I don't see why that would change things. The US has a massive military superiority over NK as it is.newfoundsky said:
That was a non-canon one off thing, IIRC, they weren't game to do that normally.Kopikatsu said:
Superman's Effect on Earth
- Thread starter Supercereal
- Start date
Recommended Videos
There is also a Church of Superman in the closing pages of The Dark Knight Strikes Again by Frank Miller, during the discussion one Church of Superman follower asks a priest "And your guy only walks on water?"JimB said:
I always preferred Superman: Red Son personally.
**reads**Redingold said:
**blinks**
slowclap.jpg
This is a really, really good point. Also, one could do something similar with the Flash and a treadmill.
I am suddenly picturing Cyclops (of the X-Men) gaining favor for mutants by sitting in an empty nuclear reactor staring at water all day. He boils the water (instead of the nuclear reaction) which powers the turbine. Thus Cyclops replaces the nuclear materials and does so without any waste (well, without nuclear waste - his normal waste is flushable).
I wonder how many other superheroes could be re-purposed as cheap electricity....
Well, assuming that his back story is the same (what with the landing in a cornfield in middle America, being raised as a citizen, etc) there is a very good chance that he would. The same way hippies dislike the US foreign policy but love America. And, if certain stereotypes are to be believed, the ganj.schtingah said:
I would actually say yes.BrotherRool said:
I think of it like that "donate 10 cents to feed starving kids". Thats never going to help. its just going to make them dependent on the hand outs of others.
So it's right to enslaved someone and treat them like an item if it serves the greater good?BrotherRool said:
I'm more thinking along the lines of what Superman would volunteer himself to do. If he really has an impeachably sense of morality, I'm not should if he would be able to let himself refuse. This is another reason Superman wouldn't survive the real world. Humans by the by survive by tricking themselves (us? =D) into believing that they're less capable to save people than they really are. It assuages our consciences when we buy computers instead of giving food to people dying of starvation. We couldn't really help them right? But Superman has his strict morality, the knowledge and the ability to help, whenever he did something jsut for himself, whenever he did something for entertainment, how would he deal with the guilt of knowing that people are dying right now and he could've prevented it if he wasn't going out on a date? How would he ever let himself be Clark Kent? It's the problem Bruce Wayne had in The Dark Knight Rises (which gets a lot better the more you think about it really. The actual film might not have been fantastic but every theme does become more and more important when you consider them afterwards)Risingblade said:
We all do it to survive, and I don't know if Superman would be capable of it
Um. I don't know if its really appropriate to think like this, but well, how dependent on the hand outs of others are they if they're dead? And you can't say that won't happen. Because it does happen. Every day an estimated 25 000 people die of hunger and their dependence on other people doesn't really become relevant.WanderingFool said:
Even then, most charities actually work to tide over the immediate deadly troubles but then seek to teach skills and provide the ability to support themselves.
I'm not judging you. I'm typing this on a laptop that cost £500, with a phone in my pocket that cost £80, in the last month I've given over £100 in kickstarter, there are currently games on my shelf with a current estimated value of £90, a £70 keyboard, roughly £100 pounds of books and I've got way way more stuff at home.
And with that money I could have given 100 people an extra ten days of life, to live to love. And did I need that stuff? Not really. Some of these people have never even been taught to read and I can sit here and happily debate the merits of Jane Austen on some internet forum. And you know what? I was actually aware of this when I did it. When I was about to buy some of this stuff, I actually stopped and thought about whether it was right, realised it was wrong and did it anyway. At least you're only guilty by ommission, but I was fully aware of how selfish and sickeningly wrong I was being and did it anyway. People argue that humans are basically good. But we're basically not. We're good to the small circle of people around us who we have emotional attachment too and maybe if someone became a visible presence in our life, a beggar or something, we'd give them some change but the only reason we can think that is we refuse to let the reality of the situation around us and excuse ourselves from it. I can't really do anything until I leave Uni I say, if I give money to this person he will only spend it on drink. But if I really cared I would take up a part time job, I'd find a charity that helps homeless people and actually give them the money isntead of just thinking that it would be better to give money to a charity than this beggar.
And I'm not even going to provide a solution. That's the worst. After this conversation I'm going to bury my head in books and the internet and do my best to forget that if I really wanted to, I could be doing something better with my time right now and there'd be a little less pain and a little less suffering in the world.
Rising Blade you couldn't actually enslave superman because he i superman you couldnt stop him if he said no but on your point i think it would not be right for him to be treated like that.BrotherRool said:
And with that Superman wouldn't sit there winding a crank all day as Rool said he would feel the guilt of just sitting there when while he is creating the power and giving the entire world better living people would still be dying i could see Superman destroying himself because of over extension trying to never stop because of who he is though.