It does if the argument is for hating X for doing something legal - it isn't an argument about doing things "right or wrong" but about what causes things.
Because what we are doing *is not a crime*, is legal, and we are reasonably incentivized for it (i.e we are not going out of our way to do it) then taking issue with us is not going to help her cause at all since someone else will just rise up to it.
The difference between your example and this is that there is no incentive for them to do so and it's not a business decision but an ideologically driven one.
They wouldn't be providing a service and this isn't a business transaction- and if they were you'd be obviously free to hate them but blaming them instead of those letting them do what they do is incredibly silly.
For example, in Russia there's a law about unions that roughly means that as long as 30% of all people in a given company wish to be unionized then they can force everyone to unionize with them.
It's a stupid law and gives the Russian mob a shit ton of power, as well as legal protection for many of their shadier activities under the guise of unionization, but I hardly blame them for taking this opportunity that was presented to them by the system as much as I blame the system for presenting it in the first place.
Lois is similarly free to hate whoever, but it's not something that is good for her goals whatsoever and she doesn't hold any high ground here at all.
You are kind of putting words in my mouth. You are also wrong.
In regard to the Italian mob, destroying them was actually very easy once the proper legal infrastructure was placed (the RICO act, wiretapping, long term infiltration regulations etc) precisely because they were as organized as they were. Even today they aren't completely gone.
Instead, they're a known variable that exists pretty much at the whim of the U.S government, with pretty much all collaborators and members being known factors.
Governments prefer organized crime to unorganized crime since it's easier to control and deal with and is, for the most part, less prone to outright public disorder and so on.
It's true that no crime at all is preferable to both but it's also irrelevant.
In the Yakuza's case for example, Japan turns a blind eye to a lot of things (including human trafficking btw) and lets the Yakuza suck in all of the crime around the Japan and then slowly press down on the organization.
It works too - Japan has a very low rate of crime overall and Yakuza numbers are going down.
This actually led them to try and work with other Asian gangs which makes the police crack harder on them, which (ironically) makes the situation worse for them.
My example wasn't about "giving up" and "not doing anything", but actually letting Lexcorp be a sole weapon dealer for the government is very much in her interests.
This way, taking direct action against Lexcorp legally would be the equivalent of taking direct action against the Industrial Military Complex as a whole, making it a reduction (in the algorithmic sense) of her problem.
Contrast this with having a bunch of smaller firms doing a bunch of different things and it'll pretty much guarantee that taking individual action against any of them is not going to do anything without actually changing the law first, unlike the Lexcorp example.
Dude, the words "deal" and "bargaining" are mentioned here. How is this not haggling?
I'm arguing that if she wants to take advantage of the kindness that we provided her with then she is free to do so, but anything above that is overreaching on her part.
It isn't a tautology as much as it is a trap based on her own incentives, not if your consider "Either do what we want you to or do something that you don't want outright"
And if she hates both options? Meh, that's a "her" problem, which in turn strengthens our poisition.
The first point and second points aren't actually relevant in regard to her bargaining power.
Regarding the Metaphore, I don't really see the problem with it.
If I'm using my house as a shelter and dedicate a room for it, then people aren't allowed to use it as an excuse to go around my entire house.
They can use their phones or whatever, but assuming that they don't have any technology with them then they'd technically be cut from the outside world until they leave, or is it my role to provide them with the technological means to keep up with things?
I also don't understand why, if we assume that Lois getting back to the field is bad, can't she just go around interviewing people after this whole thing blows over as any sane journalist would under these circumstances? Why do we need to provide her with people at all to compensate her for this if there's no real loss here?
Four things:
1) You are saying it like she knows that we are up to something in our attempt to keep her in, rather than looking at things from her point of view. She doesn't have the meta-knowledge that she is being brainwashed and can't exactly say "Well Lex, either do this for me or I'll go back out there and break your brainwashing of me!" now can she?
2) If she goes back to a warzone then killing her would be very easy, and if not, then negatively painting her as irresponsible and getting in the way. Keep in mind that we don't need her to know it, but just having the option to keep playing the situation in our favor detracts from whatever leverage she (unknowingly!) has.
3) If she just doesn't try to get a statement from us instead of doing actual investigative work and proper Journalism then frankly she's a shit reporter and that's not in character.
4) Her grievances are not legitimate in the first place, and it should be pointed out that it's the direct equivalent of throwing a temper tantrum for not getting your way.
What bothers me here isn't that we made a deal with her, but the fact that she views it as "bargaining" rather than getting favors from Lexcorp (in both protection as well as exclusive interviewing opportunities) and she is extremely ungrateful (given what she knows)
I also dislike the idea of Lex Luthor just starting negotiating with her right away instead of presenting such a front that would delegitimize her taking action and then slowly starting to "go her way" and help her.
Enough to make it clear that we don't owe her anything, that she is not entitled to anything and that she is here out of the goodness of our hearts (supposedly) but at the same time making sure that despite of it, we *choose* to help her out said sheer goodness of our hearts.
This is a massively more powerful diplomatic position to take and I think that you robbed us of it unjustly.
But we aren't actually obligated to do all of these things, right? This is the exact kind of thing that I was hoping to clear up with the Superhero group laws - to make heroes "obligated", thus detracting from their heroism since they are compelled under the law to do what they do, while keeping Lexcorp as "benevolent protectors" who are donating and doing good without getting anything in return for it.
It's narrative and increases our relative power while allowing us to maintain flexibility. It's multi-level social engineering.
Also, the fact that Superman risks is life and we don't is ultimately irrelevant since it's not a high-impact activity for us to do same, and when it was (Like during the Wayne welcoming part) we did similar things if far less impressively.
Also also, it can be argued that since we are coordinating the efforts and since it appeared as though the invader has power over technology even before she informed us, it'd be no problem for them to locate Lexcorp as a major hub of Defense in this area and thus attempt to strike it down first and foremost, making the defenses a must.
Regarding your edit and the rest of what you said, I'm not saying that Lois is doing something unreasonable since she obviously has her biases, but rather I'm pointing out that she's being stupid in her line of thought and does not attempt to see things from our perspective.
This is perfectly human since people always see their own issues above those of others, but it contributes to my main point about Lois being a huge bitch all the same.
Last edited:
