In mainstream stories, Superman does not want to change the world.

This is a challenge to write a story where he did just that.

Conditions

1. Superman conquered the world and forced everyone to live as he says.
2. No kryptonite or secret identity.
3. Superman is not hero or villain here, such concepts are ignored.
4. When story ends Status Quo is not restored.

Your essential reading for this one is probably the Miracleman comic by Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman, and others. In the unlikely event that you can get hold of copies...

1. No, more like original anarchist Superman from Golden Age.He did not take over world but ignored human laws.

2. Elseworlds story, in order to qualify as Elseworlds should have Superman with different values than usual.

It is really stupid if Supes´rocket lands on Apokolips and he becomes Status Quo Superman anyway.

Hmmm. I think in order to accomplish this story, Superman couldn't have been raised by the Kent's.

..There's an Apocalypse in DC comics as well? I thought that was in the Marvel Universe. Hmm. Of course, I usually read Marvel comics, so...

Quick unrelated question. dargos. Like D'Argo? Or have I been watching too much SciFi?

An interesting concept.

One thing, however:

Ah... I disagree. I know the definition of Elseworlds can be fuzzy, but I see it as *any* significant change to Superman's history. IE, if he was raised by the Waynes and still had the same values, that'd be Elseworld in my book.

However, I totally agree with you in that status-quo endings are the worst thing you can do to an elseworld.

Actually, wait---the *WORST* are those endings where the writer basically tells us, "And that is why the status quo is better. Never question the status quo again, okay?"

Honestly. I've got your "status quo" right *here* you narrow-minded bunch of...

*cough*

Sorry, too many comicbooks in my diet.

I'd be very surprised if someone wrote this, it seems to me that this fandom likes the status quo quite a bit. They like Supes as the touchy feely nice guy they saw on the show. (See the "Can Superman Kill" thread)

If this story got written though, I wouldn't see a lot of people reading it for those reasons. Or at worst, I might see them bring out the pitchforks about the characterization thing and how even in an Elseworld there should be some agreed upon characteristics that would ground Supes in what is recognizable from the show.

That said, it sounds interesting. I agree with Catherine Bruce that the only way it could click would be with no Kents.

In any case, I'd read it. Status quo DOES get a bit boring after a while.

alcyone

PS And the shipper in me is obviously very interested to what Lois would do in this scenario

This is a very interesting premise. What I'm having a bit of trouble with is this:

In a way I completely agree with you. Portraying a person as a villain often makes them so uninteresting. You don't have to spend any time figuring out the motivations of such people - they are E-V-I-L, pure and simple. Turning Superman into that kind of evil person would make him as boring as he would be unattractive. Similarly, turning him into a super-noble knight in shining armour, using his mighty arm to forcefully turn the Earth into a paradise, would seem just too unrealistic.

No, but it seems to me that you must try to judge - okay, make that assess - the kind of Superman who forces his will upon the world. What are his motivations? Exactly how does he impose his will on countries and people(s)? How is he himself changed by the fact that he has turned himself into the Earth's all-powerful ruler?

I guess that what I said sounds negative, but I don't want it to be. I think that the idea of a Superman who takes an extremely active part in shaping the world politically is a very interesting concept. I think that if someone like Superman had existed, it is all but certain that he would have interfered more forcefully in various situations in the world than canon Superman has ever been allowed to do. Take Darfur, for example. If Superman had existed for real, what would he have done about it? Would he have rounded up the Arab nomads who have terrorized the African peasants? Would he have taken the aggressors' weapons? Would he have forced them clear out of the area? Would he have flown them all to the International Court of Justice at the Hague?

Suppose Superman had been successful in Darfur. What would he have taken on next? Burma? Why not, that would be a good idea. Next, North Korea?

And then - Iran? Iraq?

What if Europe showed their displeasure at Superman's interference everywhere, the way Europe showed their disapproval of the U.S. attack on Iraq. Would Superman do anything to discipline Europe and make it toe the line?

And what if people in America began to grow scared of Superman? What if they elected a President who had promised to rein in Superman? What then?

It seems to me that if you write a story about a Superman who has begun to remake the world in his image, you would have to make an honest assessment of this Supreme Ruler of the World.

Ann

The question also becomes what CAN he do? He's only one person and fast as he is, he can only be in one place at a time - dictators succeed because 1) they have loyal followers and 2) the preexisting regime is bad enough it makes a dictator look good for the short term. (Hitler took a broken country and made it strong enough to take on the world {but he had an existing political party behind him}. Mussolini made the trains run on time. Similar things can be said for all dictators - they gain power and stay in power because the common people have the perception that either he is doing good for them or that the alternative is infinitely worse.)

Of course, if taking over the world was a ploy to get the world united...

I think you are underestimating his speed and his superpowers in general. If he decided that he didn't have to follow what passes for international law, then he could just round up large numbers of Darfur rebels and drop them off somewhere where they absolutely couldn't hurt anyone, like on some suitable desert island. Maybe the rebels couldn't survive on that island? Yeah, well, tough luck. If Superman decided that international laws didn't apply to him, then he might just decree that the Darfur rebels must be separated from the rest of humanity and that they had to keep themselves alive as best they could.

Also, using his superspeed, Superman could probably disarm a large fraction of the rebels, even if he didn't dump them on an island somewhere. And then he could send the destroyed weapon into orbit around the Earth or straight into the sun, so that they could never be used again.

Remember that in a world without kryptonite, Superman can't be killed, injured or even slowed down. He would be a terribly formidable opponent. You are right that dictators stay powerful because they have followers who obey them, but chances are that a sufficient number of people would be terrified of getting on Superman's bad side, and so they might willingly join "Superman's army".

Ann

Actually, my argument has more to do with the concept of 'consent of the ruled'. Say he does take out the rebels in Darfur and discovers the problem is more deep-seated - that every time he disarms one group, the ones left with the weapons become the aggressors. Take away all the guns, they go after one another with knives. He may be fast, but he can't be everywhere without driving himself mad.

Unless he's pre-established himself as being on the side of good, chances are his rule is going to be a tough row to hoe.

How about if it is not Earth but New Krypton he rules?

There's a planet called Apokilps in the DC universe. The villian there is called Darkseid.

Even without Kryptonite, the TV show had incidents where he was injured. At least, there was the Quantum weapon that injured him twice, and it was speculated that two hits could kill him. Of course, someone who wanted to use that would have to have a very, very good plan, but...