"The Psychology Of Super Heroes" or "The Depravity Of Super Villains"

[Seil]

g9Hu1gLo8m0

So I just watched a documentary. It was kind of interesting, and even though we've talked (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=30720) about (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=41303) this (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=38123) sort (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=23403&) of (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=27861) thing before, I thought it would be interesting to reboot (http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/The_New_52) the conversation.

Because what happened? Why are there so many psychologically damaged villains in the comic book universe, and the few that are on the right side of the law are ones who continue to triumph over and over?

Spiderman chose to do good. Batman chose to do good. Superman chose to do good. Iron Man chose to do good.

Where does nature versus nurture factor into this? In Spiderman's case, he was bullied all his life. Iron Man is a boozing womanizer. Hell, in Fantastic Four, the titular group just kind of decides "Hey, we've got crazy super powers. Time to fight crime!" (Movie version.)

[Krylo]

But super heroes don't really do good. They protect the status quo. They do neutral.

Superman could end pretty much every and any war instantly with minimal casualties, but he refuses to do so. Batman could put an instant end to political corruption with the tools at his disposal, but he chooses not to. Tony Stark or Reed Richards, probably even Peter Parker, could, with their minds, end the energy crisis, world hunger, and most space exploration issues--none of them do so.

All Super Heroes do is keep things going exactly as they have been.

[Seil]

Secondly, why are all heroes good looking, conventionally hot people? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD1kgQzqzyc)

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u59/Poetisch/url_zps02048456.jpg

[Aerozord]

I'm not so cynical as to think they dont do good, I just thing they try to avoid the obvious corruption that comes with being "proactive". When those with power are also the ones that decide who is right and who is wrong. Its less about status quo and more about clear viable threats.

As for their psychology, a real world analogy would be the old west. Psychologically a lawman and an outlaw were very similar and the line between them very thin. A simple matter of which side of the law do you want to be on. Batman could very easily have been the Punisher but a strict moral code is the only reason he didn't.

Now what motivates each individual hero varies. Batman's motivation is to keep anyone from dealing with what he had to go through. Now why does he do that dressed as a bat? Well he's insane obviously. He just channels that into doing good. Iron Man knows from personal experience what its like to be on the receiving end of an enemy weapons. Spiderman believe that those with power are obligated to do good with it.

Supervillain motivations are similarly varied
Secondly, why are all heroes good looking, conventionally hot people? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD1kgQzqzyc)

Cause they are drawings and unless the story calls for it, why not draw them as being attractive? Many villains are attractive as well. Part of it might also be due to artistic bias. When learning to draw a face its usually an idealized face. You'll notice artists often have trouble drawing "average" people. Normally either attractive or hideous with little middle ground.

[Seil]

Batman could put an instant end to political corruption with the tools at his disposal, but he chooses not to.

This was already covered. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd1sIwCLtIc)

[Magus]

But super heroes don't really do good. They protect the status quo. They do neutral.

Superman could end pretty much every and any war instantly with minimal casualties, but he refuses to do so. Batman could put an instant end to political corruption with the tools at his disposal, but he chooses not to. Tony Stark or Reed Richards, probably even Peter Parker, could, with their minds, end the energy crisis, world hunger, and most space exploration issues--none of them do so.

All Super Heroes do is keep things going exactly as they have been.

Batman is a bit of an exception, since he's usually involved with stopping police corruption as well. Except in the Batmanverse police corruption is so bad it's...well it's probably equal to the police corruption in LA now that I think about it. So that further my argument that he's supposed to be doing a little more than the status quo.

I think with Superman the theme is often that he'd do more harm than good if he got involved in the politics between warring nations or within nations. Superman Earth One dealt with this somewhat--when he attempts to intervene in a third-world nation's civil war, the dictator has several children's arms chopped off in retaliation. So Superman ends up just helping the rebels raid arms depots so they can take the dictator down, which helps keep him from being seen as publicly interfering.

In fact one of the last story arcs of the Old 52 (lol) was that he renounced his U.S. citizenship in order to be able to do more internationally (which didn't really make sense, since apparently he retained the citizenship of his alter ego, Clark Kent, which if it were ever revealed would then render a U.S. citizen as having been involved...but whatever, not much thought was put into it).

[Aerozord]

There was this one comic I saw that instead of fighting crime they just had superman turn a giant generator endlessly. The effectively limitless free eco-friendly power basically ended all of earths problems. Which I think shows the real reason we dont see super heroes doing that. It would make for a boring story.

Could Batman do alot more good if he focused on socio-economic reform? Probably, but then no one would buy his comics and he'd cease to exist.

[Kyanbu The Legend]

In some continuities. Tony does use his knowledge and tech to fix the world's problems. Things just usually go horribly wrong afterwards. Usually because his idea of fixing everything is putting a computer on or in it and connecting it to a world wide grid in some future/after years stories.

[Magus]

There was this one comic I saw that instead of fighting crime they just had superman turn a giant generator endlessly. The effectively limitless free eco-friendly power basically ended all of earths problems. Which I think shows the real reason we dont see super heroes doing that. It would make for a boring story.

Could Batman do alot more good if he focused on socio-economic reform? Probably, but then no one would buy his comics and he'd cease to exist.

Are you talking about the Dark Knight Strikes Again? In that, they put the Flash on a treadmill to provide free electricity for the United States. But it was against his will, and it was all to the benefit of Lex Luthor who had become a dictator.

Like the thing about "Batman could use the tools at his disposal to put an end to all political corruption" is possible, but it takes a mindset like Lex Luthor. Lex Luthor owned the voting machines, used them to become President, declared martial law, basically did end everyone's problems by creating endless energy, but he also had to get rid of civil liberties and all that as well. So it takes the mindset of a fascist to really solve the problems.

On the other hand, the scenario was made up by Frank Miller who is a neoconservative libertarian fascist himself so he probably thought Lex Luthor was a communist.

[Aerozord]

no it was just a little webcomic thing to poke fun at the idea. Specifically it illustrates that the practical solution to problems isn't very entertaining.

That does remind me of something though. End of the Powerpuff Girls, Mojo Jojo succeeds in conquering the world, and under his rule it becomes a utopia. Simply using his knowledge and the resources he now has to solve the worlds problems. In fact the heroes are shunned for stopping him before and delaying the creation of this perfect society. In the end though he gives it all up because accomplishing all your goals and having no problems is really dull.

This made me wonder, is an individual that not only legitimately wants to rule the planet to make it a better place but is right and it would be better with him in power really the "bad guy"? If so would that make the hero trying to maintain that status quo bad?

I would also cite that there are examples of this. Alexander the Great violently conquered many city-states. But then implemented libraries, irrigation systems, and other infrastructure that improved the standard of living for its population.

[phil_]

This is the comic Aero is referencing. (http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2305)

Also, Trigger is going to adapt a book called "Inou-Battle in the Usually Daze" (which is a hell of a title) into an anime. From what little I've read of the comic (namely, chapter one), it's about teenagers with powers that rival any Cape choosing not to do anything with them, because being able to end world hunger, war, and disease is a pretty heavy responsibility and it's just easier not to because what if you screw up? It should be fun.

I can talk about nothing but anime, and I'm sorry.

[Aerozord]

Thats what I liked about Spider-Man, he got super powers and his first thought was "how can I use this to make money and impress chicks"

[Seil]

Batman's answer to just straight up murdering the Joker. (Under The Red Hood movie spoilers)

7kscfb9XzPs

[Seil]

What if you save someone who doesn't want to be saved? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4J-Fuo0vLE)

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u59/Poetisch/watchmen-cover_zps637c667a.jpg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSoC_KHu4_A)

[Kyanbu The Legend]

And not just Joker but also his reason for not killing anyone intentionally.

[Locke cole]

Then I suppose the question becomes: Why ever put Joker back into Arkham? He's proven not only nigh-impossible to cure, but also dangerous to attempt to do so on (look at what happened to Dr. Harleen Quinzel). I'm pretty sure a city like Gotham would've brought up death row as a possibility by now, what with the uncounted people he's killed.

[Aerozord]

Then I suppose the question becomes: Why ever put Joker back into Arkham? He's proven not only nigh-impossible to cure, but also dangerous to attempt to do so on (look at what happened to Dr. Harleen Quinzel). I'm pretty sure a city like Gotham would've brought up death row as a possibility by now, what with the uncounted people he's killed.

This has always been a justice system issue not a batman one. The justification is "insanity plea excuses him from the death penalty". Yes in the real world that has some obvious limits and insane or not if you are a serial killer you get the axe.

There was a story once where Gotham did get fed up and sentenced him to death. It kicked off some big event, don't remember what it was though.

[Premmy]

But super heroes don't really do good. They protect the status quo. They do neutral.

Superman could end pretty much every and any war instantly with minimal casualties, but he refuses to do so. Batman could put an instant end to political corruption with the tools at his disposal, but he chooses not to. Tony Stark or Reed Richards, probably even Peter Parker, could, with their minds, end the energy crisis, world hunger, and most space exploration issues--none of them do so.

All Super Heroes do is keep things going exactly as they have been.

I feel like that's dramatically discounting the good of just straight up helping people. Saving them from burning buildings and disasters and whatnot. It's one of the big things that separates vigilantes from Superheroes. Reed Richards and Tony Stark might not technically be Capital S Superheroes in any case. Further, Every superhero doesn't have infinitely useful capabilities and resources, Many of them go against the status quo for good or ill, lots of them both fight crime and attempt to tackle major social issues. And finally, the "status quo" within their narrative is not always the same as the one in our world.

[Aerozord]

You know its kind of a selfish thing for us to demand more than what they do. These are people risking their lives to do things ranging from rescuing people from natural disasters to stopping universe destroying monsters. Lets say they do just refuse to use their gifts to constantly help people, doesn't this person who just stopped Galactus from murdering us deserve a life? A chance to not worry about everyone else?

Apply this to people that in the real world that save lives. Imagine yelling at a doctor for spending time with his family instead of performing surgery whenever he isn't eating or sleeping. You cant say they don't do good just because they aren't enslaving themselves to humanity.

Except for Spider-Man, cause thats kind of his schtick