OT: Current World Events...What Would Superman Do?

[Ash]

Skaboi recently posted the Genesis video: Land of Confusion on his Myspace page.

In it, Phil Collins sings...
"Oh Superman where are you now?
Everything's gone wrong somehow
The men of steel, men of power
Are losing control by the hour"

I commented on his page that now 20 years later, those lyrics ring more true now than ever.

I wonder what Superman would do concerning some of the nasty current events going on.
Like the situation in Iraq.
Do you think he would get involved?

I think he would up to a point.
I believe that he would prevent at least some of the deaths from happening over there.

He definitely wouldn't get involved in any of the politics...but I believe he would prevent at least some of the needless and senseless deaths and murder of innocents from happening.
I mean, what's Muqtada Al-Sadr & his Mahdi Army gonna do?
They can fire their AK-47's and RPG's all they want and they wouldn't be able to stop Superman.
I imagine him being shot at, bullets bouncing off him and walking up to an Iraqi insurgent, disarming him and breaking his AK-47 in half.

That would be symbolic in and of itself.
(I've always seen the AK-47 as a symbol of evil)

If Superman were real, I'd hope that he'd at least try to help stop the sectarian violence...this enormous can of worms we've inadvertantly opened.

What about dangerous and unpredictable rogue states like North Korea?
Do you think Superman would help when it comes to them?

I do.

I think that if North Korea acheived the capability of putting a nuclear warhead onto an ICBM, Superman would stop it.
As for the proliferation of nuclear weapons, I do believe that he would try to help if and when he could.

Superman used to stand for "Truth, justice & the American Way" but not anymore.
The usage of the phrase, "The American Way" is obsolete in my opinion and I think Superman and the rest of the world would agree.

Do you think Superman would speak to all of the world leaders one on one?
Would he address the entire world via the United Nations as he did in Superman 4?

If Superman wants to fly in and have a serious sit-down with Ayatollah Khomeini or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, they're going to have to listen to him whether they like it or not.

Same goes for Kim-Jong-Il.
All of his goosestepping soldiers and mobile missile launchers wouldn't be able to stop Superman from going in and talking with him directly.

I think he also would definitely have a sit-down with ol' George W.
What do you think he'd say to our current president?

Or...

Would Superman decide to just ignore all of it?

Please, don't let this become a political flame war.
I'm asking an honest question here...

What do you think Superman would do?

[Inyarear]

That Superman would be involved in our current affairs I little doubt. I've read some histories others have published about comic books, and I know that among other things, Jerry Siegel and Joe Schuster did a short strip for Look magazine in their time showing what Superman would do about the situation in Europe (that is, Hitler and Stalin's aggression which would eventually turn into World War II). Specifically, they showed him dragging Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin before the League of Nations for trial and punishment on charges of "unprovoked aggression against defenseless countries."

I notice, however, that you neglect the possibility, more thoroughly explored in Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' Watchmen, that Superman's presence would surely provoke certain actions on the part of the various political figures you've mentioned. In Watchmen, Dr. Manhattan (a character far more powerful than Superman, even, since he had the ability to manipulate all matter around him, and possibly all matter anywhere) won the Vietnam War for the U.S. and helped ensure Richard Nixon's election to a third term as President. He also, according to the theories of an old friend of his, made the escalation of the Cold War into all-out nuclear conflict inevitable. The effects he had on the whole American way of life--great and small also feature prominently in the story. (His ability to manipulate matter made lithium cheap and plentiful, for example, giving rise to the mass production of electric cars and subsequent marked improvement to the environment. He also made possible the fabric that vigilante and costumed adventurer Rorschach used in the mask that he wore over his face as part of his costume.)

If Superman were real, kryptonite would surely be real as well, and the stuff appears to be at least as much available as nuclear weaponry and reasonably adaptable to various military means of delivery. Every dictator you mention would probably be looking to get his hands on the stuff, and to make more of it if possible. I don't think our own military would refrain from seeking it either; who knows when a really powerful and all-but-invincible guy like Superman might flip out and take the enemy's side against you? (Our Pentagon has, it's my understanding, contingency plans for attacking--or defending--every nation in the world. They would surely have a similar plan for Superman.) In Watchmen, the government was shown to be keeping Dr. Manhattan in a military compound with his girlfriend/wife Laurie there to keep him "relaxed and happy." Our own military would, I suspect, hardly do less.

As for our President, he would indeed have much to discuss with Superman. In fact, I suspect that he would try to have Superman on his payroll if possible. Short of that, he would at any rate insist on consulting with Superman whenever possible on any matter involving international concerns. Politicians do not (in spite of what anyone supposes) get their positions by being stupid. Underhanded? Maybe. Stupid? Never. Even if Bush really were as stupid as his enemies like to pretend he is, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove and anyone else with so much as half a brain would surely prod Bush into keeping as good of diplomatic relations as possible with Superman.

Our enemies, for their part, would be doing the same things they're doing now--with some modifications--as tenaciously as ever. Hugo Chavez might not be able to do anything about Superman directly, but you just can bet he'd be denouncing him as "Satan's Spawn" at the UN or some such, and threatening to embargo oil sales to the US. Ahmadinejad, for his part, would be pretending to be seeking kryptonite breeder reactors for peaceful purposes (which uses may actually exist for kryptonite, for all anyone knows) while playing off our fair-weather friends in Europe against us. Kim Jong Il would probably already have a bunch of K-bombs in reserve in violation of various treaties he'd have signed with Superman (during Clinton's time) and be publically testing them as a warning to Superman to keep his nose out of North Korea's business.

Other countries--including most of Asia and much of Europe--would angrily denounce Superman for anything he did, anything they accuse him of doing, and for anything he didn't do: "Why are you terrorizing and torturing the innocent civilians of Iraq for your genocidaly totalitarian terrorist puppet-master Bush, Superman? Why aren't you doing anything about Darfur, Superman? How dare you help those Nazi kikes in their illegal incursion on Palestine oppress us, you Superswine of Shaitan! We'll drown you in a pool of kryptonite along with them when we drive them into the sea! How dare you violate Iraq's national sovereignty!" (Etc., etc., etc.) As I recall, the peace conference you mention from Superman #4 involved him threatening to bring down the ceiling on everybody if they didn't get the peace treaty signed. In light of how the representatives of a good many of those nations talk, that looks like a very understandable course of action on his part, wouldn't you agree?

The trouble with Superman is that a figure so powerful is bound to inspire the making of powerful enemies and incredibly difficult problems to match. His very might makes him a country unto himself, a super-cop and super-weapon at the same time. It may be that he really has no choice--if he pursues the "Truth and Justice" part of that creed, to pursue "The American Way" as well: "going it alone" would give his political enemies here in the USA one more rhetorical hammer with which to bash him. (He would have plenty of those enemies too. Didn't DC's Superman comics actually have Lex Luthor being elected President back in 2000? That's more realism for you.)

Teaming up with allies--especially our nation that would, with him present, be the world's second-most powerful super-power--would be a necessity for Superman. (He might pursue further allies, too. Maybe "Truth, Justice, and the Multilateral Alliance's Way" would be his creed? That's bound to be a mouthful to recite, though.) Maybe he would try to silence his bratty critics on the UN's corrupt Security Council and General Assembly--but that would make him the suppressor of free speech and a tyrant himself, wouldn't it? So he has to let them heap all these insults on his head if he is to maintain his moral integrity. The Man of Steel has his work cut out for him whatever he does, and the politics of it are unavoidable.

Your questions are all as legitimate as you say. In view of our wicked world with its wicked ways, though, don't you think Superman would almost be wishing he didn't exist if he actually did exist?

Am I making any sense here?

[Yaddo 42]

Since he can't be everywhere at once, countries might provoke incidents in one place to draw him away from other nasty stuff they or their allies were trying to pull elsewhere. Chavez sinks an oil tanker off the coast to draw Supes there while North Korea preps for another nuke test. Or during a huge natural disaster far away, say a hurricane, where Supes helps with relief efforts or tries to steer the storm away, Pakistan launches a new offensive into Kashmir.

When something happened, you could see the media here and abroad second-guessing him and asking where were you when we needed you. Or natural disasters being blamed on him, with claims he did it at the bidding of the POTUS or some oil company wanting to disrupt supplies to drive up prices. Hey, look at the conspiracy theories surrounding Katrina. Some folks with aaxes to grind and points to score even tried to blame the tsunami and earthquakes in Iran and Pakistan on US nukes.

With the hardline politicos on both sides in the US questioning the loyalty of moderates in their own party, you could see talking heads and the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulter s wondering, "Just how much we can trust this creture from another world who claims to embody and protect our values? Sure he looks like you and me, but deep down is he really?" Left-wingers would throw around talk of "Bush's puppet" and acting at key times to boost the president's approval ratings before elections.

The James Dobson/Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell gang might wonder if he's a demon a sign of the end times, a bad influence and a godless intruder from beyond, or even gay! Look what the tried to do to poor Tinkie Winkie! Minority, immigrant, and social issue groups might try to draft him as a symbol whether he wanted to be one or not for the same reasons. Imagine posters and ad campaigns caling him a "Minority of One".

I'm puting too much thought into this. But my favorite song about the man of Steel is "Superman Song" by the Crash Test Dummies. Seems like a reflection of what real life for a superhero in our world would be like.

[ulthar]

In all that, the thing that caught my eye was that you think the AK-47 is the symbol of evil.  May I ask why?

The AK-47 is an extremely well designed, highly reliable weapon that is calibrated for a ballistically decent (not great, but FAR FAR superior than the .223) cartridge.  That the "bad guy" armies choose the weapon is a testament to it being easy/cheap to mass produce, a big plus for ANY army.

Completely OT, I know.  Just ignore me ...

[Inyarear]

I'm not sure Coulter or Limbaugh would go after Superman quite the way you suggest, but I'm sure they'd find some way to say he's too soft on crime or something. "So, President Superman lets another bunch of interstellar crooks get away with their crimes for 'diplomatic' reasons. Hey, remember how Superman's campaign people said if we voted for Lex Luthor there'd be one disaster after another and the President would do nothing about it? Well, we voted for Lex Luthor, and by golly, they were right!"

I'm not sure Pat Robertson or any of those others would go after him in the way you suggest, either, but I bet Pat Robertson in particular would be asking why Superman doesn't just go strangle Chavez to death already. (I suppose it is possible they'd make something of his being an extraterrestrial, though. Some more thoughtful Christians have produced some friendly speculative theology on extraterrestrials, but I doubt televangelists would be likely to adhere to any of it in response to an actual extraterrestrial turning up on our planet.) As for "gayness," the people on the left would probably be the ones insinuating things about that, especially if Superman took sides in the controversy: "So he's befriended a handsome underage newspaper errand boy named Jimmy Olsen, has he? And Superman voted for the Defense of Marriage Act! How do we know Superman isn't really just another Mark Foley?"

I could pretty much see the rest, though. If we had Superman here, not only would minority groups all be trying to appropriate Superman to their agendas, but his critics would finally prove that it really is possible to be racist against exactly one guy. "Minority of One" indeed! Just see how this has already been done with Bush: take all the worst rhetoric against him and examine it closely, and you'll see it's mostly the kind of stuff you hear from the worst anti-semites... except that it's not about Jews, it's about Bush. Somehow, these guys have managed to be bigoted against Bush and (in some cases) only Bush. (In other cases, some of this hatred spills over on Cheney, Rove, or Rice as well.)

With Superman, I imagine we'd be seeing whole groups spouting racist jibes against him. "Would you want your sister to marry a Superman?" In addition to the stuff you've mentioned about left-wingers accusing Superman of being Bush's puppet, you'd see the 9/11 conspiracy theorists asking why Superman (if he's SO super) didn't prevent 9/11, and implying that he was in on the plot with Bush somehow. Oh, and if Superman wasn't considered Jewish before, he is now, and that explains EVERYTHING.

By the way, even though Superman's efforts have led to the capture of the entire Al-Qaeda leadership including Bin Laden and several other terrorist groups besides, the war's still hopeless and Superman's to blame for our troubles because he's only creating more terrorists with all his violent self-righteous do-gooding anyway. And that stunt he pulled in stopping Hurricane Katrina by flying around in a circle to stir up winds that brought the hurricane to a halt was all just some kind of political ploy. That storm was an artificial crisis he whipped up with some kind of Kryptonian weather machine he's got up in that Fortress of Solitude of his to make us think we need him...

I swear, you could make a whole movie out of all this character assassination and conspiracy madness we earthlings engage in against each other! If Bryan Singer hasn't thought of any of this yet, he ought to be thinking about it now. "Does the World Need a Superman?" stories have been around for decades, but there are a lot fewer asking how the political climate might affect him. Sticks and stones won't ever break Superman's bones (unless they're laced with kryptonite), but the words of our media pundits could put him in a world of emotional hurt. At the very least, some media parasite in the next movie definitely ought to be scoring great Nielson ratings for making a huge scandal out of Superman's "fraudulent" marriage, his "illegitimate" kid, and what a violation it was of Lois Lane's civil rights to go erasing her memory after knocking her up.

This thread isn't off-topic at all! We've got the potential makings of a whole movie plot spilling all over us.

[Inyarear]

About the only technology the Soviet Union ever made right, in fact. AK-47s are the ultimate grunt rifle: you point them in the general direction of your enemies and keep shooting until they're all dead. Aiming carefully is mostly optional. That's not very refined or sophisticated or aesthetically pleasing, granted, but there's nothing specifically evil about the guns.

You want a symbol for evil, try landmines or IEDs. They can theoretically have legitimate uses in war, but in practice they're generally used for killing random masses of people indiscriminately. Our enemies do aim them at our soldiers, but they don't seem to have any qualms about aiming them at women and children in open-air markets as well. They're firing into a crowd, and they know it. That's evil.

[ulthar]

Inyarear Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> They're firing into a crowd, and they know it.
> That's evil.

Which nicely underscores the idea that THINGS cannot be evil; people can be.

[Ash]

ulthar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Which nicely underscores the idea that THINGS
> cannot be evil; people can be.

I stand corrected.
I definitely agree that the AK-47 is indeed a very good assault rifle.  I've watched that "Tales of the Gun" episode on the History Channel that gave tons of info on it.

I see all of these "bad guys" using the weapon and it just has developed a bad rep as the weapon of choice for bad people doing bad things.

[ulthar]

ASHTHECAT Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I see all of these "bad guys" using the weapon and
> it just has developed a bad rep as the weapon of
> choice for bad people doing bad things.

That's a good point Ash, and a good metaphor for many contemporary problems we have:

guns in general
box cutters, cigarette lighters, etc on airplanes
video games
etc.

[ulthar]

In a very loose, very roundabout way, you've described one of the major plot points of THE INCREDIBLES.  Mr. Incredible, while on his way to his wedding and after saving a cat from a tree and capturing two fleeing criminals and a guy who robbed a bus, saved a man from suicide by catching him in midair.  He then got into a tussle with Bomb Voyage who was in the midst of robbing a bank; Bomb Voyage managed to escape, and while doing so, managed to blow up a section of el-train track.  Mr. Incredible chose to stop the train headed for the open track rather than chase after Bomb Voyage.

The upshot of this is that the suicide guy sued Mr. Incredible for injuries caused during his rescue.  This opened the floodgates, and the passengers of the el sued as well.  Then everyone began suing the "Supers," ultimately driving them underground.

It *IS* our culture that is killing heroic behavior.  Whether media crucifixion as you described or our over litigious nature, who wants to stand out and do anything out of 'ordinary?'  Better to be a good little prole (with or without money) and stay under the radar.

[Yaddo 42]

The AK series of assault rifles is rather ubiquitious on the world stage since they are cheap, simple and reliable; and they were a big part of the Soviets supply of "foreign aid" during the Cold War. But I agree it's the user that makes the gun "evil" or not. We didn't seem to mind there being so many in Afghanistan when they were being used against the Soviets. The rebuilt Iraqi military and police forces use AKs, which makes sense since the country is full of them and veterans of the old Iraqi army should already have a leg up in training, well some of them. Plus as a design it has influenced many other firearms, many used by countires we wouldn't consider "evil". Semi-auto variations and clones abound in the US, are they automatically (no pun intended) evil as well?

Good points, Inyarear, I still maintain that many in the fundamentalist/Chirstian conservative camp would attack Superman. I've seen John Hagee do multi-part series on the EVILS of children READING the Harry Potter books, and how it was a gateway to indoctrinate them into practicing black magick or paganism. I've watched Pat Robertson make so many wild claims and go off on his giggly ramblings for so long I wouldn't put anything past him. He would hate having his thunder stolen, IMO. But I'm cynical about pretty much anyone on the public stage and religious leaders in general. As well as p**sed at my numerous typos in my earlier post.

On the other hand I could see attention whores like Charlie Rangle and Chuck Schumer introducing resolutions immediately to have Superman made a "Citizen of New York".

If a being appeared on the scene with superhuman powers I can see many reacting with paranoia, suspision, and fear if they weren't absolutely certain he was in their camp or could be used by them. How many years worth of X-Men plotlines have played on this theme, or the new series "Heroes", among others.

[Inyarear]

I've got a copy of that movie, and it does indeed play upon all of these themes, however light-heartedly. More than a few have suggested that it's a "tribute" or "homage" to the Watchmen comics, and I generally agree. In Watchmen, of course, what made an end of the costumed heros (except for Rorschach, who dared to defy the law) was the Keene Act, which made such costumed adventuring illegal. Each story did have some very good points on how heros would fare in the real world as opposed to the more idealized worlds they inhabit in their comics, though The Incredibles did so with much less swearing. (Granted, foul language and obscene matters are something you'd see a lot more of in any real world situation, too, but I still think Alan Moore overdid it in the Watchmen.)

In my own state, by the way, there's actually a law that might apply against certain superhero activities if such people actually existed: it was written against the Ku Klux Klan originally, and forbids the meeting of any group of people over the age of sixteen wearing masks. It's routinely ignored on Halloween, of course, and I don't think anyone will ever bother to enforce or repeal it, but it does draw a rather uncomfortable parallel between the various kinds of people who wear masks, doesn't it?

One thing I haven't seen so much of in any superhero story is the suggestion that some people might actually harm superheros in trying to benefit them, or that any effort to benefit superheros would be made. In the X-men stories, we do see the negative reactions, but all of the anti-mutant forces portrayed are extremely one-dimensional caricatures. One would think a fair number of people would want to enlist the mutants in their various causes (good or bad) rather than merely enslave or exterminate them.

In one of the worst stories that I recall, a What If dealing with what might happen if the Sue Reed of the Fantastic Four had been able to carry her second child to term, the baby girl she birthed grew up to be a healer and environmentalist, and a bunch of big, bad corporate interests conspired together to assassinate her and pin the blame on superheros. My response to this was "Get real, Tom Defalco!" (Yes, he was the one who wrote that story.) If any woman with such healing powers existed, every C.E.O. in America would be sending out headhunters to hire her for environmental cleanup jobs at premium prices. No matter what they paid her, it couldn't possibly cost them more than all the government fines and trial expenses and lobbying fees they're paying now to deal with environmental regulations. The only danger to her would be the corruption of her moral integrity, not anyone trying to kill her! The smears against her (which would aggravate this subtler danger) would mostly concentrate on her being a corporate shill or some such.

With Superman specifically, I think part of his problem would be that he and his powers are so generic. Other superheros, such as Storm of the X-men, have talents fitted to very specific uses, whereas it's not really clear which of Superman's powers is the greatest, or what he does best. No matter what he did, there'd always be something else he could be doing instead, as his critics would be all too happy to point out. No matter who he benefitted, there'd always be someone envious enough to despise him for benefitting them. Some way or other, he'd have to shake it off. Notably, the Spider-man movies seem to have taken up this theme to some degree. Maybe the Superman movies should follow their example.

Concerning Superman's extraterrestrial nature, that would be something of a political matter whenever he first arrived. Our government does actually have a little-known contingency plan in storage somewhere for any extraterrestrials who do touch down. It starts with sending customs authorities to arrest them and impound their vehicles! Aliens of the extraterrestrial kind are just as illegal as the terrestrial kind if they don't have permission to be in our country, so they're treated just the same in this hypothetical scenario. Lest anyone try to get in a Bush-bashing rant here, I should point out that this plan is not anything the current administration ever devised; I think it goes back to the Carter administration or further. In any case, it was the "scientific community" which actually proposed this whole thing in the first place. As soon as the aliens are in custody, they have a further plan of sending a team of prominent researchers and academics to greet the aliens.

The question of how televangelists would deal with Superman is somewhat open-ended. Jeanette Kahn of DC Comics has openly disputed any claim that Superman's powers are in any way "supernatural" or magical. As a (non-denominational) Christian myself, I can see the basis for some of the complaints against Harry Potter, though I think the whole controversy's overblown. (I do believe there is such a thing as real magic, but that it's evil and dangerous and by no means as attainable as popular fiction makes it out to be.) In any case, Superman's powers do allegedly come from his Kryptonian physique, and not from any magic. (In fact, magic is one of his few vulnerabilities.) The more general question of what his powers suggest about our understanding of the universe would surely stir up some controversy, but more in the scientific realm.

This point came up in the Watchmen story. As Hollis Mason says in a chapter from his book "Under the Hood," Dr. Manhattan's incredible powers drew a somewhat mixed reaction: "If you accept that floating rifle parts are real you also have to somehow [sic] accept that everything you've ever known to be a fact is probably untrue..." "There was a certain elation... it felt as if Santa Claus had turned out to be real after all." If Superman seemed capable of doing things that violate the laws of physics, you just can bet there'd be a controversy to end all controversies in academia. I expect the AAAS would go into full Inquisition mode and there'd be a scientific jihad between the factions by morning. Such things have happened before.

[Ash]

Some very interesting points you guys have raised here.

This is somewhat off the topic of what we were discussing but I thought I'd ask it anyway...
I was reading this article on waterboarding and it got me wondering...

Could Superman be drowned?

I know that he could hold his superbreath underwater, but what if he didn't hold it?
What if he was affected by Kryptonite, bound by chains or some other similar restraint and tossed into a body of water?

Do you think he would drown?
I mean, he breathes air like all the rest of us.

Dumb question, I know.  Just thought I'd ask.

[Yaddo 42]

If he breathes oxygen the same as we humans, especially if weakened like in the scenario you mention I don't see why he couldn't unless some writer has retconned a Kryptonian bypass respiratory system or a kind of biological suspended animation process that kicks in when he's in danger of drowning or running out of air. Not being a huge Superman comic fan, or a reader of comics in years anyway, I'm not sure where the canon on the biology of Kryptonians stands. Would he be psychologically capable of letting himself die, say when not trying to sacrifice himself for some greater good?

I see your points, Inyarear, the problem as I see it would be that some would go for a supernatural explanation no matter what rather than explore the possibility or accept that what we knew the laws of physics had been totally upended.

If THE Superman appeared in the real world, there would be a large faction of skeptics on all sides figuring hoax, or something taking on the image of a fictional creation familiar to much of civilization. A creature appears from another world with powers and abilities that border on the impossible would seem to be at least a little easier to accept than a well known and totally fictional creation turns out be be real and only now appears or reveals himself to the whole wide world. It would seem just a little too pat, like it was some media stunt or worse.

Just from all the hell he would catch trying to deal with "The Real World", he might decide we weren't worth the aggrevation.

I also agree with you on the "What If" story scenario, corporate intersts would want to control and use her, she would be too good an aquistiion to pass up. But the assassination plotline was no doubt easier to write and plays on familiar storytelling cliches, more visual too I'd bet. The headhunter/acqusition story you suggest would more involved and closer to a real life situation. A story like that could be neat as long the the girl was not just reduced to a MacGuffin. But in real life there would also be the potential for whichever corporation that got her to to flaunt rules and safety regulations (Who needs double hulled tankers, we've got her!) knowing she could fix what was needed as long at it improved the bottom line. Or even creating environmental hazards on purpose just to create a market for her services. There might be some risk to her from fringe anti-corporate groups or other companies figuring if they can't have her no one should or even whackos seeking attention or pushing a totally irrational agenda, like the Fred Phelps bunch. They might say she's interfering with the smiting they say anyone who isn't one of them deserves.

[Inyarear]

Of course, some of what would happen depends on how much of the rest of the Superman mythology turned out to be real, too... such as, would there be kryptonite? And as I mentioned, Superman's only vulnerability apart from kryptonite is magic... so would magic of the sort shown in the comics exist and be able to hurt him too? There's also the question of relatives such as Supergirl existing. Each of these elements would have some effect, no doubt.

Yes, I suppose some rival corporate factions might come up with a plan to assassinate a super-healer of the environment, though I'd think a super-healer with as broad of interests as she had (healing sick and injured individuals and healing all kinds of environmental damage to many different tracts of land) would tend to go free-lance. Still, she'd have to keep an eye out for really radical environmentalists who want to see the polluters punished for their sins, and of course there'd always be the occasional "lone wolf" type who'd be out to kill her just to draw attention to himself, just as there tend to be for all celebrities and socially prominent people. As I recall, some guy tried to assassinate Reagan just to get Jodie Foster's attention. It's safe to assume superheros would face similar dangers.

How slack corporations might get in obeying environmental regulations would depend on how much profit they're likely to make as compared to how much it would cost to clean up the mess and/or pay off the liabilities. A super-environmentalist would certainly tilt the equation in favor of being more lax, but there'd also be some calculation on everyone's part concerning how much longer they'd expect her to live and how much pollution she could be expected to clean up in her lifetime. What's disturbing about this to me is how easily her powers (and many others) could be commodified if they actually existed. There's already a market in pollution futures; if superpowers turned up, we'd soon see a market in them as well. Anyone with superpowers who got pregnant would probably find people on Wall Street selling hiring futures on the little tyke before he's even born; kind of creepy!

I guess a lot of this depends on how much of Superman we'd get: The Superman, or just someone a lot like him? And does he bring any family with him? If we got someone a lot like Superman, but not specifically the DC Comics character, we'd probably have a situation more like Dr. Manhattan's in Watchmen. If we got The Superman, that would raise some very troubling theological questions indeed--is fantasy invading reality, and if so, what other fantastic beings might we be seeing soon? Another question that would take on more significance is whether other countries would have superheros of their own.

In a weird short story I read called "Thor Meets Captain America" set in an alternate 1960s in which World War II is still raging, a character discovers that Thor and the other god-like creatures the Nazis have on their side (who are most of the reason why World War II is still raging) are the products of some terrible death magic the Nazis invoked by offering the millions of victims in their concentration camps as human sacrifices. He vows to carry this secret with him to his grave, knowing that in their plight, America and the other Allies might well resort to such evil magic to raise some superheros of their own against the Nazis.

Now that is one crazy story, but if Superman existed and were a very patriotic American, isn't it possible that less virtuous countries might have superheros of their own, and that they'd be our country's supervillains? (For that matter, our comics already suggest there'd be domestic super-villains. Not everyone from our country is virtuous by any means.) Superman might someday be facing Captain Iran, Iran's biggest superhero and national symbol, created by a uranium enrichment experiment gone awry!