Clark and Lois are not as attentive to Jon's needs as they are to Jordan's, but their reaction (or lack thereof) to Jon breaking his arm was particularly egregious. One line that stood out to me was when Lois said, "It could have been worse," in response to Jon being upset about getting hurt and possibly not being able to play football again. It came across as incredibly dismissive and callous. This is compounded by the fact that neither of them bothered to check on Jon when he stormed off. (In fact, he is not seen again for the remainder of the episode.) In short, Jordan seems to get all the attention and support, while Jon is basically expected to take everything on the chin while also being a "good brother".

Don't get me started on the XK. Jon doing drugs is not wrong, especially in comparison to all the lies Clark and Lois told them. Jonathan has no powers, and Jordan does. Clarke spends more time with Jordan. He doesn’t realise that he’s doing real harm by spending most of his time with Jordan. That’s why he took the drug in the first place, but of course Clark doesn't care about this.

Overall they pretty much just emotionally abused and neglected Jonathan. In season 1 Jonathan told his dad he wanted to leave Smallville and go stay at his friend's place and cut contact with Clark and Lois, and Clark said, "No!" and I was like, "WHY?!" Why can't Jonathan leave? Let him go stay with his friend in Metropolis; let him go live with his Aunt Lucy. Fuck, let him go wherever he wants to go; that's not Smallville. Jonathan literally has no powers; he lost football, his friends are arseholes, including Sarah, and his girlfriend is a poor former drug dealer with a poor criminal father. Like, dude, just let him go; he'll have a much better life with Clark and Lois not in his life at all, actually. For 4 seasons Jonathan wants to be left the fuck alone, and these people just keep fucking with him. Jonathan was minding his own business in the first fucking place, and they moved him to Leatherface town. THEY KEEP FUCKING WITH HIM FOR NO REASON!

If real people got powers, do you think they would all become corrupt, evil psychopaths?

I know Superman fans may not like this, but the act of keeping a secret identity has always involved gaslighting, lying, and manipulating people. My question is: between Light Yagami/Kira and Clark Kent/Superman, who’s the better liar, manipulator, and gaslighter?

Do you think people who illegal street race are 'bad people'?

I've always had this question about exclusive private schools for extremely rich kids, like kids from multi-multi-millionaire families. This question applies to private schools from elementary to high school. Do their private chefs just pack them lunches, or do private schools have high-end food for lunch in the cafeterias?

This question is for ‘hero’ in all forms: realistic, fiction, superhero, comic book, anime, etc. Let’s say a person is flawed, or is very arrogant, or has a superiority complex, etc., but also does heroic things—like being a firefighter, doctor, wizard, superhero, whatever. Do you think that person is still a hero despite having negative personality traits?

Street racers aren’t criminals. To me, being a criminal means intentionally hurting people, scamming, stealing, or exploiting others. Street racing is illegal, sure, but most people do it as a hobby because they love cars and racing and just becuase you break the law doesn't make you a "criminal". I hate how games like Need For Speed always paint racers as villains when the reality is way less black-and-white.

To clarify, I don't mean an employee sleeping with their literal direct boss. Here is what I mean: if a 23-year-old police officer is in a romantic or sexual relationship with a 57-year-old police captain, sergeant or lieutenant, then that 23-year-old police officer should be promoted to detective or something or at least have some authority in their unit. Now that's just an example; this goes for any job: firefighter, doctor, military – anything really. If you are old enough to consent to be in a relationship with someone who is a higher rank, then I think that should qualify you to at least move up to some degree.

I'm not saying give that 23-24-year-old the biggest position in the job, but move them up a rank or two.

People use the word "antihero" so loosely it has really lost its meaning. Before, an "antihero" was just a "bad guy" who did good things, like Dexter Morgan. He's a serial killer; he's a high-functioning sociopath who does feel emotions and love and knows right from wrong, but he kills bad people, so he's an "antihero". Punisher is a mass murderer. Yes, he kills criminals, but unlike other heroes who kill in self-defence when there is no other option, he kills every criminal he sees, even street criminals. He does this because he likes being in war and likes killing people, so he decides to only target those who he thinks deserve it, and those who he deems "deserve" it are criminals, and sure, on occasion, he will help a hero or two. Deadpool is a mercenary; he does what he does for money. He kills bad people and goes on missions, but mainly for money does he do good things? Sure, but he does it for morally questionable reasons.

I'm going to focus the term "antihero" mainly for comic book and superhero characters. A lot of people think an "antihero", when it comes to superheroes, is just an "edgy" or "R-rated" superhero or a superhero who curses a lot or just has negative flaws. Mainly a lot of people use the term "antihero" for characters who aren't Superman- or Spider-Man-level goody-two-shoes boy scout characters. Like, people will call Spider-Man 2099 an "antihero" just because he isn’t a Boy Scout. No, Miguel is a hero. through and through; just because he's a bit of a dick doesn't mean he's an "antihero".

I see people calling the characters in Invincible "antiheroes" just because they are not "boy scouts". People call Immortal, Duplikate, and Rex Splode "antiheroes" just because they are human with human flaws and realistic personalities; that doesn't make them "antiheroes".

Rex isn't an "antihero" just because he cheated on Atom Eve. Yes, he did a bad thing. Yes, he was an arrogant arsehole, but guess what? He still put his life on the line for his team, did the right thing and was still a good person. Despite having some annoying personality traits, he was a hero through and through.

Immortal and Duplicate aren't "antiheroes" either. Yes, they are hypocritical, a bit whiny and self-righteous, but they still save people's lives for no other reason than that they want to help and help their team.

I like Invincible because every character is just a flawed human being who just so happens to have superpowers, and they go out saving people.

Are they antiheroes? No, they are just superheroes.

I know not every superhero story is the same, but I feel like recent superhero media has moved away from showing heroes actually saving people. Even vigilantes like Batman and Daredevil rescue civilians—they’re not just crime fighters. Superheroes may not be realistic, but they’ve always prioritized saving lives.

That’s one reason I like The Flash on the CW—it balanced both saving people and crime fighting, even if the crime-fighting usually came first. Superman & Lois does this even better. Almost every episode shows Superman stopping disasters or accidents, not just punching villains.

Superheroes aren’t just super-powered cops, soldiers, or secret agents. They should also be part-time super-firefighters. Shows like 9-1-1 and Chicago Fire make me wish we had more of those rescue scenes—but with superheroes. Not every episode has to be about saving the whole city.

I’m writing an R-rated superhero story. My main character gets his powers from chemicals. His boyfriend, who’s older than him (maybe 6-14 years older), is murdered, and he brings his killers to justice. My main character is bisexual, and most of his love interests are 6 to 14 years older than him—maybe some even older. His best friends are in their 20s and slightly older than him too.

Should he be 21 at his “year one” start and 23 be the “year two” part of the story? That way he’s an adult, but he’s still young enough to have that youthful “young” vibe.

If he were 15-16, it wouldn’t work, mainly because, like I said, his friends and love interests are adults who are older than him, and he’s a vigilante whose whole thing is “justice”. That line would get skewed if his love interests were, you know, committing a crime just by being with him, and his adult friends would look complicit and not heroic for allowing it to happen.

If my character is 21-23, while it might be “weird” for him to date older men and women, the older partners don’t deserve to die for being with him, and they aren’t committing a crime because he is a consenting adult, and consenting adults have free will, so him fighting for “justice” won’t get blurry. What do you think?

I'm writing an R-rated superhero story. My main character gets his powers from chemicals. His boyfriend, who's older than him (maybe 6-14 years older), is murdered, and he brings his killers to justice. My main character is bisexual, and most of his love interests are 6 to 14 years older than him—maybe some even older. His best friends are in their 20s and slightly older than him too.

Should he be 21 at his "year one" start and 23 be the "year two" part of the story? That way he's an adult, but he's still young enough to have that youthful "young" vibe.

If he were 15-16, it wouldn't work, mainly because, like I said, his friends and love interests are adults who are older than him, and he's a vigilante whose whole thing is "justice". That line would get skewed if his love interests were, you know, committing a crime just by being with him, and his adult friends would look complicit and not heroic for allowing it to happen.

If my character is 21-23, while it might be "weird" for him to date older men and women, the older partners don't deserve to die for being with him, and they aren't committing a crime because he is a consenting adult, and consenting adults have free will, so him fighting for "justice" won't get blurry. What do you think?