PDA

View Full Version : ONE-SHOTS #4: SUPERPOWERS AND THE SUPER-POWERS


raul grau
Jun 11, 2005, 04:50 pm
<img src="http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/columns/oneshots1.jpg" hspace=10 align=left border=0 alt="One-Shots logo">By Patrick A. Miller (Ricky), antedivilius@yahoo.co.uk

Superpowers and the Super-Powers

There is one scene from Kurt Busiek's Avengers/JLA that stuck in my mind: Superman and Captain America compared their personal views, and while Cap claimed that he always felt that he didn't do enough, Superman stated that he was afraid of doing too much.

It's sensible, if you think about it. Superman (at least the way he is written today) is so uber-powerful that there's practically no limit to the things he could achieve. Think about World War II. Superman could have singlehandedly defeated the combined German and Japanese troops in less then 2 days. He could have as well, because he was around at that time, no matter what modern continuity tries to tell you.

There's a very practical reason why he didn't, and neither did any other superhero. Have real history and comic-book history diverge too far, and you'll lose future readers, who get confused by all the fictional history. Try to imagine for a moment that the Avengers had stepped in 10 years ago and ended the first Iraq War. They might even have arrested Saddam Hussein, and brought him before an international court. Now jump ahead 10 years to the present, and explain to new readers why there can't be a second Iraq War in the Marvel Universe.

Well, there are a number of ways to avoid the problem once it starts. You could just keep silent on the issue, avoiding the topic in further stories, but what's the point of writing the story in the first place, if it later gets retconned out? (Or you just bring Saddam back, no matter what happened to him and his country. They're doing the same thing with super-villains all the time, after all! When was the last time Norman Osborn stayed dead?)

However, as big an issue as accessibility might be, it has never stopped a comic book writer. (I remember the time I explained to my girlfriend who Rachel Summers actually is. I can still see that look on her face, the one you normally reserve for the mentally unstable.) I find it a far more likely explanation that superhero comics are an escapist's medium. Readers seem far more interested in Spider-Man beating the crap out of Electro or the Green Goblin for the seven-zillionth time than in asking the big questions, like "How come those supervillains can't be kept under arrest". There seems to be even less interest in questions like "What would happen if Superman got tangled up in world politics?".

Well, there is some. There have been several daring writers who tackled this and similar issues, and most of them received pretty good feedback from their fans.

The most iconic of these stories is probably Kingdom Come. Alex Ross' astonishing art made the book an instant classic, but it was Mark Waid's writing that cannot be praised enough. He showed us a world ruled by superhumans (you can't really apply the term 'superhero' in the context of this book) - a world ruled by superhumans devoid of any respect for normal humans. They had learned many years early that nothing could stop them, except other superhumans, so they just didn't care about normals anymore. Superman's return brings back a certain degree of hope, but it soon becomes obvious that he can't solve the problem either, because he's become just as blind to the needs of common people as the vigilantes he tries to stop.

In the end, the built-up tensions break loose and the two warring factions of superhumans tear each other apart in a battle that may well consume the very Earth that Superman and his allies set out to save. The ultimate lesson to be learned from Kingdom Come is, cliche as it might be, "with great power comes great responsibility". Not only the responsibility to use your power, but also the wisdom to stand down and not impose your will on the world. Superman and the other heroes from Kingdom Come forgot that - they lost all sense of moderation and let loose with all the power they had, never questioning their legitimacy. They very nearly destroyed all they hoped to preserve.

And therefore Superman said to Captain America, "I'm sometimes afraid I'm doing too much". He has the power to shape the world in his image, and if he did so, he might well cause more harm than good.

There's a thing called democracy. You might have heard of it. It's mostly about everyone having a vote, and how bad it is when someone makes decisions against the will of the majority of people. That's exactly what went wrong in Kingdom Come.

The obvious solution seems to be obedience. People elect governments. So, logically, a superhuman that follows his government's orders ought to be able to avoid this kind of trouble. Sadly, comic-book governments seem to be utterly corrupt, hell-bent on exploiting their superhuman retainers against the benefit of the people.

There's a strong tradition of dysfunction there, reaching back to the days of The Dark Knight Returns, and its sequel The Dark Knight Strikes Again. The all-mighty regime had outlawed superheroes, but kept a bunch of the most powerful in action as their obedient lap-dogs. Lost between a strong sense of patriotism and fear of retaliation against the people they love, Superman, Captain Marvel and Wonder Woman kept following governmental orders, no matter how callous and immoral they were.

Supreme Power is a current repetition of the same story: The government lays its hands on all the superhuman resources they can get, tries to enforce its will on them, and then eventually enforce its will through them over the rest of the world. Mark Milton (so basically, Superman again...) eventually grows tired of being used and manipulated, so he just leaves. There's nothing the government can do about it. Only after they lose control over him do they realize the power that he actually holds. No one can oppose him, since he could destroy the American Nation single-handedly if he choose to.

The Ultimates 2 revolves around a similar topic. The Ultimates are the US government's superhuman strike force, stepping in wherever American interests are at stake. The irony is in the slow build-up. The team starts out as a group of pretty heroic individuals in Volume 1, but then gets slowly corrupted into this ambiguous governmental agency. From the very beginning of Volume 2, we're told that there's a traitor among them, but when the writer eventually has the traitor speak, we finally understand that it's not him that has turned bad, but the organization that he's working for. He might very well be the true hero of the story.

Yet another great example of governmental miss-use of superhuman resources can be found in Mark Millar's run on The Authority. The US government takes over the team at one point, getting complete control over them and using them to crack down on dissidents and other 'unpopular' people.

I'd also like to briefly mention former Soviet heroes, who've posed a serious threat to Western lives while following direct commands from their governments. Some people will disagree, but there's no real difference between one of "our boys" ordered to take down enemy targets and the enemy's soldiers ordered to take down "our boys".

So, in conclusion, governmental control over superheroes seems to be a pretty bad idea. Not that it ever worked, though. When Mark Milton decided that he had had enough, there was nothing the government could do to hold him back. When Ultimate Thor announced the hidden agendas of SHIELD to the world, the only thing that could stop him were his former team mates. When the government decided to take down the Authority, the only way they could attempt it was with another superpowered wacko.

So, once again we learn that nothing can stop superhumans except other superhumans, which might very well lead to the only possible solution to keep superhumans in check: Super-HEROES.

Who stops Magneto every time he threatens mutual annihilation? - The X-Men.
Who stops Kang every time he tries to conquer the world? - The Avengers.
Who stops Galactus every time he wants to eat Earth? - The Fantastic Four.
Who could stop Mark Milton if he decided to declare War on the US? - Only another superhuman of sufficient power.

Basically, the only thing that could keep superhumans with an agenda in line would be a big enough crowd of superhumans set out to hold up the status quo. So let's be glad that so many of our favourite spandex-clad idols support the status quo unquestioningly, and so few of them act like the Authority, toppling dictators and freeing prisoners from concentration camps...

<center><hr width=75%></center>

Patrick A. Miller does believe that there is still a lot of potential to be explored in the impact superheroes could have on the world they exist in. He's currently writing a story called Blue Soul in which he shows superheroes taking a personal interest in global politics.

<center><hr width=75%></center>

One-Shots is an ongoing, revolving column, ready and willing for your contributions. Please read over our <a href="http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/forums/showthread.php?t=32883" target="_blank">guidelines</a> first, and then send your submissions to Raul Grau at columns@comixfan.cjb.net.

The opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the writer, and are not reflective of Comixfan or its other staff in general.

Blessed
Jun 11, 2005, 05:37 pm
#1 post :)
Interesting read. I like your point. Nice writting, liked it a lot.
Cheers!

eladank
Jun 11, 2005, 07:32 pm
There's a thing called democracy. You might have heard of it. It's mostly about everyone having a vote, and how bad it is when someone makes decisions against the will of the majority of people. That's exactly what went wrong in Kingdom Come.

is it? I admit to never reading it but was that the reason given in the story about why things gone bad?
saying that the lack of Democracy is why things are bad is nice and easy but it's not always the right answer. some societies have prospered under monarchies and some have suffered greatly under democracies, both systems have their positives and negatives.


The obvious solution seems to be obedience. People elect governments. So, logically, a superhuman that follows his government's orders ought to be able to avoid this kind of trouble. Sadly, comic-book governments seem to be utterly corrupt, hell-bent on exploiting their superhuman retainers against the benefit of the people.

There's a strong tradition of dysfunction there, reaching back to the days of The Dark Knight Returns, and its sequel The Dark Knight Strikes Again. The all-mighty regime had outlawed superheroes, but kept a bunch of the most powerful in action as their obedient lap-dogs. Lost between a strong sense of patriotism and fear of retaliation against the people they love, Superman, Captain Marvel and Wonder Woman kept following governmental orders, no matter how callous and immoral they were.


a superhuman who obeys a government's order despite it being against his morals is just as bad as a normal human obeying an order against his morals - blind obedience might be the obvious solution but it's never the right one. obedience while following your morals on the other hands is a much more resonable choice.


Supreme Power is a current repetition of the same story: The government lays its hands on all the superhuman resources they can get, tries to enforce its will on them, and then eventually enforce its will through them over the rest of the world. Mark Milton (so basically, Superman again...) eventually grows tired of being used and manipulated, so he just leaves. There's nothing the government can do about it. Only after they lose control over him do they realize the power that he actually holds. No one can oppose him, since he could destroy the American Nation single-handedly if he choose to.


you are probably right, the government can't do anything about Mark going rogue, but perhaps you are wrong, we don't know since we are in the middle of that story.



So, in conclusion, governmental control over superheroes seems to be a pretty bad idea. Not that it ever worked, though. When Mark Milton decided that he had had enough, there was nothing the government could do to hold him back.

the reasons you gave for why governmental control is bad can be summed up in one sentence: governments abuse their destructive resources. and if you start from that assumption then the same arguments can be said about why its a bad idea to have the military and the police force under governmental control.

So let's be glad that so many of our favourite spandex-clad idols support the status quo unquestioningly, and so few of them act like the Authority, toppling dictators and freeing prisoners from concentration camps...
support the status quo unquestiongly? why do you think most superhero's support the status quo let alone unquestioningly? if they did they wouldn't wear spandex and try to change things:
the fantastic four wouldn't try to explore and find new things,
the X-men wouldn't try stop racism toward mutants.

even if they did support the status quo why do you think such support is a good thing? if the fantastic four found a cure for cancer or the X-Men have a chance to bring peace to warring nations should they leave it alone since it disrupts the status quo?

your reasoning for why the best (for humans) action superhumans should take is no-action lies in the assumption that the base for the action is corrupted or that superhumans can't create anything good. which while it is an assumption that is usually right in most comics, it's right because it makes for a better story, after all who wants to read a story where Superman takes over the world and everybody is happy.

Dylan McKay
Jun 11, 2005, 07:54 pm
Sadly, comic-book governments seem to be utterly corrupt, hell-bent on exploiting their superhuman retainers against the benefit of the people.


But isn't that just like all real governments do? Exploit any resource or advantage they have?

Anywho... I'm surprised you didn't mention Watchmen.

One of my personal favourites was Steven Grant's run on Wetworks. Where the team joined IO, but were totally aware that IO will try to use them, and Stormwatch became a major antagonist. Just good stuff. Bad art though...

There is a surprising lot of stories around the subject matter, alot of it just flew under the radar. In favour of bland vanilla superheroes stopping badly dressed bank robbers.

Ken Boehm
Jun 11, 2005, 08:56 pm
I still think it would be hella cool to have superheroes fighting for the military and taking a proactive stance. God knows we've seen so many evil government stories that it would be nice for a change to see the opposite. That's why I liked the Invaders and why I like the idea of each country in the Ultimate universe having their own "Captain ______" even if I don't read the Ultimates.

Also, what about John Jackson Miller's run on Iron Man? That brought Tony Stark directly into politics.

Ovid
Jun 12, 2005, 07:42 am
There's a very practical reason why he didn't, and neither did any other superhero. Have real history and comic-book history diverge too far, and you'll lose future readers, who get confused by all the fictional history. Try to imagine for a moment that the Avengers had stepped in 10 years ago and ended the first Iraq War. They might even have arrested Saddam Hussein, and brought him before an international court. Now jump ahead 10 years to the present, and explain to new readers why there can't be a second Iraq War in the Marvel Universe.
This is pretty much what happened in Watchmen with the Vietnam War. If I remember rightly, and I don't have it to hand, the existence of Dr Manhattan provokes a nuclear strike from the USSR. One good reason for not having superhumans in politics is that the raise the stakes much higher than normals will ever survive, a point well brought out in Kingdom Come.

There's a thing called democracy. You might have heard of it. It's mostly about everyone having a vote, and how bad it is when someone makes decisions against the will of the majority of people. That's exactly what went wrong in Kingdom Come.
Although the older generation retired because popular opinion thought they were too soft. The moral, as I saw it, was that once you get rid of checks and balances like due process and hand over power to a superficially more effective character like Magog, you can never go back. It was a good argument for why 'the people' should have the democratic power to decide everything except the repeal of democratic safeguards themselves.

Interesting column. :clap:

BlackSamurai
Jun 12, 2005, 09:31 am
One could just comment on the idea of trying to incorporate the stories in terms of current events. Some people want to involve superheroes in what is going on in society, but staying away from it seems better in the long run because of the confusion imminent when 30 years later the character that got involved in an important act is still the same age he/she was way back when, and world events carried on contrary to their former story. The truth is... unless the comics world dealt in real time, stories about real events will always have potential problems. Just as the question could have been why Superman couldn't have, or didn't, stop WWII way back when, it becomes easier to have a plot device incorporated in most stories that are historically (real) accessible to prevent interference beyond an acceptible doubt by (fictional) heroes, or villians for that matter. As in, Captain America or Superman want to step into the middle of some war, or their government wants to send them in, but their hands are tied because the presence of the opposing country's superhero/villian/being means the solution will not be as simple as they hoped by wanting to get involved in the first place. I guess that is another reason why the superhuman, mutant and metahuman communities have been so expanded and spread accross the world. When it was only people like Superman around in the times of WWII, there was little that could logically stop him from ending said war in 2 days as mentioned. We can sit here and just admit that back then the attempt was not to trivialize the abilities, accomplishments or damage of any side of a major world event just to have the true-to-life-and-current-affairs story be contradicted by the events that occur in real life the very next day. They can't land Wolverine or the Punisher in the middle of a war and have them reach the enemy leader, because they would probably gut them and end that story. Their involvement because of reactions based in the real world wouldn't stand up to the real world results of them gutting some dictator, like said dictator getting off with a slap on the wrist or some new sanction in the real world. To do such things other factors would have to start being factored in:
1) Just like dead heroes and villians' resurrections, world figures who factor into a story contrary to a character's interference would have to be subject to resurrection story potential too if their death was wrongly assumed in the fictional piece.
2) If Superman swoops into Iraq, some powerful being like Bizarro or Darkseid must appear to delay him long enough for the course of the Iraq war to proceed as similarly to the real world events.
3) The moral ambiguity of some nations involved would have to weigh on the characters (with realistic fallouts if they interceded where their supported country/viewpoint gets outed as the wrong one)
4)The potential for bloodshed/catastrophy must be predicted to escalate if they get involved because of some other factor being likely to apply (like the X-Men trying to bring peace somewhere where they think they must get involved or it would be the right thing to do for them, but happen to be stepping into a situation fuelled by or beneficial to the Brotherhood and then watching thousands get slain to restart the event to their liking)

Yes writers want to tackle World events, but the truth is they know how questionable some uberpowerful being's involvement is going to be, so they always find themselves needing to insert a situation that returns everything to the status quo of the real world after a period in time, e.g. The Ultimates are meddling in World Affairs, but in a way contrary to what their public mission statements were; therefore, divisions in the ranks that will ensure their meddling will be limited or reversed (also so it can happen again later when someone wants to be political again), hence why the Authority was taken down (someone else wants power too bad to leave them in power), why Tony Stark's inventions will never solve the power crisis or pollution (someone will get ahold of his tech and build weapons) why Reed Richards can't install mechanisms to solve world hunger (having his inventions always fail would ridicule his potential as any sort of genius, so it is better to have an opponent like Dr Doom who will have a personal vendetta against him) why Professor X can't force peace, acceptance and co-opperation on the public (because Shadow King could be written to take a cue to force anarchy and hate just to spite Xavier's cause) why Superman can't disarm the world (too many others can not only rearm it, they can insite vocal opposition of an alien enforcing weapons control when other aliens have arrived and could arrive any day to attack Earth when they would be defenseless and dependant on the same Superman and by extention other world heroes and that can lead to dependancy for everything else, and stress or heat on his associated heroes for allowing him to when dangerous side effects occur or would be expected to occur)

It can get too convoluted, and it can become too formulatic to do too often, but the reason heroes in politics are never written to succeed (for too long) is that their involvement was to be realistc in the first place; however, the logical course for them (the characters) can't or won't reflect the course of (our) reality indefinately, so writters are forced/obligated to undo the good that could result from superhuman interference in real world events.

Ricky
Jun 12, 2005, 10:38 am
Nice feedback, everyone!

@ Raul:
Thanks for the editorial work!

@ Eladark:
I didn’t write this article, because I thought it to be true, but because I hoped it would inspire further thought. That’s why I built in the contradiction in the last sentence about the authority, putting the validity of everything that came before under doubt.
But, hey, I really appreciate the effort you took with my humble column. :)

@ Dylan:
Not mention Watchmen?
Oh, but I did! Didn’t you notice the title?! ;)

Ovid
Jun 12, 2005, 11:03 am
I still think it would be hella cool to have superheroes fighting for the military and taking a proactive stance. God knows we've seen so many evil government stories that it would be nice for a change to see the opposite.
Hear, hear. It's the left-wing version of the right-wing myth you see in Hollywood actioners, where all the military types are honest and know how the world 'really' works but are opposed by stupid, corrupt and weasally civilian politicians. Both cliches are just dumb, IMHO. That was another interesting aspect of Kingdom Come: if I remember rightly, one of the most sympathetic characters was the president(?) of the UN! :omg:

Bags
Jun 12, 2005, 03:50 pm
Now, how can you write an essay like that and not include Gruenwald's Squadron Supreme?

Hell, Kingdom Come was heavily influenced by SS. And you even went on to mention JMS' Supreme Power.

*shaking head*

Unbelievable...

Jon Hancock
Jun 12, 2005, 08:08 pm
There was me thinking it was going to be a column on the Spear of Destiny. That's why Supes didn't end WWII

Made me remember WrestleMania 7 and how the WWF tried to use the Iraq War to their profit only for it to end about a month too early.

Alister Hooke
Jun 13, 2005, 09:26 am
Enjoyed this thought-provoking article. Would also like to add that Waid is presently doing another commendable job in this area with regard to Legion of Super Heroes. In that comic, there are a number of interesting themes being developed around the tensions between honouring government and law, the impulsive nature of youth and a tendency to act on what feels right rather than according to what is lawful, the need to belong, and the testing of group loyalty where there are difficulties in holding to a common ideal. Waid is still firing on all four cylinders right now.

Ricky
Jun 13, 2005, 03:14 pm
Now, how can you write an essay like that and not include Gruenwald's Squadron Supreme?

Who's gonna stop me? :p

Just to make a point, I never intended for this column to be the end of the topic, but rather for a starting point for a discussion. Like I told someone else before, quite a bit of it is circular logic, which I hope one or the other reader will take the effort to unwind... :)


Legion of Super-Heroes? I keep hearing too much good about it, seems like I'm in for the first trade... (damn, another 12 bucks gone...)

veitcall
Jun 20, 2005, 09:15 pm
(Before you read this: Sorry for what I consider English.)

Good post!
Enjoyed reading and found some very interesting points framed very precisely (although the disagreement in some comments makes sense).

At some point, however, I would have expected (and hoped for) a twist in some other direction:
Like Millar is able to surprise you by changing your perspective ("The Ultimates aren't just the good guys and every opponent therefore has to be bad") you could have surprised me by pointing out for example what the pure existence of superhumans means for a democracy or something like that... (I know I'm brazen surcharging.)

And my important question: Why should I be glad that "so many of our favourite spandex-clad idols support the status quo unquestioningly"? Do you think the status quo is what is right?
I'm not one of the persons saying "What a terrible world!" all the time but if I had the powers I surely would want to change some things. (At the same time trying not to decide against the majority of people - heard of some strange thing ("Democrazy" or so) there.)
The question was asked already but I'm still not sure whether there was irony in this sentence.