Pixar's Incredibles: Syndrome is the true hero?

[Tyndmyr]

I'm not sure of a specific example beyond suiting the image of upstanding citizen he likes to project, but would note that Syndrome may well do the same things we just don't have the information on the matter.

Though the Bond villain lair and arms dealer(?) business doesn't lend itself as easily to that sort of thing as a conglomerate like Lexcorp.

I think there isn't enough of a gap to make it meaningful on a karmic evil meter, both are highly immoral and have delusions of grandeur. Luthor has no problem with out of hand killing, he framed Bruce Wayne for murder once for example, and among other things played fast and loose with the safety of the planet to try and take down Superman. Among any number of things I could probably drag up from all the continuities and history of the guy.

Who's worse in this case becomes to me more like arguing whether 30 or 50 angels can fit on the head of a pin.

Fair. Both are pretty high on the evil-o-meter. I just can't really see any good case for justifying Syndrome as a hero...he's not even that sympathetic of a villain.

If Syndrome lived on his island by himself and made a living selling giant death robots to others, though, he'd still be a Randian hero. If that's what the market demands, by the Almighty Dollar he should be free to sell it.

If the only thing he ever did was make and sell death robots...he'd be a helluva lot less evil than he was, certainly. Perhaps not a hero, I'll grant you, but more of "just a dude".

[pendell]

Silly question .. what market is there for Giant death robots? It's not like you're going to sell them over the counter at Wal-mart.

I'm thinking that this is a big-ticket, special-order item. You don't open up a storefront. You have to send out salespeople to customers in order to make the pitch and seal the deal.

And I'll wager many of those customers -- governments, say -- would want an exclusive deal. If you want to sell 500 death robots to Oceania they probably won't sign on the dotted line unless there's some sort of agreement not to sell to EastAsia.

Then again, maybe not. I once visited the [mumble mumble] aircraft company in Dallas Fort Worth. They had two assembly lines of aircraft, one of which was intended for [mumble mumble country] and the other was the same model of aircraft intended for [mumble mumble neighboring country]. The only thing in common was the airframe. The electronics that went into each was significantly different. And neither, of course, was what the aircraft company put in for the Prime Buyer, which was their country of origin.

My point is: At this level it's not possible to simply sell weapons like they were Hershey bars. You have to know your customer and tailor your pitch specifically to them. Which means you choose your customers as much as they choose you. And that, I think, is where the moral choice comes in. If you deliberately choose supervillains or fuhrer-wannabes as your customer, that probably puts you in the same class of villain as they are. If you're selling to legitimate governments and so forth, that would make you a normal guy. But it wouldn't make you a hero. "Hero" requires some kind of sacrifice of self-interest for the sake of someone else, and while there is minor heroism in giving up insane profits out of social conscience, it's still not in the same league with running into a burning building to save a child.

I contend that people acting out of "enlightened self-interest" typically aren't heroes. The point of enlightened self-interest is to make heroism unnecessary. Heroes exist because strong people help out the weak. But if all are equally strong, equally able to help themselves, then there's no need for anyone to be a hero.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Tebryn]

Silly question .. what market is there for Giant death robots? It's not like you're going to sell them over the counter at Wal-mart.

I'm thinking that this is a big-ticket, special-order item. You don't open up a storefront. You have to send out salespeople to customers in order to make the pitch and seal the deal.

And I'll wager many of those customers -- governments, say -- would want an exclusive deal. If you want to sell 500 death robots to Oceania they probably won't sign on the dotted line unless there's some sort of agreement not to sell to EastAsia.

Then again, maybe not. I once visited the [mumble mumble] aircraft company in Dallas Fort Worth. They had two assembly lines of aircraft, one of which was intended for [mumble mumble country] and the other was the same model of aircraft intended for [mumble mumble neighboring country]. The only thing in common was the airframe. The electronics that went into each was significantly different. And neither, of course, was what the aircraft company put in for the Prime Buyer, which was their country of origin.

My point is: At this level it's not possible to simply sell weapons like they were Hershey bars. You have to know your customer and tailor your pitch specifically to them. Which means you choose your customers as much as they choose you.

I'm not sure who you're...discussing with? I don't think anyone thinks this? They even address it in the movie.

And that, I think, is where the moral choice comes in. If you deliberately choose supervillains or fuhrer-wannabes as your customer, that probably puts you in the same class of villain as they are. If you're selling to legitimate governments and so forth, that would make you a normal guy. But it wouldn't make you a hero. "Hero" requires some kind of sacrifice of self-interest for the sake of someone else, and while there is minor heroism in giving up insane profits out of social conscience, it's still not in the same league with running into a burning building to save a child.

I have a few qualms here. The "Moral Qualm", as much as I really hate that word, isn't he's selling weapons to the "Wrong People" it's that he's selling weapons at all. It doesn't matter who you're selling them to. Weapons by definition take lives, that's what they do and they do it well. There's nothing heroic about selling the weapons. Where you get into the heroics is when you chose to use it. But don't mistake it here, even if you're a hero for killing someone who was going to do much much worse...you still killed someone.

I contend that people acting out of "enlightened self-interest" typically aren't heroes. The point of enlightened self-interest is to make heroism unnecessary. Heroes exist because strong people help out the weak. But if all are equally strong, equally able to help themselves, then there's no need for anyone to be a hero.

I'm not even sure what "Enlightened Self Interest" is. Nor do I think heroism is that black and white or even if we all can take care of ourselves that there wouldn't need for people to be heroes. Sometimes, things go out of control and no matter how well you can take care of yourself it's just not going to be good enough. Someone else is going to have to stand up and help once and a while. But all of this clouds the issue for me. I'd personalty have empathy over morals and altruism over heroism. If we all cared more for each other and acted with a concern for everyone's welfare....we'd need a lot less heroes.

[pendell]

I'm not sure who you're...discussing with? I don't think anyone thinks this? They even address it in the movie.

I was addressing Tyndmyr and Soras above, to the extent that "arms dealer" is prima facie a villain , or an ordinary person, or a hero. What if Syndrome had just stayed on his island and sold weapons to people, without siccing his robots on defenseless towns?

I have a few qualms here. The "Moral Qualm", as much as I really hate that word, isn't he's selling weapons to the "Wrong People" it's that he's selling weapons at all

The best way I can answer this on this board is by using a Tolkien analogy .. if there wasn't a smith to forge Anduril , would you have Aragorn face off with orcs using only stones and his teeth? Is the smith evil because he makes and sells swords for fighting monsters? Is every shopkeeper you meet in every RPG ever evil because he enables you to fight with something more than the basic starting equipment?

Eowyn, in Return of the King, was spoken to thus by the master Herb-warden of Gondor:

" 'But for long years, we healers have sought to patch the rents made by the men of swords. Though we should still have enough to do without them: the world is full enough of hurts and mischances without wars to multiply them.'

Eowyn's response is as follows:

'It needs but one foe to breed a war, not two, Master Warden,' answered Eowyn. 'And those who have no swords can still die upon them. Would you have the folk of Gondor gather herbs only, when the Dark Lord gathers armies? And it is not always good to be healed in body. Nor is it always evil to die in battle, even in bitter pain. Were I permitted, in this dark hour I would choose the latter'."

So I don't believe a weapons dealer is prima facie evil in a story simply because they sell weapons. I say this because when I live in one of those worlds I darn well want to BUY one, and one shouldn't eat meat if one hates the butcher.

I'm not even sure what "Enlightened Self Interest" is.

There were wiki links to the concept a few posts up :).

In brief, it breaks the common assumption that I can either help others OR help myself but not both. Enlightened self-interest assumes that, if you are looking out for yourself, you are not burdening others, so you serve others by serving yourself. It's different from greed, in that greed doesn't care about what effect it has on other people. Enlightened self interest does.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Zelkon]

Just because the Incredibles weren't the best people and certainly did some very wrong things, doesn't mean the villain is actually the good guy.

[Tebryn]

I was addressing Tyndmyr and Soras above, to the extent that "arms dealer" is prima facie a villain , or an ordinary person, or a hero. What if Syndrome had just stayed on his island and sold weapons to people, without siccing his robots on defenseless towns?

Ah, I suppose I hadn't taken their posts to seem as if they'd thought that.

The best way I can answer this on this board is by using a Tolkien analogy .. if there wasn't a smith to forge Anduril , would you have Aragorn face off with orcs using only stones and his teeth? Is the smith evil because he makes and sells swords for fighting monsters? Is every shopkeeper you meet in every RPG ever evil because he enables you to fight with something more than the basic starting equipment?

Eowyn, in Return of the King, was spoken to thus by the master Herb-warden of Gondor:



Eowyn's response is as follows:



So I don't believe a weapons dealer is prima facie evil in a story simply because they sell weapons. I say this because when I live in one of those worlds I darn well want to BUY one, and one shouldn't eat meat if one hates the butcher.

I don't believe that either. Nor did I say that. I said that people who sell or make weapons aren't heroes. Not Hero=/=Villain. It just means you're not a hero. What I said was in fact that what makes you a hero is how you use the weapons you have.

There were wiki links to the concept a few posts up :).

In brief, it breaks the common assumption that I can either help others OR help myself but not both. Enlightened self-interest assumes that, if you are looking out for yourself, you are not burdening others, so you serve others by serving yourself. It's different from greed, in that greed doesn't care about what effect it has on other people. Enlightened self interest does.

All you had to say was it was a Randian belief for me to not need to know any more about. Having read your links...ya...don't agree. Will never agree.

[pendell]

I don't believe that either. Nor did I say that. I said that people who sell or make weapons aren't heroes. Not Hero=/=Villain. It just means you're not a hero. What I said was in fact that what makes you a hero is how you use the weapons you have.

Ah. In that case, I agree with you on this point.

Having read your links...ya...don't agree. Will never agree.

As is your right. What a boring world this would be if we all thought alike. What would be the point of talking? Thanks for the discussion, anyway.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Tyndmyr]

Silly question .. what market is there for Giant death robots? It's not like you're going to sell them over the counter at Wal-mart.

In a just world they would....*goes back to oogling japanese death robot that fires when you smile*

[hamishspence]

He's essentially Lex Luthor, I suppose if you're Ayn Rand or something you could find him praiseworthy.

Actually the most common argument I've seen comparing Rand's themes to the movie- stresses the complaint of the heroes- that society is forcing them to hide their talents, and "celebrating mediocracy".

From a "rand-ish" point of view- the main enemy is their society, for forcing the supers to "stop being super".

[Tyndmyr]

Actually the most common argument I've seen comparing Rand's themes to the movie- stresses the complaint of the heroes- that society is forcing them to hide their talents, and "celebrating mediocracy".

From a "rand-ish" point of view- the main enemy is their society, for forcing the supers to "stop being super".

The real villainy of Rand wasn't her ideology or any of that. It's advertising Atlas Shrugged as fiction, thus condemning future deceived students to have to read what's frankly a very repetitive, tiresome book.

It would have been a much better pamphlet.

[Kitten Champion]

It was glib of me to bring Objectivism into this, since it's not specifically a theme in the movie, still.

Pixar obviously drew upon the Luthor archetype for creating Syndrome, and Luthor is something of a Take That! strawman critique of the same Nietzschean interpretations that Rand used. The subtext is actually pretty obvious when you think about it.

The tropes Superman and Batman established are why superheroes in general are anti-objectivist figures -- their whole premise is using their wealth and power for the sake of maintaining the common good and helping the weak, often hand in hand with the reasonable authority figures. The Incredibles are premised on such tropes, this is generally what we (and the movie) frame as heroism as opposed to Rand's morally dissonant champions or Terry Goodkind's **** of a God Emperor.

Society isn't keeping heroes down in and Randian sense, as it's keeping them from committing acts of heroism in the most anti-objectivist style possible -- the reason they're living quiet lives of mediocrity is due to the apparently legitimate danger they have created for themselves after a life-time of altruistic heroism against evil. Mr. incredible's whole mid-life crisis is spurred on by the apparent lack of meaning in his life in living only for his personal concerns.

[Knaight]

The real villainy of Rand wasn't her ideology or any of that. It's advertising Atlas Shrugged as fiction, thus condemning future deceived students to have to read what's frankly a very repetitive, tiresome book.

It would have been a much better pamphlet.

You should read her "non-fiction". It makes you appreciate Atlas Shrugged, and it is exceptionally clear that Ayn Rand is a far better fiction writer than nonfiction writer.

[pendell]

Pixar obviously drew upon the Luthor archetype for creating Syndrome, and Luthor is something of a Take That! strawman critique of the same Nietzschean interpretations that Rand used. The subtext is actually pretty obvious when you think about it.

I question this interpretation. Lex Luthor made his debut in 1941. Atlas Shrugged was published in 1957. So how could Luthor be a Take That to a book which wouldn't be written for another sixteen years?

I think it has more to do with parallel evolution than deliberately lambasting or parodying ideas. It's not as if your general comic book audience read Atlas Shrugged back then, I'll wager. Heck, I'll wager few people read Atlas Shrugged under ANY circumstances unless they A) really , really believe in the author's philosophy or B) really, really have a gun held to their head to complete a class assignment.

I confess I have not read the book but only read synopses of the book's main ideas. From what I understand, even from Rand fans, that the book is a bit of an unreadable doorstop which is about half author-insert lecture for pages upon pages, chapter upon chapter.

At any rate -- a billionaire industrialist makes an easy villain for when you need a villain who isn't YA dude in tights and a cape who fell in a reactor shaft or whatever. When you want your heroes to face off with normal human technology, money, and ingenuity. But governments haven't been used in that role since comics were wartime propaganda back in WWII. So if you can't use governments -- who else has money and know-how? Voila! And so you have your evil billionaire industrialist or kingpin of crime or COBRA, or sometimes all of the above. They're just a convenient villain archetype.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Tebryn]

I question this interpretation. Lex Luthor made his debut in 1941. Atlas Shrugged was published in 1957. So how could Luthor be a Take That to a book which wouldn't be written for another sixteen years?

But they weren't the same character. It's also possible that Kitten Champion meant that they were based on the same ideas that Rand looked to when writing Atlus Shrugged and not saying that the original Luther was created off -her- strawman. You also have to take into account the character has changed along the way...It's 2012 after all and he's still being written about. So it's possible that Kitten Champion meant that his most well known incarnation is based off Rand's strawman. It's more than a little silly to nix the idea based on the -very- original Lex Luthor.

[pendell]

But they weren't the same character. It's also possible that Kitten Champion meant that they were based on the same ideas that Rand looked to when writing Atlus Shrugged and not saying that the original Luther was created off -her- strawman. You also have to take into account the character has changed along the way...It's 2012 after all and he's still being written about. So it's possible that Kitten Champion meant that his most well known incarnation is based off Rand's strawman. It's more than a little silly to nix the idea based on the -very- original Lex Luthor.

From origin to present day, Lex Luthor has always been something along the theme of brilliant industrialist with technology and a mad plan to oppose his superpowered nemesis.

Given this fact, I need more than the fact that someone sees an "obvious" connection between the two to establish that the author intended to parody Rand's ideas. The fact that we must describe luthor as a 'strawman' may also imply that Rand's ideas were not in mind at all -- 'evil industrialist' was simply a useful villain archetype.

After all, just because some members of the audience take away a message from a work doesn't mean the author meant it to be there . Tolkien said the same when responding to criticism that his work was a mythic retelling of WWII. It was not. People could read it that way , but it wasn't his intent.

But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations...I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience or readers. I think many confuse ‘applicability’ with ‘allegory’; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.

Thus it may be here -- Lex Luthor can be *applied* as a parody of John Galt, but the fact that we can make that connection doesn't necessarily mean the author intended this, or had indeed ever read Rand.

If the author truly slogged through that (reputable) doorstopper for the specific intent of parodying it in a comic book, that author is a minor hero in his own right -- not only for the epic task of researching an idea to parody it, but in putting it in easier-to-understand terms than the original author did. :)

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[hamishspence]

Society isn't keeping heroes down in and Randian sense, as it's keeping them from committing acts of heroism in the most anti-objectivist style possible -- the reason they're living quiet lives of mediocrity is due to the apparently legitimate danger they have created for themselves after a life-time of altruistic heroism against evil. Mr. incredible's whole mid-life crisis is spurred on by the apparent lack of meaning in his life in living only for his personal concerns.

"Heroism" is perfectly valid under the philosophy- as long as, from your point of view- what you're getting out of it (emotionally included) is better than what you're losing- thus making it a "trade".

"Forcing people to be equal" is the main objection.

Which was why, on the TV Tropes page for The Incredibles- people were saying that there is a somewhat Objectivist strain in it for the "Forced equality is a bad thing" theme.

[McStabbington]

Well, here's my off-the-cuff headcanon for how this went:

1) Mr. Incredible is sued for various personal injury and negligence claims, as a sponsored agent of the federal government (since they can't exactly sue a non-legal identity or Robert Parr in this case. Incredible could certainly avoid unmasking using some variation on the Fifth Amendment like superheroes do in other settings, so suing Parr would be impossible.)
2) Due to his actions during the trial and successful sleaze of the plaintiff's attorney (I'm betting the same guy represented at least the jumper and the train passengers, building a career off of it), the government fails to win the case, either by settling out of court to avoid embarrassment or by the judge/jury awarding damages sought to the plaintiffs.
3) Rather than appeal this, either because no verdict was reached or simply because they're too busy handling the flood of new suits on other government-sponsored superheroes, the government doesn't appeal the case up to the Supreme Court level, or, as you say, the Supreme Court decides that the suit was legitimate and that courts must accept similar suits. Either way...
4) The cost of sponsoring superheroes and defending them from every conceivable lawsuit in court gets to be too much for Congress, who pass the Superhero Relocation Act, which appears to set up permanent secret identities for superheroes in exchange for them no longer performing superhero work, presumably either with or without official government sponsorship.
5) At some point, supervillains dry up too, either because there's no point in supervillainy without heroes to fight (probably) or the government performs a successful and probably secret crackdown on them while the Relocation Act is being passed.

I'm not saying this isn't plausible in the Increible-verse, but there are at least two laws I can think of that would make that difficult in our universe. First, there are a lot of procedural loopholes you have to clear before you get into court, and if you don't clear them, you don't see the inside of a courthouse. The most pertinent in this case is what's known as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal of any case that on the pleadings fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The instant that someone files a battery claim against Mr. Incredible for the train crash, Incredible's lawyer would very likely file a response claiming a 12(b)(6) defense: while there is a tort, even on the face of the claim, Mr Incredible isn't responsible because a) he didn't introduce the bomb to the situation and b) attempted as a Good Samaritan to remedy the situation. The second rule is that, barring any kind of substantial hardship, the person who loses a lawsuit typically pays attorney fees for both sides.

As I said, the law really has incorporated a lot of ways to fix flaws that are often picked out in movies, frivolous lawsuits included.

Changing gears, I've heard the argument about the Randian strain in The Incredibles before, although I don't really buy it. The argument is that there is a strong streak of advocacy for both personal excellence and doing what you love in Rand's literature, as well as the recurring theme that society's laws and cultural norms, at least those that are not Objectivist, have the effect of grinding down the exceptional. It's hard to watch Mr. Incredible talk with his boss and not get some sense of that. That being said, it's also clear that Mr. Incredible is not pursuing his enlightened self-interest by any stretch of the imagination. If anything, the movie is actually making a fairly sophisticated critique of Randian thought about the tension in her works between the claim that "society" smashes down the exceptional people, and that it does so by advocating "altruism".

I've always thought that among philosophers, Nietzsche and Marx were most in tune with the theme of The Incredibles. Nietzsche makes many of the same arguments about exceptionalism that Rand seems to, but doesn't tether it to any notions about economics or social norms. And Marx's account of alienation of labor much more strongly mirrors Mr. Incredible's dissafection than anything Rand wrote.

[Ravens_cry]

Eh, sometimes a movie is a just a good movie. Maybe there is an intended message, but I'd really rather just watch the movie.
Helen and Bob Parr are one of my favourite married couples in media.
Yes, they have their disagreements, but it is also quite obvious they love each other and their family very much.

[Soras Teva Gee]

I'm not saying this isn't plausible in the Increible-verse, but there are at least two laws I can think of that would make that difficult in our universe. First, there are a lot of procedural loopholes you have to clear before you get into court, and if you don't clear them, you don't see the inside of a courthouse. The most pertinent in this case is what's known as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal of any case that on the pleadings fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The instant that someone files a battery claim against Mr. Incredible for the train crash, Incredible's lawyer would very likely file a response claiming a 12(b)(6) defense: while there is a tort, even on the face of the claim, Mr Incredible isn't responsible because a) he didn't introduce the bomb to the situation and b) attempted as a Good Samaritan to remedy the situation. The second rule is that, barring any kind of substantial hardship, the person who loses a lawsuit typically pays attorney fees for both sides.

There's three problems with this:

1) In the USA attorney fees are paid win or lose by each party. With exceptions but still as the rule.

2) Unless "Mr. Incredible" has a legal status as a person similar to say a corporation there is no one to sue for anything. In our world Robert Parr (if that's even his original name) could be guilty of various offenses under for vigilante behavior which might also waive Good Samaritan consideration to begin with. He does makes a point to go out and look for trouble after all

3) "Mr. Incredible" is rather evidently an agent of the NSA who cover expenses like the car he starts with. Which is of course why "his" losses cost the government money. Robert Parr was never on trial and presumably just a witness with name with held in the interests of the state, it would be the NSA that was held liable.

[Kitten Champion]

I question this interpretation. Lex Luthor made his debut in 1941. Atlas Shrugged was published in 1957. So how could Luthor be a Take That to a book which wouldn't be written for another sixteen years?

I didn't say it was a critique of Atlas Shrugged, but the relating common interpretation of Nietzchean philosophy that had existed for some time -- many versions of Luthor in the decades that follow would be more or less explicitly an Objectivist Strawman depending on the perspective of the author.

I think it has more to do with parallel evolution than deliberately lambasting or parodying ideas. It's not as if your general comic book audience read Atlas Shrugged back then, I'll wager. Heck, I'll wager few people read Atlas Shrugged under ANY circumstances unless they A) really , really believe in the author's philosophy or B) really, really have a gun held to their head to complete a class assignment.

I confess I have not read the book but only read synopses of the book's main ideas. From what I understand, even from Rand fans, that the book is a bit of an unreadable doorstop which is about half author-insert lecture for pages upon pages, chapter upon chapter.

I've read it, the Fountainhead, and the whole of the Sword of Truth series as well. I'm a masochist.

At any rate -- a billionaire industrialist makes an easy villain for when you need a villain who isn't YA dude in tights and a cape who fell in a reactor shaft or whatever. When you want your heroes to face off with normal human technology, money, and ingenuity. But governments haven't been used in that role since comics were wartime propaganda back in WWII. So if you can't use governments -- who else has money and know-how? Voila! And so you have your evil billionaire industrialist or kingpin of crime or COBRA, or sometimes all of the above. They're just a convenient villain archetype.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

That, and many depression era barons were bastards.

I think there was something more deliberate in choosing to make Superman's arch-nemesis a powerless and seemingly reputable American industrialist -- as I've said villains are dark mirrors for their heroes. Lex is a big-city power-broker raised by a loveless elite. He is outwardly dynamic, charismatic, a powerful figure of capitalism, hiding his chessmaster evilness and contempt for common people. Clark is a small-town bighearted boy who was raised by decent and loving folks. He has a joe-schmo go-nowhere job as an unremarkable reporter. Outwardly he's mild-mannered and somewhat forgettable, inwardly he's a knight-in-shining armour with a messiah mission and god-like abilities -- and doesn't even wear a mask.

Luthor is self-interested elitism at its worst, Kent is humble rural American virtues at its best. Perhaps the philosophic discourse is unintentional, but there is a commentary there nevertheless.

I can't believe "Superman" was named without some self-consciousness, at least, the connotations were apparent.

[Soras Teva Gee]

I think there was something more deliberate in choosing to make Superman's arch-nemesis a powerless and seemingly reputable American industrialist -- as I've said villains are dark mirrors for their heroes.

Point of order this interpretation only dates to 1986. Seems relevant to mention as Superman is not the only character that's evolved over the years. Original Luthor is by the extracts I've seen a pretty generic mad scientist. He also had hair.

And no kidding his Pre-COIE canonical motivation was that Superboy made him loose his hair. Take that super ventriloquism!

[Fragenstein]

Point of order this interpretation only dates to 1986. Seems relevant to mention as Superman is not the only character that's evolved over the years. Original Luthor is by the extracts I've seen a pretty generic mad scientist. He also had hair.

And no kidding his Pre-COIE canonical motivation was that Superboy made him loose his hair. Take that super ventriloquism!

Thank you, Lore Fitzgerald Sjoeberg for starting that meme...

Everyone always fixates on the hairloss without fully recalling the cause. Young Lex was working on a secret formula in his barnyard shed-lab which would have made his Kryptonian pal immune to kryptonite. A fire breaks out which Superboy snuffs with his super breath. This accidentally blasts insanely dangerous chemicals into Lex's face. The hair loss was just an outward change, but also his brain chemistry was altered, making him paranoid and aggressive.

He didn't just blame supes for the hair loss, but he went insane and saw the entire episode as a deliberate attack. This is where the war started, not just with a shiny dome, but with facefull of mad science!

[Kitten Champion]

*Sigh* I keep forgetting that classic comics are all just zine pulp.

Still, super-powers versus science and the red hair is more syndrome-ish isn't it? It's difficult to have much in the way of literary criticism when your characters are all as thin as cardboard cutouts. Beyond I suppose, a distrust of science.

[McStabbington]

There's three problems with this:

1) In the USA attorney fees are paid win or lose by each party. With exceptions but still as the rule.

2) Unless "Mr. Incredible" has a legal status as a person similar to say a corporation there is no one to sue for anything. In our world Robert Parr (if that's even his original name) could be guilty of various offenses under for vigilante behavior which might also waive Good Samaritan consideration to begin with. He does makes a point to go out and look for trouble after all

3) "Mr. Incredible" is rather evidently an agent of the NSA who cover expenses like the car he starts with. Which is of course why "his" losses cost the government money. Robert Parr was never on trial and presumably just a witness with name with held in the interests of the state, it would be the NSA that was held liable.

Well, if that's what happened, then he has an even easier claim under 12(b)(6): qualified immunity as a public agent acting within the scope of his duties. If you accidentally get caught in the crossfire of a gun battle between police and gangsters, and you get shot, even if you can prove that the bullet that hit you was a police bullet, you have no case unless you can prove that the officer was acting outside the scope of his duties or that he acted with malice towards you. Same principle applies to Mr. Incredible.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Well, if that's what happened, then he has an even easier claim under 12(b)(6): qualified immunity as a public agent acting within the scope of his duties. If you accidentally get caught in the crossfire of a gun battle between police and gangsters, and you get shot, even if you can prove that the bullet that hit you was a police bullet, you have no case unless you can prove that the officer was acting outside the scope of his duties or that he acted with malice towards you. Same principle applies to Mr. Incredible.

Upon poking around I've found that this rule does not do what you think it does.

First off by examining the entire rule in context and pulling up the specific section:

(b) How to Present Defenses. Every defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading if one is required. But a party may assert the following defenses by motion:

(1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction;

(2) lack of personal jurisdiction;

(3) improper venue;

(4) insufficient process;

(5) insufficient service of process;

(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and

(7) failure to join a party under Rule 19.

A motion asserting any of these defenses must be made before pleading if a responsive pleading is allowed. If a pleading sets out a claim for relief that does not require a responsive pleading, an opposing party may assert at trial any defense to that claim. No defense or objection is waived by joining it with one or more other defenses or objections in a responsive pleading or in a motion.

Well that's primarily outlining that after someone files a suit against you you must file your defense (the pleading) to set the stage for the trial. And then going on to state that in certain case one can merely make a motion as a defense. Those circumstance however if I am boiling them down right... are for more or less procedural errors on the part of the the plaintiff.

Filing in the wrong court or location (jurisdiction and venue) errors in due process, not properly lining up every person that must be there (that last one) and switching order not asking for any form of compensation that can be granted. Like if you sue the government and were asking not for a million dollars but a Psychic Tandem War Elephant it could never reasonably be expected to provide even if you won.

Money is of course relief which can be granted so none of these motion-able grounds have any real reason to come into play unless you are supposing off screen legal incompetence we are never told of. (Also this is to only permission to file a motion. Nothing says the motion will be successful)

What you are discussing would very likely be the defense used, thus would be the pleading handled by the core of the rule and what would go into the trial. The defense "not liable do to established exceptions for being in the line of duty" is certainly a possible and even probable defense... but that becomes what the trial is as both parties are due a reasonable chance to have this matter settled. But simply having a defense does not abrogate a trial.

[Scowling Dragon]

the Incredibles!

Action!

Adventure!

Law Debate.........

[Anarion]

There's three problems with this:

1) In the USA attorney fees are paid win or lose by each party. With exceptions but still as the rule.

2) Unless "Mr. Incredible" has a legal status as a person similar to say a corporation there is no one to sue for anything. In our world Robert Parr (if that's even his original name) could be guilty of various offenses under for vigilante behavior which might also waive Good Samaritan consideration to begin with. He does makes a point to go out and look for trouble after all

3) "Mr. Incredible" is rather evidently an agent of the NSA who cover expenses like the car he starts with. Which is of course why "his" losses cost the government money. Robert Parr was never on trial and presumably just a witness with name with held in the interests of the state, it would be the NSA that was held liable.

This is all well and good, but the thing about the government is that you can't sue the government unless it says it's okay. There is a Federal Tort Claims Act in the United States that outlines when the government will let you sue it. I'd have to research it to know for sure whether this could go forward, but my inclination is that suing the government for actions of its hired agents in their line of duty usually isn't allowed unless the agent himself was grossly negligent.

the Incredibles!

Action!

Adventure!

Law Debate.........

That's what happens when they premise a movie on a major legal problem.

[Scowling Dragon]

Meh. I wouldn't think too deep into it. Its a slightly iffy part, but it pulled it off alright.

Its my Favorite Pixar film.

[Soras Teva Gee]

This is all well and good, but the thing about the government is that you can't sue the government unless it says it's okay. There is a Federal Tort Claims Act in the United States that outlines when the government will let you sue it. I'd have to research it to know for sure whether this could go forward, but my inclination is that suing the government for actions of its hired agents in their line of duty usually isn't allowed unless the agent himself was grossly negligent.

As I did learn after that particular post though it evidently is a fairly permissive act. One of the spurs for the act though was a B-25 piloted by a military pilot crashing into the Empire State Building with apparently some retroactivity allowing that particular incident to come into court and an industrial accident case was launched under it though not successfully.

Now you're the legal pony (I almost PMed you about my other post btw) but it still sounds to me that while Mr Incredible should have a grounds for his defense, the claim would taken as sufficiently serious to get to a trial.

Where presumably things went very very wrong for the government attorneys.

[Lord Seth]

The question I have is why the supervillains apparently decided to call it quits along with the superheroes. Did people start suing the supervillains also?