Skip to main content

dc - Why does Lex want to discredit Superman?


Obvious spoilers for the Batman v Superman movie.


In Batman v Superman, Lex Luthor is a villain. He wants to discredit Superman.


Why ?


He explains to Superman



If God is all powerful he cannot be all good and if he is all good he cannot be all powerful.




Does he think that since Superman is all powerful, he cannot be all good ?


I considered "because he is a villain" as an answer but it doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the movie.


I'd like to know about this movie but I'm also interested in knowing the situation in other media.



Answer



The quote you mention is the only motivator we're given but it should be enough to go on. Lex's full quote reads:



See, what we call God depends upon our tribe, Clark Joe, 'cause God is tribal; God takes sides! No man in the sky intervened when I was a boy to deliver me from daddy's fist and abominations. I figured out way back if God is all-powerful, He cannot be all good. And if He is all good, then He cannot be all-powerful. And neither can you be.



Lex was abused by his father. We are to assume that he called out to God for help but was never delivered from his abuse. So he was soured to the idea of an ultimate protector. He grew to believe that if there was some sort of God, that either he wasn't powerful enough to stop his father or didn't care enough to.


Lex projects that belief onto Superman, positing that if he's as powerful as people think he is, there's no way he can be as good as people think he is. And if he's as good as people think he is, he can't possibly be powerful enough to be worshiped like he is.



Lex's hatred of Superman comes from a twisted idea that the people are better off if their "false God" is exposed for what he is. If you take down their savior, their eyes will be opened - like his were - to the fact that they can't rely on anyone to protect them.


This is why Luthor tries to force him to try to kill Batman. It proves that either Superman isn't morally good enough to be above murder or isn't strong enough to defeat Batman. Either outcome proves Lex right.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

story identification - Animation: floating island, flying pests

At least 20 years ago I watched a short animated film which stuck in my mind. The whole thing was wordless, possibly European, and I'm pretty sure I didn't imagine it... It featured a flying island which was inhabited by some creatures who (in my memory) reminded me of the Moomins. The island was frequently bothered by large winged animals who swooped around, although I don't think they did any actual damage. At the end one of the moomin creatures suddenly gets a weird feeling, feels forced to climb to the top of the island and then plunges down a shaft right through the centre - only to emerge at the bottom as one of the flyers. Answer Skywhales from 1983. The story begins with a man warning the tribe of approaching skywhales. The drummers then warn everybody of the hunt as everyone get prepared to set "sail". Except one man is found in his home sleeping as the noise wake him up. He then gets ready and is about to take his weapon as he hesitates then decides ...
Post a Comment
Read more

harry potter - Did Dolores Umbridge Have Any Association with Voldemort (or Death Eaters) before His Return?

I noticed that Dolores Umbridge was born during the first Wizarding War, so it's very likely she wasn't a Death Eater then (but she is pretty evil -- who knows?). After that Voldemort was not around in a way that could affect many people, and most wouldn't know he was planning to rise again. During that time, and up through Voldemort's return (in Goblet of Fire ), did Umbridge have any connection with the Death Eaters or with Voldemort? Was she doing what she did on her own, or was it because of an association with Voldemort or his allies? Answer Dolores Umbridge was definitely not a good person. However, as Sirius points out, "the world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters". Remember that he also says that he doesn't believe Umbridge to be a Death Eater, but that she's evil enough (or something like that). I think there are two strong reasons to believe that: Umbridge was proud to do everything according to the law, except when she trie...
Post a Comment
Read more

tolkiens legendarium - Did Gandalf wear his Ring of Power throughout the trilogy?

After Gandalf discovered that Sauron was back and sent Frodo on his quest to Rivendell, did he continue to wear Narya (one of the Three Rings)? It seems like a huge risk to continue to wear it after the Nazgûl (Ringwraiths) started to try and reclaim the One Ring; if they managed to get the ring to Sauron, couldn't he be corrupted by his power? Whatever powers Narya bestows upon him couldn't possibly be worth the huge risk, could it? Answer When Sauron forged the one ring and put it on his finger, the other ring bearers were immediately aware of him and his intentions and removed their own rings. There is no reason why they couldn't merely do so again. As soon as Sauron set the One Ring upon his finger they were aware of him; and they knew him, and preceived that he would be master of them, and of all they wrought. Then in anger and fear they took off their rings. "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age," Silmarillion
Post a Comment
Read more