Timeline for How do I save my Global "Benevolent" Dictatorship from Pesky Superheroes?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 12, 2021 at 22:46 | comment | added | user535733 | @Nosajimiki I'm assuming a Dictator who is effective: Smooth and persuasive (not defaulting to villainously coercive). A Dictator who can convince SuperFellow et al. to carry out their assigned roles in society. Done properly, they don't want to "break out". SuperFellow is happy helping people, and Girlfriend is happy working as an editor for the Daily World (ooh, she got a promotion) working remotely from her suite. If SuperFellow becomes disgruntled with the regime and they flee together...well, that's what the invincible robot army is for. | |
| Mar 12, 2021 at 20:31 | comment | added | Nosajimiki | @user535733 but MJ713 does bring up a good point. The Incans did not have to worry about their hostages being turned into uncontainable superheros. How do you prevent a super from turning their family and just busting out of your "safehouse". | |
| Mar 10, 2021 at 21:18 | comment | added | user535733 | @MJ713 seems perhaps counterproductive. If SuperFellow and his girlfriend break up due to the stress of a videoconference-only relationship, she becomes worthless as a hostage...and (more importantly) the Dictator loses one of his holds over the hero. That can turn an apolitical superhero into a super-powered rebel. One hopes that a successful Dictator of Earth would be a little smarter (and a little less openly villainous) than that. | |
| Mar 10, 2021 at 21:09 | comment | added | MJ713 | If you allow the superheroes direct access to their loved ones, then they could empower said loved ones at any time and help them break out. Maybe limit them to videoconferences? | |
| Mar 10, 2021 at 14:35 | comment | added | user535733 | No, it's not too different from what many other courts practiced. I used the Inca example precisely because it's very clear. | |
| Mar 10, 2021 at 14:28 | comment | added | VLAZ | As having "hostages" internally within the state - the Romans practised it. That was different from taking hostages from foreign rulers but very similar in the end - noble families would want their progeny in the court. Maybe not their heirs but certainly their other children. They could at the very least try to curry favours there or hear information that's valuable. Conversely, when there is a family member in the court, the nobles would do very well to behave, lest the family member be removed or worse. | |
| Mar 10, 2021 at 14:24 | comment | added | VLAZ | This is not too different from what Europeans did. There would often be "hostage exchanges" between heads of states. Some times this is after a war ends but other times it's as part of a peace treaty. The "hostages" would be the children of the rulers and would be treated very well - given good education, looked after and so on. Really far from being locked in a dark cell. However, it was still a deterrent from the opposing rulers taking hostile actions. | |
| Mar 10, 2021 at 14:17 | history | answered | user535733 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |