Lex Luthor VS Dr Doom

[Drascin]

Plus, well. Doom also gets a lot of his most interesting stuff in relatively recent decades. Sixties Doom was honestly little more than an idiot in a mask spouting cliche villain lines and "THIS CANNOT BE". Recent Doom is a guy with a sense of drama that allows him to understand how to challenge Loki (a god and therefore a creature of myths and stories) precisely through drama.

So this vs is inherently a lot more fun if we forget about the silver age versions for both characters.

[Avilan the Grey]

Never watched smallville. Well I saw the first two episodes I think.

[Red Fel]

Basically, the biggest problem is that nobody appears to even read comic books, and people appear (IMO) to just be picking whatever version they're familiar with.

I take issue with this position, for the following reason:

I think one of the problems is just that people aren't specific enough when it comes to the character. They Treat "Lex" or "Superman" as the sum total of all of their comic, movie, or television appearances when they are all different characters

That's the point. Even within "the comics" there are multiple versions of the same character, across years, across writers, across storylines. So instead of picking apart each individual Lex and Doom, a lot of us pick the versions with which we are most familiar, of which we are most fond, or which we think are the most powerful.

And let's not forget, one proposed basis of comparison was taking each of the two at the "peak" of their powers. Well, what that means differs from one person to the next, methinks.

Admittedly, more recent comics have given more complexity, nuance, and even moral ambiguity to both characters. Let us not forget that, when comics were under the Comics Code, villains could not be morally ambiguous - bad was bad and good was good, the end, because we couldn't confuse the children like that. Of late, however, that's been (mercifully) abandoned, to an extent - as mentioned, Lex joined the Justice League at one point, and Doom even helped Sue out (and never let Reed live it down). Similarly, recent television series - particularly those involving young, pretty people - abandoned the silver age simplicity of comically larger-than-life heroes and comically mustache-twirling villains, in favor of personal drama, conflicted heroes, and complex and layered villains. I'm hearing good things about CW's Flash, for example. Moreover, the television series often add new elements that the comics end up integrating - from the DCAU alone, we got the rewritten (and far more compelling) Mr. Freeze, as well as Harley Quinn and Mercy Graves.

More than all of this, however, is consistency and availability. Ignoring movie reboots, it seems as though the characters depicted in television series and movie franchises are more consistent than their comic book counterparts, who get retconned and redone every time the writers hand off the baton. Clancy Brown's animated Lex is the same character, whether he's on a Batman cartoon, a Superman cartoon, or a Justice League cartoon; Kevin Conroy's Batman is universally recognizable and internally consistent. These examples are also more recent than some older comic book versions, and more readily accessible - I think it safe to say that more people have a TV set in their house than a comic book, on average, nowadays. The end result is that people are more likely to be familiar with Cartoon!Lex or Movie!Doom than with their comic counterparts, and those who know both will find the former a more stable illustration of the character than the latter.

All this put together means that I really can't fault people, myself included, for going beyond the comics to find illustrations (no pun intended) of characters who originated in comics. There's good material out there.

[Psyren]

My point is, anyone who thinks Lex isn't interesting, must not even know who Lex is.

I agree Lex is interesting, in the same way that the Joker is interesting - because they can't go toe-to-toe with the hero (usually) but they can defeat him mentally and emotionally by making him doubt himself. But that's precisely what pulls me out of the experience - no matter how monstrous they are or how many innocents they hurt or kill, there are no long-term consequences. With someone like Doom (who is in fact far more complex than you make him out to be) at least we have a plausible reason why he keeps coming back or why the heroes can't put him down for good beyond their own staggering Lawful Stupidity.

And yeah, I know there can't really be anything long-term because comic book. But when the very medium I'm reading breaks my immersion to remind me that it's just a comic book and none of it matters in the end, for me at least I begin thinking I'm better off doing anything else with my time.

[Tiki Snakes]

That's the point. Even within "the comics" there are multiple versions of the same character, across years, across writers, across storylines. So instead of picking apart each individual Lex and Doom, a lot of us pick the versions with which we are most familiar, of which we are most fond, or which we think are the most powerful.

And let's not forget, one proposed basis of comparison was taking each of the two at the "peak" of their powers. Well, what that means differs from one person to the next, methinks.

Admittedly, more recent comics have given more complexity, nuance, and even moral ambiguity to both characters. Let us not forget that, when comics were under the Comics Code, villains could not be morally ambiguous - bad was bad and good was good, the end, because we couldn't confuse the children like that. Of late, however, that's been (mercifully) abandoned, to an extent - as mentioned, Lex joined the Justice League at one point, and Doom even helped Sue out (and never let Reed live it down). Similarly, recent television series - particularly those involving young, pretty people - abandoned the silver age simplicity of comically larger-than-life heroes and comically mustache-twirling villains, in favor of personal drama, conflicted heroes, and complex and layered villains. I'm hearing good things about CW's Flash, for example. Moreover, the television series often add new elements that the comics end up integrating - from the DCAU alone, we got the rewritten (and far more compelling) Mr. Freeze, as well as Harley Quinn and Mercy Graves.

More than all of this, however, is consistency and availability. Ignoring movie reboots, it seems as though the characters depicted in television series and movie franchises are more consistent than their comic book counterparts, who get retconned and redone every time the writers hand off the baton. Clancy Brown's animated Lex is the same character, whether he's on a Batman cartoon, a Superman cartoon, or a Justice League cartoon; Kevin Conroy's Batman is universally recognizable and internally consistent. These examples are also more recent than some older comic book versions, and more readily accessible - I think it safe to say that more people have a TV set in their house than a comic book, on average, nowadays. The end result is that people are more likely to be familiar with Cartoon!Lex or Movie!Doom than with their comic counterparts, and those who know both will find the former a more stable illustration of the character than the latter.

All this put together means that I really can't fault people, myself included, for going beyond the comics to find illustrations (no pun intended) of characters who originated in comics. There's good material out there.

Firstly, I'll say that I doubt anyone is going to argue for Doom on the basis of the movies. Unless you're talking about him appearing in one of Marvel's direct-to-DVD animated films. There's little good to say about the Fantastic Four films, and their version of Doom is definitely not one of those few things.

Personally, it's less a case of me choosing a particular incarnation and more a case that when I compare two characters like this, I tend to take the long-view and look at them in an overall, amalgamated kind of way. Today's Doom is supposedly the same one who lost to Squirrel Girl, who has feuded with Reed in comics for all this time, though there have been a few alternate reality ones and retcons and so on along the way. In comparison, there's a laundry list of entirely distinct Lex Luthors from many different universes and continuities, sometimes but not always coinciding with characterisation shifts. But when comparing the two in a general way, I'm going to look vaguely at the whole package. Meta-Doom compared to Meta-Lex, so to speak. That means taking into account the particulars of their silver age (and earlier in Lex's case) shenanigans and quirks as well as their major spinoffs and what little I might know of the most modern bits.

And I can say, on this basis, Lex is usually both less interesting to me personally and less convincing conceptually. After all, you have a Super-Villain without any kind of secret identity whose super-powers are being quite smart and incredibly super-rich, who is somehow able to feud long-term with Superman, rather than being arrested for blatant supervillainy and losing his company in the same issue his current iteration debuts in. I mean, he's not only one of the most evil of villains in many of his depictions, he's also up against a man who has an iron-clad public opinion on his side and who works in his downtime as an investigative reporter.

I agree Lex is interesting, in the same way that the Joker is interesting - because they can't go toe-to-toe with the hero (usually) but they can defeat him mentally and emotionally by making him doubt himself. But that's precisely what pulls me out of the experience - no matter how monstrous they are or how many innocents they hurt or kill, there are no long-term consequences. With someone like Doom (who is in fact far more complex than you make him out to be) at least we have a plausible reason why he keeps coming back or why the heroes can't put him down for good beyond their own staggering Lawful Stupidity.

And yeah, I know there can't really be anything long-term because comic book. But when the very medium I'm reading breaks my immersion to remind me that it's just a comic book and none of it matters in the end, for me at least I begin thinking I'm better off doing anything else with my time.

Yeah, see the difference for me is that the only assumption you need to make to have the Joker free to survive and continue is that the state Gotham is in lacks the death penalty. Everything else is if not 100% plausible, at least not particularly threatening to the suspension of disbelief. Luthor in comparison needs to remain in charge of Lex-Corp to offer any meaningful opposition or pose any meaningful threat and that's really hard to justify on any long-term basis, he's an out and out supervillain, works with supervillains and commits widespread supervillainy whilst not in disguise and somehow rarely has any trouble with the law, his board of directors or even general public opinion. For that to make sense, the entire DC United States has to be hilariously corrupt, because he'd need blanket media propaganda and the entire judiciary in his pocket, minimum.

Which would be a genuinely interesting setting, it would provide stories I'd be at least vaguely interested in reading, but it's very much not the world DC show us, not in any version I've heard of at least.

[Devonix]

I disagree that the character needs LexCorp to be relevant because for most Of his career lex corp either didn' exist or he didn't have acess to it.

even in the Justice League cartoon Lex Luthor didn't have lexcorp for two of the seasons

[Devonix]

I disagree that the character needs LexCorp to be relevant because for most Of his career lex corp either didn' exist or he didn't have acess to it.

even in the Justice League cartoon Lex Luthor didn't have lexcorp for two of the seasons

As far as films and the public the upcoming movie will be the first time lex corp has ever been done on film

[Psyren]

Yeah, see the difference for me is that the only assumption you need to make to have the Joker free to survive and continue is that the state Gotham is in lacks the death penalty.

This assumes that Batman and Superman are beholden to state/local laws. But they break those all the time (Batman for instance trespasses regularly, or commits theft), or alternatively they are considered exempt, which means they should be able to carry out executions if they deem it necessary and are simply choosing not to. At the very least, they could incarcerate the villains themselves rather than handing them over to very fallible local law enforcement. Throw Joker in Atlantis or Oa or something. (Actually, that last one might be a really bad idea.)

[Bitter]

Plus, well. Doom also gets a lot of his most interesting stuff in relatively recent decades. Sixties Doom was honestly little more than an idiot in a mask spouting cliche villain lines and "THIS CANNOT BE". Recent Doom is a guy with a sense of drama that allows him to understand how to challenge Loki (a god and therefore a creature of myths and stories) precisely through drama.

So this vs is inherently a lot more fun if we forget about the silver age versions for both characters.

Dr Doom was always pretty much what he is now.

Spoiler: KIRBY DOTS

Show

He's an absolutely confident genius with an incredible arrogance that goes straight into a superiority complex and a penchant for taking on god-like beings and usurping them or stealing their power, albeit with a streak of nobility.

[Callos_DeTerran]

This assumes that Batman and Superman are beholden to state/local laws. But they break those all the time (Batman for instance trespasses regularly, or commits theft), or alternatively they are considered exempt, which means they should be able to carry out executions if they deem it necessary and are simply choosing not to. At the very least, they could incarcerate the villains themselves rather than handing them over to very fallible local law enforcement. Throw Joker in Atlantis or Oa or something. (Actually, that last one might be a really bad idea.)

For the Joker at least, they have tried incarcerating him in other locations. It quite simply does not work. Hell, he's broken out of worse prisons then Arkham faster than he does in Arkham. But yeah, they hold themselves beholden to state/local laws because they are in fact the heroes. It doesn't make quite as much sense in Batman's case since he's supposed to be a symbol of fear, but Superman does have very good reasons for not...well...just killing Lex Luthor. He wouldn't be Superman if he did. And where does Superman stop at that point? Where's the cut-off for if Superman should execute a criminal? Is it entirely up to his judgement, cause he sees the absolute worst that these villains do usually and could easily make the WRONG choice out of the heat of the moment.

[Flickerdart]

For the Joker at least, they have tried incarcerating him in other locations. It quite simply does not work. Hell, he's broken out of worse prisons then Arkham faster than he does in Arkham. But yeah, they hold themselves beholden to state/local laws because they are in fact the heroes. It doesn't make quite as much sense in Batman's case since he's supposed to be a symbol of fear, but Superman does have very good reasons for not...well...just killing Lex Luthor. He wouldn't be Superman if he did. And where does Superman stop at that point? Where's the cut-off for if Superman should execute a criminal? Is it entirely up to his judgement, cause he sees the absolute worst that these villains do usually and could easily make the WRONG choice out of the heat of the moment.

We've even seen what happens when Superman starts killing - the Justice Lords happen, and nobody wants that.

[Psyren]

But yeah, they hold themselves beholden to state/local laws because they are in fact the heroes.

And with a normal criminal I would totally agree. But these are folks we know will kill innocents in the future if not dealt with permanently. If you know for a fact that someone will commit a murder, and you know for a fact that no jail you have access to will prevent that from happening, then not doing anything or trying to use that jail anyway is tantamount to allowing it to happen.

We've even seen what happens when Superman starts killing - the Justice Lords happen, and nobody wants that.

The what now?

And why would removing one horrible person (Lex) from this mortal coil necessarily lead to anything for anyone else?

Yeah I know, metaphysically he wouldn't be Superman anymore and blah blah. Change isn't necessarily bad.

[Red Fel]

The what now?

And why would removing one horrible person (Lex) from this mortal coil necessarily lead to anything for anyone else?

Yeah I know, metaphysically he wouldn't be Superman anymore and blah blah. Change isn't necessarily bad.

It's been done, particularly in the animated universe. Something pushes Superman too far, and he kills someone. (Usually Lex.) This results in Superman realizing just how effective killing the villains actually is. They don't come back. They don't make any more problems. And the ones that stay around are scared out of their heads. (Superman can be downright terrifying when he wants to be.)

The Justice Lords were an alternate-reality extension of that idea. A member of the JL gets whacked (no spoilers as to who), and they all go off the reservation. They decide that the world needs some "looking after," and take over.

But it all starts with compromise. Specifically, the compromise of values. There's nothing "metaphysical" about it. When a member of the JL deliberately, willfully takes a life, believing it to be the right thing to do, and realizing afterwards that they can do it some more. It's the worst kind of slippery slope for the Son of Krypton.

[Callos_DeTerran]

And with a normal criminal I would totally agree. But these are folks we know will kill innocents in the future if not dealt with permanently. If you know for a fact that someone will commit a murder, and you know for a fact that no jail you have access to will prevent that from happening, then not doing anything or trying to use that jail anyway is tantamount to allowing it to happen.

Thing is, Lex is (to a degree) a normal criminal. From what I do know of Lex (not too much) most of his schemes aren't INTENDED to just kill people, there is always some other motive behind it and innocent bystanders are just caught in the crossfire. When he does specifically set out to kill them, its via assassination or something and it is generally very difficult to trace back to Luthor with any concrete proof beyond 'Luther didn't like him and now he's dead and Luther has profited'.

Fact is, when Luther is in Jail, he does actually seem to be quite capably prevented from doing stuff. Sure, he gets out via legal shenanigans (he has the money to make that work too) or via escape, but the fact prison works on Lex just means they need a better prison for him. Compare to others where being in prison is usually just a speed-bump.

That said, we the readers 'know' they will kill innocents in the future, but not always. I mean sure, the Joker is pretty much a lost cause, but the rest of them have at times worked to save people at various points in their careers with it unknown if they'll turn back besides 'they're cooler as a villain and thus worth more money' which is a meta-reason to execute someone. If, say....Metallo decided to not be a robotic henchman and become a superhero, yeah the people reading know he's probably bound to be a villain again but that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve his chance to do right. Plus, superheroes (most especially Superman) are incredibly optimistic and believe almost anyone can change for the better. Not just the better but become good people, they almost HAVE to believe it to do what they do. So yeah, the sort who are imprisoned (aside from Batman villains to a degree) don't totally deserve to be summarily executed and the ones who aren't imprisoned tend to be like...cosmic forces of evil that heroes DO try to destroy when they can.

The what now?

And why would removing one horrible person (Lex) from this mortal coil necessarily lead to anything for anyone else?

Yeah I know, metaphysically he wouldn't be Superman anymore and blah blah. Change isn't necessarily bad.

The Justice Lords aka 'When Superman and other heroes decided to do exactly what you suggested'.

And why would it lead to anything for anyone else? Well...why wouldn't it? You've just subjectively made the world a better place by getting rid of Luthor. Why not Toymaker? Why not the inhabitants of Arkham? Why not Toymaker? Why not that third-strike criminal who seems completely unrepentant for what he's done? Its a slippery slope.

[Bitter]

And with a normal criminal I would totally agree. But these are folks we know will kill innocents in the future if not dealt with permanently. If you know for a fact that someone will commit a murder, and you know for a fact that no jail you have access to will prevent that from happening, then not doing anything or trying to use that jail anyway is tantamount to allowing it to happen.

[Psyren]

It's the worst kind of slippery slope for the Son of Krypton.

he's done? Its a slippery slope.

You guys do know Slippery Slope is a fallacy, right? Unless Supes is a robot, there is no concrete reason he can't just kill Lex and stop there.

Take Toymaker for example - now I'm sure at some point in the past, some writer sharted out contrived a story in which he took down the entire League, including Batman, Flash, Green Lantern and Supes, single-handedly. But aberrations like that aside, he strikes me as being a third-stringer at best, with nowhere near Lex or Joker's bodycount. For someone like that, incarceration and possible rehabilitation would be fine, he hasn't crossed the kind of moral event horizon the other two have.

I know the writers were forced to make him say "feels good man" and become a homicidal megalomaniac in order to justify their silly status quo as being the lesser of two evils, but purely in-universe there really is no reason to assume this would actually happen. Or they contrive something else, like "hero dies killing his archenemy," or "hero kills archenemy, becomes despondent, gives up hero-ing, crime/aliens/demons/etc. get even worse" and so on.

Pretty sure death is an object to muggles like Joker and Lex. Just make sure it's really them.

[Callos_DeTerran]

...The last part of that quote is hilarious.

@Psyren:

Okay, but why stop there? That isn't what you've answered. Toymaker is a third-stringer to the best of my knowledge, but he's also been a fairly abominable human being at times (not sure where, but I remember him trying to kill a school bus full of kids, might have been an accident though). So are most of the supervillains because they'll put people in danger purely to gain a strategic edge even if they aren't positive the superhero won't be able to stop it or might go after them instead. The person willing to endanger the lives of dozens/hundreds/thousands as part of a distraction obviously doesn't care if those lives are actually ended whither the hero manages to save them or not. They put them into that situation in the first place.

For some, THAT is moral event horizon and by the above logic worthy of being taken out.

For some, being mind-controlled or bodily transformed is a moral event horizon.

My point being everyone's values is different. Everyone's 'well that's it, you've finally gone too far' line is at a different place. So say Superman does kill Lex Luthor. Does the line shift because Supes is willing to deal out the death penalty now or does everyone have to cross the line Luthor did? What about if say...the Blue Beetle (random ass hero!) wants to do something similar because he feels a villain crossed the moral event horizon? Could Supes really say Blue Beetle has done wrong when he's done the same thing in the past? If every hero acted on their own morals, Wonder Woman would probably be considered a supervillain in her own right since value system is rather old and she isn't concerned about killing villains, but they would no longer have the public's trust. Why would they? They aren't going by laws or anything at that point, just what they feel is right.

[Psyren]

@Psyren:

Okay, but why stop there? That isn't what you've answered. Toymaker is a third-stringer to the best of my knowledge, but he's also been a fairly abominable human being at times (not sure where, but I remember him trying to kill a school bus full of kids, might have been an accident though). So are most of the supervillains because they'll put people in danger purely to gain a strategic edge even if they aren't positive the superhero won't be able to stop it or might go after them instead.

Trying to kill kids - or perhaps not even trying to, but sort of accidentally coming close to it (Toymaker), and actually doing it (Joker) are two different things, wouldn't you say?

The person willing to endanger the lives of dozens/hundreds/thousands as part of a distraction obviously doesn't care if those lives are actually ended whither the hero manages to save them or not. They put them into that situation in the first place.

For some, THAT is moral event horizon and by the above logic worthy of being taken out.

For some, being mind-controlled or bodily transformed is a moral event horizon.

That could be a reasonable place to draw the line, sure. But even if you move the line all the way back to actual bodycount, both Lex and Joker would still be damned by sheer numbers, and more importantly, by sheer willingness, capacity and certainty of doing it again.

My point being everyone's values is different. Everyone's 'well that's it, you've finally gone too far' line is at a different place. So say Superman does kill Lex Luthor. Does the line shift because Supes is willing to deal out the death penalty now or does everyone have to cross the line Luthor did?

It's case by case of course. You don't have to draft up a "kill yo ass" charter or bylaws just because you decided Joker doesn't deserve to breathe the same air as innocent people anymore.

What about if say...the Blue Beetle (random ass hero!) wants to do something similar because he feels a villain crossed the moral event horizon? Could Supes really say Blue Beetle has done wrong when he's done the same thing in the past? If every hero acted on their own morals, Wonder Woman would probably be considered a supervillain in her own right since value system is rather old and she isn't concerned about killing villains, but they would no longer have the public's trust. Why would they? They aren't going by laws or anything at that point, just what they feel is right.

I find it pretty funny/incredible that they have the public's trust now, what with all the many murders they've failed to prevent due to the revolving door prisons they've put the villains in.

[Callos_DeTerran]

Trying to kill kids - or perhaps not even trying to, but sort of accidentally coming close to it (Toymaker), and actually doing it (Joker) are two different things, wouldn't you say?

If it wasn't an accident? Then to me, they aren't different. The only real difference is that Joker succeeded at killing the children and Toymaker didn't, the intent was the same its just the execution that separates them.

That could be a reasonable place to draw the line, sure. But even if you move the line all the way back to actual bodycount, both Lex and Joker would still be damned by sheer numbers, and more importantly, by sheer willingness, capacity and certainty of doing it again.

Honestly not certain what Lex's actual body count is, but I do know it isn't nearly as high as Joker's. Which is why killing Luthor is usually a tipping point for Supes in the stuff I have seen. But my point remains that the only thing that's different from Joker and those villains without massive bodycounts is either effectiveness (where-in the intent is still there) or the same phenomena for why Endor is still a habitable moon after the second Death Star blew up. So why does Joker die and they don't? Because he actually accomplished what they tried to do?

I find it pretty funny/incredible that they have the public's trust now, what with all the many murders they've failed to prevent due to the revolving door prisons they've put the villains in.

I don't.

[comicshorse]

Lex from New 52 is a different person, than Pre Crisis Lex, or Richard Donner Lex, or Lois and Clark the new adventures of Superman Lex.
They are so different that you could literally toss them all in a room together and have a death battle just between them.

Now that sounds like a fun versus thread

[Psyren]

If it wasn't an accident? Then to me, they aren't different. The only real difference is that Joker succeeded at killing the children and Toymaker didn't, the intent was the same its just the execution that separates them.

Honestly not certain what Lex's actual body count is, but I do know it isn't nearly as high as Joker's. Which is why killing Luthor is usually a tipping point for Supes in the stuff I have seen. But my point remains that the only thing that's different from Joker and those villains without massive bodycounts is either effectiveness (where-in the intent is still there) or the same phenomena for why Endor is still a habitable moon after the second Death Star blew up. So why does Joker die and they don't? Because he actually accomplished what they tried to do?

Wait, now I'm confused. In your first paragraph you say that intent to kill (or at least sufficient disregard so as to cause death) should be weighed as being equal to actually killing. But then you say Lex's bodycount isn't as high as Joker's like that means something. If you add var_deaths.intended to var_deaths.actual for both men they actually won't be that far apart - Joker at least has the distinction of mainly threatening Gotham, while Lex has aimed nukes at entire countries while doing his damndest to neutralize or depower the one guy who can stop them.

I don't.

Well I guess if I was a muggle in a comic book world, I might be as cavalier about my life expectancy too. But that only compounds my earlier problem of finding these universes hard to relate to, even within the context of them being "fantasy."

[Callos_DeTerran]

Wait, now I'm confused. In your first paragraph you say that intent to kill (or at least sufficient disregard so as to cause death) should be weighed as being equal to actually killing. But then you say Lex's bodycount isn't as high as Joker's like that means something. If you add var_deaths.intended to var_deaths.actual for both men they actually won't be that far apart - Joker at least has the distinction of mainly threatening Gotham, while Lex has aimed nukes at entire countries while doing his damndest to neutralize or depower the one guy who can stop them.

I mean, I think Lex's bodycount (threatened or otherwise) isn't as high as Joker's. Has Lex threatened countries with nukes? What was the context? o.o

[Avilan the Grey]

I mean, I think Lex's bodycount (threatened or otherwise) isn't as high as Joker's. Has Lex threatened countries with nukes? What was the context? o.o

Well, he was the president of the US, right?
And a psychopathic asshat?

Why WOULDN'T He threaten countries with nukes?

[Drascin]

Pretty sure death is an object to muggles like Joker and Lex. Just make sure it's really them.

It isn't. Joker's been killed like, three times, minimum.

I think in the current comic moment he's some sort of, like, elemental chaos or curse or something thingy? I stopped keeping up with N52 ages ago.

[comicshorse]

I mean, I think Lex's bodycount (threatened or otherwise) isn't as high as Joker's. Has Lex threatened countries with nukes? What was the context? o.o

I'm pretty sure when he was President he nuked his ex-wife's secret bunker.

[Bitter]

Pretty sure death is an object to muggles like Joker and Lex. Just make sure it's really them.

Great and now we've got demonic versions of Joker and Lex who have been empowered by Neron to be more dangerous than ever.

Thanks a lot, Psyren.

[Psyren]

It isn't. Joker's been killed like, three times, minimum.

I think in the current comic moment he's some sort of, like, elemental chaos or curse or something thingy? I stopped keeping up with N52 ages ago.

Ugh. And what's batman's element? "Preparedness?"

See, this is exactly the kind of crap writers have to pull out to justify these guys not being dead a long time ago. So now he's gone from a crazy clown-themed gangster whose willingness to do depraved things made him unpredictable, to being a chaos elemental.

I'm pretty sure when he was President he nuked his ex-wife's secret bunker.

That and didn't he fire a nuke at the San Andreas fault that Supes had to go catch/contain?

Great and now we've got demonic versions of Joker and Lex who have been empowered by Neron to be more dangerous than ever.

Thanks a lot, Psyren.

Haven't they both dealt with Neron while alive anyway? It seems that being alive isn't much of a deterrent, so you might as well off them.

For that matter, if the heroes truly want to make a difference, shouldn't they be going after that guy? Or do their prohibitions on killing extend to literal demons? Or are they just not able to, even with all the reality-warping on their team?

[Bitter]

Haven't they both dealt with Neron while alive anyway? It seems that being alive isn't much of a deterrent, so you might as well off them.

Joker exchanged his soul for some cuban cigars, Lex got put back into his normal body. Both in Underworld Unleashed. they both then promptly attempted to backstab Neron.

For that matter, if the heroes truly want to make a difference, shouldn't they be going after that guy? Or do their prohibitions on killing extend to literal demons? Or are they just not able to, even with all the reality-warping on their team?

If they really want to make a difference then the last 80 years of comics should be about them providing irrigation and medical aid in sub-saharan Africa. Probably not as exciting as punching people through mountains though.

[Traab]

Lex has quite the body count if you include indirect killing. He was an amoral tony stark. He sold weapons of mass destruction to pretty much anyone who can pay and didnt care how many wars he just escalated. At least, in the cartoons that was him.

[Red Fel]

You guys do know Slippery Slope is a fallacy, right? Unless Supes is a robot, there is no concrete reason he can't just kill Lex and stop there.

Correction. Slippery slope is a metaphor, describing an escalating situation. The slippery slope fallacy arises when you take an event and escalate it to an unreasonable extreme, in an attempt to avoid engaging with the question.

In this case, slippery slope isn't an attempt to avoid engaging with the question - it is the answer to the question. Why can't Supes simply kill Lex? Because, canonically, whenever he has done so, he has asked a perfectly reasonable question: Why stop here?

That's the point. Superman limits himself. He's basically a physical god. His morality is the only thing that keeps him from basically doing whatever he wants, whenever he wants, to whomever he wants. It defines him. If he were to deliberately take a life, the reason it wouldn't stop with just the one is that it would be successful. Superman isn't a robot; he's a thinking person. And although he would be wracked with guilt, he would also be able to see, quite clearly, that killing the bad guys works. It ends the threat, once and for all, exactly like you're suggesting it does. (I mean, if you have to ask why he doesn't do it, it must be clear to you, right?) More than that; it's easy. For most members of the JL, it's easy; for him, it's stepping on an ant easy. With the exception of seriously massive anti-Supes enemies (e.g. Doomsday, Darkseid) most DC villains are easy one-shot targets. Heat vision here, super punch there, bunch of dead guys, and no more crime.

More than that, though; it's canon. It's pretty much established that Superman doesn't do half measures. If he decides to hang up his morality, he does so with gusto. He starts killing baddies like it's going out of style. So we can debate whether it's a fallacy, but ultimately, it's how he behaves.