| Archive for Whatever Comics Forum for Whatevercomics.co.uk Discuss comics. Air your points of view. Fun for all the family! |
| CatFang |
The State of The SuperheroAs the Tony Stark: Hero or Villain? thread seems to be going round in circles, with no one changing sides, after its mammoth 50 page run I thought I would start a thread with a wider focus.The idea has been milling around in my brain since back on page 44 of the Hero or villain thread:
So to quote myself (is that bad form ?)over there, I said:
And then Xeall encouraged me, so here goes... Some ideas to kick off (just questions, no answers!) *Is it possible that laws / constitutions / systems of government designed to govern "normal" people can even be applied anymore? As an example think of the knots people are tying themselves into trying to apply existing copyright laws to the virtual world of the web. *Would some existing systems work better than others eg democracy, theocracy, communism etc at handling the issues superhumans bring? *Would a global (or even galactic) system be necessary rather than country by country? What about creatures from other dimensions / gods / aliens etc? *How would you enforce any laws you came up with? Something like the SHRA? Something that goes as far as the Cape Killers in Marshall Law? Whose jurisdiction would these things come under? *What counts as "super powers"? A human who can move at the speed of sound seems pretty much a yes, so long as he can do it "naturally", so what about a person who needs a suit? How is that really all that different to being in a plane? *Is there a difference in powers you are born with or mutate into to from those you learn (eg magic) or those you acquire (science powers) etc *How would humans react to superhumans being in the world and vice versa? How would they perceive each other? Would those with powers or mutations be honoured and respected or feared, godlike beings (as they tend to be in the American comics) or reviled and the lowest of society (as they are in Strontium Dog and Judge Dredd)? *Would people rush out to get powers if they were able to do so? What would that mean? *Where does this leave things like "human rights"? At what point do you become no longer "human" due to the way you think and perceive and interact with things? There was an interesting comment about "lesser mammals" in the Tony Stark thread. With the best intentions in the world you could see a superhero acting in a moment of stress or thoughtlessness the way an adult acts towards a child or a pet - eg just lifting it out of the way as there is not time to explain / reason etc. There was a really good example of this when Matt Parkman first realises he can compel people to do things in Heroes. Remember - this is not just about SHRA  - or even "registration" in general - but about the many ways a society could need to adapt to deal with superpowers.
Well - that will do for a kick off. I'm off to have some Pancakes for Pancake day. |
||||
| Robin The Boy Wonder |
Re: The State of The SuperheroOK, first of all, I think Tony Stark should seize control of the world, transform Earth into a Death Star and go round conquering the galaxy and other dimensions.... OK, wrong thread! 
... Some very interesting thoughts there, CatFang; some very interesting thoughts indeed. I'm only going to cover a few of your questions and, even then, try not to offer answers as such. I'm hoping that more questions will be raised as we go along...
This one has me pondering more than anything else right now, even though I feel I'm veering away slightly from the topic. In reading a Marvel or DC comic, we tend to idolise our heroes slightly. They all perform, or aspire to perform, good deeds; they save lives, defeat the villain and, despite their apparent flaws, all speak to a 'better man' as such. For example, I'm a Spider-Man fan; I identify with Peter Parker and understand the appeal that being Spider-Man would hold. However, this is all within the fantasy of a 22 page comic book. In real life, without the inside knowledge we, as readers, have, I feel we would view our 'heroes' (super humans) differently. We would see them perform heroic deeds; however, in defeating the villain, we would also bear witness to, and perhaps live through, the resultant collateral damage. Damaged buildings, vehicles, maybe even lives, would potentially be left destroyed in the victorious hero's wake. We then have the issue of the somewhat hysterical, and sensationalist-driven media. There are a number of people in the country who live their everyday lives by what's printed in the daily tabloids or expressed in the increasingly over-glamourised news bulletins. I used to believe the papers; now, understanding that they're only as factual as they feel they need to be, I never buy or read a daily tabloid. However, I do see how public perception is driven by the media. Look at how The Sun can manipulate a nation by naming the politician who they feel should lead our country as Prime Minister. They name a certain girl as a babe; lo and behold, she's suddenly everywhere. If the media labelled a hero as a dangerous vigilante, a majority of people would likely believe that, irregardless of whether or not they actually are. I feel then that it's more likely a majority would treat super humans as dangerous individuals, no matter how great their deeds. There would be a fear, a mistrust; after all, we would also be witnessing individuals who are, perhaps, greater than ourselves. Then there are the number of people who would likely worship said super hero. Imagine a Thor-like figure springing into action. There would be a number of people who see a dangerous individual with a massive hammer; we then have the people who would believe Thor to be the real deal and follow him religiously the world either. Hell, an emerging super hero may very well become the focus of his own religion. If Jedi can be a certified religion, why not a super hero...? In all, I think I'm rambling slightly while trying to focus on how we, as a public, would perceive the super hero. To answer the original question of the Super Hero State, I think we first need to establish 'our' perception of 'them'. I would ramble some more but for two reasons: 1. This has turned into yet another lengthy post ...and... 2. CSI is on in a minute! More later! 
|
||||
| The Rascal King |
Some of the questions you raise are intersting.
How super is super? What if you were born with innante abilities? What if you came into them through natural means? What if aliens abducted you for shits and giggles from the age of 5, implanting you with organs to cause you symbiotically function within cities. What if an insane leader of a global defence system enginered you to be part of a covert ultra-hush black ops team? What if you through various means found a way to endow yourself and a select group of others to gain powers, at the cost of others? Do you have the right to police the world? What about worlds? Or to withhold information from them? I am talking here, about some of Ellis' works, StormWatch, the Authority and Planetary. Jenny(s), Elija, Jaketa, Swift, and dozens of others were born with gifts. Some were/are part of the planets system to control/police itself. Does this give them the right to do so? What if it was your parents with the powers, is that responsiblity then passed to you? The Doctor(s) obtained his naturally, through simmilar means. Then theres Jack Hawksmoore. What about him? Abducted, experimented upon. What is his responsibility? Or Apollo and the Midnighter? Ambrose Chase and other Science City Zero survivors? When some nutter does things to you, but you escape, and he is killed (a number of times), and yet keeps returning to pester you, is it up to you to deal with him? Or let people less well equiped to do so? The Four. Sold out Earth to get powers. Who's job is it to deal with them? Leave conventional authorites, who are no where near as equiped to sort it out? Or take it upon yourselves. Taking it upon yourselves can have harmful effects. We saw that in Heroes. But to sit back and do nothing? That can't be right either, if you have the power to do something. But what if you have more power than that? What if you can... say, change the city with a touch? Imrove it? Should you? Or leave it up to everyone else? Or... maybe you can engineer a peace in the Middle East? Or cure cancer? Surely they're good things? Or can you change the world? Literally? Just reach down and change a part? Who's permission do you need then? Where does it, or should it end? This is beyond "should heroes tell people who they are, and get liscenced". When a character has the powers of literally, a god (or the power to kill one, take that you stupid giant space-pyramid thing). If someone is putting on tights, and beating up drug dealers, sure, maybe they should be answerable to the police, or higher up. But when you've got people who are the Spirit of the Centrury, or a Global Shaman, part of the planets natrual defences, ultimately, who's power is greater than their own? Should you just leave it to them to make choices? Or vote? Vote on what should be done perhaps. But ultimately, isn't it up to the individual to do what they feel is best, take the course of action that they belive is either in everyones best intrest, or their own. If you belive that killing a known criminal is for the best, perhaps you should do it. But if that criminal is the president? Do you go up against the entire country? Or sit back and let things get worse? |
||||
| Xeall |
Now there are some pretty intresting questions flying about which is always a good start.
On the topic of what difines a super, my favorite one for discussion is a marvel classic; The X-men. Alot of people forget when they say mutants that they are meant to be evolved man. We have literally evolved into supers, would we except that or would we become naturally defensive in the face of literal extinction? If A super was an evolved version of man how could you registar them? How could you class them as super, they are normal and we would be old, like magneto often put it 'like apes', do gorillas look at us as super beings? Another point to make clear is that super heroes would not be able to remain anonymous without government backing and even then probably not. Unfortunatly in real life people aren't dumb enough not to put 2 and 2 together. Peter Parker would have made it about a week. Media research, cctv camera's and so forth. Name a single place in canterbury you could change into you costume and not get spotted (not seen going in and coming out). So all heroes would have to be out in the open and i imagine thats a tad dangerous. So would people even bother. Would supers in our world become celebrities with they're own cereal brand and interviews in Nuts magazine or would they become scape goats? Would a super that failed to save someone be treated a bit like the american army? It not the soldiers fault they are out there but we hate them (not the best example, but you see where i'm going in terms of public attitude). Also you would be expected to save everyone, 'where were you when my baby was hit by a car'. I think this was best shown in Superman: Red Son, where the people become complacent knowing superman will save them. More questions before any of us move to answers!
|
||||
| CatFang |
Some good juicy questions stacking up.
I'm glad you brought up The Authority, Rascal, that is very interesting - especially the way it is written to make the reader be on their side (or at least was when I last read it - which about up to the point where Jenny Sparks dies). The events in Black Summer will be worth a closer look as well - which reminds me that I have an issue to read still. At the risk of this becoming a "discuss how Warren Ellis has covered this in his stories" I think that Global Frequency presents an interesting case. As I remember it is never quite clear how the Global Frequency fits into the system, but Miranda Zero seems to be able to pull rank on government agents, and they are certainly often shown to be afraid of her. How the public would react is a great question and it would no doubt depend on the culture. For example in Britain there is nothing the press likes more than to bring down and hound those it has previously set on a pedestal. I am inclined to think that here at least people would react to "supers" or "mutants" in exactly the same way as they do in Strontium Dog - especially in the Johnny Alpha origin sequence. Of course the potential for politicians to use such a group to their own advantage (as an enemy within, as a private army. as a voting base etc) would be irresistible. Something else noteworthy is that the traditional superhero (ie Marvel and DC type ones) are many of them products of a specific period in American culture and now not only has the world moved on, but many of the people writing them are from very different cultural backgrounds. For example (and I know this is a generalisation, but in general it works) if you look into the cultural layers of folk heroes American ones tend to succeed by strength and European ones by wits. Think Paul Bunyan as opposed to Jack the Giant Killer. What effect has this had in how the relationships between individual and state are portrayed? What do you do with Supersoldiers etc once the war is over? In Marshall Law they have become "surps" as in "surplus to requirements" and live in a ghetto. Do you have to maintain a state of on-going war from then on? Given that I have just been watching the DVD of Shirley Ghostman (well worth a look if you didn't catch it on TV) and been introduced to Psyched recently I also wonder if real powered people showed up would you have a problem with fakers - as you get with fake psychics etc now? If they were fulfilling a need would it matter? Once you get god-level supers what happens to the church and state relationships whatever your set up? Having a "living god" or two in your midst is going to mess things up a bit I would think. What that would mean for any existing religions is something to ponder as well. High level powers - by which I mean time travel, reality warping etc are so complex in their effects that you might not know anything had even changed. There is an excellent Alan Moore Future Shock about this where a man has a time machine and there is just a sequence of panels of him looking very different, with different backgrounds, but the same machine and just pressing the "go back in time" button again and again and saying "funny nothing seems to have changed". And then you get things at power levels where they have to consume planets - how is that going to get worked out. Could you stand to live in a world where you had been "out evolved"? What would the rules have to be for acquiring powers if you could? What when everyone has them? Obviously these stories were not all written to "work" in the real world and many of them are "for entertainment only" but they throw out good questions. The news is currently in a frenzy about "can America elect it's first black or female president" - what about one with powers? Heroes had made a start on covering this, of course, but the powers were "behind the throne" so to speak and not in the public knowledge. I just previewed this and realise I really need some sort of editor! Sorry - for the length - just lots of ideas. |
||||
| Xeall |
Something worth bringing up which was used in my anti SHRA rant on the Tony stark thread is 'Ultimates'. Ultimates 2 revolved around the idea that america had built a team of super powered individuals that were promised to be used for defence and ended up being used in a military position in iraq, which prokoved a response from other countries effectivly bringing america to its knees before a series of luck and an act of divine intervention happened.
If we are going to discuss political aspects of comics in real life then Mark Millars work has to be involved including the previously mentioned Red Son. CatFang asked what about a super president you have one answer right there. Would they take to the extremes of their political view because they have the power to enforce it, to the point where you are lobtomising people for they're own good. Black summer should be addressed but i think only when it has finished which should only be a couple of months. I think we can all agree now though that not everyone is going to like any solution we come up with. |
||||
| The Rascal King |
I realise I mention alot of Ellis' works here, and the reason for that is twofold.
Firstly, as its fairly well known here, I don't buy into the main 2 Universe's much (at the moment, Thunderbolts is all I get, notably another Ellis). And secondly, is that Ellis is a very, very good writer. So I'll be the view from alternate, non Big 2 Universes. Take Invincible. Most powerful being on the planet, arguably. He has taken it upon himself to protect everyone, from the big bads that can't be dealt with by anyone else. However, he lets the goverment employ him, for the reason that they are best equiped to point him at threats. Does this make him any better than a reusable missile? He could decide if he doesn't want to do something. But what if he's lied to, by the Powers That Be? If he does something under the impression that its for the best, but its not really. What then? If he loses it, who's going to be able to take him down? Ultimately, its up to the powered individuals to do as they feel best, but also to the conventional authroities to be straight with people, and not give anyone else a reason to revolt. Do we really think that if a Powered Being cropped up tomorrow, they wouldn't do something about the state of the world? If they had the power to REALLY change it, that they'd let their actions be dictated by those who they feel are harming more than helping? Or if they were from a Third World country? Would they announce themselves and let the Global Politics tell them what to do, before or after expunging corrupt goverments or warlords, who ever they have to deal with? |
||||
| Xeall |
What like john horrus in black summer. It all depends on your stand point and idea of good and evil, corrupt and right. |
||||
| CatFang |
Too ill to really post anything today (poor me!) but of course we must not forget what Watchmen has to say about all of this. | ||||
| Xeall |
Get well soon and how can we forget watchmen........i really need to read that again. Bats you got a trade in? | ||||
| Robin The Boy Wonder |
Ah, Watchmen.
But before we cover such hallowed ground, time for a Marvel example - The Sentry. Let's forget for a moment that The Sentry is an agoraphobic schizophrenic and simply allow him to be the perfect super. The Sentry is Marvel's 'Superman'; however, he allows a creation of his, Cloc, to choose what threats he should deal with, sorting each threat in order of priority. For example, The Sentry may well rescue the crew of an oil tanker that's overturned in the North Sea; in the meantime, a group of people standing in an underground train die after a pre-planted bomb explodes. The Sentry has eesentially created a device that allows him to play 'God'; choosing who to save and who to let die. No question here. No answer either. More food for thought though. |
||||
| Batmanuel |
Always mate, Always
|
||||
| CatFang |
Thinking about Alan Moore there is the interesting bit in Swamp thing where there is a standoff between Batman and Swamp Thing over a matter of law / justice / loyalty on both sides. It is mainly resolved so that Superman does not seem to fall on the wrong side of the law.
It brings up the tricky question of who laws apply to, does a sentient vegetable creature count as "human", and touches many issues that would arise the first time a "post human" human creature comes up against the law. I will have to dig the issues out to have a look at them again. Batman's relationship with the authorities (although I have mostly read Batman only in the big standalone stories - DK, Year One etc - and where he crosses over with other characters) is problematical to say the least. Was watching Batman Begins again last night and will be interesting to get into what happens when the authorities are known to be corrupt - rather than just of different political views. Soon we will get onto questions and answers - just so much to think about keeps popping up. And people say comics are frivolous entertainment! |
||||
| Xeall |
ok enough questions i'm gonna answer.
Maybe not a question but a bold biased statement dear sir (have at ye again )
You say he has created a device that decides who lives and dies. I say: 1. He chooses the lesser of to evils, he can't be everywhere at once 2. No one would have lived if he hadn't acted at all. I think the question is (yes i said no more but answers lead to) how much do you demand off a super hero. As i stated earlier do people start to hate them, like people lose their faith in god, when someone dies and you know they could have been saved. why should someone with abilities be responsible for doing things for you for free. Yes spider-man has a heart of gold, but he shouldn't have to. Just because a man is good a shooting doesn't mean he should shoot. But again i am argueing anti SHRA and this is a thread to discuss alternatives or how to run a super hero world. Back to your sentry point and mixing ti with SHRA, choosing who to save will be how it works in a military aspect aswell. Some have to die you just have to choose how many. |
||||
| CatFang |
I suppose it is time to make a start on some answers then, or I will just think up more questions forever.
I will try not to let the post get too long and rambly and keep to one idea at a time . There are so many interesting questions already brought up that where to start is even a tricky question in itself.
You’ve got that right, I’m sure. And given there is the whole of comics history to get examples from I’m sure that anything anyone comes up with can be contradicted somehow…but that is what will make it fun. We’ll just have to agree to play nice and not force anybody into retirement 
Also there are bound to be some spoilers because not everyone will have read everything everyone else has (I do need to get my hands on Red Son, I’ve been meaning to since it came it up in the What is A Hero thread back when I first joined!). We’ll just have to live with that as well.
Actually I’m going to start my answer from a different point (well 3 different points): 1. What do we define as a system of Law, 2. at what level does the law apply (eg locally, nationally, internationally etc) 3. how is it to be administered / enforced? I think questions one and three are most important. Really as every country has its own legal system we would hard pushed to come up with ideas that might be workable in every country, but international laws would be so general and subject to local interpretation that it would be a bit boring. I guess for my system I will be starting from thinking along the lines of a judicial system broadly as those seen in EU and the USA with a democratic multi-party system (yes, yes, I know, but let’s pretend we have one of those!). Other systems can come in for consideration as they come up as examples - the idea of gender / caste differences in certain systems, for example, makes my head hurt. I tend to think (ideally) of laws as a “social contract” between “the people” and “the state” - the state being a machinery that the people set up to ensure that they get the maximum benefits (eg protection, resources etc) from living in a society against what they are prepared to trade off against being able to carry out every single one of their individual desires. Up to this point there has been an assumption of “blind justice” or equality under law as all humans in terms of what they ARE -( ie the same biological and physical laws apply to them, even though there may be differences in status, roles etc) are broadly the same. For this reason we have been able to come up with things like "basic human rights" and define means tests etc. Of course there is the idea of “one law for the rich…” and certain exemptions such as “crimes of passion” or mental illness and this has allowed for the idea of a jury system with the “assumption of innocence” and the court’s ability to find a “jury of peers” to hear and decide on cases. A simple answer to the question then would be “well, laws already exist for the harmonious running of society, if a super wants to live in the society they can just live by those laws and everything will be fine”. I said something similar about the laws against vigilantism in the Tony Stark thread (there – just can’t keep away from it, can we?) These assumptions about equality under law, though, seem to break down right away if the people the laws apply to really aren’t equal creatures. For some very simple examples: • Speeding Laws – you cannot drive over certain speeds as specified by speed limits in certain places. What about running over the speed limit? We have seen what can happen there in the first issue of “The Boys”. • There is a case where a super is accused by eye witness testimony of being at a specific place, at a specific time, doing a specific thing. Let’s even say he is caught on camera. However another eyewitness says exactly the same thing and has another photograph to prove it. The defence says it was a shapeshifter imitating his client. The prosecution says no, the accused can be in multiple places at once. What would a jury make of that? Would there be a way to tell if the accused has the power or not? Even if he does have the power he might not have used it and there still might have been a shapeshifter. • Most crimes in our society are punished by fines or imprisonment. There are already many discussions about proportional fines so that premiership footballers don’t lose 10 minutes pay for the same crime that someone else loses two months wages. If I can make money at will a fine means nothing. In fact, once you get people who can do that sort of thing the whole world economy would probably collapse anyway. • A person becomes a vampire. This is a vampirism that can ONLY survive on human blood. The vampire does not have to kill, but the effect of the bite is slavery of the will. If the vampire does kill it can resurrect victims as vampires. Now – I know we probably shouldn’t shouldn’t just make up “what if” powers as that way anything can be argued – but I thought Vampires were probably ok without naming a specific one. Slavery is illegal – but that definition really applies to buying and selling people and that has not happened. Assault is illegal, but what if the victim consents? (actually I think that might still be illegal but only if “leaves lasting marks!”). Murder is illegal, but the victim is now a conscious being again (although technically dead) and may have wanted the transformation. • The example I mentioned earlier from Swamp thing is where Swampy’s girlfriend Abby is accused of “crimes against nature” for her relationship with him – basically having sex with a non-living human. However, it is a consensual relationship with a sentient being – there is no existing law to cover it. Abby is arrested and imprisioned. I won’t go into what happens here as the post is already long (but I will do so later so we can discuss the way things turn out and why). • Bugging conversations is illegal (well almost!) but what do you do about a person who can’t help but hear what is being said in a certain radius (and make sense of it)? It is not the acting on the information that is illegal (although it might be, depending on what you do) but the hearing the information in the first place. State security suddenly becomes a whole new issue. My first proposal then is whether the solution here a different set of punishments that should be applied that have the same effect (eg removal of resources, effectiveness in the world etc) if not the exact same form? But if so how on earth would that be decided? And by whom? That is before you even get on to actually carrying it out. Not only would this give you an at least two tier, unequal legal system, the whole thing about “how super is super?” and “what are actually powers?” comes up right away – “no Mr Smith with an IQ of 200 you are indeed very clever, but we can’t judge you as a supergenius”… Also what if you are super powered but commit a “normal” crime like shoplifting? If a “normal” person claimed that they were told to do it to prepare themselves as a gateway for an intergalactic invasion force they would most likely be sent to see a nice doctor. If a superhuman says that do they instantly become a matter of national / international security as a portal to a hell dimension? That had better be all – as usual it has got really long. It would be cool to think if supers did start popping up that old comics would be brought into courtrooms as a form of case law
|
||||
| Xeall |
Some very good points but what we have to do like any law process is create the law as basic and then amend it to include these loop holes.
We still haven't even decided what the best course of action for controlling a world of super heroes is. Do we registar, tag, imprison any and all supers? What do we honestly think we should do. Lets keep the power base simple for now and think of the heavy hitters later. Lets not decide how to tell galactus what to do! |
||||
| CatFang |
If supers are part of a society though the law is not just to protect "normals" from them, though. It must be a system to make the whole thing workable for all its citizens. I think that is the hardest bit - especially as it might get to a stage when "supers" are the majority - that would make a nice story.
It would be really tempting, wouldn't it? But if you still only have a normal human intelligence the inability to see the consequences might be crippling. I didn't read The Authority in it's earlier incarnation in Stormwatch days. How did it come about? Did they just seize the power they have and no-one could stop them? |
||||
| The Rascal King |
Stormwatch started out as the usual forgettable 90's shit. Honest, I tried to read some, and it just wasn't happening.
The Ellis got his hands on it. There were 3 teams. Black, which was covert, which was Jenny Sparks, Jack Hawksmoore and Swift. Another team had Fiji, Winter and Hellstrike, who are currently in Authority Prime with King. Another team... Jackson King was the trainer of new recruits. Bendix was starting to be insane. A group cropped up to change the world for the better, run by a guy... from another dimension, he was mentioned breifly in Planetary. He used to know Jenny. Also the previous Doctor (before Jerome) and previous Engineer (the one who bult the gardens, the reason Apollo and Midnighter were let out.) My memory is fuzzy, and I'm using an alien computer to me. Perhaps New Boy Reviewer could help me out with the back story, I know he's read them. But essentially, half of Stormwatch were wiped out by Aliens (yes, as in Cameron Scott, Ellen Ripley Aliens), after Bendix was elecrtocuted by Jenny. Anyway, during it, Black were away. Turns out Jenny had been assembleing a team (the Authroity) who didn't need funding to get stuff done, unlike Stormwatch. |
||||
| CatFang |
I was just reading this article about Human identity Crises and I remebered this thread.
It made me wonder if this sort of thing has been addressed in anyway in any of the rules that govern behaviour in the big online multiplayer RPGs or Second Life type virtual worlds. I don't play / use either - but I have seen research that suggests that natural "societies" with official "laws" and "unspoken rules" are arising. Does anyone have any experiences of this? |
||||
| Batmanuel |
CatFang:
You just cant get away can you, cant even pay a game without someone telling you what to do, that was MY kill that was. Well excuse me but you looked like you were in trouble, and i thought i was helping you. Well you wasn't. Your life bar was near a slither. no it wasn't. sigh...wanker. GM!!!! I WANT TO REPORT AN ABUSE these arseholes will always catch up with you, don't any of these people have Jobs, or are they all disabled blue badge holder benefit reliant society sucking vampire ghouls who have far to much time on there hands? |
||||