Another comic post, but this time in a more serious vein (serious comics?). The motivation for any hero to take up the mantle or cause is fairly straight forward and easy to understand; they want to do good for humanity by using their skills to make the world a better place. But today, we're going to go over the motivation behind two specific events from two comic universes (universi?) and compare the effects of these events on the heroes in question. First, we'll analyze Iron Man's motivation behind his decision in the 'Civil War' arc, then take a look at a moment from 'Superman: Grounded' and compare their effectiveness, appropriateness, and believability...
Roughly 4 years ago, Marvel Comics released a huge crossover event called 'Civil War' (one in a loooooooong string of huge crossovers...). In a nutshell, a reckless tragedy involving a team of lesser known heroes way out of their league, destroyed a small town and killed hundred (all caught on TV, I might add...); calling into question how should superheroes be regulated. This split the hero community between those believing that being registered and regulated by the government for accountability's sake vs. those who believe that heroes should act outside the law since those who were sanctioned could be pointed at targets regardless of right and wrong. The heads of each faction were Captain America, leading the said against regulation, and Iron Man, who leads the registered heroes side of the fence. Iron Man took up the side of regulation when one of the victim's mothers assaulted him emotionally at her son's funeral. She screamed at him that his flagrant attitude towards the law and society over the years inspired a younger generation and precipitated the actions that killed her son. This struck a chord with the armored billionaire and pushed hard for the regulation of the hero community. This inevitably lead to a showdown between the two factions (as well as their leaders...), ending in the surrender, capture and eventual assassination of Captain America...
Now, let's jump to today, but switch universes: after an event which caused the destruction of the New Kryptonians in DC comics (look it up; it's too much to go into here...), Superman was feeling disconnected to the people of Earth. More specifically, he felt removed from the people of America, to whom he had sworn to protect (Truth, Justice, and the American Way and all...). To this end, The Man of Steel set off on a walk (see why it's called 'Grounded'...) across America to help the average person with their daily lives and attempt to reconnect to the everyday, average American (good luck, big guy...). He makes stops at various cities and makes a show trying to connect and going through some self-doubt to show how he is growing as a person and rediscovering what it means to be human. The series is still ongoing, so there is no wrap up yet like with 'Civil War', but the moment in question involves a press conference Superman gives and a grieving woman comes up to him and slaps him (smooth...). She tells him how the love of her life had an inoperable brain tumor and she knew Superman could fix it. But when she tried to contact him (I'd love to know more about that...), all she was told is that he was 'prevent[ing] some big interstellar crisis' (is that all...) and that Superman was 'doing something important'. Her husband died and she blamed The Man of Tomorrow as he could have used his super abilities to save her husband. This moment further spurred Superman to take his journey across the country...
How do these moments stack up to each other? Both speak to how the populace of each universe view and regard their hero population and it is for this reason the 'Civil War' moment is more poignant that the one from 'Superman: Grounded'. In Marvel, the public are not always on the side of the hero and often regard superheroes as much in fear as in adulation (look at what Wolverine, the Punisher, and Hulk do on a regular basis and tell me I'm wrong...). So a public outcry over the reckless nature of young heroes in the Marvel universe is to be expected if not a complete given. By having the mother assault Tony Stark and make him realize that his hedonistic nature contributed to the idea that anyone with powers could do whatever they please, it speaks to the maturity and evolution of the character of Iron Man and that he is willing to become the role model and take responsibility for his actions (Uncle Ben would be so proud...). In a different time, Iron Man and Cap would have been on opposite sides, but having the split this way and forcing Tony to choose between his brothers-in-arms and what is good for the people of America is good story telling and good character development...
In contrast, the moment in 'Superman: Grounded' does not work for me as motivation for Superman to try and reconnect with the Untermensch (if you get it, you get it...). The idea of Superman has been built upon that most view him as a god and that he is a well respected and well loved member of society. This also leads to the fact that the people of DC's Earth lean on their heroes more than Marvel's seem to. When you have protectors such as Green Lantern, Superman, and Wonder Woman around, life can go on a bit more recklessly than it might otherwise if such demigods didn't exist. Also, the responsibility of the safety of man, accidental or otherwise, is now placed on super beings able to do the impossible at the drop of a hat. This moment is the case and point of the attitude towards supers in DC comics. Granted, we are supposed to feel bad for this widow, but to have her displace the blame onto Superman (he was battling Kryptonians in space to save Earth, for God's sake...) is a bunch of weak sauce. Superman, as close to a deity as he might be, cannot be everywhere at once and it is childish, even in the face of the death of a loved one, to blame him for something that is small potatoes in comparison to Earth's safety...
What it comes down to is cause in the end. Iron Man's actions (as well as many Marvel heroes...) as a super hero can be traced as the inspiration for the actions of later generations of heroes. His recklessness and lack of responsibility for his actions is transferable to the next generation. It makes sense for him to be personally affected by the tragedy when put into context by a grieving mother. However, Superman did not cause the husband's tumor, much like he did not cause an inescapable flood or a terrorist bombing. Does he have the abilities to stop said catastrophe? Absolutely. Does that automatically make him available to handle every potentially tragic event that may, and probably will, occur in life? Hell to the no. Superman's sin is being gifted with these powers and having a populace that unfairly treats him like a miracle on a stick. I feel sorry for the Big Blue Boy Scout...
