Amph Here's Some Money, Go See A Swap Thing: DCU/Elseworlds Discussion

Well, but if they were really going to be honest, a schizophrenic character would be some unkempt weirdo at a homeless shelter, not a serious threat for a superhero.

 

It has little to do with her looks. But her power, personalty, strength and connection to WW's background.

 

Yay ableism

 

I always think WW's arch-nemsis should be a powerful male villain. He should disrespect female and also attracts a lot of women with his charisma. His view of WW could also change over time.

 

I'm not saying one can't achieve great things with severe mental illness. But it would require a support system. And if someone was plainly acting out horrific crimes or misdeeds, why wouldn't you just, you know. . .stop supporting them?

 

The Barbara Minerva Cheetah ISN'T just a "woman in a Cheetah costume." That's a misnomer. She's god the powers of a goddess, and abilities to match WW (heck in the New 52, she takes on the entire JL by herself, she's that powerful). But comic book writers have this annoying habit of jobbing out WW villains in order to make other heroes look good, and Cheetah is no exception in this regard.

 

Alright, but there's a lot more to interesting character design than making someone "powerful" or able to beat other characters. As you hint, they dial people's relative skill up and down all the time, even when that makes no sense at all. There are some much more fundamental questions here. Namely, why would a plant god grant cheetah powers? What is the point? Even having cheetah powers, why would a person from the 21st century choose to organize herself around the same motif? Why not just ignore it altogether, since none the abilities are very particular to cheetahs--who aren't very strong to begin with, but I digress. Is there really any reason that any of this connects to Wonder Woman at all, except that there was previously a character called "the Cheetah" in her comic book series?

 

What the heck does a clown have to do with a guy that dresses up like a bat? What does a rich bald man have to do with a superpowered alien raised in Kansas who works as a reporter?

 

I'm well aware that I could be entirely wrong. I don't have a lot of knowledge of comics. I'm hoping someone will show up to unveil something brilliant. But just help me out here, would you? What am I missing?

Luthor doesn't have any gimmick to defend, so I don't see your point. He's a corrupt industrialist in Superman's hometown. That actually does make a natural point of conflict with an, investigative journalist, and further makes sense because given Superman's overwhelming dominance in the physical arena, it gives him an opponent that is still a challenge to face off against. Particular storylines and execution have varied over the years, but at least conceptually one can see where this would tie in to the Superman story.

Joker, I'd agree, is something more of a stretch. But people seem to have largely settled on the "insanity" aspect of the character (long before Nolan, this was key in Bruce Timm's depictions, and before that in the comics of the late 80s). In this, it allows for an exploration of the psychology of crime and vigiliantism both, which are pretty reasonable topics given Batman's origin stories. Even without the ham-fisted "I killed your dad" aspect, the character has found a meaningful role to play in the franchise.

Cheetah is . . .a cheetah woman. Which I think was the concept of a Disney Channel teen movie. So.

 

Yes, because Ares would be the one provoking the war in order to fuel his power. I suggest watching the animated film from a few years ago and the JLU episode "Hawk & Dove".

Priscilla Rich is no more silly than Selena Kyle. Both wear cat costumes and were criminals. Barbara Ann Minvera's origin was based on lcyanthropy, which is a very popular trope thanks to werewolves. It also creates in interesting dynamic since Barbara and Urtzkartaga since the latter is a god and Diana's powers are from the gods. Makes sense.

And yet, Batman is considered the one who has the best villains, most of whom are schizophrenic.

 

She has little connection with WW.
Greek mythology? She is not part of it.
Feminism? She's not against it.
WW II background? No.

Sure she's evil and WW is good, but that's not enough to set the archinemesis link because there is nothing unique.

 

I don't know if any of Batman's villains are schizophrenic. Two-Face has dissociative identity disorder, Riddler has a specific form of OCD, the Joker is a sociopath and psychotic...

 

Is a cheetah? Sort of. Arguably.

This is the single most terrible idea for an arch-nemesis I've heard of from a major franchise.

 

I still prefer a powerful man to be WW's arch-nemesis.

Something like a powerful immortal(like Savage) enterprise owner and at the same time, crime boss especially working human trafficking, with the persona I mentioned before.

 

That's a misleading phrase: "directly involved with the murder of millions". You seem to have missed the part where Superman is trying to stop the murder and mayhem and to forestall the genocide of humanity, which is Zod's stated intent. That the Man of Steel is villified for his heroic actions is indeed ironic.

 

Zod was flying away from the city. Superman grabs him and throws him back into the city.

Directly involved.

 

False.

 

I'd like to point out the restraining order was valid and I haven't been within 500 feet of the thread!

 

Start at 1:45. You'll notice the two of them in outer space. That's at least 2,000 km from the ground, for those of you keeping score at home. Why not just keep fighting him there? Instead, with Clark at the lead, he literally shoves Zod back into the ground and makes impact in Metropolis. The fight was in the safest place imaginable, and he made sure they could endanger millions of people again.

QED.

 

False. Slamming Zod into the earth immediately rendered Zod immobile and he was quickly killed. Had Superman done something different and kept fight in space more people may have died. Thus your suggestion would lead to billions of death. Why do you want billions of deaths?

This debate has raged on far too long. If you blame Superman or hold him responsible for the damage in Metropolis you are categorically wrong. Just, wrong. No 'you have a point'. No 'from a certain point of view' Just flat out 100% wrong. There is no point debating or arguing, you are just wrong. No matter what you say you will be wrong. No matter what point you bring up, you will still be wrong.

 

How would fighting in space kill human beings, who explicitly aren't in space? And why not slam him into the ground in the Gobi desert? The Marianas trench? The rainforest? Anywhere that doesn't boast one of highest population densities in all of human history? You have no explanation for this.

 

Why do you want to spread the damage across the earth rather than contain it to one city? You have no explanation for this.