Anyway, I haven't read the issue in question, but it seems to me that people should want Superman to rid the "whole world" of a radioactive substance with mutagenic properties that came from his planet. That kind of makes it his problem. And you just know, if he didn't do something about it, you'd have Luthor or Hamilton or someone coming out and saying "look at all this dangerous Kryptonite, mutating our midwestern high school students into ironic monsters! And what has Superman done to end this problem? Sure, he fights the symptoms, but does nothing about the disease...a disease caused by his homeworld! Boo to Superman!" and so on.

So, Clark's kind of boned either way. On one hand, he'll cause more problems if he's not proactive, on the other hand, he has to deal with territorial underwater jackasses.

As far as why people aren't able to synthesize Kryptonite well, I imagine it's because Kryptonite is technically an isotope of Kryptonium, a metal native to Krypton. I think Kryptonium is supposed to be an element (though that changes from time to time, mainly because comic writers don't understand science and real science doesn't understand comics), in which case synthesis is difficult because it probably requires nuclear fusion. If Kryptonium is a compound, then the difficulty probably lies in getting the reaction right with Earth components and percent concentrations of Earth minerals.

If your looking for some awesome Batman comics here is a list of the 50 best Batman comics:

http://seekler.com/lists/Best+Batman+Graphic+Novels+(Comics)

I'm drinking my way back to a time when I liked Paul Jenkins comics.

In any case, I think it's too late in the game for Clark Kent, intrepid reporter, to not know that he is mistrusted by a large population. I mean, the guy gets "taken over" almost as often as John Malkovich.

http://tomfoss.blogspot.com/2005/11/its-all-supermans-fault.html

But Aquaman's is worse because I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HIS OVERALL ARGUMENT IS!! Like, can we even all agree as to what his ultimate point is? I mean, what does being part human have to do with understanding humans? And doesn't the fact that the world blatantly celebrates Superman repeatedly in the DC Universe actually show that humans actually DO want Superman as a savior? Maybe it didn't occur to Superman that the world doesn't want him as a savior because...I dunno...the world blatantly asks him to save them repeatedly?!?!!?

I mean, I'm not regularly a defender of Jenkins or the Sally Floyd character, but I must say that Aquaman's argument almost makes Sally's look a little less retarded (although still retarded at the end of the day).

This practically makes the Sally Floyd/Captain America conversation from Civil War: Frontline #11 look good.

Hey, now!! You watch yourself!
NOTHING! can make the Sally Floyd conversation look good! EVER!

As to:

Who the heck would have a problem with Superman getting rid of something that could kill him?

Well, I gotta disagree.

Don't get me wrong. I thought the writing was... just bad!

But for different reasons!

The whole premise is a cliché by now. I mean, it's a by the numbers plot device.

Step 1. Superman gets rid of something (Kryptonite, Nuclear Weapons, Magic, whatever.)

Step 2. Superman is brainwashed, or taken over, or Phantom Zone villains show up.

Step 3. Superman finds the value of allowing people/humans to be able to stop him.

If anything its been done to death.
(Last 2 episodes of Superman the Animated Series, first 3 episodes of Justice League, the whole Cadmus Saga of Seasons 3 & 4 and more recently, in this season's two parter premiere of "The Batman".)

Whatever, what I found totally out of character is that the paranoid DC Universe Batman... Who came up with the Justice League Protocols and the OMACS, and two months ago was developing "Red Sun Technology" to neutralize kryptonians for fun and profit (see Superman #668); all of a sudden forgot about his whole "checks & balances" approach to Superman & Superbeings.

Yeah, whatever.

So, It's not that "Aquaman's argument was idiotic". It's that it is hard to believe that the same Batman who's been keeping Superman in check since 1986, would all of a sudden go "No, it never occurred to me that having an ALL-Powerful Superman was a bad idea!"

Come on!!!

Obviously it's to keep kryptonite relatively uncommon in Superman stories but has DC ever addressed this?

And if you do all that and don't bother to change "Aquaman" to anything else, you'd get about the same level of accuracy in characterization.

The problem, whether you agree with his basic point or not, is that the metaphor just doesn't translate to a Superman story. For one thing, we the readers know that Superman doesn't have any ulterior motives, and as far as I know kryptonite isn't doing anyone any good that might outweight Superman's interest in getting rid of it.

If you want to tell that kind of story, you should have Superman (or the JLA) taking down government-sponsored heroes (or teams) of hostile countries, only to realize that said heroes/teams, while vocally anti-JLA, are still considered heroes in their homelands, and fight crime and pull people out of burning buildings and whatnot.

Or maybe I'm totally wrong and Green's an NRA member and the story represents the government trying to away the guns the people might need to defend themselves or something. Either way, it's still a clumsy metaphor.

Oh, yeah, about that... Superman is the last guy who would ever expect, much less ask, anyone to thank him for his help. He does good and helps people because it's the right thing to do. So Aquaman is just making an @$$ of himself with that statement.

Suddenly I'm imagining a smug, self-righteous Aquaman asking "Okay, Superman, do you know what Myspace is? Do you know who won the last World Series, or who was the last American Idol? When was the last time you actually attended a Nascar race?" Because, yeah, Superman's quest to remove all the Kryptonite from Earth is wrong wrong wrong, and he'd realize it if only he took the time to browse around on YouTube.

Maybe the new Aquaman and Sally Floyd should hook up. They'd make the perfect couple

Aquaman’s “point” there is pretty moronic. Unless it’s so smart that it actually makes sense but I just didn’t get it.

For once, I think we're in agreement here. It's a pretty stupid argument.

Do note that I wouldn’t think the point would make sense even if it WAS Namor, but part of Namor’s dickitude includes the fact that he doesn’t need to always make sense.

Yeah, but Namor's not an outright moron though. Dickish yeah, but not brain dead. Aquaman's "point" there is pretty moronic. Unless it's so smart that it actually makes sense but I just didn't get it.

The classic Aquaman is currently dead, but no one thinks that'll last. Even when he died, it was all, "Yeah, we'll see."

(There is now more bitching in the average comic book than there is on the average Internet message board.)

That was the problem, though, the current Aquaman is NOTHING at all like Namor, but Green seemed to just want someone like Namor in the scene, so he rewrote Aquaman to be like that.

Fair enough. Like I said, I don't know the character at all.

That was the problem, though, the current Aquaman is NOTHING at all like Namor, but Green seemed to just want someone like Namor in the scene, so he rewrote Aquaman to be like that.

Do note that I wouldn't think the point would make sense even if it WAS Namor, but part of Namor's dickitude includes the fact that he doesn't need to always make sense.

And there are real world leaders who act like that also (see comments of the form "We need an African solution to AIDS" by Thabo Mbeki as an attempt to totally discount Western medicine.)

The fact that Batman and Superman accept the comment is more out of character. I could see them patiently listening to Aquaman to avoid escalating the conflict, but the thought boxes don't really support that discussion. (And frankly, Batman and Superman might have considered discussing this with Aquaman first, if they suspected this might be an issue.)

I feel like the first half of the book is interesting enough to make up for the weaknesses of the second half of the book.