>>78344676
An objectivist superhero doesn't make much sense. I mean, if The Question busted a banknote counterfeiting racket because "you assholes will decrease MY purchasing power!", I guess that would kinda make sense. But, in most cases, the superhero is an inherently pro-social idea, which is diametrically opposed to Randian Objectivism, which abhors altruism and collectivism. "With great power comes great responsibility" is essentially the antithesis of Objectivism.

I don't think that The Question was ever really an Objectivist superhero. When I read Ditko Question, he seems to be more of a more conventional right-winger who believes that the system coddles criminals and that all these lazy slobs should just get jobs instead of being blights on society. Which is still compatible with the superhero thing. But it's a brand of conservatism that is definitely not Objectivism.

I think people just call The Question an "Objectivist superhero" because Ditko was ostensibly one and apparently wanted to create an Objectivist superhero. But that doesn't necessarily mean the character lived up to that intention.

They would have to have a God complex, or otherwise view themselves as some kind of Nietzchean Overman who is above and beyond the common masses and will lead them into the future. They would be a superhero not for others, but simply because it is there nature to be a superhero

>>78344676
This is why O'Neil's Zen Question makes more sense.

Hey, maybe Ditko Question would be the perfect representation of that brand of conservative that calls themselves "libertarian" because they are too embarrassed to admit that they are just typical conservatives. It sounds cooler and even has "liberty" in the name, so you know they aren't just reactionary old fuddy-duds.

"Don't vote because democracy is tyranny and taxation is basically slavery and defies my non-aggression principle. But if you DO vote, vote for rich white guys who will deny certain people the right to marry, spend large amounts on preemptive military intervention, and will subsidize and bail out large corporations."

>>78347476
Do you think Dikto eventually shrugged when he realized "objectivist superhero" was an oxymoron and accepted trying to write objectivist protagonists gets kind of boring?

>>78347751
I love the symbolisim of how objectivist question got his shit pushed in first issue and had to learn the philosophy of caring for others before he wen't back to heroing

>>78348046
Doubt it, considering he's still doing Mr. A.

What do you think Luthor meant when he called Grodd a 'half-baked objectivist' in JLU?

>>78347961
Why always make it about race? Why is it important in your mind that these men be labeled as white, when the only important aspect is actually their wealth? What does them being white have to do with anything?

>>78347961
>spend large amounts on preemptive military intervention, and will subsidize and bail out large corporations

Yeah that's what libertarians sure advocate, like Ron Paul. He ABSOLUTELY wanted those things to happen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBStWyQW6Rk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duhaz-WYl3k

I'm not even a libertarian or even on the right at all for that matter but god you're retarded.

>>78348878
>that brand of conservative that calls themselves "libertarian" because they are too embarrassed to admit that they are just typical conservatives.

This was the key phrase, anon. I wasn't talking about actual libertarians like Ron Paul.

>>78348345
This is why Question really should be the next one to get a show.

Built in character arc, with as much room for badass martial arts fights as for detective shenanigans.

>>78344676
ATTENTION ALL RETARDS IN THIS THREAD WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND THE TERMS THEY ARE BANDYING ABOUT:

Nothing prevents an Objectivist from sacrificing of themselves for a cause not their own if that is what they wish to do, based on their own values and what makes them happy.

An objectivist simply refuses to be COERCED into making sacrifices that they do not consent to.

If an objectivist wants to donate to some charity or some cause they personally believe in, there is nothing about that that is against objectivism. As long as it is done out of one's own free will for one's own reasons.

You people are all arguing with a child's understanding of what Objectivism really means. You seem to all use it as an interchangeable synonym of "selfish."

I would suggest you try actually reading what Ayn Rand wrote instead of getting your interpretations of her beliefs from what other people have written about what she must have really meant.

And if that's too hard, if her books are too TL;DR for you, that's fine. But stop trying to comment on them or speculate about them.

If you haven't read them, shut the fuck about them. You have nothing of value to say.

She says what she really meant quite clearly, in the most exacting and precise language, supplying a definition for every single relevant term, and she did this for every single one of her books.

>>78350786
So it's true . . . even a Randroid can feel asspain.

>>78344676
Self gratification.

>>78350786
ugh, just replace every Rand with Morrison and you sound as bad as one of his fanboys.

I get what she meant but that doesn't supersede the fact that she argues it poorly. Granted The Fountainhead makes a better argument for Objectivism. TL;DR: the book pretty much shows how objectivism can go wrong when it's really just trying to build it up more. Not to mention by the time we get to Peikoff we see how looney fucknut people who take this shit too dogmatically become. It's not a shit philosophy but neither is socialism on paper

>>78350541
tfw you know it would be arrow tier when it should be Daredevil tier

>>78351541
>Randroid
oh shit steeling that