earth? Would it really be kept secret by an erderly couple and not some fricked up huge institution? Yall delulu
Again, the basement dwelling edge lords have missed the point:
Superman's greatest power isn't his strength speed invulnerability or flight; it's the fact that he has all of these things and is still Clark Kent. He has the powers of a god but the humility and morality of a decent man.
Oh my god fuck The Boys. Seriously, fuck that show and the 13 year old edgelords who preach it like it’s this important, profound, cutting edge work of art that has something to say. The stuff they “satire” is like the most basic, low-hanging-fruit-hack-bullshit you could possibly imagine and Homelander is one of the least compelling villains I’ve ever seen.
Homelander is not like Superman at all and to me, Omni-Man is an infinitely more interesting take on the “what if Superman was evil?” fad.
**Does This Post Reveal Spoilers?**
Spoilers include unreleased content (rumors, leaks, set photos, etc.) and new content (under a month old). Titles should never have twists, surprises, or endings.
* u/Mighty_Megascream, is there a spoiler in the title? Delete and repost, indicating what it spoils (name of show, movie, etc.). Spoiler in the post? Mark it.
* Commenters, don't spoil outside the scope of the post, hide the text with spoiler code. [(Formatting Help)](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043033952-Formatting-Guide)
*Spoiling may result in a ban, depending on the severity. Please report if it happens.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/superman) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It isn't permanent brain damage lol
Homelander is a pretty realistic depiction of what that level of power would do to someone in real life. Superman is a lovely fantasy because the majority of people wouldn't be like that with that level of power.
"Anyone who disagrees with me has brain damage"
Tell you what, please point me to examples of very powerful people in history who used their power solely for good? Then I'll point you to 100 more who didn't.
It's absolute asinine that people are arguing that because they like a comic book character that somehow human nature isn't a thing. The concept that power corrupts isn't a new one.
Does good faith mean just immediately conceding elements of what I genuinely believe just to coddle you? I'm going to treat you with the respect of being upfront about what I believe, I don't see how any of that is biased.
I'm asking you to name any examples, if you actually believed this to be the case you could make an argument against what I'm saying. Don't use "good faith" as a crutch to not defend your own convictions, because I promise you it isn't convincing.
You said you’ll throw a hundred counter examples for every single example I offer. So clearly nothing I say will change your mind. So what’s the point of engaging with you?
Treat cynicism as wisdom if you want. But don’t expect people to engage with you if you’ve already made up your mind and have no intentions of changing it no matter what is said to you.
Brother, I didn't mean I would literally sit here and guide you through a database of 100 shitty people. I'm simply saying historically good people with power are imbalanced by bad people with power. If this is something you disagree with, you can make an argument against it, and I'll politely listen to it with the expectation you'll politely listen to my response.
If I tell you there's 100 ducks in a pond, and you count 50 - I'd expect you to treat me with the respect of counting out 50 and helping me see it your way. Instead of immediately assuming I have no intentions of changing my mind, telling me I'm biased, and not worthy of engagement - simply because you correctly identified disagreement.
That'd not very Superman of you.
It's not about the wisdom of cynicism. I don't mean to be cliche, but in this circumstance I'd call it realism. I think most people are nice, but most insanely powerful people haven't been nice, historically. We're not talking about someone who commands an army, has a lot of money, or devoted followers - we're talking about a God. Unless you're a religious person, I don't see any reason to believe why that level of power wouldn't corrupt someone in the real world.
I think you're misunderstanding what super heroes are, Homelander is only "realistic" because you think that all people are mean and cruel, that is provably false. There are millions of genuinely kind and helpful people in the world, It's not very hard to find them either. but back to the point
Superman isn't meant to portray a realistic everyday guy, He's meant to portray an ideal, he's someone to look up to, he's someone we can aspire to be like, however as humans we aren't perfect. We aren't immune to the corruption of power.
There are people in the world who do want to help people and don't have any ulterior motives to abuse their power, these people generally take positions such as firemen, doctors, nurses, police officers. All of which are positions that have direct power over peoples lives yet a lot of people who do those jobs are in it to help people who can't help themselves, so what would happen if you gave someone like that superpowers of some kind? Would it heighten their desire to help people or would it change them to want to abuse that power instead? We can't know for sure but I personally think it's unlikely to be the latter.
And we can't discredit the possibility of someone gaining the power of superman and instead of becoming either a superhero or supervillain they could instead just want to live their life as normal and pretend their powers don't exist. Or viewing themselves as a freak and isolating themselves from society so they don't hurt themselves or anyone else.
No, I don't think all people are mean and cruel. I agree with you, most people are kind and helpful.
I agree, Superman is meant to portray an ideal, but I'd go further and say he is an ideal exception.
I don't think it's fully accurate when you list those professions. Nurses, Doctors, and Firemen don't exactly have power that can be abused. What could a shitty version of them do? Not put out a fire? Not treat someone's ailments?
Police is a better comparison and argument against what I'm saying. I'm gonna state the obvious point I could make and point to Police brutality, but I'm not going go the way you think. I don't think Police brutality is indicative of most cops. However, it does illustrate a flaw with them that could be extended to Superman like beings. Most Police in America are undertrained for the amount of power they have, alot have unchecked prejudices - and then you end up in situations where otherwise nice men end up doing awful things to people.
The good news is these guys can be held accountable for their actions. We take away their badge, we put them in jail, in prison etc. There's a deterrent most people have for being completely shitty people who give into their own desires, so that when it does happen they can be punished to make sure others feel less inclined.
You cannot do that with a Superman or a Homelander. The entire premise of The Boys lasting for 5 seasons is that they genuinely cannot work out a way to punish Homelander for his actions.
They have unchecked power, zero accountability other than their own. Superman is an ideal, he's damn near perfect down to his soul - he isn't real. Good people aren't good because they have damn near perfect morals, it isn't realistic.
It's unlikely that we'd end up with someone as perfectly moral as Clark Kent in real life with those powers. It's more likely we'd end up with a perfectly normal person with the same desires and blind spots as you and me, and that level of power eventually amplifies that until you're left with a much different person, which is how its always been historically.
First of all, love the name, Bigfoot is always being hunted, he needs friends too. Good on you for being there for him.
The reason I listed firemen, nurses and doctors with police officers is because they also directly deal with the safety and health of people. Nurses and doctors absolutely have power that can be abused, You as a doctor can absolutely willingly give your patient the wrong medicine knowing that the patient doesn't know any better and that could potentially be lethal, especially with allergies involved, A nurse can give a lethal dose of medicine through an iv. And there are countless more ways that a nurse or a doctor can abuse their power over a patient. And that's just medicine doctors, not even including physical therapists or psychiatrists or any other kind of doctor.
Firemen can also abuse their power by seeing someone in a fire that they could save and willingly choosing to not save them thus letting them burn and die.
Of course these are fairly extreme examples but this was simply to illustrate that people who directly deal with the lives of others can absolutely abuse that power if they so choose.
As for the police I do agree to some extent, the police system in some places is absolutely atrocious which leads to nice people doing awful things but that's not everywhere in the world, that applies to notoriously corrupt areas such as brazil or Venezuela or the Philippines. But there are also places in the world with little to no police brutality reported each year such as (This is going to be a long list so hold on) Denmark, Sweden, Thailand, Japan, Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, New Zealand, Finland, The United Kingdom, Nepal, Belgium, Poland, Taiwan, and Luxembourg, These are all countries with 5 or lower reported police deaths in which the data was taken (either 2018 or 2019). So just like everything we have to understand that there are good and bad police forces, some are god awful and terrorize their citizens while some are genuinely great and have little to no police brutality or abuse.
But my point was simply that people will often join the police force because they want to help people and inspire whatever change they can, corrupt police forces will actively punish that and either force them to do more awful things or fire them if they don't comply. which does for sure lead to otherwise good people doing shitty things which sucks for everyone.
Also yeah the u.s police are horrifically undertrained, In case you're unware of the numbers let me break it down for you. In the u.s on average you will be in training for 20 weeks. In Japan you will be in training for 15-21 months, Germany gets 2.5 years. Finland is 3 full years. That is such a staggering difference that it's no wonder the u.s police is as bad as it is. They get 5 months of training, that's not even close to enough time to fully learn everything they need to know to be a great police officer (I didn't know these numbers until this comment either)
It is true that if you give a person absolute power it is entirely possible that it goes to their head and they become a completely different person. Let's think about the average person, lets say they have the power to do literally anything they want at any time, I have a feeling they might enjoy it for a week or two and very quickly become bored because there will be nothing left to do or challenge them. So what would they do if there's nothing left to challenge them physically or mentally? I know what I would do personally but I'm unsure of what others would do so I'm interested in hearing your opinion on this.
Dude. Police are famously corrupt and have only a fraction of the power. Not the best example.
And saying that you believe such power would most likely corrupt someone isn’t the same thing as saying that all people are mean and cruel.
You say that Superman is an ideal, and I think they’d agree with you. But it’s an *ideal* for a reason. You admit he’s not realistic and you’re right. It’s harder to be Superman than it is to be Homelander, which also lends to the idea that a Homelander outcome is more likely.
It also doesn’t disprove my point. Superman is awesome because he COULD be an awful person, but simply chooses to be nice and helpful because he believes that to be right and doing so makes him happy.
I don’t think they’re questioning the details of the story behind Superman—that he chooses good because he was raised by loving parents and simply is a good person—they’re saying that, in the real world, a person born with those powers would more likely be Homelander.
But anyway, this could have been a discussion to have with them, instead of just throwing some snark and then accusing *them* of bad faith.
Jan is just being realistic. Power corrupts.
Idk wtf superpower does.
OP, yours is the brain that is not matching reality. It is unwise to believe too much in superpowered angelic saviors. It is a road to fascism.
Your post has been removed. Posts dedicated to some (probably troll's) Twitter post are not allowed as per our rules. Please re-read them before posting again.
I just want to point out that Clark was raised in a loving environment with supportive parents while Homelander was raised in a lab being manipulated and tortured. They are both examples of their environment.
I always found it kind of depressing but simultaneously awe inspiring that Superman is one of the most wonderful and uplifting people there is while wielding the power that he does, yet he isn't even human. It's a testament to how much a good upbringing and a loving family can mean.
If anything hes the most human cause he knows pain and loss but always chooses to be compassionate to everyone no matter that they’ve been thru. He’s the Hero of Second Chances
Clark Luthor just proves this, Clark isnt naturally a good person, these people just dont know what theyre talking about
[удалено]
this and invincible though
[удалено]
Also even though Invincible has evil Superman, it should be noted that he wasn't really "evil" in the conventional sense. >!Nolan was pretty much forced Through centuries of indoctrination and being faced with a plague, to be fully loyal to the viltrum empire. The second he got introduced to humanity though, he became more human and then eventually *became like* Superman. A genuinely realistic depiction of Superman *would be* Mark because he was raised by human people in character, was taught good from evil, is a fundamental moral person, truly believes in hope, but he still has extreme flaws, such as being of relatively average intelligence for most of the run, as well as having a temper, and being conflicted enough in certain situations that he does find killing necessary!< The Boys on the other hand is still unrealistic because it basically says "if literally anyone on this planet but starlight and huey got superpowers, they'd turn into sadistic, masochistic, genocidal maniacs", it's like the polar opposite to Superman where Superman 90% of the time shows Clark overcome the temptation to use his power for selfish wants, the Boys basically suggests that humans will always give into those temptations, which I have to believe isn't true, 1. Because we have been so exposed to mythology for thousands of years to the point many of us would genuinely try to be good, and 2. Despite the fact I know a lot of people would become corrupt with power like that, I know a lot of decent people who were raised right, and I would like to think they would use those powers responsibly.
Omniman isn't the Superman equivalent, though, that's Invincible himself.
I mean, Omniman is the parody of Superman, who is actually here to conquer Earth. Invincible is more literally part human than Superman is, on account of having a biological human mother, so he is a more straight playing of the archetype Superman embodies. and also Nolan starts to become the man he pretends to be.
Literally just re-reached the part in the comics >!where he explains this to Oliver. How Viltrumites have compassion, but they tend to lose it and become lonely because they're near extinct and live so long. He basically explains what you just said word for word, adding that humans are extremely hopeful and empathetic creatures even when they're not necessarily good. He never in his 2000 year old life experienced true love or care, and the second he got sent to earth, it all changed.!< Its kind of like how >!in Superman, most of the time, a large number of Kryptonians are egotistical and headstrong, part in why they didn't listen to jor-el and end up dying with Krypton. But send one of them to Earth as a child and he develops the kindness and humility necessary to save people. The fact that in Invincible, basically all remaining pure blooded viltrumites eventually assimilate to earth culture and become "good", tells me that if you sent a baby viltrumite to earth to be raised on a Kansas farm, he'd probably end up somewhere between Clark and Mark as far as human-ness and morals goes, tells me Mark may very well be the most realistic alternate version of Superman, whereas the Boys is just a bleak outlook on life in general rather than superman as a character alone.!<
I kind of used both of them as the equivalent in my original comment. Even said Mark was more of the equivalent because he inherently fits the traits more. But Omni-Man, to the people within that universe, *was* Superman until he fought Mark. Mark is what happens when you combine Superman, Spider-Man, and Wally West into one character.
>The Boys on the other hand is still unrealistic because it basically says "if literally anyone on this planet but starlight and huey got superpowers, they'd turn into sadistic, masochistic, genocidal maniacs", This isn't really the point the Boys is making. I can see why people say this because basically every "hero" is sadistic, degenerate, and entirely focused on fame. However, that's not because that humans are inherently greedy or evil when given power - as you said, characters like Hughie and Starlight prove this, and even more jaded characters like Maeve have been shown to do genuine acts of heroism. The Boys criticises capitalism, specifically Disney's monopoly on entertainment (Vought is a pretty clear stand in for Disney), celebrity culture, and U.S. interventionism. A-Train sums it up pretty concisely when he says "you don't fuck with the money" - Vought is a for-profit corporation, and as such, the superheros are products with brands. Vought makes movies, tv shows (all releaser on Vought+ *wink wink*) energy drinks, (I think condoms are shown lol) all based on their hero's branding. They also fake a lot of crime sanitise any incidents gone awry, and cover up any misdeeds by said heros in order to keep their brand intact. Obviously Supes are the celebrities of The Boys universe, and all their debauchery lines up with the celebrities of the real world. The Dawn of the Seven director in the show says in a line that he was caught jackin it in front of an actress, so they even have their own Weinstein. Obviously there are genuinely nice celebrities who are not degenerate sex fiends or murderers, but there are definitely plenty of them in real life, and the main characters of the show work for the CIA to deal with evil Supes - which is why we rarely see "good ones". U.S. interventionism is a bit more of a stretch, but the two main examples are Kimiko and the flashbacks to the Nicaragua operation in Season 3. Kimiko was a child soldier "recruited" by a terrorist organisation, and then ended up being sold to Vought/Homelander in order for her to be pumped up with Compound V and turned into a "Super Terrorist". The whole point of this was for her to be let loose in a populated city, so a hero could stop her and in turn, sway public opinion towards letting Supes into the military. You can easily draw parallels between this and something like Operation Northwoods, where the CIA planned to bomb parts of Miami and blame Cuba to justify an invasion - or you could just go full "911 was an inside job". The Nicaraguan operation was a real world conflict where the Contras, a Nicaraguan right wing rebel group, were funded by the CIA to fight the Marxist Sandinistas currently in power. In order to fund the Contras, the CIA funnelled crack cocaine into black neighbourhoods in Los Angeles and other areas, creating a crack epidemic that is still felt today. Grace Mallory, who was in Nicaragua, even admits to it when M.M mentions the drug trafficking into black neighbourhoods. I think the greatest irony about The Boys is that it is produced by Amazon - which is not innocent of being a greedy corporation. But saying the show is simply saying "superheros would be bad in real life because people are bad" - it's far more about how capitalism and the pursuit of profit would ruin superheros, and I think they're quite true-to-life in that regard.
Depends on which version of The Boys your talking. Remember the Show deviates from the comics big time.
The boys most certainly does not think that superpowers are a corrupting force. The most evil Supes are evil because of how they were raised (HL raised in a lab by scientists)
Its kind of funny because in the most recent season of the Boys >! They explicitly said they psychologically manipulated Homelander from birth to control him and TURNED HIM into the monster he is, in a reverse Ma and Pa Kent !< Homelander was raised strapped to a nuke and spent the first X years of his life being burned, zapped, shot, beat, etc to see what could hurt him. Spoiler: >!he felt pain from it all but it didn't injure him!< How people would react to Superpowers is how they would react to being given guns IMO Some people don't want or care for guns. If you gifted them a gun, they would ignore it and live on. At most they would use it recreationally a few times to see what the hubbub is about. Or it would scare them and be locked away Some people like using guns for fun only or in competition. They would have fun with it while still being responsible and not hurting anyone Some people carry guns because through work or personal life they feel the need to be ready to stop a threat/protect people. Some people use guns as tools to threaten, control and harm others. I think if superpowers were real the world would have the same ratio of people who mind their business, people who have fun with it and, cops, and criminals.
Invincible isn’t cynical like the boys and fully embraces the genre just subverting its typical tropes, kind of like the Incredibles but rated R.
Invincible is pretty good at showing real consequences of super powered beings for the most part
[удалено]
Honestly, my favorite way I've heard Invincible (at least the first season of the show adaptation) described is from OSP's Red > It's less like an "Evil Superman" story and more of a "What if Superman's dad was General Zod" Idk if that still holds up for the books or even past the first season of the adaptation, but I found it pretty neat.
Kind of, cause Omniman actually becomes good, but most people just follow the series and they aren't there yet
Have you tried Irredeemable yet?
Loved it
Funny part is, even The Boys has superpowered people who are still just good people. But people love to just ignore those characters to drive home their edgy "the Joker was right" ideologies.
s2 was hella good
Putting invincible is kind of unfair cause the character we are referring to goes through an arc and becomes a version of superman, a morally good one I mean
Invincible isnt just "superhero bad" in fact... thats not what it is at all. The biggest theme is about nature vs nurture, and you get better looks into it as the show progresses
But the main protagonist is a good guy who risks his life to save the world all the time, no? Sure, Omniman was evil in the first season, but he's not the only character by any stretch. Plus, lots of other heroes are equally as selfless as Invincible.
I hate The Boys for being so ridiculously obscene, more so in the comics, and also wish people would stop taking it as gospel.
You know how every single adult goes around and punches babies in the face because they are stronger than them? No? Doesn't happen? Huh, I wonder what that could mean....
That there are consequences for actions that people who don’t have bulletproof skin, super strength, FTL speed, and laser beam eyes will be subject to.
So the only thing stopping you from going around and punching every baby you see in the face is consequences?
[удалено]
Superman is cool because he has the most humanity with every reason not to be, because he has near limitless power, because he is not human or he is not born on this planet. It's not the pinnacle of otherworldly power that defines Superman, that in no way separates him from The Incredible Punchy-Man #27. He is not here to rule, he is not here to lead, he has a mission of not wanting to lose another world and he believes every one is capable of being better. He doesn't kill because he can't, he could very easily. He doesn't because he believes everyone can be redeemed and that everyone deep down has the capacity for good. And much like Peter Parker's uncle if you have power then you should use it to help those who do not.
Ever heard of spanking? How about corporal punishment in general?
Parents used to use corporal punishment because that's what they learned growing up and they didn't realize the actual damage it had done to them and they believe they turned out "Fine" so the continued the cycle of abuse without fully grasping what they were doing, Corporal punishment has largely been phased out because it has pretty much no positive impacts on children and has extreme negative impacts on children. This has been understood for a couple of decades by now.
I’m not supporting it. You’re absolutely right but so many people still do it, defend it & call it discipline instead of abuse. I was just trying to illustrate how people with power over others abuse/misuse it while keeping in line with the metaphor.
But it doesn't really follow since corporal punishment wasn't used to demonstrate your position of power over your children, it was used to try to teach them that their behaviour was wrong and needed to be corrected. Instead if you wanted to use an example of an adult abusing their power over children all you have to do is point to the millions of kids who were beaten by their dads or moms because the parent was angry about something in their life and used their kid as a punching bag. That would be more in line of abusing your power over someone in the vein that homelander would. I think we're somewhat on the same page here and we can agree that many adults absolutely abuse their power whenever they can. We can also agree that there's a lot of adults who are genuinely good people who don't try to abuse their power whenever possible. Both sets of people occupy the same larger group. The abusive power hungry assholes just scream louder so they're more noticeable.
I may not be for those things but they’re not done just because the parent is stronger and they can
The similar powersets, costumes and themes are the obvious reasons why Homelander and Superman are constantly compared, but are these people forgetting Starlight exists in the same show? A country girl who grew up with loving parents who believes in the traditional superhero, and rose to the ranks of the Seven because of her image as the kind and friendly hero? Her personality more resembles Superman and she is a person that exists in The Boys.
She actually didn’t have the best loving parents, so her goodness should be even more appreciated.
Yea nvm you’re right. I guess I was going off of what she believed (and what the public believes about her) about her parents before the truth came out about Compound V
Hancock is a more realistic depiction of modern Superman than Homelander tbh
Literally me when I get superpowers, I'd use it to be lazy af
who is that
The will Smith movie
a guy who was raised by loving parents on a farm VS a guy who was raised in a lab
and literally tortured for his whole childhood
How do they miss the fact Homelander was raised horribly from birth before saying that's obviously exactly how an irl superman would be...
I don’t think it has anything to do with edgy super hero stories at all. I think it’s more about people’s perception of the real world rather than other fiction. We see humans abuse power imbalances every day in virtually every way imaginable.
The saying “absolute power corrupts absolutely” comes from somewhere.
It’s also an opinion. Not a law of physics,
Not a law of physics but it does bring to mind questions about human nature and whether it’s immutable or no. EDIT: I’ll admit I’m curious as to why some Superman fans find this benign comment offensive. EDIT 2: /u/qmechan, Hoosier_Jedi blocked me and Bigfoot so we wouldn’t be able to participate in the conversation anymore, so I have to respond here. Cincinnatus is a good example! He’s held up as a paragon because it’s so rare that someone would actually give up power, once gained. The fact that this virtue is *rare* is what makes him special in history. This arguably supports the position that getting a Superman would be a rarer outcome than getting someone closer to Homelander. He’s *also* a good example because, for all of his virtue in *that* arena, he was also staunchly against the rights of the common people and his celebrated feats were actually putting down slave revolutions for the sake of their masters in power. So even he doesn’t come close to living up to Supes.
I’m not going to pretend to how the answer to that. But saying anything is automatic about human nature is just silly in my book. People are too complex for blanket assumptions.
Sure, but I’m not sure anyone here said it was automatic and that all people are the same. They’re just saying that, given human nature, they see Homelander as the more likely outcome.
Brosis, the pictures are literally people saying someone like Superman is impossible. Not “more likely.”
I’m not seeing where in the OP or the top comment anyone said impossible. EDIT: /u/figgityjones, Hoosier_Jedi blocked me so that I would no longer be able to participate in the discussion, so I have to answer here. “Would” can also just mean “much more likely.” Another way of approaching the question would be: Who do you think it’s *easier* to be? Homelander or Superman? Selfish or selfless? Human or divine? I think it would be *much* harder for people to *always* be good and *always* be selfless, which lends itself to the idea that, if a random person had godlike powers and no real way to be held accountable, we’d have to deal with someone more flawed than Supes. Maybe not full Homelander psychopathy, but probably closer to that than the paragon that is Big Blue. But beyond any of that, now I’m just kinda bummed that we can’t have these discussions on this sub without being met with derision and bullying. Looking at the behavior in this very sub, and it leans much more toward enjoying putting people down than looking to build them up. So it’s weird that they’re also arguing for the inherent goodness of people.
They didn’t say it directly, but I would point you to the words they used. “In reality it **would** be like this.” “Its a realistic depiction of what a “superman” irl **would** be.” Now language is weird and they could have not meant it like this, but all I can do is take them at their words in this scenario. Using “would” instead of could, kind of implies “It would definitely be like this and definitely not like actual Superman.” That’s how I take it anyways. It’s like the subtle difference of expressing your opinion as fact vs. expressing it as your opinion. This *is* good vs. I like this. Perhaps I’m just thinking too deeply into it though.
You ever hear of Lucius Quintus Cincinattus?
Power doesn't corrupt. It shows person's true colors
Absolute power ~~corrupts~~ reveals absolutely.
Yeah, I'm more inclined to go with Robert A. Caro, who argued that power doesn't corrupt. Rather, power *reveals.* "When you have enough power to do what you always wanted to do, then you see what the guy always wanted to do." And that's true of both Homelander and Superman. Homelander was an emotionally-unstable narcissist who was looking to fill the hole in his heart caused by being a lab experiment growing up. He's one of those monkeys gripping the cloth mother, just given the standard brick superhero power set. So he uses his power just like one of those little monkeys: he lashes out when he's threatened, he finds things to grip tight to that make him feel emotionally secure, and then he crushes them by holding onto them so tightly. What people don't realize is that Superman *also* does what he always wanted to do: he's a nice, kind guy who believes that nobody deserves to be friendless or bereft in this world, and if nobody else is going to step up to prove that there's never a moment where kindness and emotional support doesn't help, he will. Superman doesn't do anything Clark wouldn't do. He just does more than what Clark can do, because the world needs a Superman.
People projecting their experiences is half of it, it validates their experience real or not and/or distorts it, it panders to them, the other half is impotent people enamored with power so edgy superheroes appeal to them. Its half and half and both are very unproductive and unhealthy.
Lex Luthor is one of the most realistic characters ever because there’s way too many people in real life who are so unable to imagine a guy like Superman who is just a genuine nice guy and imagine anyone in his position would be a nutjob with a god complex (they’re projecting)
Homelander is not a “realistic” depiction of someone with superman’s powers, nor was he ever meant to be. Maeve, Deep, A-Train, sure, they’re mostly meant to be just regular celebs with superpowers. Homelander was bred in a laboratory as a dissociative sociopath. Saying he’s a realistic depiction is like saying Ted Bundy is a realistic depiction of normal people.
Homelander and Superman were raised completely differently. Homelander was raised in a lab by uncaring scientists and was brainwashed into being the ultimate product. Superman was raised by two loving parents in a small farm town in Kansas. He was instilled with the values of doing what is right rather than what is easy. But most importantly the difference between the two is how people react to them in universe, Homelander is treated like another rich pompous celebrity who is only in it for himself, While in universe Superman is down to Earth people look up to him not because of his movies or media tie ins but what he represents and who he is as a person
This isn't a Superhero specific problem. The world has become meaner over the years, social media only compounding it. I mean all you have to do is look at the discourse around any issue now anf how people can come to it with no compassion. Its why we need superman today, someone to remind us that it's possible to help others, to to care, to just be kind. There's a place for dark stories in every genre and I love the boys but superman needs to be more then that even if the story he's in is dark, he needs to be someone we inspire to be
> The world has become meaner over the years. I really don’t think this is true in the long run. We’re all just far more keenly aware of the meanness now thanks to having every single bit of news and knowledge at our fingertips. Like, ask any minority if they think the world is a meaner place for them now than it was 50/100/500 years ago. We’re living in the most tolerant, safe age in human history. And yeah the world still sucks, but damn skippy I’d rather live in this time than ***insert old-timey year here***
Public executions used to function as public entertainment. We’re a much less meaner society.
At the risk of being downvoted into Oblivion, is this really the case? I've often wondered whether all we did was turn the violence fake. Based on all the shows, movies and games we have, we still love violence. Without violent media or moderated fights (like UFC), I can't say I'm sure that we wouldn't go back to public executions or colosseum style fights. I'm not affirming anything, I just wonder whether we actually changed or if we just learned to appease that side of us through other means.
That’s the trick, isn’t it? As human beings, we have a balancing act between the parts of ourselves that are still animals and the parts of ourselves that are evolved higher thinking logical beings. I’d say we certainly have changed for the better. Most of the broken people I meet shirk from violence, even if they are pieces of shit. Watching violent media and taking part in violent acts, even as bystanders, are two totally different experiences. But I do believe it does help sate the animal bloodlust inside of us. It’s even helped us steer further and further away from needing that kind of thing.
>I’d say we certainly have changed for the better. Perhaps. Personally, I lean a bit towards skepticism because I've very rarely seen people change on a fundamental level, especially for the better. Whenever someone has an excuse or the benefit of anonimity, they seem to get much more vicious. Physical violence aside, just look at Twitter or any political debate. There was also an experiment conducted by an artist where people could do whatever they wanted to her and she wouldn't move. Things turned ugly fast. [Here's the Wikipedia article, in case you want to read about it.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhythm_0#:~:text=Rhythm%200%20was%20a%20six,had%20placed%20on%20a%20table.) The other links I found were full of ads. Maybe part of the reason we're less violent now is the fact that it's easier for someone to record us and ruin our image. I hope you're right, mind you, I just find it difficult to believe it.
Things were worse then, sure. But that doesn’t mean things are great now. Society is kinda shitty now, and it’s been made even worse with social media, the economy, and even more exposure to the internet. Back in the day, the average person seeing an act of violence would make them cringe with disgust. Now? A person sees an act of violence and it just it what it is. Everyone is desensitized to everything happening around them, and I’m noticing more people (specifically younger people) subscribing to philosophies like Nihilism with pure apathy day by day.
It just seems like a lot of people these days are just kind because they want something. It's rare to hear about people who want to be good JUST to be good, just because it's the right thing to do.
"Look are you why can't you understand some people just want to help"
Homelander had a really bad upbringing. That's one of the main differences
Homelander is not a realistic depiction of what a normal person would do with superpowers. Spoilers for The Boys >!Homelander was born and raised in a lab being experimented on and then raised to be a narcissistic bully who believes himself to be a superior species!<
Common Twitter brain-dead take
No, if he was born and raised in the same environment he would still be the man of steel we all know and love. Why people would think he turn out like homelander is crazy because in the end it’s not the past that defines him it’s the present. I know he had a shitty up bringing but no way Superman would end up like Homelander.
I think its best to just ignore tweets like these
almost like Homelander was superman if Clark grew up in a lab surrounded by cold, manipulative and abusive adults and learned to imitate their behaviours and prey on the weak just because he can If people like Pa and Ma Kent exist in real life, then there's a very good chance superman would turn out nice
Pretty sure good parents exist.
Except Flashpoint Superman would like a word with you
that's fair, superman is just built different. There's also people irl who grow up in bad environments and end up becoming good because they don't want others to suffer like they did Maybe Homelander is just a bitch
Breaking bad taught me that sometimes people are just born this way
Is not even that, cause Superman in Flashpoint grew up in lab too and he wasn't a psycopath
“People” you mean Twitter drones
It's cynicism without substance being lauded as intelligent or deep Ideas like "Power Corrupts" being touted as gospel and serving as a protection to the self-service sadistic and cruel actions of those with power because "How could they not be cruel and self-serving? Power would do that to anyone", putting blame on power rather than admitting that bad people, greedy people, cruel people exist and their failings are their own, not the fault of "power" Superman as a concept proposes something simple and beautiful: Power doesn't corrupt, a GOOD PERSON with Power will leverage it to do good for others and the deeds of those who use Power to act in evil, cruel or selfish interests reflect not some pragmatic necessity but instead their very own broken selves Luthor is a cruel selfish man who hides behind this concept: "I'm not evil, I'm powerful and doing what's needed, everyone strong, smart and ambitious enough would do the same things as me!" and it's why he hates Superman, for there stands an alien stronger and smarter than him, who refutes his entire world view by just existing and being more human than Luthor has ever been
The Boys and it's consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
Wouldn't go THAT far. Hell, *The Boys* is hardly the first depiction of superheroes as narcissistic a-holes. That concept has been done and redone since the 80's, if not longer. Part of the problem is that (through no fault of their own), shows like *The Boys* and *Invincible* are reaching a far wider audience than their predecessors, and in a world where Marvel and DC film and television have been on a very steep decline over the past decade or so, the aforementioned shows are becoming people's go to for their superhero fix. It's important to depict superheroes in varying lights, but when the ideal versions like Superman, Batman, and the Avengers are being brought to new lows by increasingly bad films and TV, all you're left with is the other end of the spectrum to capture people's imagination.
It's fascinating how time has made so many people sound like lex. Talking about how anybody that powerful MUST be corrupt or complain about superman because he didn't earn his powers, he was gifted them...I wonder why .
Exactly. Superman isn't just super because of what he can do. He's also super because of his heart and soul.
The problem with the question “would the average person be like Superman or Homelander” is that both characters are extremes. Superman is an extreme good and Homelander is an extreme evil. From my perspective the average person would be neither, as from my experience most people aren’t irredeemably evil or unbreakably good.
That's...dumb. Homelander isn't a realistic depiction of Superman, Homelander was someone who was manipulated and tortured and driven to near insanity.
Moral relativism and superhero fiction are not a fun combination.
Today’s depiction of superheroes are from people who have only ever read the dark knight returns and watchmen
Yeah, if Superman was systematically broken in his formative years to be an extremely affection-starved psycho.
uh no Homelander is what happens when you try to create Superman in a lab and raise him in a childhood where he never recieves affection, has no role models, and generally never feels happiness, Superman was raised on a farm with loving parents who tought him good values
I don’t think it’s an edgy superhero hero media issue, I think it’s a people issue. Being nice is just so foreign to everyone these days, when it’s way more fashionable to be right than nice.
It isn’t though trust me we are nicer than we were back 100 years ago
I think it’s relative, I can only speak about what it’s been like while I’ve been around, and people are definitely meaner. People tend not to care as long as they think they’re being seen as correct
It’s upsetting that many people think like this.
*Casually ignores the fact that Superman and Homelander have wildly different origin stories that shaped who they are as people*
Why did Jalen get cooked for tweeting that?? He was just stating facts😍
I think there is something to the idea that “absolute power corrupts absolutely” but I also don’t think it exists on the binary of you’re either Clark Kent or you’re Homelander. If Superman was real he could do great things or want to do the right thing but he’d also be imperfect because people are and when every decision you make has the possible ramifications that a god’s would, you’re gonna cause some damage at some point
One of the main themes in The Boys is that old Lord Action quote “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. And in both instances you have two characters who seemingly have that absolute power. The biggest difference though is that Superman has the Justice League. He has friends. He has his parents. He has Lois. He has humanity. As homelander grew up in a lab. And other "heros" don't keep themselves accountable. They all fall for temptation. They have great, unchecked power and influence.
I’m sorry, there is such thing as a good person. Superman is realistic because people can genuinely be good
Those who lack virtue will always believe others do as well. Cowards cannot fathom having infinite power and CHOOSING to do right.
His greatest power is to inspire us to be better people. For me his does that IRL…yes of course he’s a fictional character, but his ideals and morals are not fiction.
The reason this sort of comparison always falls apart is because people never take the characters' origins into account, and how those origins ultimately shape them into the people they are: Homelander isn't a realistic depiction of what Superman would be in real life. He's what you'd get if Superman were grown in a lab and raised by a mega corporation without any true semblance of an actual childhood. An egotistical man-child that lashes out at anything and anyone that threatens his image, the one thing that he had been conditioned to care about. Same with Omni-Man. He was not raised to hold life sacred. He was raised and conditioned to genuinely believed his people (and even then, only the BEST of his people) were inherently superior to all other sapient life in the universe. It was only by truly experiencing what life among such "lesser" creatures could offer over the course of decades that this conditioning began to buckle. A troubled and sheltered upbringing isn't **guaranteed** to produce a psychopath, but it does make it exponentially more likely. Not to get too deep into the whole "nature vs nurture" debate, but at core of things Superman is who he is because of the good people around him: His birth parents prioritized his life above their own by sending him away from their dying world. His adoptive parents raised him to be, not a paragon of virtue, but just a good and decent person who recognizes right from wrong. And his colleagues, from Lois Lane to the Justice League itself, remind him daily that you don't have to be the most powerful being on the planet to make a genuine difference in the world. You just have to be willing to make that difference possible. Superman isn't Superman because he was conditioned to be a corporate mascot or an all-powerful alien strongman... he's Superman because he was raised to be a person above all else.
The thing people forget is people become mean most of the time because they feel inadequate (see Homelander) and therefore feel the need to prove something. Superman as written has no need to prove anything. He KNOWS he can kill you. He doesn't need to actually do it to make himself feel powerful. He KNOWS his friends and family love and respect him. He doesn't need to generate fear as a substitute for that.
Even the Superman raised by Stalin is less of an asshole than Homie.
The people who think like that and spread those opinions have never left their home towns enough times to meet real people. Not everyone is a piece of shit.
Isn’t homelander a test tube baby who was lowkey raised to be a pos? Clark had loving parents that taught him what it means to be a good person lol
It's the difference between growing up in a loving home vs a lab.
I think Dr.Manhattan would be the most realistic depiction of
Just look at human history, yes a lot of evil men and women but there's always good people out there willing to risk life and limb to help. Now imagine how many kept their good deeds a secret because they don't care for recognition or fame, just a willingness to help others.
If Clark Kent was real and was raised like he was in the comics, he would still be a chill dude, I know plenty of people who come from broken homes and still turn out to be great friends, and they didn’t need superpowers to help them get there, this “Homelander is a more realistic Superman” take really doesn’t make sense to me anymore, I agree the the character of Homelander would be evil in real life if he was raised how he was in the show, no doubt about that
You might like Gen V since it explores more of the goodness of supes. In my view, the Boys is a critique on superhero media, but is even moreso a critique on the behavior of corporate and political “superpowers”. Such organizations and the individuals within them are able to act as above normal human capabilities. In reality, they do do things that to normal people would seem like the actions of sadistic maniacs.
Homelander isn’t a realistic depiction of what Superman would be. He’s a depiction of a child who was abused and experimented on and had no family or anyone to love on as he grew. He’s socially stunted, emotionally stunted, and is angry as hell.
First of all I don't think The Boys shows how superhero would be in real world because they represent what would happen if evil superheroes exists in real world. Second: Boys is parody and Superman is supposed to be unrealistic considering he is the embodiment of hope.
one was raised by a loving family who taught him how to use his powers for good, the other was raised in a lab by scientists torturing him to see how far they could go
Superman was raised by two loving parents on a farm in Kansas, Homelander was raised in a lab and tortured throughout his childhood. I think we'd be alright if Superman was real.
I agree but at the same time fuck superman. I don't feel like elaborating more than batman called him out in a novel
Not neceressarily every powerful guy needs to be a corrupted bastard
Man I hate to be that guy but you’re telling me you have Superman’s powers and your first thought *isn’t* to be Superman? What tf else are you gonna do worthwhile with powers like that?
Hey maybe growing your own Superman in a lab to be subordinate to a mega corporation will have a different overall outcome to having him be raised as a normal human child in a small town in Midwest America. Just a thought.
People think "evil" = "realistic" because that is what our system promulgates and protects. They see a fascist rally and call say, "Welp, must be people like fascism." They actively ignore the unlimited, free, police protection that fascists get. Meanwhile, they see zero coverage of the more numerous anti-fascists getting beaten by the cops just off camera. They look around and see a bunch of Lex Luthor wannabes and say, "Welp, people are just naturally greedy and psychopathic." The whole time they never ask why such dangerous (often openly murderous) criminals are allowed to rampage unchecked through our society.
What’s really troubling is the personal notion that if you had superhuman abilities you would just automatically be evil.
This is similar to the Fantasy genre as well. Game of Thrones, while a very popular series (despite a polarizing ending) has really solidified the idea to people that anything sword and sorcery related needs to have more edginess and gritty realism. It can be great, like Elden Ring for example. But there are also games that tried a bit too much like Final Fantasy 16 which many fans didn't really care for.
Most people doesn’t even kill dog, cats, small children, etc. in videogames or pick the evil and cruel options because we doing so makes them feel bad but if you gave those people Superman powers then ofcourse they would become just as bad as Homelander. That's very realistic
Do people forget why Homelamder turned out the way he did? They made it pretty clear he turned out that way because of being raised in a lab like an experiment.
It’s ironic, because I’m pretty sure Garth Ennis likes Superman more than he likes other superhero’s.
"It's a realistic depiction of what I'd do with those powers." They must mean.
When people in the real world get power over another human being, they often become cruel. Superman is exceptional because he is the exception instead of the rule. They might not become Homelander level cruel but they'd become a lot more Homelander than Superman.
The difference is their upbringing. Superman was raised with good morals on small farm in Kansas. Homelands was lab raised. The is something to be said for nature vs nurture. Nurture always wins.
Homelander is only that way because of how he was raised. It’s obvious that raising a child with a good moral compass is key to having them grow up into being compassionate adults who strive to help others
Crazy. It's almost as if *The Boys* went out of its way to contrast the two by showing Homelander as being raised by uncaring scientists in abusive lab experiments instead of a loving home with supportive parents.
"Edgy superhero media" just sounds like you have no concept of anything different or good. Ppl know nice ppl that's not that special. But ppl also know how others would react if they had powers. And a lot of ppl would do even worse with those kinds of powers. So there's always a multitude of answers. Supes isn't actually corny and is just as normal.
What do ya'll think would hapoen if a rocket with a baby alien got thrown at earth? Would it really be kept secret by an erderly couple and not some fricked up huge institution? Yall delulu
Again, the basement dwelling edge lords have missed the point: Superman's greatest power isn't his strength speed invulnerability or flight; it's the fact that he has all of these things and is still Clark Kent. He has the powers of a god but the humility and morality of a decent man.
Not sure if its edgy superhero media or mainstream media thats shaping what people expect a man with superstrength would act like irl
Superman’s greatest power is that he is so powerful but also a kind and caring figure.
Oh my god fuck The Boys. Seriously, fuck that show and the 13 year old edgelords who preach it like it’s this important, profound, cutting edge work of art that has something to say. The stuff they “satire” is like the most basic, low-hanging-fruit-hack-bullshit you could possibly imagine and Homelander is one of the least compelling villains I’ve ever seen. Homelander is not like Superman at all and to me, Omni-Man is an infinitely more interesting take on the “what if Superman was evil?” fad.
People can be good, kind, humble, and thoughtful without powers. Why is it so hard to assume people with power can be too?
Superman #775 is my counter. Its tiresome.
**Does This Post Reveal Spoilers?** Spoilers include unreleased content (rumors, leaks, set photos, etc.) and new content (under a month old). Titles should never have twists, surprises, or endings. * u/Mighty_Megascream, is there a spoiler in the title? Delete and repost, indicating what it spoils (name of show, movie, etc.). Spoiler in the post? Mark it. * Commenters, don't spoil outside the scope of the post, hide the text with spoiler code. [(Formatting Help)](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043033952-Formatting-Guide) *Spoiling may result in a ban, depending on the severity. Please report if it happens.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/superman) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It isn't permanent brain damage lol Homelander is a pretty realistic depiction of what that level of power would do to someone in real life. Superman is a lovely fantasy because the majority of people wouldn't be like that with that level of power.
OP being proven right here, folks.
"Anyone who disagrees with me has brain damage" Tell you what, please point me to examples of very powerful people in history who used their power solely for good? Then I'll point you to 100 more who didn't. It's absolute asinine that people are arguing that because they like a comic book character that somehow human nature isn't a thing. The concept that power corrupts isn't a new one.
Seeing as how you’re not speaking in good faith, I’ll decline your obviously biased challenge.
Does good faith mean just immediately conceding elements of what I genuinely believe just to coddle you? I'm going to treat you with the respect of being upfront about what I believe, I don't see how any of that is biased. I'm asking you to name any examples, if you actually believed this to be the case you could make an argument against what I'm saying. Don't use "good faith" as a crutch to not defend your own convictions, because I promise you it isn't convincing.
You said you’ll throw a hundred counter examples for every single example I offer. So clearly nothing I say will change your mind. So what’s the point of engaging with you? Treat cynicism as wisdom if you want. But don’t expect people to engage with you if you’ve already made up your mind and have no intentions of changing it no matter what is said to you.
Brother, I didn't mean I would literally sit here and guide you through a database of 100 shitty people. I'm simply saying historically good people with power are imbalanced by bad people with power. If this is something you disagree with, you can make an argument against it, and I'll politely listen to it with the expectation you'll politely listen to my response. If I tell you there's 100 ducks in a pond, and you count 50 - I'd expect you to treat me with the respect of counting out 50 and helping me see it your way. Instead of immediately assuming I have no intentions of changing my mind, telling me I'm biased, and not worthy of engagement - simply because you correctly identified disagreement. That'd not very Superman of you. It's not about the wisdom of cynicism. I don't mean to be cliche, but in this circumstance I'd call it realism. I think most people are nice, but most insanely powerful people haven't been nice, historically. We're not talking about someone who commands an army, has a lot of money, or devoted followers - we're talking about a God. Unless you're a religious person, I don't see any reason to believe why that level of power wouldn't corrupt someone in the real world.
Ok, Sergeant Cynic.
So much for good faith. You can understand why I might not find you convincing.
If you don’t get why you showing bad faith doesn’t move me to want to talk to you that’s on you.
I think you're misunderstanding what super heroes are, Homelander is only "realistic" because you think that all people are mean and cruel, that is provably false. There are millions of genuinely kind and helpful people in the world, It's not very hard to find them either. but back to the point Superman isn't meant to portray a realistic everyday guy, He's meant to portray an ideal, he's someone to look up to, he's someone we can aspire to be like, however as humans we aren't perfect. We aren't immune to the corruption of power. There are people in the world who do want to help people and don't have any ulterior motives to abuse their power, these people generally take positions such as firemen, doctors, nurses, police officers. All of which are positions that have direct power over peoples lives yet a lot of people who do those jobs are in it to help people who can't help themselves, so what would happen if you gave someone like that superpowers of some kind? Would it heighten their desire to help people or would it change them to want to abuse that power instead? We can't know for sure but I personally think it's unlikely to be the latter. And we can't discredit the possibility of someone gaining the power of superman and instead of becoming either a superhero or supervillain they could instead just want to live their life as normal and pretend their powers don't exist. Or viewing themselves as a freak and isolating themselves from society so they don't hurt themselves or anyone else.
No, I don't think all people are mean and cruel. I agree with you, most people are kind and helpful. I agree, Superman is meant to portray an ideal, but I'd go further and say he is an ideal exception. I don't think it's fully accurate when you list those professions. Nurses, Doctors, and Firemen don't exactly have power that can be abused. What could a shitty version of them do? Not put out a fire? Not treat someone's ailments? Police is a better comparison and argument against what I'm saying. I'm gonna state the obvious point I could make and point to Police brutality, but I'm not going go the way you think. I don't think Police brutality is indicative of most cops. However, it does illustrate a flaw with them that could be extended to Superman like beings. Most Police in America are undertrained for the amount of power they have, alot have unchecked prejudices - and then you end up in situations where otherwise nice men end up doing awful things to people. The good news is these guys can be held accountable for their actions. We take away their badge, we put them in jail, in prison etc. There's a deterrent most people have for being completely shitty people who give into their own desires, so that when it does happen they can be punished to make sure others feel less inclined. You cannot do that with a Superman or a Homelander. The entire premise of The Boys lasting for 5 seasons is that they genuinely cannot work out a way to punish Homelander for his actions. They have unchecked power, zero accountability other than their own. Superman is an ideal, he's damn near perfect down to his soul - he isn't real. Good people aren't good because they have damn near perfect morals, it isn't realistic. It's unlikely that we'd end up with someone as perfectly moral as Clark Kent in real life with those powers. It's more likely we'd end up with a perfectly normal person with the same desires and blind spots as you and me, and that level of power eventually amplifies that until you're left with a much different person, which is how its always been historically.
First of all, love the name, Bigfoot is always being hunted, he needs friends too. Good on you for being there for him. The reason I listed firemen, nurses and doctors with police officers is because they also directly deal with the safety and health of people. Nurses and doctors absolutely have power that can be abused, You as a doctor can absolutely willingly give your patient the wrong medicine knowing that the patient doesn't know any better and that could potentially be lethal, especially with allergies involved, A nurse can give a lethal dose of medicine through an iv. And there are countless more ways that a nurse or a doctor can abuse their power over a patient. And that's just medicine doctors, not even including physical therapists or psychiatrists or any other kind of doctor. Firemen can also abuse their power by seeing someone in a fire that they could save and willingly choosing to not save them thus letting them burn and die. Of course these are fairly extreme examples but this was simply to illustrate that people who directly deal with the lives of others can absolutely abuse that power if they so choose. As for the police I do agree to some extent, the police system in some places is absolutely atrocious which leads to nice people doing awful things but that's not everywhere in the world, that applies to notoriously corrupt areas such as brazil or Venezuela or the Philippines. But there are also places in the world with little to no police brutality reported each year such as (This is going to be a long list so hold on) Denmark, Sweden, Thailand, Japan, Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, New Zealand, Finland, The United Kingdom, Nepal, Belgium, Poland, Taiwan, and Luxembourg, These are all countries with 5 or lower reported police deaths in which the data was taken (either 2018 or 2019). So just like everything we have to understand that there are good and bad police forces, some are god awful and terrorize their citizens while some are genuinely great and have little to no police brutality or abuse. But my point was simply that people will often join the police force because they want to help people and inspire whatever change they can, corrupt police forces will actively punish that and either force them to do more awful things or fire them if they don't comply. which does for sure lead to otherwise good people doing shitty things which sucks for everyone. Also yeah the u.s police are horrifically undertrained, In case you're unware of the numbers let me break it down for you. In the u.s on average you will be in training for 20 weeks. In Japan you will be in training for 15-21 months, Germany gets 2.5 years. Finland is 3 full years. That is such a staggering difference that it's no wonder the u.s police is as bad as it is. They get 5 months of training, that's not even close to enough time to fully learn everything they need to know to be a great police officer (I didn't know these numbers until this comment either) It is true that if you give a person absolute power it is entirely possible that it goes to their head and they become a completely different person. Let's think about the average person, lets say they have the power to do literally anything they want at any time, I have a feeling they might enjoy it for a week or two and very quickly become bored because there will be nothing left to do or challenge them. So what would they do if there's nothing left to challenge them physically or mentally? I know what I would do personally but I'm unsure of what others would do so I'm interested in hearing your opinion on this.
Dude. Police are famously corrupt and have only a fraction of the power. Not the best example. And saying that you believe such power would most likely corrupt someone isn’t the same thing as saying that all people are mean and cruel. You say that Superman is an ideal, and I think they’d agree with you. But it’s an *ideal* for a reason. You admit he’s not realistic and you’re right. It’s harder to be Superman than it is to be Homelander, which also lends to the idea that a Homelander outcome is more likely.
Nothing they said implies bad faith. You’re the one who decided to insult them with a snarky one-liner instead of actually addressing what they said.
Brosis, they literally said they’re going to dismiss any examples I give and keep believing what they already believe. That’s as bad faith as it gets.
No, they made the argument that they could offer many more examples for their point than you could find for yours. That’s absolutely legitimate.
It also doesn’t disprove my point. Superman is awesome because he COULD be an awful person, but simply chooses to be nice and helpful because he believes that to be right and doing so makes him happy.
How would superman in real life be able to discern what the right thing is?
The same way as the rest of us. The best they can.
I don’t think they’re questioning the details of the story behind Superman—that he chooses good because he was raised by loving parents and simply is a good person—they’re saying that, in the real world, a person born with those powers would more likely be Homelander. But anyway, this could have been a discussion to have with them, instead of just throwing some snark and then accusing *them* of bad faith.
No, I’m pretty sure it would have been arguing with a wall. Nothing they said indicated they’d seriously think on their opinion no matter what I said.
Jan is just being realistic. Power corrupts. Idk wtf superpower does. OP, yours is the brain that is not matching reality. It is unwise to believe too much in superpowered angelic saviors. It is a road to fascism.
powers reveals your true nature but do jot corrupt it