I want to have a date with Superman

When I was replying to readers' comments a few days ago, I was deeply impressed by a comment from book friend plxswkl, and I also found that there were some problems with my explanation of the last paragraph of "Chapter 491, Heroes and Justice".

I used Lu Zhishen's rescue of Jin Cuilian as an example. I was ready to explain my thoughts in the comments, but I struggled for more than half an hour and repeatedly wrote hundreds of words, but I couldn't send it out.

At that time, I promised to ‘reply in a single chapter tomorrow’, so there is today’s single chapter.

Well, it seems like several days have passed. It's not that I was procrastinating, but that when I was writing Chapter 491, I didn't think much about it. I just let out a sigh when the plot got to this point.

But when I planned to seriously reply to this question, I found that the law is really not something that a chemistry major like me can comment on at will. I spent several days intermittently and revised it, but I could only explain clearly what I thought at the time.

Others, I am not able to elaborate too deeply.

Okay, enough nonsense, let’s get straight to the point.

***********

Not only reader plxswkl, but several readers have the same opinion - Lu Zhishen's example is not very good. The "right to do good" mentioned by Harley before is actually quite reasonable. Later, I will explain the harm of the right to do good to the law and society. has a problem.

Because the right to life is higher than the law, if the law cannot guarantee people's basic life, it is a bad law. A good law must include legitimate defense, emergency avoidance, etc.

That's roughly what it means.

**********

Harley said: Life and freedom are the most basic rights of human beings and the most worthy of respect.

People in trouble have the right beyond law and belief to choose the way they are saved.

Their right to survival and freedom also gives heroes the supreme ‘right to do good’ above laws and systems.

Any behavior that opposes the right to do good is evil and reactionary.

Any law that opposes the right to do good, including the Keene Act that restricted heroes from doing good through real-name registration, is also against morality and the law itself.

**********

This is basically my expectation for the law, which is what reader plxswkl said, the law should serve people - what he said makes sense, and I agree with it very much.

The problem is that after admitting this point, there seems to be a contradiction in the following text, that is, Lu Zhishen's heroic behavior undermined the law. If there are too many 'heroic behaviors', it will have an adverse impact on society. To illustrate, dc When a hero performs his right to do good, it will lead to the collapse of the existing legal and social system in the United States. However, Harley incorporates the hero into the legal system, but like a paper painter, patching loopholes in a dilapidated old house, protecting the law and the existing system.

In the end, she felt ridiculous and sighed about who is the justice and who is the hero.

What I said about the right to do good through Harley's words is not a preparation for the subsequent refutation, it is just my idea.

Harley’s emotion later is also my true thought.

This seems contradictory?

Let me explain what I was thinking when I wrote this chapter.

If there are a hundred laws, there are at least a hundred crimes.

Justifying self-defense and acting bravely are only heroic actions against a type of criminal activity. For example, a strong criminal threatens a young girl. I am not as tall as the robber. I may use tools to stop his criminal behavior, such as a knife. I was injured. He definitely acted bravely and was not guilty.

The problem is, one hundred kinds of laws represent at least one hundred kinds of crimes. Not every crime requires you to act bravely.

For example, Bateman checked contraband and Du Ping at the dock. For example, Bateman beat a corrupt official who took refuge in Harley into the ICU and handed over his criminal evidence to the prosecutor's office. For example, Superman ate too much and had nothing to do. , went to the border between North Korea and South Korea to help stowaways administer "free choice" justice, for example.

There is no doubt that Bateman, Superman, and even other heroes have the most sincere hearts and just want to defend justice and the law.

They do have no selfish motives. If they don't stop these crimes, the law will gradually deteriorate.

They are exercising their right to do good - some readers may object that this is different from people in life crisis and in urgent need of rescue, but I want to say that there is indeed a difference between the two, but in the DC universe, the difference is not big, for example, Harley and Bruce In Gotham before the rise, in such a ghost society, even if the people didn't have a knife put to their heart, wouldn't they need first aid? It is simply impossible to rely solely on Gotham's laws to operate automatically and eliminate social cancers.

Heroic acts of heroes, in protecting the law.

The question is, did their behavior harm the law?

I think so.

Even if you are a government official, you are not necessarily qualified to investigate corruption and corruption.

For example, can the director of a health center investigate corruption in the Ministry of Railways?

Obviously not.

Even officials can't control officials. Bateman is a civilian, but he does the work of the police, the Discipline Inspection Commission, the Procuratorate and other law enforcement agencies.

Therefore, I think his behavior is harmful to the existing judiciary.

But as I said before, without his intervention, Gotham's laws will only become more corrupt. He is actually defending the law.

Summary: A hero's behavior can harm the law, but it can also be beneficial. If the good and the bad offset each other, and the effect is positive in the end, it means that the hero's "right to do good" is beneficial to society. Since it is beneficial, then change the law.

One hundred crimes may correspond to one hundred laws. If you change one law today, you will change it again tomorrow. One day, all laws will have to be changed. Will not the system and the old society based on the law also collapse?

Let alone complete reform, if only part of the fundamental law is changed, the old social system will not be able to withstand it. The laws at the beginning of the founding of the country determine the final direction of the country. When it needs to be reformed, if you reform, it will only accelerate its demise. Anyway, I have never seen any country in the history of ancient and modern times that has succeeded in reforming. In the end, it was a complete innovation. Forget it, I'm just talking about DC heroes, not about law. I'm just a science student and don't understand liberal arts stuff.

Returning to the impact of the hero's right to do good on the law and society, if the good and the bad offset each other, it will eventually have a negative effect, which means that the hero's right to do good is not beneficial to society. If it is not beneficial, it should be cancelled, and the hero will disappear.

The advent of the DC hero era shows that the world needs heroes. So the question is, does this mean that the existing laws and systems in the United States are not adapted to the new era and are about to collapse?

As a result, Harley had a series of emotions afterwards.

This is what I want to express in the last paragraph of "Chapter 491, Heroes and Justice".

Alas, the space may be limited, and I wrote whatever I thought of at the time. The writing was casual and the content was not concise enough, which caused everyone's misunderstanding.

Of course, it's possible that you didn't misunderstand, but just disagreed with what I said.

It doesn't matter if you don't agree. I don't want to, nor am I able to strengthen the content in this aspect. I just happened to write the plot of the conflict between the hero and the law, and I just wrote it out of my feelings.

It has no impact on the overall plot.

******************

What I want to say has been said above. Finally, I will answer readers’ questions about using Lu Zhishen as an example.

Lu Zhishen was a very meticulous person. When he was attacking Guanxi, he did not intend to kill anyone. He went to provoke Zhen Guanxi and asked him to mince minced meat in order to delay Jin Cuilian and his daughter - giving them enough time to leave the city. The butcher shop dragged the town to Guanxi.

Obviously, when he made this arrangement, he definitely didn't want to kill the person. As a result, he was too strong and Zheng Tu was too weak. He beat the person to death with three punches, which was against the law.

Lu Zhishen's crime was not simply for "the right to vent his anger". His actions were all within a complete set of logic and all aimed at achieving one goal: to allow Jin Cuilian and her daughter to completely escape from Zheng Tu's clutches.

There is another detail. Jin Cuilian and her daughter left this morning, and last night, Lu Zhishen gave Jin Cuilian the money he and Shi Jin had.

Well, it seems that Lu Zhishen threw back the money from Tiger General Li Zhong.

The next morning, when Jin Cuilian left, he went to Zheng Tu's shop to cause trouble.

Obviously, when he was making trouble, he had no intention of seeing Jin Cuilian afterwards. What should be arranged had already been arranged.

For doing good deeds to this level of precision, Lu Zhishen is definitely a brave and resourceful SSS-level superhero, and few DC superheroes are better than him.

But even Lu Zhishen broke the law and harmed the law. What about the other heroes?

Bateman often sends people to the ICU instead of the funeral home. This is not because his skills are better - well, he is probably better than Lu Zhishen, but it is certainly impossible to make mistakes every time. He doesn't make mistakes just because the comic book author doesn't let him make mistakes. .

In a way, heroes represent the "rule of man", because right and wrong, the timing and intensity of action are all determined by the hero's own view of good and evil and his feelings at the time, and are not as standard as the law.

Maybe the hero's behavior happened to be within the legal framework and was not illegal, but instead improved the shortcomings of the law. It is more likely that it was like Lu Zhishen, who had good intentions but broke the law unintentionally.

This is why I used Lu Zhishen as an example when talking about the adverse impact of heroes’ right to do good on the law.

Now go back and read the original chapter content. It is indeed easy for readers to misunderstand. It is my problem. I did not explain it clearly. However, this is just a DC fan novel. It really discusses the right to do good, laws, social systems, etc. in detail. It is purely Something is wrong. Well, I seem to have something wrong now. I spent several hours writing this chapter and didn’t even have time to reply to readers’ comments.