Hey! It looks like you're new here. You might want to check out the introduction.
Show rules for this event
California Just Legalized Supervillainy. It May Be A Good Idea.
After years of conflict, supervillains are calling it quits. But we might need them now more than ever.
By Benjamin Yin | Nov 25, 2018, 12:00 GMT
Controversy erupted online this month when California voters approved Proposition 5, which authorizes private companies to sponsor and arm supervillains. Under the rules of Prop 5, even if said supervillains go on to break the law, the companies backing them cannot be held responsible. The proposition, which passed by a narrow 51% to 49% margin, sparked fierce debate on both sides of the aisle.
Americans who disagreed with the vote have gone online to make their outrage heard. Many argue that this is tantamount to state-sponsored terrorism. Yet, lobbyists have been pushing this for years.
When asked about the proposition on Friday, GlydeTech CEO Jon Craver played peacemaker. “I understand the concern,” said Craver, who publically campaigned for the proposition’s approval. “But understand: with supervillains going away, a bill like this is going to do wonders for the economy.”
While most haven’t bought his message, there’s evidence to support his claim.
Let’s break it down.
The supervillainy rate has been falling for years
Last month, the city of Boston celebrated a full year without any supervillain attacks. Most chalked this up to the work of R.I.O.T.Squad, a local superhero collective. Since their debut four years ago, Boston has gone from one of the most dangerous cities in America to one of the safest.
They're not alone. Worldwide, reports of supervillain attacks have become scarce. Experts say that the superpowered crime rate has plummeted—and we can expect it to drop further in the future.
“It’s remarkable,” says Kelly O’Hare, a researcher at the Department of Enhanced Peoples. “To compare crime rates from the '80s with now? It’s another world.” O’Hare credits the decline to higher funding for superheroes, the introduction of stricter superhero training, and comprehensive mental healthcare initiatives. “We’re attacking the root causes of supervillainy,” she says. “We’ve got results. It works.”
Obviously, many see the fall of supervillainy as a good thing. But it's not so cut-and-dried.
Our economy depends on supervillains
The prevalence of superheroes stems from the Restoration Accords, the 1949 UN agreement that provides funding for superheroes to combat supervillains, and be paid by their home countries. Currently, the US provides more funding than any other UN Member Nation—largely because the US registers the most superheroes yearly.
In other words: with no supervillains to defeat, that’s billions of dollars’ worth of superheroes sitting around, doing nothing.
Some nations have already made cutbacks—Japan, for instance, has instituted a citizen-voted “Usefulness Survey,” allowing only the ten most popular heroes to work at any given time. And while freeing up funding sounds great, it’s bad news for the heroes left without jobs.
Heroes around the globe are going unemployed for days, even weeks on end. No villains to fight means no income. Tension is high, but most have let the issue simmer.
Mexico City’s Guerilla-Man, however, has never been known to simmer. On Twitter last August, Guerilla-Man openly asked supervillains to attack Mexico, so that he might be paid for arresting them. He also blamed American heroes for driving supervillains out of society. And while his PR team quickly issued an apology, some heroes have quietly agreed.
A London-based hero (who requested anonymity) described a growing sense of resentment among heroes, as they scramble to scoop up what few villains are left. Last month in Paris, heroes Paralysse and Flèche came to blows while chasing a villain, leveling a four-story building.
Which brings to mind the other population affected by the disappearance of villains: construction workers. Reconstruction from superhero/villain battles provides for construction jobs across the country. No battles means a loss of work for thousands.
In the recent midterms, Republicans ran on a platform promising subcontractors easier access to work on rebuilding projects. Both politicians and their base are betting on supervillains sticking around. They’re not prepared to lose such a major part of our economy.
America—the world—has caught itself in a bind. Supervillains are terrorists, taking lives and causing destruction wherever they please. They need to be stopped.
But if we do rid the world of them, we need to be prepared for the consequences. Are we ready to absorb that temporary blow, and get to work restructuring our society for a lasting peace? Or will the spike in unemployment scare us off?
At first, the answer seems obvious. But to economists—and, evidently, the average citizen—things aren’t so simple.
By Benjamin Yin | Nov 25, 2018, 12:00 GMT
Controversy erupted online this month when California voters approved Proposition 5, which authorizes private companies to sponsor and arm supervillains. Under the rules of Prop 5, even if said supervillains go on to break the law, the companies backing them cannot be held responsible. The proposition, which passed by a narrow 51% to 49% margin, sparked fierce debate on both sides of the aisle.
Americans who disagreed with the vote have gone online to make their outrage heard. Many argue that this is tantamount to state-sponsored terrorism. Yet, lobbyists have been pushing this for years.
When asked about the proposition on Friday, GlydeTech CEO Jon Craver played peacemaker. “I understand the concern,” said Craver, who publically campaigned for the proposition’s approval. “But understand: with supervillains going away, a bill like this is going to do wonders for the economy.”
While most haven’t bought his message, there’s evidence to support his claim.
Let’s break it down.
The supervillainy rate has been falling for years
Last month, the city of Boston celebrated a full year without any supervillain attacks. Most chalked this up to the work of R.I.O.T.Squad, a local superhero collective. Since their debut four years ago, Boston has gone from one of the most dangerous cities in America to one of the safest.
They're not alone. Worldwide, reports of supervillain attacks have become scarce. Experts say that the superpowered crime rate has plummeted—and we can expect it to drop further in the future.
“It’s remarkable,” says Kelly O’Hare, a researcher at the Department of Enhanced Peoples. “To compare crime rates from the '80s with now? It’s another world.” O’Hare credits the decline to higher funding for superheroes, the introduction of stricter superhero training, and comprehensive mental healthcare initiatives. “We’re attacking the root causes of supervillainy,” she says. “We’ve got results. It works.”
Obviously, many see the fall of supervillainy as a good thing. But it's not so cut-and-dried.
Our economy depends on supervillains
The prevalence of superheroes stems from the Restoration Accords, the 1949 UN agreement that provides funding for superheroes to combat supervillains, and be paid by their home countries. Currently, the US provides more funding than any other UN Member Nation—largely because the US registers the most superheroes yearly.
In other words: with no supervillains to defeat, that’s billions of dollars’ worth of superheroes sitting around, doing nothing.
Some nations have already made cutbacks—Japan, for instance, has instituted a citizen-voted “Usefulness Survey,” allowing only the ten most popular heroes to work at any given time. And while freeing up funding sounds great, it’s bad news for the heroes left without jobs.
Heroes around the globe are going unemployed for days, even weeks on end. No villains to fight means no income. Tension is high, but most have let the issue simmer.
Mexico City’s Guerilla-Man, however, has never been known to simmer. On Twitter last August, Guerilla-Man openly asked supervillains to attack Mexico, so that he might be paid for arresting them. He also blamed American heroes for driving supervillains out of society. And while his PR team quickly issued an apology, some heroes have quietly agreed.
A London-based hero (who requested anonymity) described a growing sense of resentment among heroes, as they scramble to scoop up what few villains are left. Last month in Paris, heroes Paralysse and Flèche came to blows while chasing a villain, leveling a four-story building.
Which brings to mind the other population affected by the disappearance of villains: construction workers. Reconstruction from superhero/villain battles provides for construction jobs across the country. No battles means a loss of work for thousands.
In the recent midterms, Republicans ran on a platform promising subcontractors easier access to work on rebuilding projects. Both politicians and their base are betting on supervillains sticking around. They’re not prepared to lose such a major part of our economy.
America—the world—has caught itself in a bind. Supervillains are terrorists, taking lives and causing destruction wherever they please. They need to be stopped.
But if we do rid the world of them, we need to be prepared for the consequences. Are we ready to absorb that temporary blow, and get to work restructuring our society for a lasting peace? Or will the spike in unemployment scare us off?
At first, the answer seems obvious. But to economists—and, evidently, the average citizen—things aren’t so simple.
Pics
Controversy erupted online this month when California voters approved Proposition 5, which authorizes private companies to sponsor and arm supervillains.
Of course it’s Cali. If it was any other state this would become quite unrealistic.
In other words: with no supervillains to defeat, that’s billions of dollars’ worth of superheroes sitting around, doing nothing.
I’d say this was a little on the nose, but then again wasn’t the entire story?
I really enjoyed this read. Every sentence was smoothly written and I felt like this was an actual article.
If only I could be a superhero...
>>Anon Y Mous
Florida, on the other hand, produces its villains illegaly...
Of course it’s Cali. If it was any other state this would become quite unrealistic.
Florida, on the other hand, produces its villains illegaly...
I thought this was a really interesting read. There's a lot of cool little details, and you manage to fit in a lot of content for the wordcount. The academic, detached tone you use is really helpful in that regard, I think, letting you get down to business quickly while keeping it sounding like a news article.
My issue right now is that I didn't really interface with this one, emotionally. I mean, I don't expect everything I read to bring me to tears, but even for something like this, I do think you need to find a way to make your readers feel a bit invested in the stakes. Honestly, I'm not creative or competent enough to know what you can do to do this, but that's just the impression that I received.
I'm also having trouble with deciding whether or not this is a comedy, because despite the ridiculous premise, I don't really see any jokes. So I'm left thinking that this might be a pure political commentary, given the IRL situation the US is in with the government favoring supporting economic practices that may be out of date for the sake of a large working class. But as a political commentary, I don't really see this one really interacting with its real-life mirror, outside of being a re-contextualization/re-imagining. You didn't really pick a side, is what I'm saying.
And nitpick: I'm also wondering why super-powered individuals can't find work doing other dangerous tasks besides fighting super-villains. I mean, the world is not running out of natural disasters, or armed conflicts, or buildings to demolish, is it?
For now, I am rating this highly, because I had fun. But I do think you can take this idea further and make it more than just a neat concept.
My issue right now is that I didn't really interface with this one, emotionally. I mean, I don't expect everything I read to bring me to tears, but even for something like this, I do think you need to find a way to make your readers feel a bit invested in the stakes. Honestly, I'm not creative or competent enough to know what you can do to do this, but that's just the impression that I received.
I'm also having trouble with deciding whether or not this is a comedy, because despite the ridiculous premise, I don't really see any jokes. So I'm left thinking that this might be a pure political commentary, given the IRL situation the US is in with the government favoring supporting economic practices that may be out of date for the sake of a large working class. But as a political commentary, I don't really see this one really interacting with its real-life mirror, outside of being a re-contextualization/re-imagining. You didn't really pick a side, is what I'm saying.
And nitpick: I'm also wondering why super-powered individuals can't find work doing other dangerous tasks besides fighting super-villains. I mean, the world is not running out of natural disasters, or armed conflicts, or buildings to demolish, is it?
For now, I am rating this highly, because I had fun. But I do think you can take this idea further and make it more than just a neat concept.
Well, I will be somewhat forthright and blunt. I don’t give a shit about superheroes, so that was just a nonsensical, boring rambling all the way. Don’t take that personally, author. You write well, your grammar is correct and you’re skilled. It’s just that you picked up a theme that doesn’t resonate with me in the slightest. It could be a masterpiece of modern prose, it would leave me unconcerned anyway.
I would like to abstain, but I can’t, having already done so on the two poems I was foisted. So, well, this won’t land very high, but not bottom slate either.
I would like to abstain, but I can’t, having already done so on the two poems I was foisted. So, well, this won’t land very high, but not bottom slate either.
Bottom slated for getting people to talk shit about CA in the comments. Fuck y'all.
Honestly I am a bit unsure what to do with this in that I am left sort of wandering what my take away is supposed to be. Much like Confusion Fusion this doesn't quite go absurd enough to feel, well, absurd, but it also doesn't feel silly enough to be considered silly, so it ends up sitting in this kind of uncomfortable middle ground where I walk away feeling nothing. Like, the words on page are fine - your prose and article approach (at least as an op-ed, I think - no sure this passes muster as a new article) is solid, but ultimately it just doesn't really inspire any feeling in me.
I mean, I guess there is the bit >>Anon Y Mous points out that could be referring to the industrial military complex, but I feel like if that's the metaphor/analogy/satire you're going for it doesn't track overly well (primarily because we can both maintain that military without active conflict anyway - for all that it helps and because we don't really have to make enemies for it to happen).
So yeah, that's kind of where I end up with this one. A competent and amusing piece that I am not sure what to do with at the end.
Honestly I am a bit unsure what to do with this in that I am left sort of wandering what my take away is supposed to be. Much like Confusion Fusion this doesn't quite go absurd enough to feel, well, absurd, but it also doesn't feel silly enough to be considered silly, so it ends up sitting in this kind of uncomfortable middle ground where I walk away feeling nothing. Like, the words on page are fine - your prose and article approach (at least as an op-ed, I think - no sure this passes muster as a new article) is solid, but ultimately it just doesn't really inspire any feeling in me.
I mean, I guess there is the bit >>Anon Y Mous points out that could be referring to the industrial military complex, but I feel like if that's the metaphor/analogy/satire you're going for it doesn't track overly well (primarily because we can both maintain that military without active conflict anyway - for all that it helps and because we don't really have to make enemies for it to happen).
So yeah, that's kind of where I end up with this one. A competent and amusing piece that I am not sure what to do with at the end.
Alternate Title: Incredibles 2 IRL
I have some seriously mixed feelings about this entry, but I think the author shows an admirable level of restraint in turning this obviously ridiculous premise into one more focused on satire that makes you think.
This could've easily been an outright comedy, and it arguably would've worked better that way, but I get the impression that the point the author wants to make here is quite relevant, if not necessarily flawless. There are a few things that leave me scratching my head, like why don't superheroes fight normal crime? Is there some law saying they can only fight supervillains? How does that even work? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
It's also left really goddamn vague as to whether these superheroes and villains are like... actually super, in that they have superpowers. What makes a supervillain different from a regular villain?
Also, history seems to have been rewritten so that the supers not only exist, but have existed since at least WWII, and this leaves a lot of questions about the logic of this new world floating around. I guess this is inevitable when you're writing alternate history and you only have 750 words to do so.
Strictly as satire, though, I think it mostly works. It points out the circular logic of justifying a military industrial complex, along with outright supporting terrorism. I'd say this is a straight-up allegory for the US's relationship with Saudi Arabia, but I don't think that quite works out, and anyway the US of this entry doesn't seem to support genocide like we do in real life.
In a lot of superhero movies, almost every one of them actually, there's this problem of the superhero (usually unwittingly) creating the supervillain(s) of that respective story, so that it's like an endless cycle of supervillains existing because superheroes exist.
Perhaps instead of making supervillains illegal... we should make superheroes illegal?
Yes, I'm insinuating that the villain of Incredibles 2 might have a point.
I have some seriously mixed feelings about this entry, but I think the author shows an admirable level of restraint in turning this obviously ridiculous premise into one more focused on satire that makes you think.
This could've easily been an outright comedy, and it arguably would've worked better that way, but I get the impression that the point the author wants to make here is quite relevant, if not necessarily flawless. There are a few things that leave me scratching my head, like why don't superheroes fight normal crime? Is there some law saying they can only fight supervillains? How does that even work? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
It's also left really goddamn vague as to whether these superheroes and villains are like... actually super, in that they have superpowers. What makes a supervillain different from a regular villain?
Also, history seems to have been rewritten so that the supers not only exist, but have existed since at least WWII, and this leaves a lot of questions about the logic of this new world floating around. I guess this is inevitable when you're writing alternate history and you only have 750 words to do so.
Strictly as satire, though, I think it mostly works. It points out the circular logic of justifying a military industrial complex, along with outright supporting terrorism. I'd say this is a straight-up allegory for the US's relationship with Saudi Arabia, but I don't think that quite works out, and anyway the US of this entry doesn't seem to support genocide like we do in real life.
In a lot of superhero movies, almost every one of them actually, there's this problem of the superhero (usually unwittingly) creating the supervillain(s) of that respective story, so that it's like an endless cycle of supervillains existing because superheroes exist.
Perhaps instead of making supervillains illegal... we should make superheroes illegal?
Yes, I'm insinuating that the villain of Incredibles 2 might have a point.
I think the author of this story might enjoy How to Succeed in Evil, a book about a consultant who advises supervillians.
Beyond that, this story had an interesting premise, but I felt the execution could have been stronger. The pacing is off, and it rests in an unfortunate middle ground where it's too serious to be comedy but too lighthearted to be drama. This is the sort of story that I didn't enjoy very much while reading, but that I'd love to see a revised version of because the premise is so much fun.
A solid middle of my finals slate. Nice work!
Beyond that, this story had an interesting premise, but I felt the execution could have been stronger. The pacing is off, and it rests in an unfortunate middle ground where it's too serious to be comedy but too lighthearted to be drama. This is the sort of story that I didn't enjoy very much while reading, but that I'd love to see a revised version of because the premise is so much fun.
A solid middle of my finals slate. Nice work!
(I am not a journalist. Just a lawyer and doctor and economist.)
This seems to be using the broken window fallacy. This isn't a flaw in the story - not certain, but I get the feeling the author did this intentionally for irony. However, I still think it's the wrong decision here.
For such a controversial issue, I would expect a professional news article to explain both sides' positions. Sure this feels like an editorial that has already chosen a side, but at least it would provide some rebuttals to the other side (no matter how half-assed and strawman-ish those points might be). Instead, this seems to go on for too many words about what other countries are doing, even if it doesn't seem entirely relevant. If it's an article that's just reporting on the facts, then it's going too far off-topic from the interesting starting point. If it's meant more as an editorial, all that backstory doesn't seem to support the writer's political argument in any meaningful way.
This has a great catchy title, but it feels misleading when the fic barely talks about the supervillains themselves. Why not interview one or two, to provide some quotes and anecdotes? Journalism is about telling the story, after all. When you imitate the style, you should keep a similar tight focus on those directly involved.
MIssed opportunity to include a tweet from President Trump giving his 2 cents on the issue. I see that in nearly every BBC article on politics, I dunno if other news sites do that too. Also missed opportunity to spin this into how "Millenials are killing the superhero industry!" Okay okay you probably didn't ask me for comedy advice.
But besides the journalistic style, I wonder if this could've been taken into more imaginative territory than mundane job-creation. Why would big companies invest in supervillains? That's a good question, I guess there could be some plausible reasons that benefit them. How would the heroes react to this? Does this pressure them to get sponsors too just to catch up, or do they stay independent? Does this change the way the villains operate? What consequences come out of this that nobody predicted?
From this initial idea, it could've become something really fun to read, and still fit within the current format. Geez, I know this is one of those annoying reviews saying "this should've been an entirely different story," and I apologize. This is why I suspect the author's goal was to use it as a satire of our economy, but they got too focused on that endpoint and missed all the potential twists. I mean, you can write one of those different stories and still have the same message (if that's indeed what you were aiming for), and the creativity will make it all the more memorable.
p.s. I noticed the Tiger & Bunny reference, lol. Case in point, that show created a unique superhero scenario, and explored the ramifications to tell its story effectively.
This seems to be using the broken window fallacy. This isn't a flaw in the story - not certain, but I get the feeling the author did this intentionally for irony. However, I still think it's the wrong decision here.
For such a controversial issue, I would expect a professional news article to explain both sides' positions. Sure this feels like an editorial that has already chosen a side, but at least it would provide some rebuttals to the other side (no matter how half-assed and strawman-ish those points might be). Instead, this seems to go on for too many words about what other countries are doing, even if it doesn't seem entirely relevant. If it's an article that's just reporting on the facts, then it's going too far off-topic from the interesting starting point. If it's meant more as an editorial, all that backstory doesn't seem to support the writer's political argument in any meaningful way.
This has a great catchy title, but it feels misleading when the fic barely talks about the supervillains themselves. Why not interview one or two, to provide some quotes and anecdotes? Journalism is about telling the story, after all. When you imitate the style, you should keep a similar tight focus on those directly involved.
MIssed opportunity to include a tweet from President Trump giving his 2 cents on the issue. I see that in nearly every BBC article on politics, I dunno if other news sites do that too. Also missed opportunity to spin this into how "Millenials are killing the superhero industry!" Okay okay you probably didn't ask me for comedy advice.
But besides the journalistic style, I wonder if this could've been taken into more imaginative territory than mundane job-creation. Why would big companies invest in supervillains? That's a good question, I guess there could be some plausible reasons that benefit them. How would the heroes react to this? Does this pressure them to get sponsors too just to catch up, or do they stay independent? Does this change the way the villains operate? What consequences come out of this that nobody predicted?
From this initial idea, it could've become something really fun to read, and still fit within the current format. Geez, I know this is one of those annoying reviews saying "this should've been an entirely different story," and I apologize. This is why I suspect the author's goal was to use it as a satire of our economy, but they got too focused on that endpoint and missed all the potential twists. I mean, you can write one of those different stories and still have the same message (if that's indeed what you were aiming for), and the creativity will make it all the more memorable.
p.s. I noticed the Tiger & Bunny reference, lol. Case in point, that show created a unique superhero scenario, and explored the ramifications to tell its story effectively.