Lex Sedet In Vertice: A Supervillain in the DCU CK2 quest

What sort of tone should I shoot for with this Quest?

  • Go as crack fueled as you can we want Ambush Bug, Snowflame and Duckseid

    Votes: 30 7.7%
  • Go for something silly but keep a little bit of reason

    Votes: 31 7.9%
  • Adam West Camp

    Votes: 27 6.9%
  • Balanced as all things should be

    Votes: 195 50.0%
  • Mostly serious but not self-involvedly so

    Votes: 73 18.7%
  • Dark and brooding but with light at the end of the tunnel

    Votes: 12 3.1%
  • We're evil and we don't want anyone to be happy

    Votes: 22 5.6%

  • Total voters
    390
  • Poll closed .
Like, it doesn't matter what we think- all that matters is what the characters think. Also, since we're supposed to be playing as Lex Luthor, we should think about it like he would. Lex would so not care that Supes had good reasons, this is not "oh my god what have I done?" All-Star Lex, sure Superman has good reasons- but without context he looks really bad to others.
 
Like, it doesn't matter what we think- all that matters is what the characters think. Also, since we're supposed to be playing as Lex Luthor, we should think about it like he would. Lex would so not care that Supes had good reasons, this is not "oh my god what have I done?" All-Star Lex, sure Superman has good reasons- but without context he looks really bad to others.
In terms of plans and moves you make then yes you are correct the vast majority of what matters is what characters perceive. This is correct. You did not do this in the comment I responded to. You specifically opened the initial statement I responded to with the following phrase
I still think most superheroes are oddly selfish
You didn't write about what Lex thinks or what game moves you ought to make or anything like that, you specifically gave your opinion on superheroes and then I responded it to that. Shifting it back to Lex's position is moving the goalposts from what I was talking about in the first place. Yes you're right that Lex doesn't care and Superman's good intentions aren't all that important to him. That's irrelevant what I was arguing earlier. I even said as much in a previous post.
I'm not attempting to argue whether or not Lex would hate Superman so much as I'm trying to point out that the argument is biased and not really a critique of the actual character.
You provided an argument for why you think superheroes seem oddly selfish and then I attempted to refute that argument because it wasn't a good argument regarding the characters. It was not a commentary on what Lex Luthor should do or how Lex Luthor thinks or even what Lex Luthor might think. I was responding to a statement about what you personally have claimed to think.

Again there ought to be some degree of separation between you and Lex Luthor. I do like it when people can think like Lex Luthor for the purposes of the quest but at the same time I want to make it clear that you probably shouldn't take his viewpoint as gospel on anything outside the quest (and even in the quest Lex is wrong at times). Lex Luthor's thoughts are utterly irrelevant to the question of "are superheroes oddly selfish?" once you argue for it as a position, you as a person, personally hold.

This entire interaction started because of something you said you think so it's a little weird that you're now arguing that nothing you think matters when that's why this all started in the first place. You can still hold the position you seemed to be arguing for initially, it's just that your argument for why you as a human being believe that, was based on what I think are faulty premises.

I feel like I've been talking around you as the vast majority of your responses to my initial response aren't exactly salient to the topic under discussion as I understood it.
 
Last edited:
Am I not allowed to think superheroes are oddly selfish? They're often careless about property damage and rarely do stories actually acknowledge why vigilantes are illegal. In the earlier days they were definitely picky about what counted as a real person, Superman himself was gonna destroy a robot until said robot suddenly started breathing. Like, I'm confused- am not allowed to think anything "bad" about heroes?
 
Am I not allowed to think superheroes are oddly selfish? They're often careless about property damage and rarely do stories actually acknowledge why vigilantes are illegal. In the earlier days they were definitely picky about what counted as a real person, Superman himself was gonna destroy a robot until said robot suddenly started breathing. Like, I'm confused- am not allowed to think anything "bad" about heroes?
I'm going to note here that your arguments are dancing around in circles now, and I can see the flaws from here. It might be best to give it a rest.
 
I wasn't even trying to do much, all I wanted was just to state my opinion and I didn't expect so much effort to be put into telling me how wrong I was to think it. That bothered me way more, because heroes really do tend to murder anything they don't consider alive- and instead I felt like an idiot being told "that's just because of people doing evil supermen".
 
I wasn't even trying to do much, all I wanted was just to state my opinion and I didn't expect so much effort to be put into telling me how wrong I was to think it. That bothered me way more, because heroes really do tend to murder anything they don't consider alive- and instead I felt like an idiot being told "that's just because of people doing evil supermen".
Okay, on the "murder anything they don't consider alive" side of things... could you come up with some examples? I mean, "entities that are sapient but not alive, that heroes murder without particularly good reason" doesn't seem like an overwhelmingly common trope to me. Perhaps I'm just not aware of them?

Also, I'll admit it... I personally don't value the life of murderous AI as highly as I value the life of people. Is that what you're talking about?
 
Am I not allowed to think superheroes are oddly selfish? They're often careless about property damage and rarely do stories actually acknowledge why vigilantes are illegal. In the earlier days they were definitely picky about what counted as a real person, Superman himself was gonna destroy a robot until said robot suddenly started breathing. Like, I'm confused- am not allowed to think anything "bad" about heroes?
You're allowed to think whatever you'd like. That being said you made an argument for why you held your position. I disagreed with the argument you gave so I attempted to refute it by pointing out contradictions and complications that would refute your argument if you left it as is. You then responded that Lex Luthor would have the position you hold and then I attempted to point out that Lex Luthor isn't an objective viewpoint and he certainly isn't someone you ought to base your thought process on when forming real-life opinions. You then stated that you ought to think like Lex Luthor for the quest which is just a total non-sequitur.

Your initial points in your argument as I understood them were as follows:
  • Superheroes don't care about why being a vigilante is illegal and Superman is especially bad about that and the Justice League is an NGO superpower that barely acknowledges the governments of the world (factually untrue and incorrect)
  • They don't kill for stupid or flimsy reasons and are hypocritical in their enforcement of the sanctity of life (a little more debatable but still by and large something that most people would consider untrue)
  • Superheroes deliberately ignore problems (technically true but least charitable interpretation possible of the characters and is more of an issue with the superhero genre than with superheroes themselves)
  • Superman didn't do anything to earn his position as a hero and does nothing while getting all the credit for it (arguably untrue and almost certainly more a problem with the genre of superhero stories itself than with the characters and something I highly disagree with)
  • Superheroes freely completely ignore collateral damage and are uncaring of property damage (there's an element of truth to this but the example you specifically cited was one that is more an occurrence that happened to make fight scenes interesting as opposed to something I would consider a legitimate criticism of the characters)
  • Superman should feel guilty because he doesn't do enough (This has an element of truth to it and can be explored but also kind of misses the point of a lot of the Superman story since it's fundamentally not a story about humanity needing an alien savior to fix everything for them forever)
I disagreed with your argument and provided counterexamples and counter arguments to most of what you presented as your reasons for why you believe what you do. You then responded with a statement about what Lex Luthor would think which is not a response to what I was attempting to argue for.
I wasn't even trying to do much, all I wanted was just to state my opinion and I didn't expect so much effort to be put into telling me how wrong I was to think it. That bothered me way more, because heroes really do tend to murder anything they don't consider alive- and instead I felt like an idiot being told "that's just because of people doing evil supermen".
You can have an opinion but generally people will respect an opinion a lot more if you can provide evidence for why you think it. You're not somehow "wrong" to think it. Lets ignore the fact that murder is a word that means unjust killing and thus contains both a moral component and is precipitated on the person in question committing the action against a living being. You believe that superheroes tend to murder anything they don't consider alive. Great. Can you cite a factual example of this occurring? Otherwise anyone can dismiss your opinion as having no basis in reality. I'll be especially impressed if you can find an example of what you are claiming superheroes constantly do that occurred after the sixties and wasn't part of either an accident, a trolley problem or war-like conditions. If you can find multiple examples then your assertion has evidence and you've got an argument that even if people disagree with it, they can actually engage with it.

Lastly the fact that you claim that I told you that "that's just because of people doing evil Superman" actively infuriates me. Like before I was giving you the benefit of the doubt but now it seems increasingly likely that you are deliberately twisting my words and misrepresenting what I'm saying to you. Either you're doing that or you somehow managed to miss that I was responding to an entirely different statement (complete with an argument against said statement that illustrated what I was talking about) by Thanatosra that Superman is very willing to play judge, jury and executioner. The comment in question also only cited living beings that Superman killed and while it was arguably responding to you I felt that it was significantly separate that I could respond to each argument individually and attempt to refute the assertions they made. I'm frankly a bit insulted that you either are maliciously misrepresenting me to garner sympathy and play the victim or simply don't bother to read what I'm actually saying.

It's frustrating because I'm treating to treat you with respect by taking what you are claiming seriously and attempting to articulate why I disagree with your statements respectfully without insulting you and while giving you the benefit of the doubt and yet you repeatedly are responding to me with non-sequiturs, non-arguments, constant goal-post shifting and just flat out either misrepresenting or misunderstanding what I'm saying. I have just as much right to state why I disagree with your opinion as you do to state your opinion and the length of the post is not an attack on you but rather an attempt to explain why I hold my position.
 
Last edited:
Okay, on the "murder anything they don't consider alive" side of things... could you come up with some examples?

What Measure Is A Non-Human literally has a sub-page for The DCAU. Sure, sometimes the victim is an actual bad person, but sometimes they're either non-dangerous or even innocent. They're perfectly willing to murder anything they deem "not a person", or at least be indifferent about their death. Yeah, it depends on the writer, but these things can't just be ignored- it is established fact that heroes in general, not just DC, tend to not care if someone isn't a naturally born entity. Especially bizarre when someone being evil and "not a person" is why getting murdered is fine, but a "real person" could be infinitely worse and never have to worry about being killed.
 
What Measure Is A Non-Human literally has a sub-page for The DCAU. Sure, sometimes the victim is an actual bad person, but sometimes they're either non-dangerous or even innocent. They're perfectly willing to murder anything they deem "not a person", or at least be indifferent about their death. Yeah, it depends on the writer, but these things can't just be ignored- it is established fact that heroes in general, not just DC, tend to not care if someone isn't a naturally born entity. Especially bizarre when someone being evil and "not a person" is why getting murdered is fine, but a "real person" could be infinitely worse and never have to worry about being killed.
can u give some examples cause I am curious beyond doomsday and the parademons do the heroes do this to
 
What Measure Is A Non-Human literally has a sub-page for The DCAU. Sure, sometimes the victim is an actual bad person, but sometimes they're either non-dangerous or even innocent. They're perfectly willing to murder anything they deem "not a person", or at least be indifferent about their death. Yeah, it depends on the writer, but these things can't just be ignored- it is established fact that heroes in general, not just DC, tend to not care if someone isn't a naturally born entity. Especially bizarre when someone being evil and "not a person" is why getting murdered is fine, but a "real person" could be infinitely worse and never have to worry about being killed.

Actually in DCAU, the biggest perpertrator of that would be the NSA with the Zeta Project...speaking of which, we may want to have contacts in the NSA to get in on development of such units early.
 
can u give some examples cause I am curious beyond doomsday and the parademons do the heroes do this to

The comic sub-page also lists a bunch. Speaking of Doomsday, Superman was hesitant to kill him but fully willing to murder an entire army of weaker clones. In general, if something is a non-human bad guy, heroes are way too chill about murder. Like the time DCAU Bruce was manipulated by a plant person, and decided literal murder was okay. Clayface also got stuff into fireworks as a joke.

Actually in DCAU, the biggest perpertrator of that would be the NSA with the Zeta Project...speaking of which, we may want to have contacts in the NSA to get in on development of such units early.

Remember the Batman Beyond episode where Terry's friend literally ordered a clingy robot to be his girlfriend and everyone is way too calm about her feelings being hurt due to her "boyfriend" blatantly ignoring she was made to his loyal girlfriend?
 
The comic sub-page also lists a bunch. Speaking of Doomsday, Superman was hesitant to kill him but fully willing to murder an entire army of weaker clones. In general, if something is a non-human bad guy, heroes are way too chill about murder. Like the time DCAU Bruce was manipulated by a plant person, and decided literal murder was okay. Clayface also got stuff into fireworks as a joke.



Remember the Batman Beyond episode where Terry's friend literally ordered a clingy robot to be his girlfriend and everyone is way too calm about her feelings being hurt due to her "boyfriend" blatantly ignoring she was made to his loyal girlfriend?

Links to these examples please. I wish to see them for myself before I make any judgements on the actions of the parties involved.
 
So a run-through of where it occurs according to the TV tropes page on the DCAU
  • The Static Shock/Superman crossover episode with the robot girlfriend which is noted on the same page to be in direct contradiction with the episode that introduced the character
  • Vague mentions of Superman treating Parasite badly (who is very much both human and alive)
  • A bit about Bizarro that actually cites Superman not treating Bizarro cruelly or killing him but instead letting him live out his delusions away from people who could get hurt
  • Citing various aliens and robots who get blown up and killed in the show. This example holds up but disregards the fact that at least some of the occasions cited were similar to the conditions of total war and cites Parademons which don't really have free will to any meaningful capacity. There is something here and the show does somewhat acknowledge this.
  • Robin reacting differently from the police with regards to Clayface's absorption of Annie lending credence to the idea that the exact degree of things is dependent on which superhero you are looking at
  • Clayface (who is human and alive) who gets shot out of a cannon and then never reappears again which makes people think he might be dead
  • Batman and Robin killing a bunch of Poison Ivy's sapient plant creatures that were planning to rob the wealthy elite of Gotham
  • Batman getting robots to kill themselves and blowing themselves up which has him contradict himself with whether or not they had a soul
  • The Batman Beyond robot girlfriend which is the worst case of this
  • The Zeta chronicles which shows the government being just as bad if not worse than the superheroes suggesting this is a phenomenon not isolated to just superheroes
  • Brainiac killing people
  • Acknowledgement by the creators of the show that they could only get away with violence towards non-humans because of the networks own censorship and thus the only way they could get away with violence was by doing this as opposed to some in-universe massive hypocrisy meaning this was more a medium restriction more than anything else.
It doesn't exactly paint a picture of all superheroes being brutally selfish hypocrites and relies a lot on implication. You can read it for yourself here: DC Animated Universe / What Measure Is A Non Human - TV Tropes

The actual TV Tropes page regarding what measure is a non-human for comics is too long for me to list all of the examples and in general is similarly riddled with contradictory examples, superheroes regularly making a point to consider all life sacred, readers revolting when characters go too far across the line and saying that it's out of character or even explorations of the concept that don't paint superheroes in a bad light necessarily. You'd need to take the least charitable opinion possible to think that this is much more than the writers being inconsistent due to the many years of things working and having to work around various censors and restrictions.
 
Last edited:
Links to these examples please. I wish to see them for myself before I make any judgements on the actions of the parties involved.

I'm on my phone, and for some reason it won't me use any of the buttons- they're all greyed out except at the very end which doesn't seem to do much. It isn't exclusive to heroes, but they tend to be the most blatant examples. In Zeta's case, he really would of been a product who is viewed as "reprogrammed" which is vastly different from the girlfriend bot who was just… dismissed. Even if people thought she was "malfunctioning", nobody really cared about "fixing" her.
 
So this is going to be an announcement that you all have one hour left to get your votes in for the personal actions before it closes. Consider things announced.
 
Inserted tally:
Adhoc vote count started by Lord Ultimus on Jul 10, 2021 at 7:21 PM, finished with 62 posts and 23 votes.
 
Inserted tally:
Adhoc vote count started by Lord Ultimus on Jul 10, 2021 at 7:21 PM, finished with 62 posts and 23 votes.

Hey the splitting the votes by section is new and makes things so much easier.
 
Adhoc vote count started by Gumiho on Jul 10, 2021 at 8:10 PM, finished with 65 posts and 23 votes.


I had edited my vote earlier to break the tie in Roxy's section.
 
Businessmen don't really like getting showed up, so Superman's mere existence would set him off because Superman is "trying" to "steal" his role of being Metropolis's "hero"- of being the only one they need.
I don't know. I don't think a normal businessman would see it that way. Lex Luthor does, but that's because Lex Luthor is a megalomaniac who, far more than most tech billionaires, sees a particular city as 'his.'

That kind of megalomania is not normal. Not even for billionaires. It isn't usually so noticeable in this quest because Lex is the viewpoint character and he's good at lying to himself about how mentally healthy he is. But it's there.

Also, Superheroes totally have "what measure is a non-human" going on- they really do care less about anything they don't consider to be a real person. I don't wanna get into a whole thing, I just thought it was really crappy Superman didn't just fight off Brainiac and made him Earth's problem for no reason.
...In this continuity?

Superman was literally beaten unconscious with a crowbar and dragged off the planet against his will. How the fuck is this his fault?

Are you... even reading the same quest as the rest of us?

o_O

Like, it doesn't matter what we think- all that matters is what the characters think. Also, since we're supposed to be playing as Lex Luthor, we should think about it like he would.
That sounds like a great way to lose your sense of reality within the context of the quest.

You are not, in objective fact, under any obligation to share the viewpoints of any fictional character, including and perhaps especially not Lex Luthor.

What Measure Is A Non-Human literally has a sub-page for The DCAU.
The DCAU at this point spans many hundreds of hours of fictional content, and TVTropers are obsessive-compulsive. Tropers will routinely catalog isolated individual incidents of something happening once in a show, regardless of whether it's part of the recurring patterns of the show.

And to illustrate that, there are roughly ten concrete, specific, well-justified examples from the entire DCAU, and half of them are either bad examples, or not an example of a superhero exercising this trope.

If the best you can do is to assert evidence exists on a page that as far as I can determine you may not have read and certainly didn't read with a critical eye, then I'm not sure what you think you're talking about here.

I think that this "established fact" of yours is a figment of your imagination. Unless, of course, you're seriously arguing that, say, a tele-operated drone or a mindless zombie is the moral equivalent of a sapient being.

The Batman Beyond robot girlfriend which is the worst case of this...
Yeah, but read with a critical eye, the person who treated the robot girlfriend as something subhuman wasn't a superhero.

Tropers will often apply shit like this when it's being done by a secondary character, or even a villain, or when it's the narrative tone of the show and not the characters in the narrative doing it.

And, as you note, this is a stack of about ten-ish cherrypicked examples from an entire gigantic body of work.
 
Last edited:
And to illustrate that, there are roughly ten concrete, specific, well-justified examples from the entire DCAU, and half of them are either bad examples, or not an example of a superhero exercising this trope.

I'm not gonna react to all of that, since I really don't want to cause some discussion. I am literally just here to go "Not just the DCAU". Sure, there definitely a lot of ridiculous examples, but I wouldn't call any instance of "what measure is a non-human" justified.

They very specifically decide "they're not a proper person" is good enough for murder, regardless of how intelligent the 'non-person' is. The only possible justification is "We legitimately didn't think you were people, sorry".

There's no "justified" reason for literally viewing someone as an acceptable target- the only okay example would be one where the person going "what is a non-human" changes their mind and apologizes.

DC has examples of characters going "but they're people!" where no one else does, but that's more of an inversion of the expected play-out. They don't have justified examples- they have inverted examples, and sometimes cute little philosophical debates.
 
They very specifically decide "they're not a proper person" is good enough for murder, regardless of how intelligent the 'non-person' is. The only possible justification is "We legitimately didn't think you were people, sorry".

There's no "justified" reason for literally viewing someone as an acceptable target- the only okay example would be one where the person going "what is a non-human" changes their mind and apologizes.

DC has examples of characters going "but they're people!" where no one else does, but that's more of an inversion of the expected play-out. They don't have justified examples- they have inverted examples, and sometimes cute little philosophical debates.
This isn't really what the trope is and this is pretty unfairly reductive. A lot of the time it's a lot more complicated than that. "What measure is a non-human" is not a trope about denying someone as a non-person so much as it is stating that the value of life is not held equally amongst all living beings and that some entities lives are less valuable than human life. You can object to this and there is room to debate but you're misrepresenting the trope. Unless you want to argue that the lives of say cows and humans are perfectly equivalent then you are engaging in some degree of "what measure is a non-human". It's not as cut and dry as a simple denial of personhood to a living being.

What you call a "cute little philosophical debate" is actually a legitimate branch of debate IRL under the greater umbrella of value theory. In DC it gets a lot more complicated a lot more quickly. After all we have robots like the Manhunters which have no autonomy and were never alive and so we can safely say they aren't people and freely blow them up but at the same time there are robots like Red Tornado who were never alive but do have freedom to a meaningful degree and so most people would agree he is a person. It can get increasingly more complicated the more into the weeds you go with the examples (Solomon Grundy is autonomous but is brain damaged and already died once, vampires are literally designed to bring pain to other living beings and are undead but have freedom, Parademons are alive but not autonomous etc.). Then you can make it even harder when you start asking if a character is more equitable to an animal or a human being (Dex-Starr, Moose and Krypto are all clearly more equitable to an animal than a sentient being and thus some people would consider their lives to be less valuable as a result but then you get weird fringe cases like with Karshon or Starro where it's incredibly unclear how sentient they are).

I shouldn't harp on this too much as it's turning into a derail and I'm happy to elaborate on the philosophy behind the argument but you seem to be operating under a false understanding of what the trope actually is and means as well as how it tends to come into play with superheroes. The opinion that any degree of "what measure is a non-human" is immoral is fine but it's somewhat distinct from what you seem to be arguing as taking that position would lead you to conclude that the lives of dogs and bears and trees are all equivalent to human life. All that being said the vast majority of people would agree that there is some degree of "what measure is a non-human" that is justified morally.
 
Last edited:
You're still putting in way too much effort, it honestly just makes me feel like I'm being insulted. I know you're not trying to, but I'm already suspicious of others and expect the worst when they react to me. I literally said I didn't want to cause a discussion, so why am I getting paragraphs hurled at me about how I'm wrong?
 
You're still putting in way too much effort, it honestly just makes me feel like I'm being insulted. I know you're not trying to, but I'm already suspicious of others and expect the worst when they react to me. I literally said I didn't want to cause a discussion, so why am I getting paragraphs hurled at me about how I'm wrong?
Because you're being somewhat demeaning and oversimplying a position I personally hold as well as I imagine other people hold. When you make bold declarations like "X is never justified" then be prepared to expect a rebuttal from people who do think it can be justified especially when you equate it to an excuse to justify murdering other people. I said in the post multiple times that you seem to be misrepresenting the position you are arguing against and never once said that you were wrong only that your declarations had implications that aren't immediately obvious.
 
Last edited:
When you make bold declarations like "X is never justified"

Yes, I'm sure my dead Jewish grandmother completely agrees with the idea of "Acceptable Targets". I don't even know why this got so complicated, I was deliberately trying not to draw your attention so you wouldn't feel like you needed to react to me. I wasn't trying to be demeaning, and I'm not wrong about how there's no such thing as Acceptable Targets. Stuff like "What Measure Is A Non-Human" relies on that, so of course I don't really like people who insist Acceptable Targets are real. I wasn't looking for a debate, literally all I tried to do was mention my two cents and I just felt compelled to constantly react to people taking offense to what was supposed to be a simple opinion that didn't require people writing whole paragraphs.
 
Back
Top