Goku, Superman, and the "Evil Superman" trope

This isn't about who is strongest.

I must have been in grade school when I watched DeathBattle’s original “Goku vs. Superman” video. I liked both Goku and Superman, so I wasn’t really picking a side, but I think most people wanted Goku to win. I think they’ve done two more Goku vs. Superman videos, just to say “yes, Superman would still win, even if Goku has all of these special forms”. I agree with this, Superman has literally paradoxical feats of strength which make it very difficult to power-scale anyone to him. For example, literally yelling at the right frequency to cause Darkseid (who in his own right is almost unmatched in power) to just disappear from existence. Or, dare I forget, lifting a book with infinite pages. I’m pretty sure he also once accidentally destroyed the entire solar system by sneezing.

Dragon Ball fans will bring up Goku’s “universal” feats, but there’s no real way to measure what a universal feat entails. The universe can be destroyed without literally consuming it in a massive Ki Blast. For example, in our own universe it has been hypothesized that, if the Higgs Field is in a false vacuum state, the universe could be destroyed by vacuum decay. The situation is even worse in the Dragon Ball universe(s) for two reasons — first of all, all sorts of magical or ki-based (magic and ki are two different things) attacks could risk destroying the universe in unorthodox ways, like when Zamasu assimilated himself into the fabric of the universe after death. Secondly, the Dragon Ball universe is not the same size or shape as the real universe. It is implied throughout Dragon Ball Z that the universe only consists of 4 galaxies, each with a Kai in charge, and it isn’t really clarified the size of these galaxies. We actually have a map of the Dragon Ball Z universe designed by Toriyama himself, and as you can see (although it certainly isn’t drawn to scale) that it is not the same as our scientific understanding of our own universe, let alone the spawling and unimaginably large DC multiverse:

And before any of you point out that in the Dragon Ball Super anime, Super Shenron was seen surrounded by countless galaxies, I’m pretty sure this is an anime-only thing. The manga only shows stars around him.

Anyways, I digress. I’m getting too geeky about this, and people will make fun of me for it. Like I said at the beginning, it doesn’t really matter who is stronger. I’m not here to talk about a fight between everyone involved, although for the record, it goes: Superman, then Goku, then Omni-man, then Homelander. But anyways, what I want to talk about is the different heroic archetypes that these characters represent, and also the recent obsession film and TV has with subverting the hero.

The differences between Goku and Superman seem to represent a difference in the Abrahamic and Dharmic view of a hero. Superman, of course, was created by Jews for a Jewish and Christian American audience. The comic book industry in general is extremely Jewish. I actually did a project in 8th grade about the significance of American comic books during World War II, and it was while researching that that I realized just how Jewish early comics were. At least, among “superhero comics”. Superman’s Kryptonian name, Kal-El, is Hebrew for “Voice of God”. Superman is, quite literally, a thinly secularized version of the Jewish Messiah. But, this sort of messianic figure is also appealing to Christian Liberals (in the sense of being an American in the 1930s, not in the way people refer to “Liberalism” today). Christians are less appealed to this messianic figure compared to Jews, as Jews have always been captivated by the idea of the Messiah as a leader of the Jews against the Romans, a general like Bar Kochba, who would usher in a better and less harmful world, and maybe a utopia.

I’ve talked on iFunny about how Christianity is functionally a more Gnostic version of Judaism. Not literally, but functionally. Many people tried to rebuke what I said by acting like I called Christianity itself Gnostic. I didn’t. Christianity is not Gnostic, what I was saying is that Christianity is much more focused on inward salvation through the realization of Jesus Christ, and the most important act you can do with respect to others is to save their soul before the inevitable tribulation and return of Jesus, and the miraculous union of heaven and earth under him. This is a topic maybe for another post… I’m not going to get into it here…

But, Liberalism comes with its own sort of utopian attitudes, especially (and oddly enough) among Protestants. You see this even very early on in American history, before the development of Liberalism proper. The Puritans viewed the American project as akin to the “city on a hill” described in the Bible with respect to Christ’s followers, their community would be a “light onto the world”, a good example to the world. Jews also like to call themselves a “light onto the world”, I think Ben Shapiro said this once (sort of a mask off moment).

I don’t want to overstep, and say there is something intrinsically wrong or “semitic” about this sort of messianic savior figure of Superman. I don’t mind Superman. Although, I like Goku better. So how is Goku, who is clearly inspired by eastern influences, different from Superman?

Well, Goku is not really a “superhero”. He’s a fighter, an athlete even. He does act as a superhero, but he’s more resembling of a traditional “Hero” who is less utilitarian. Goku is basically never seen saving cities from his enemies or helping civilians. He’s just there to fight the bad guy. After all, the Dragon Balls can always wish back whatever his enemies destroy, so it’s a bit more trivial. Goku does have the decency to move pretty much all of his fights out into the wilderness, so this problem is largely avoided, but throughout Dragon Ball Z, Goku makes decisions which are ethically irresponsible under a consequentialist framework. He spares Vegeta, who just tried to blow up the earth, because he wants to fight him again one day. He spares Frieza and even tries to save him, hoping he would change his ways, only for Frieza to try and backstab him (like everyone knew he would). Oh, and how could anyone possibly forget his call to give Cell a Senzu bean so that him and Gohan would have a fair fight?

In fact, much of Dragon Ball’s conflicts could have been avoided entirely if Goku acted like a Superhero, and chose the most utilitarian options instead of allowing the entire earth’s fate to rest on whether or not he would miraculously beat some enemy in a 1v1. And yet, Goku is obviously an extremely altruistic and compassionate person. He is very slow to anger, and is always capable of tempering his anger even against enemies who killed his friends. He treats pretty much everyone he encounters with more lenience than he probably should, because he sees goodness in everyone.

Ultimately, Goku is more representative of the traditional “hero” whose qualities I discussed a bit in my last post on Cartoons. He is a personally extremely virtuous person, but does not desire some special consequence of his actions. His main concern is to best evil in battle, demonstrating inner virtue and pleasing justice, while his second concern is to minimize loss on Earth. This is a rather eastern or maybe even more generally pre-modern mode of viewing heroism, because it explicitly rejects the idea that reducing suffering on earth is the goal of a hero. Basically, you have no moral responsibility for what happens as a result of your actions, because you have only fleeting control over what happens “out there”. You only have a responsibility to act in a correct way.

I think anyone with some familiarity with Dharmic religion can see how this relates to the Dharmic worldview, but there are even examples from ancient Europe. One that I like is that Nestor is typically described as a wise man with good advice, even though a lot of his advice doesn’t actually turn out so well. To Homer, being a good advisor only required being well-reasoned, experienced, and well-spoken. The result of any course of action was determined by fate, which in the Iliad is determined by divine intervention.

I don’t necessarily think Superman is bad, nor do I think Goku is bad. Well, Superman sucks now, because the comic industry is among the most pozzed in all of existence. Even back in the latter half of the 20th century, Superman was often politicized as being an “immigrant” himself and supporting multiculturalism. This is not surprising. Again, comic books were extremely Jewish and Jews have always been left-leaning, and obviously had an incentive at this time to promote multiculturalism being a distinct ethno-religious group themselves.

This was made in 1949. In 1949, it was still almost impossible for most non-white immigrants to naturalize, and immigration quotas still existed preferring Northwest Europeans. Superman’s sentiments here would not become the general mood until decades later.

But I think they both represent heroic qualities in their own right. Yes, you should internally recognize, like Goku, that Heroes are not responsible for the actions of their villains, they are only responsible for their own actions, and their duty as a warrior to fight evil and powerful villains. But also, you shouldn’t be forgiving to the point of gullibility, like forgiving enemies who will almost certainly not change their ways. This was always a major lesson in Dragon Ball Z anyways. Goku’s forgiveness towards Raditz’s obvious crocodile tears resulted in Raditz surviving and culminating in Goku’s sacrificial death while fighting Raditz. I do stand by Goku’s decision to give Cell a Senzu bean. What Goku did wrong in this part was not that, it was him not realizing that Gohan didn’t like fighting as much as he did, and he just sent his only son (at the time) in to fight the strongest being on earth with the hopes that Gohan would miraculously gain a boost in power. This can be seen as the opposite of the Nestor business I was going on about. Bad decision by Goku which just so happened to turn out well, because Gohan did end up going Super Saiyan 2.

In the past decade or two, however, the idea of a Superman or Goku is becoming increasingly scrutinized. I think it all started with the Injustice game series and associated media. In this world, Superman basically becomes dictator of Earth and seeks to destroy all crime in a brutal and efficient way. This is spurred on by the Joker tricking him into accidentally killing Lois Lane (who is pregnant) and also blowing up Metropolis. I think he blames Batman’s “no-killing clause” for this. I think this scene in the Injustice comics with Superman and the Flash playing chess provides a pretty good demonstration of the argument going on between Superman, who is taking the “superman mentality” to its dreadful conclusion, and the Flash, who is providing a surprising rebuttal against gun control for a comic book. Injustice Superman clearly wants to do the right thing, but he’s just been driven to a very radical outlook on what is “the right thing” by his own personal misfortunes and failures, and the failures of others. This is not the same as the characters in the title.

I think another cause of the “anti-superhero” trope is the oversaturation of the entertainment industry with capeshit. People are really tired of Marvel movies. I thought once to myself, when I was maybe 14 or 15, if in the MCU there are people who believe that Superheroes are just made up. Like what Mr. Satan says about the Z-Fighters, or what Mysterio would later do in Spider-Man. I think, if I lived in the MCU, I might be a bit skeptical of if everything was as it seems.

Well, that’s pretty much what The Boys is. Now, it’s important to note that The Boys as a comic book came out a long while ago, before the MCU was even a thing. Invincible is also older than the MCU. But, it is only in the wake of the MCU that they became mainstream and got their own hit TV shows. I think I knew about Invincible before it was mainstream, but that’s just coincidental.

Homelander and Omni-Man are both pretty much just “Superman but evil with a superiority complex”, although Omni-Man is a little bit less erratic and his motivations come more from his alien past rather than him being a mental case. Omni-man is a little bit less political, as well. I mean, there’s a slight political element to “racial supremacist alien race which hates everyone weaker than them” but it’s so alienated and exaggerated from real politics that it doesn’t register as political to many people at all. The Boys, I think, on the other hand, is more explicitly a cynical left-libertarian attack against “Liberal Superman”. I’m not sure of the political affiliations of the comics author, but I know that he was an “anti-theist”. The show is certainly very “dirtbag left”. Liberals hope that the powerful act like Superman. Cynical leftists believe the powerful are incapable of acting like Superman. The cynical left also believes a utopia could be achieved and an attempt should be made, and believe this would solve all of their personal problems, but are also pessimistic and think the world (for now) just looks doomed.

In this world, the heroes are the “scrappy humans” who are clearly counter-cultural, while all that is powerful has a dark side. A lot of the right has come to identify with Homelander, but I don’t think this is wise. This is the problem with being “media illiterate”, it’s that the writers are not that stupid. They know their enemies will identify with cool villains, and so it’s only a matter of time until they throw a wrench in the wheels and have this villain either do something unjustifiable, humiliating, or “redemptive” in the eyes of the author. For example, Homelander having this weird mommy fetish behind the scenes, or even Homelander denouncing Stormfront’s racism in favor of general misanthropy.

Invincible is way less subversive like this, but I don’t like Invincible. When it came out I ranted about it on iFunny. The animation is subpar and flat. It is also pozzed in other ways like very diverse and gay, but not too much explicitly political stuff. Was Mark a hapa in the comics as well? I have heard that he isn’t. Or at least, it’s never stated. But, he doesn’t look part Asian. The show is not that bad in retrospect but it wasn’t worth binging. I haven’t watched the new season of either The Boys or Invincible, so tell me if I should.