Why Is In Universe Criticism Of Superheroes Always Associated With Villainy?

[Captain Marvelous_v1legacy]

It isn't really that all superhero critics become villains, it's just that all villains are critical of superheroes. I wouldn't exactly support the idea of Superheroes either, if they kept getting in my way. Anyway, most characters that are criticize superheroes remain unnamed. Usually reporters or pedestrians commenting on a heroes most recent fuck up. Either that or they're a family member or friend of the hero.

JJJ is definitely not a villain. He's actually, occasionally, a decent human being. He's just really passionate... and shitty most of the time. Sure, he's done some really stupid things, but, much like Amanda Waller (Also not a villain. Not to me, anyway) his heart is in the right place. It's just that, when you're up against a hero, you're bound to fuck up to make the hero look that much better.

Snikt

I agree with Undeadsuitor. From our point of view, from the real world's point of view, heroes like Captain America and Iron Man would need to be kept in check. They'd need to have some type of oversight to prevent things like Ultron. But our world doesn't have super spy terrorists ingrained into every nook and cranny of our government... As far as I know anyway.

And, while I do agree that heroes should have oversight, it does sort of go against the fantasy. Most of them are supposed to be vigilantes. They aren't supposed to be constrained by red tape. If there's a terrorist in China, Superman should be able to go in there without waiting for permission first. We want our good guys to be able to do good. We don't want them held back by conflicting agendas or corporate interest. We don't want a stubborn leader to prevent our heroes from stopping that rampaging giant nuclear-powered robot. We don't want Batman to wait for a warrant.

Iron man decides to kill Bucky, since he's a murderer, a traitor, has now way of controlling himself, and refuses to be kept in a secure facility.

That is not why Tony decides to kill Bucky. That final fight in Civil War isn't Iron Man trying to bring the notorious Winter Soldier to justice. He isn't trying to kill Bucky because it's the right thing to do. He just wants revenge. Also, Bucky willingly enters a secure facility in Wakanda by the end of the film.

 

[Fox12]

Snikt

I agree with Undeadsuitor. From our point of view, from the real world's point of view, heroes like Captain America and Iron Man would need to be kept in check. They'd need to have some type of oversight to prevent things like Ultron. But our world doesn't have super spy terrorists ingrained into every nook and cranny of our government... As far as I know anyway.

And, while I do agree that heroes should have oversight, it does sort of go against the fantasy. Most of them are supposed to be vigilantes. They aren't supposed to be constrained by red tape. If there's a terrorist in China, Superman should be able to go in there without waiting for permission first. We want our good guys to be able to do good. We don't want them held back by conflicting agendas or corporate interest. We don't want a stubborn leader to prevent our heroes from stopping that rampaging giant nuclear-powered robot. We don't want Batman to wait for a warrant.

I agree with most of this. I have no problem with suspending my disbelief. You pretty much have to when watching a movie about superman, or batman. Stories don't do themselves any favors when they bring up these issues themselves. At that point I pretty much have to judge the story by real world standards, because the writer is the one who brought the heroes ethics and legality into question in the first place. The only story that seemed to handle the subject matter well was Watchmen, and maybe the Nolan movies.

 

[Cicada 5]

Because if they are critical of the way superheroes fight crises, they are usually expected to provide an alternative. That alternative is usually worse in some way. Many of the above characters are using a valid point to promote their own agenda.

Because the heroes are usually the main characters.

There are however some characters I remember who were critical of superheroes that weren't villainous, and the hero admitted they had a point. For example, there was a district attorney in the Batman animated series, Janet Van Dorn (even the name sounds evil, but she isn't), who harshly criticised the Batman's methods. After an unpleasant run-in with his Rogues' Gallery, she admitted that he was a necessary evil, but she was going to continue to fight to create a city that doesn't need Batman. His response? 'Me too.' A shame we don't see her again after that episode. Dan Turpin was much the same way in the show's Superman counterpart.

Depending on the continuity, Amanda Waller may not be a villain either. Just someone concerned about what might happen if the Justice League ever turned against the government, or about the insane collateral damage caused by metahumans in general. Jonah Jameson isn't a villain, he's just an eccentric jerk. When he accidentally created a supervillain, he willingly took the blame for it and helped defeat them.

Jameson didn't take the blame for the Scorpion. He disavowed all knowledge of him. It took him being blackmailed by the Hobgoblin to confess to the crime. He also created the Human Fly.

 

[Cicada 5]

Because comic book writers are really bad at writing.

Look at the recent Civil War movie. It did everything in its power to make Captain America the hero, but if you actually look at the situation logically, he was a total fascist. Meanwhile, iron man is the villain for trying to find a solution that worked toward everyone's benefit.

Simply put, the heroes have to be the good guys so that the studios can keep making money.

...how the hell was Captain America being a total fascist!? Wouldn't Iron Man be the more fascist side? Captain America wanted to not be a Government pawn.

And the movie was different than the comics, considerably. Dont blame comic writers for movie writers not respecting the comic writers writings properly. The movie made Iron Man less of a totalitarian jerk, but in the actual Civil War plot, he was a totalitarian jerk.

That would be why I didn't comment on the Civil War comic book. The comics that I have read, that happened to cover this, were pretty bad. Look at The Dark Knight returns, for instance. The people criticizing batman are actually right, but the story bends over backwards to make batman the hero of the story.

As for the civil war film, captain America is clearly wrong. Let's look at what captain America is actually advocating for. Captain America wants to conduct military operations anywhere in the world, with no accountability whatsoever. Even if the country clearly doesn't want him there. How is that ethical? He's not accountable to anyone. But we're supposed to sympathize with him, because he's a "good person." We immediately see why this is a bad idea after hundreds of civilians are accidentally killed during one of his missions. Was it an accident? Sure. But that's part of the problem. He turned a crowded city into a war zone, and when people died he didn't want to face the consequences. Why shouldn't countries get to decide whether foreign powers get to conduct military operations in their nation? The situation gets even worse when captain America commits treason by helping a terrorist escape prison. A terrorist that tried to overthrow the democracy and help kill a large percentage of the global population. Why? Because they were friends. What a selfish motivation. Was Bucky brainwashed? Sure. But that doesn't change the fact that he can't control himself, and is still a credible danger to the planet. That doesn't matter, though, because he's friends with captain America.

Meanwhile, what did iron man do? Well, he felt that The Avengers should be held accountable to either the United States government or the U.N. This is completely reasonable, since they regularly operate in other countries. Those countries should have a say in how the avengers operate. Government officials, who are elected democratically, should be able to dictate how the avengers operate. This also important since the avengers defend the entire planet. Captain America says no, because he wants to do what he wants, where he wants, and he doesn't want to answer to anyone. Would he be less capable of operating in other countries if he was controlled by the U.N.? Sure. That's the point. Iron man also set up a deal where Bucky would be kept in a secure environment, but would also be given medical support. This makes total sense. He's still a threat, so he can't be allowed to go free. However, he's still being given the help he needs to overcome his mental conditioning. Captain America says no, because Bucky is his friend, as if that changes the facts. Meanwhile, Scarlett witch has to remain under house arrest, since she accidentally killed hundreds of civilians, and is a former terrorist. This is just about the most lenient punishment imaginable. She has to stay in a lush mansion with fine cuisine while a federal investigation is conducted. Federal investigations are often conducted any time a military operation goes wrong. Why wouldn't one be conducted now, when she's a former terrorist and she killed hundreds of people in a country she didn't have permission to be in? And she probably would have been cleared. That's a slap on the wrist. After iron man tries to settle things peacefully, captain America decides to fight. Iron man understands that captain Americas actions could hurt all of them, and lead to global unrest, so he tries to stop him. He tries one last time to talk captain america down, and then they fight. Iron mans best friend is badly crippled, and captain America escapes. What does good guy iron man do then? He decides to put all of this behind him and help captain America. He then discovers that Bucky murdered his family, and that captain America knew, and lied to him. Iron man decides to kill Bucky, since he's a murderer, a traitor, has now way of controlling himself, and refuses to be kept in a secure facility. Iron man has multiple opportunities to kill iron man, but refuses to do it. He warns captain America to back off three times. Because of this, iron man loses, even though he easily could have won at any moment. The very first moment captain America gets the upper hand, he almost murders iron man, even though iron man spared him like three times. He changes his mind at the last moment and walks off.

Fuck captain America.

So you would rather Captain America literally do nothing cause those in charge literally do nothing, or too busy arguing whether or not The Ugandan Genocide was actually a genocide?

Know what happens if Captain America isnt under anyone's jurisdiction? HE is accountable. But under Government protection he is protected, cause it is not like governments ever are held accountable themselves. You know the Nuremburg trials? "I was ordered to do it" was a major defense, a defense only viable when you are a military pawn.

People should not be punished for wanting to help others. When the US or the UN are not run by terrible people who dont want to help anyone or too stuck in beurocratic BS, then maybe give them all the power, but until then, I dont trust either to do anything to help anyone.

And unlicensed, uncontrolled vigilantes are so much better?

 

[Saelune]

Because comic book writers are really bad at writing.

Look at the recent Civil War movie. It did everything in its power to make Captain America the hero, but if you actually look at the situation logically, he was a total fascist. Meanwhile, iron man is the villain for trying to find a solution that worked toward everyone's benefit.

Simply put, the heroes have to be the good guys so that the studios can keep making money.

...how the hell was Captain America being a total fascist!? Wouldn't Iron Man be the more fascist side? Captain America wanted to not be a Government pawn.

And the movie was different than the comics, considerably. Dont blame comic writers for movie writers not respecting the comic writers writings properly. The movie made Iron Man less of a totalitarian jerk, but in the actual Civil War plot, he was a totalitarian jerk.

That would be why I didn't comment on the Civil War comic book. The comics that I have read, that happened to cover this, were pretty bad. Look at The Dark Knight returns, for instance. The people criticizing batman are actually right, but the story bends over backwards to make batman the hero of the story.

As for the civil war film, captain America is clearly wrong. Let's look at what captain America is actually advocating for. Captain America wants to conduct military operations anywhere in the world, with no accountability whatsoever. Even if the country clearly doesn't want him there. How is that ethical? He's not accountable to anyone. But we're supposed to sympathize with him, because he's a "good person." We immediately see why this is a bad idea after hundreds of civilians are accidentally killed during one of his missions. Was it an accident? Sure. But that's part of the problem. He turned a crowded city into a war zone, and when people died he didn't want to face the consequences. Why shouldn't countries get to decide whether foreign powers get to conduct military operations in their nation? The situation gets even worse when captain America commits treason by helping a terrorist escape prison. A terrorist that tried to overthrow the democracy and help kill a large percentage of the global population. Why? Because they were friends. What a selfish motivation. Was Bucky brainwashed? Sure. But that doesn't change the fact that he can't control himself, and is still a credible danger to the planet. That doesn't matter, though, because he's friends with captain America.

Meanwhile, what did iron man do? Well, he felt that The Avengers should be held accountable to either the United States government or the U.N. This is completely reasonable, since they regularly operate in other countries. Those countries should have a say in how the avengers operate. Government officials, who are elected democratically, should be able to dictate how the avengers operate. This also important since the avengers defend the entire planet. Captain America says no, because he wants to do what he wants, where he wants, and he doesn't want to answer to anyone. Would he be less capable of operating in other countries if he was controlled by the U.N.? Sure. That's the point. Iron man also set up a deal where Bucky would be kept in a secure environment, but would also be given medical support. This makes total sense. He's still a threat, so he can't be allowed to go free. However, he's still being given the help he needs to overcome his mental conditioning. Captain America says no, because Bucky is his friend, as if that changes the facts. Meanwhile, Scarlett witch has to remain under house arrest, since she accidentally killed hundreds of civilians, and is a former terrorist. This is just about the most lenient punishment imaginable. She has to stay in a lush mansion with fine cuisine while a federal investigation is conducted. Federal investigations are often conducted any time a military operation goes wrong. Why wouldn't one be conducted now, when she's a former terrorist and she killed hundreds of people in a country she didn't have permission to be in? And she probably would have been cleared. That's a slap on the wrist. After iron man tries to settle things peacefully, captain America decides to fight. Iron man understands that captain Americas actions could hurt all of them, and lead to global unrest, so he tries to stop him. He tries one last time to talk captain america down, and then they fight. Iron mans best friend is badly crippled, and captain America escapes. What does good guy iron man do then? He decides to put all of this behind him and help captain America. He then discovers that Bucky murdered his family, and that captain America knew, and lied to him. Iron man decides to kill Bucky, since he's a murderer, a traitor, has now way of controlling himself, and refuses to be kept in a secure facility. Iron man has multiple opportunities to kill iron man, but refuses to do it. He warns captain America to back off three times. Because of this, iron man loses, even though he easily could have won at any moment. The very first moment captain America gets the upper hand, he almost murders iron man, even though iron man spared him like three times. He changes his mind at the last moment and walks off.

Fuck captain America.

So you would rather Captain America literally do nothing cause those in charge literally do nothing, or too busy arguing whether or not The Ugandan Genocide was actually a genocide?

Know what happens if Captain America isnt under anyone's jurisdiction? HE is accountable. But under Government protection he is protected, cause it is not like governments ever are held accountable themselves. You know the Nuremburg trials? "I was ordered to do it" was a major defense, a defense only viable when you are a military pawn.

People should not be punished for wanting to help others. When the US or the UN are not run by terrible people who dont want to help anyone or too stuck in beurocratic BS, then maybe give them all the power, but until then, I dont trust either to do anything to help anyone.

And unlicensed, uncontrolled vigilantes are so much better?

Lets throw in my distrust of the Police in terms of culpability. See how accountable the police are? Yeah, I will take my luck with Captain America, thanks.

 

[klaynexas3]

Now I'm not the biggest buff when it comes to the DCU but right now it seems Jason Todd is more on the side of hero than villain, but he still does not fully agree with superheroes as is, particularly Batman. At least in his current title, how he was before this one I couldn't fully say, outside of the few issues I read right before his death. At any rate, there are people that are capable of being against a superhero and the idea of superheroes without necessarily being full on villains. Hell, even right now Spoiler, while not completely in her right mind, is fighting with Batman, but I'd still consider her on the side of good because she isn't actively trying to hurt anyone either. She just thinks the system needs some changes is all. As for JJJ, he's not totally against superheroes, just Spider-Man specifically, and seems more accepting of other heroes, such as Silk, and even has some times when he's on better terms with Spider-Man. I'd say he's about as against heroes as any other villain, he just isn't doing as much about it and hasn't bent his entire will towards evil doings. There are some more nuanced characters in the comic book universe, there are just times that the writers don't give that sort of nuance, as there are many writers that work on each character.

 

[Asita]

Because if the author accepts the criticism as justified then that necessarily means that the narrative has to make a significant shift, if not a genre shift. That is both something that a lot of authors wouldn't be comfortable with and which runs a strong risk of alienating the existing consumer base. So in order to preserve the status quo, authors tend strongly to hobble the arguments one way or another. Often that is done by making it seem comparatively petty[footnote]you successfully shattered that massive meteor that would have annihilated everything and everyone for several hundred miles, but the resultant chunks resulted in millions of dollars in property damage (albeit far less than would have happened if the meteor had been allowed to hit). It's all your fault![/footnote] or bringing the motives of the criticism into question[footnote]Superheros are a menace to society! We need a controlled civil force to fill the role instead. That's why the government should hire my company, LoneStar security, to fill this role![/footnote]. In both cases, the people championing the idea would necessarily fill the role of an antagonist (often a villain in the latter case).

 

[Silvanus]

The pro-registration side was not solely associated with villainy, and contained numerous super-heroes. Both sides were deeply flawed and deeply well-meaning.

The comics did a better job of portraying moral ambiguity, admittedly.

 

[Veylon]

Superhero morality only works because there are clearly evil supervillains running amok who no sane person would support and whose plans involve immediate death and destruction on a massive scale. Without superpowered baddies to punch, superheroes don't really serve a purpose as such. The problems in real life tend to be more nuanced and thus actions taken to alleviate them have to be more open to criticism. People deciding that they know who's evil and going off to take them down violently doesn't often make things better.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

Lex Luthor

A lot of times it goes into Depends on the writer and retcons So keep that in mind. Lex Luthor was just generic mad scientist, later writers made him have something more personal (if petty) reason for hating Superman. To Lex it's usually About his own pride and no one else. Hell he was willing to have a Meteorite hit the planet because he wanted be the one to save the day

Amanda Waller

She goes back and forth from being an antihero to an anti-villain Depending on the adaptation. I know her best from the Justice league Unlimited TV show where she is shown to least have somewhat of a point. She even freaks out when someone fires a nuke at Superman and doomsday(long story)

Jason Todd, The Elite, Magog

There more critical of how stupid they think superheroes are being and not going farther. Like breaking the law for the greater good.

Max Lord

This is what we call character derailments. There?s a whole rant on how they fucked up his character but I don?t really have much to say beyond that

the pro-Reg side

Speaking of character derailment, did you know that we were originally supposed to side with the pro-registration group? No? Well you can blame Mark Miller apparently writing the story while he was drunk. When that story ended and the pro-registration side won fans and writers went ballistic and demonized the pro-registration every chance he got and because of that I do not care what?s happening in Civil War 2

Jonah Jameson

Once again depends highly on the writer and how much sympathy they feel for him If he?s a Villain or not. I prefer more to be a jackass with a heart of gold but that?s just me.

Honestly it?s a good question to bring up and a good moral question, It makes conflict as such it keeps being brought up. How sympathetic their shown is varied.

Superhero morality only works because there are clearly evil supervillains running amok who no sane person would support and whose plans involve immediate death and destruction on a massive scale. Without superpowered baddies to punch, superheroes don't really serve a purpose as such. The problems in real life tend to be more nuanced and thus actions taken to alleviate them have to be more open to criticism. People deciding that they know who's evil and going off to take them down violently doesn't often make things better.

One thing that does kind of annoy me in Superhero Deconstructions they always seem to forget that in those universes super villains, giant robots, aliens and Elder abominations exist and only focus on the superhero element. Especially works very critical to superheroes like Garth Ennis who one of his main annoyances with them is that in the real world they would be pointless and useless. Yes but superheroes do not exist in the real world, they exist in a world with Cthulhu and if Cthulhu did exist I would not mind a person in colored pajamas punching his Squidface.

 

[Cicada 5]

Lex Luthor

A lot of times it goes into Depends on the writer and retcons So keep that in mind. Lex Luthor was just generic mad scientist, later writers made him have something more personal (if petty) reason for hating Superman. To Lex it's usually About his own pride and no one else. Hell he was willing to have a Meteorite hit the planet because he wanted be the one to save the day

Amanda Waller

She goes back and forth from being an antihero to an anti-villain Depending on the adaptation. I know her best from the Justice league Unlimited TV show where she is shown to least have somewhat of a point. She even freaks out when someone fires a nuke at Superman and doomsday(long story)

Jason Todd, The Elite, Magog

There more critical of how stupid they think superheroes are being and not going farther. Like breaking the law for the greater good.

Max Lord

This is what we call character derailments. There?s a whole rant on how they fucked up his character but I don?t really have much to say beyond that

the pro-Reg side

Speaking of character derailment, did you know that we were originally supposed to side with the pro-registration group? No? Well you can blame Mark Miller apparently writing the story while he was drunk. When that story ended and the pro-registration side won fans and writers went ballistic and demonized the pro-registration every chance he got and because of that I do not care what?s happening in Civil War 2

Jonah Jameson

Once again depends highly on the writer and how much sympathy they feel for him If he?s a Villain or not. I prefer more to be a jackass with a heart of gold but that?s just me.

Honestly it?s a good question to bring up and a good moral question, It makes conflict as such it keeps being brought up. How sympathetic their shown is varied.

Superhero morality only works because there are clearly evil supervillains running amok who no sane person would support and whose plans involve immediate death and destruction on a massive scale. Without superpowered baddies to punch, superheroes don't really serve a purpose as such. The problems in real life tend to be more nuanced and thus actions taken to alleviate them have to be more open to criticism. People deciding that they know who's evil and going off to take them down violently doesn't often make things better.

One thing that does kind of annoy me in Superhero Deconstructions they always seem to forget that in those universes super villains, giant robots, aliens and Elder abominations exist and only focus on the superhero element. Especially works very critical to superheroes like Garth Ennis who one of his main annoyances with them is that in the real world they would be pointless and useless. Yes but superheroes do not exist in the real world, they exist in a world with Cthulhu and if Cthulhu did exist I would not mind a person in colored pajamas punching his Squidface.

Agree with you on Waller and Max.

The issue with Jason. Magog and the Elite is a) superheroes commit a number of crimes for the greater good already, some even worse than killing and b) the traditional methods of superheroes are repeatedly shown as counterproductive. The only reason the "no killing" rule exists is to keep popular villains alive, fine, but don't go drawing attention to this.

According to someone from another forum I once visited, the writers wrote the pr-reg side as douchebags on purpose. According to this person, they (the Marvel writers and editors) knew that the pro-reg side had the most logical argument but to give the ani-reg a "fighting chance" and give the illusion of a morally complex issue, the pro-reg side had a bunch of unnecessary dog-kicking moments. Hence, why we had idiocy like Hill trying to arrest Steve before the SHRA was made law, Tony and Reed creating a murderous clone of Thor who dead at the time and Tony throwing people into the Negative Zone without trial.

 

[hermes]

Because most comic book writers suck at nuance, so everyone that is not in line with "the good guys" is immediately thrown with "the bad guys"

 

[Cicada 5]

And now it seems we can add Hydra Steve Rogers to a list of people whose criticism of superheroes is connected with villainy.

http://scans-daily.dreamwidth.org/6694157.html

 

[Vausch]

Lex Luthor, Amanda Waller, Jason Todd, Max Lord, The Elite, the pro-Reg side, Jonah Jameson, Alison Greene, Magog. It seems anyone portrayed as being critical of superheroes instantly becomes a villain. Why's that?

Evil businessman that kills people to prove a point, woman that is willing to let many people die and form a villain squad under her command that she can't be traced back to in order to achieve power, antihero that killed people just to prove Batman wasn't ruthless enough (even if I agree with him), man with the ability to manipulate people to do his bidding that killed Blue Beetle and nearly got Superman to go on a murderous rampage, antiheroes that are aware they aren't using very ethical means but are self-aware enough to realise when they've gone too far, a side that wound up not only imprisoning people in a dimension that makes you suicidal and mentally damaged but also turns on people that did nothing illegal and gets villains to hunt down opponents and potentially kill them, tabloid journalist that lies just to make Spider-Man look bad, woman who paid to have someone kidnapped for revenge, and character that is supposed to be a representation of the violent paths modern comic book heroes took as opposed to the classic heroes of unwavering moral attitudes in the past.

These characters aren't being critical of superheroes, they're being either outright villains or just horrible people. Being CRITICAL is the pro-reg side in the Civil War movie. The pro-reg side in the comics range from reasonable people to being just shy of fascists. And no, I'm not throwing that word around. Tony Stark imprisons people in an inter-dimensional prison known for driving people into madness, has villains hunt down anti-registration heroes, almost kills Peter Parker despite the fact that Peter registered and did nothing wrong when he said he didn't want to help Tony hunt down anti-registration heroes, abuses the powers given to him, and caused massive damage to the superhero community as a whole because of a rushed reactionary bill that was only put in place because children happened to be killed.

 

[Dalisclock]

It's a really good question. The recent Civil War movie tried and fumbled badly on all accounts. The first third goes over "Should the Avengers have more (international) oversight?" Unfortunately, to justify it, the government brings up 4 different incidents and in almost every one, the Avengers prevented something worse from happening. Hell, in New York, the Avengers both stopped the Alien invasion and prevented New York from becoming a radioactive crater. In Winter Soldier, those heli-carriers Cap took down? Yeah, they were about to commit mass murder because the US government apparently can't keep nazis from taking control of SHIELD and building flying death fortresses. Collateral Damage Boo fucking hoo. Age of Ultron? Yeah, I'll give them that. It's Tony's Fault.

Unfortunately, none of the avengers, who are ALL IN THE ROOM, bother to defend themselves on any of this. And then the entire focus of the movie becomes "Is Bucky Redeemable?" with the whole "Do supers need oversight?" question just gets kind of forgotten.