What are your issues with the DCEU Superman?

[Dagenspear]

That, and Superman perceiving Batman as a serious threat early on in their careers is a precedent in the comics. When both characters met each other for the first time in John Byrne's Man of Steel mini-series, Superman went to Gotham City with the intention to capture Batman and turn him over to the police, because Batman was working outside the law. It was until he was coerced by Batman and learned about Magpie being a bigger threat at large that they had to work together. But nonetheless, Superman was wary of Batman because he didn't approve vigilantism and outlaws. In the end though, he permits Batman to continue roaming through the streets because he realises Gotham City needs him, but Superman promises to keep a close eye on him to make sure his actions don't go too far.

In BvS, Batman appeared to have Gotham City's law enforcement by his side, as Clark Kent saw in that cartoon sketch at the police station while trying to investigate the Santos case with uncooperative cops in the Ultimate Edition. If the police, as an institution, never supported Batman's violent methods, there's no doubt in my mind Superman would've tried to apprehend Batman, instead of giving him that tense warning at the end of the Batmobile chase scene.

I think a different idea applies because that Superman isn't this one. I think this Superman has as little right to do this as Batman does. And if the loony vigilante is the threat he thinks he should take his time to go after, why him and not anything else?

I got into a similar discussion about this with someone who defended it by saying something about how Clark doesn't like that he's criticized while Batman isn't and that's why he goes after Batman. I think that's not a strong defense for a couple reasons.

[thecolorsblend]

Batman is criticized because he violates people's civil rights on a nightly basis.

Superman is criticized because he saves people in otherwise hopeless situations.

One of those criticisms is well merited. The other, less so.

[The Dark Knight]

I agree with that. Superman is largely slammed over WHAT IFS.

What if he loses control?
What if he become a fascist ruler?
What if he represents the end of human progress?
What if, what if.

These comic universe panic merchants and see what he actually does, and appreciate that. Superman does remain in control and saves lives. He's on our side. Time and time again he demonstrates this. But the power of that what if freaks people out.

Batman largely gets slammed for WHAT IS.

[Dagenspear]

I agree with that. Superman is largely slammed over WHAT IFS.

What if he loses control?
What if he become a fascist ruler?
What if he represents the end of human progress?
What if, what if.

These comic universe panic merchants and see what he actually does, and appreciate that. Superman does remain in control and saves lives. He's on our side. Time and time again he demonstrates this. But the power of that what if freaks people out.

Batman largely gets slammed for WHAT IS.

Is it a what if? Or is it something he's already engaged in? He didn't have control in that fight in metropolis. His search for his roots led Zod to earth. I don't put Clark at fault for the destruction. He was working in defense. But his powers are dangerous. He's essentially a walking uncontrollable nuclear weapon. Not to mention him being framed for the frying of those people in another country. It's not just a what if?

Is there a reason people should trust him? Him helping doesn't mean he always will. He's not infallible. Automatically trusting him to me isn't much different than automatically trusting someone pointing a bazooka at me.

Batman is criticized because he violates people's civil rights on a nightly basis.

Superman is criticized because he saves people in otherwise hopeless situations.

One of those criticisms is well merited. The other, less so.

I wouldn't agree that that means that Clark thinks he's automatically owed any trust. Superman isn't ostracized. Apparently there are people who support him. Even in the movie, he's being mostly criticized because he's thought to have flown in fried people on international soil. That and the guy grafitii-ing the statue is what's developed. The movie even presents it through Perry as the end of a love affair. I take that to mean that he was liked mostly before that. Even the grafitii comes from someone because they seem to blame Clark for his situation. Even Batman's issue I think is steeped in revenge for the destruction in metropolis. Along with displaced rage about other things potentially. And that he justifies it as a precautionary tactic.

[thecolorsblend]

Batman is criticized because he violates people's civil rights on a nightly basis.

Superman is criticized because he saves people in otherwise hopeless situations.

One of those criticisms is well merited. The other, less so.

I wouldn't agree that that means that Clark thinks he's automatically owed any trust. Superman isn't ostracized. Apparently there are people who support him. Even in the movie, he's being mostly criticized because he's thought to have flown in fried people on international soil. That and the guy grafitii-ing the statue is what's developed. The movie even presents it through Perry as the end of a love affair. I take that to mean that he was liked mostly before that. Even the grafitii comes from someone because they seem to blame Clark for his situation. Even Batman's issue I think is steeped in revenge for the destruction in metropolis. Along with displaced rage about other things potentially. And that he justifies it as a precautionary tactic.

That has literally nothing to do with what I wrote.

[Dagenspear]

That has literally nothing to do with what I wrote.

I was responding to you saying why he's being criticized with why I think that's not the case. By saying that I think he's not criticized for his saves, but for things people blame him for and even events he's been framed for.

[thecolorsblend]

That has literally nothing to do with what I wrote.

I was responding to you saying why he's being criticized with why I think that's not the case. By saying that I think he's not criticized for his saves, but for things people blame him for and even events he's been framed for.

I see. So basically when Finch says that Superman "shouldn't act unilaterally" with his "state-level interventions" and never even mentions the faked desert massacre, it was all because she believed he was guilty of the faked desert massacre?

Cool story, bro.

[The Dark Knight]

Here's another if. Superman was lambasted for going toe to toe with Zod. But what if he didn't? I'm sure it would've been 'this alien had all this power, equal to Zod, and he sat back and did nothing to stop him. What a disgrace.'

[Dagenspear]

I see. So basically when Finch says that Superman "shouldn't act unilaterally" with his "state-level interventions" and never even mentions the faked desert massacre, it was all because she believed he was guilty of the faked desert massacre?

Cool story, bro.

What about the talk at the beginning, when that woman told them about him killing those people? Wasn't that the initiation of the issue? Isn't people being afraid of him due to that? Why would Perry describe the situation as the end of a love affair in regards to that guy's graffiti if people didn't generally like Superman before?

Wouldn't what Batman did have similar justification? Batman stopped those human traffickers. By the same measure of Batman violating their civil liberties, doesn't Superman violate international law by getting involved in the situation?

Here's another if. Superman was lambasted for going toe to toe with Zod. But what if he didn't? I'm sure it would've been 'this alien had all this power, equal to Zod, and he sat back and did nothing to stop him. What a disgrace.'

I think that doesn't change that there would be those who blame him. Superman did fight Zod in a situation he didn't have control of. And I think his search led Zod to earth.

[thecolorsblend]

I see. So basically when Finch says that Superman "shouldn't act unilaterally" with his "state-level interventions" and never even mentions the faked desert massacre, it was all because she believed he was guilty of the faked desert massacre?

Cool story, bro.

What about the talk at the beginning, when that woman told them about him killing those people? Wasn't that the initiation of the issue? Isn't people being afraid of him due to that? Why would Perry describe the situation as the end of a love affair in regards to that guy's graffiti if people didn't generally like Superman before?

I'm not sure if the reason your post completely ignores my point is intentional or accidental.

The fact remains, however, that your post ignores my point. Finch is an example of someone who took issue with Superman over reasons that have precisely nothing to do with faked desert attacks. Address this point or else don't reply to this post.

Thanks.