Justice League Unlimited 'Question Authority'

[ultramagma]

When The Question asks "would you fight the government if it was run by Lex Luthor?" the reply would have been "should I do nothing if President Luthor decides to launch nukes out of spite?" This is always the weakness of the Cadmus Arc. That if the Justice League went to war on the government it would be the end of the world. However, no one seems to ask why would they?

The series never went into detail what President Luthor did to have Justice Lords go to arrest him yet everyone getting scared if Superman would kill the president, but no one was worry what Lex could do with that kind of power. Even when Batman trying to call out league action when sending Doomsday to the Phantom Zone comes off shallow for me because it was Cadmus fault for that Doomsday got loose and their option was to use a nuke. Cadmus has portrayed themselves as a force to protect the world from the league yet most of the time Cadmus had created monsters they cannot control which the league has to clean up and undermine the league the way they did in "Clash" just showed they were more of a threat than the League ever could be.

[TrueMetis]

They didn't go into detail but we do know that Lex put the world on the brink of Nuclear war, killed the Flash, and as Superman came in to take Luthor in taunted Superman's inability to really stop him with his finger literally over the button.

Maybe I'm in a minority but I never thought the point of "A Better World" was actually never kill ever, but more of a checks and balances thing. Lord!Superman wasn't wrong for killing President Luthor, but for the shit he did after that.

Similarly we're never actually supposed to look at Cadmus and agree with them. They are supposed to be the bad guys, with only the slightest veneer of justification that's obvious horseshit if you look even slightly deeper. Hell wasn't that the point of "Epilogue" with Waller basically admitting she was wrong?

[Fianna]

I think it's more a case that the writers wanted to tell a story questioning whether an organization like the Justice League should really be trusted with such vast power and no oversight, but realized that, in real life, the answer would be, "No, they shouldn't." Since that would kill the show, any of the proposed oversight that would curtail their power must be sufficiently corrupt that it's never a viable alternative to the League doing their usual superhero stuff.

[Admiral X]

I got the impression that Superman killing Lex Luthor was like the gateway drug to becoming a fascist somehow. Like the writers were saying his don't kill policy was what was keeping him from becoming that.

[Darth Wedgius]

I think they raised the question if the Justice League can be trusted, and came up with the answer (voiced by Green Arrow and Batman) that the doubts were reasonable but yes, they could be trusted.

After Luthor seems (very temporarily) to be responsible for Flash's death and even gloats about it, Supes grabs him with a necklift and says, "I'm not the man who killed President Luthor. Right now I wish to heaven that I were, but I'm not."

[Robovski]

Basically after Superman kills Luthor, he changes. He starts to see things differently and how basically if he wants to make real changes he needs to step in. The governments aren't providing solutions so the Justice League (Lords) will.

[CharlesPhipps]

I think it's more a case that the writers wanted to tell a story questioning whether an organization like the Justice League should really be trusted with such vast power and no oversight, but realized that, in real life, the answer would be, "No, they shouldn't." Since that would kill the show, any of the proposed oversight that would curtail their power must be sufficiently corrupt that it's never a viable alternative to the League doing their usual superhero stuff.

In real life, NGOs exist throughout the world doing humanitarian and relief work with the permission of the world's governments. Given all the time the Justice League Unlimited is trying to stop humanitarian disasters with the government's request, it's a lot shadier a situation than many fans act like.

Cadmus is flat out an illegal black ops organization to try to make super soldiers and destroy the Justice League not because the government should be the only one to control it but the fact they want THEIR faction of the United State's military to have total military power over superhumans.

When the alien bugs attack, its the US who wants the JLU to clean it up. You don't get to do that then send assassins to attack the Watchtower. Also, RL activities like this have been done all the time to disrupt and curtail legitimate governments with just as horrific corruption.

I got the impression that Superman killing Lex Luthor was like the gateway drug to becoming a fascist somehow. Like the writers were saying his don't kill policy was what was keeping him from becoming that.

It's a slippery slope fallacy which isn't actually that hard of a trail of logic to follow. If killing Lex Luthor is justified then why isn't killing the Joker? If killing the Joker (or lobotomizing him) is justified then why not the Penguin or Scarecrow or so on.

Justice Lord Superman is also maintaining the pretense he'll turn over the government back to the people soon as well.

[Madner Kami]

It's a slippery slope fallacy which isn't actually that hard of a trail of logic to follow. If killing Lex Luthor is justified then why isn't killing the Joker? If killing the Joker (or lobotomizing him) is justified then why not the Penguin or Scarecrow or so on.

Justice Lord Superman is also maintaining the pretense he'll turn over the government back to the people soon as well.

It's interesting how treating your delinquents is actually saying more about you, then it does about them. Would killing the Joker be justfied and probably be the best way to prevent him from harming anyone ever again, given his aptitude at escaping captivity and the clear inability to ever cure him of his issues, not to even talk about what to do with him if he ever could actually be cured of his insanity and murderous tendencies. Yes. Clearly, yes. But the real question is, what does killing the Joker do to you? It makes you a murderer. A less problematic one than the Joker was, but then again, the same is true if you kill the Joker, Two-Face, Luthor and a couple others while you are at it. At what point do you become a worse killer than the Joker? And is it really better to be a killer, but a killer less bad than Joker?

Same is true in reality. There are people who just flat out deserve death. People who can not be cured of their problematic behaviour, people who you still have to put up with and burden society with, as keeping them from doing bad things necessitates incarceration, gobbling up resources of the society, to literally keep the worst humanity has to offer, alive. Wouldn't it be better for everyone, if they were put down? On a superficial level, the answer is a clear yes. But the moral implications are the deal breaker there. A society that is willing to murder, is a society of murderers.

[CharlesPhipps]

Mind you, the best part of UNDER THE RED HOOD is when Jason Todd points out this logic is nonsensical. You don't HAVE to jump off the slippery slope if you kill the Joker. You can stop. It's only you who say who won't.

It's just Batman isn't sure he could because he's always walking a delicate tightrope of sanity and justifications.

Of course, the "Supervillains will always escape and kill again" is the only reason the death penalty is an argument in the setting.

[CrypticMirror]

Mind you, the best part of UNDER THE RED HOOD is when Jason Todd points out this logic is nonsensical. You don't HAVE to jump off the slippery slope if you kill the Joker. You can stop. It's only you who say who won't.

The same argument is made by every drug pusher in existence, and also in reverse by every addict in existence. You can stop anytime you like, just after this one.