limits to power

[marycatelli]

Inspired by another essay that jordan179 indexed -- this one.

In which he observes of Powerhouses -- really, really, really powerful superhumans, a la Superman

All this assumes that the Powerhouse is an ethical being. If he is ruthless and amoral, of course, he simply takes over. There is nothing that you can do to stop him, unless you have other Powerhouses or really good gadgeteers.

Well, given the usual slew of superpowers that such beings have -- they don't usually include mind control.  Or massive multitasking.  It would be kinda tricky.  To steal an observation from Thomas Sowell:  in both Imperial Rome and the antebellum South, a slave-owner would suffer little if anything for killing a slave, and yet despite the extent of this power, slaves in both eras were sometimes paid to do work.

It was the delusion of Communism, too, that people could somehow be made to work.  Assuming that the Powerhouse had needs, there is the little matter of how he could prevent malingering, laziness, theft.   True, he could blast the slothful to dust, but that wouldn't get their jobs done.

Could be elided, fictionally.  In fact, in most fictional kingdoms, it is elided -- as the king is, so is the kingdom.  Like many conventions, it helps move the story along without distractions.

But it would be more realistic to have a character he describes as a Mentalist do it.  Or perhaps a Gadgeteer, who could make lots and lots of any given gadget to coerce people into doing as he wants.

Comments

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I'm assuming that the Powerhouse is smart enough to use ambitious, disgruntled ruthless people and organizations as quislings. For instance, if I were a Powerhouse trying to take over the modern world, I would probably try to cut a deal with the Chinese or the Terrorist States to serve as my foot soldiers and occupation troops, while I disposed of enemy leaders and heavy equipment with my superpowers.

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

So, the Nazi USSR model. (shoving bits together)

[marycatelli]

Neither of which held together for the length of a human lifespan, showing inherent weaknesses that the Powerhouse can't compensate for.

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

The USSR does show that, but the Nazi model doesn't, the flaw in that system that caused it to fail when it did was excessive militarism. A powerhouse *could* hugely compensate for that lack. Imagine the russian invasion with someone on their side that could fly to the US grain belt, harvest a few million acres *by himself* and deliver it in one trip to the troops besieging Stalingrad.

[marycatelli]

Militarism might not have killed it if it had not been replete with duplicated governmental functions, and if its leader had not gotten delusions of grandeur based on how well his first planned attacks went.

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

By looking at flaws in other horrible sections, they could probably build a model that would work.

[marycatelli]

The question is whether the flaws are inherent to the structure.

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

I would like to believe they ALL are, but I'm afraid I only believe that some of them are inherent. Way too many evil groups-- get a culture of evil and you're "set."

[marycatelli]

"Out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing was ever made."

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

If I were the powerhouse... I would ally myself with the most powerful and controlling entity. I would cry "truth justice and the American way". Because it's *easier* to control from within the already controlling entity. Because it allows one the freedom to simply help the "good guys win". Because it'll allow your abuses to be covered by your good works.

Most of the most successful monsters in history were *beloved* of their people.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I see your point, but that way the Powerhouse wouldn't have as free a hand.

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

True. I guess I would be a lazy powerhouse. 90% of the gravy for 1/2 the effort :)

[izuko.livejournal.com]

If you've got 90% of the world, it would be trivial to get the other 10% for even less effort. "You screwed up, so do you join me, or face the other 9/10 of the world... and me?"

[marycatelli]

Depends on how much of a headache it brings with it.

[izuko.livejournal.com]

Even the worst headache can't stand up to carpet bombing.

[marycatelli]

The limits of power -- you can annihiliate, but you can't control.

[izuko.livejournal.com]

If you wipe out a tenth of the population of the Earth, literally decimating world population... I think control takes care of itself.

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

For a while.

How many folks are killed doing really dumb stuff?

[izuko.livejournal.com]

Always going to have a few, but I figure this is close enough. Their own community will put them down, so that I don't have to wipe them out.

[marycatelli]

They're generaly the short-sighted variety. The question is whether they can cause problems before they are put down.

[marycatelli]

In some age groups, it's the leading cause.

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

IIRC, the same ones best known for incredible bravery that changes the course of history.

[marycatelli]

Only in rare cases.

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

Only takes one.

[marycatelli]

The situations where one changes everything it generally change for the worse.

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

Ever tried to game out what happened when Luke took out the empire?

To be fair, the situations where "one person changes everything" usually have a massive number of support folks who just aren't involved in the final step. I figure that's why dictators hate private speech.

[marycatelli]

Lone assassins can effect some things. Usually for the worse.

[marycatelli]

It's a weapon that lacks finesse. Draco's code did have the problem that you couldn't escalate punishments.

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

I don't mean ruling 90% of the world, I mean having 90% of the *fun* of ruling the world. Alligning with the US, and presenting a very very positive front would allow him to have *huge* influence, control even, without having to *administer* anything. It would allow him to have effective command over *hordes* of loyal minions. It would allow him to *abuse* his power pursuing the bad guys du jure, potentially in rather horrendous ways. It would allow him to abuse his power over the "good guys" in horrendous ways because no one would want to believe that of him (sandusky anyone?).

It's the same reason that all the brutal dictators are "socialist". Because everyone that has read their Machiavelli knows that you can get more bad things done as the good guy than you can as the bad.

[marycatelli]

It reminds me of a scene in Michael Flynn's Up Jim River where he complains that he tells his ministers what to do, and they nod and don't do it.

[marycatelli]

True. What the Powerhouse wants will do much to determine what he gets.

[marycatelli]

Well -- who's going to stop him? Nothing to prevent the government from being a democracy punctuated by occasional executions.

[marycatelli]

It also lets you out of the paperwork!

(Most successful villainous "take over the world" ploys show the villain rather unhappy actually ruling the world. Sometimes he even limits his resistance to the Resistance because he was happier trying to conquer the world.)

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

Problem: Americans like to tear down good people who are powerful. The more powerful and the more idealistic, the more they'll be attacked.

If Superman WAS real, he'd have a list of accusations of being exactly what you point would be the smart way of being powerful leveled against him constantly.

[marycatelli]

Envy was one of the seven deadly sins long before this country was founded.

[marycatelli]

Another term for "ambitious, disgruntled ruthless people and organizations" is "potential usurpers."

Anyway, cutting a deal is not taking over. At most, it is introducing yourself into the current power structure.

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

....I just realized the "Legion of Super Villains" isn't as corny as it sometimes seems.

Lower level but still superhuman metas would be very good footsoldiers, especially if someone's bright enough to have figureheads.

[marycatelli]

Of course, you do have to have in-legion loyalty and trustworthiness. A low-level mentalist, or a gadgeteer who could whip up a real truth detector, might help.

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

Do like Bane. Buy their loyalty with license. (Which has the added bonus of making it so that anybody who develops superpowers will be treated like crud, making them ripe pickings for a thug-class.)

[marycatelli]

That's a short term solution, surely. Once they destroy to their hearts' content, who will build new goodies for them? They've executed all the builders.

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

Depends on how high class the super villain is; the Kims are on, what, generation three of this scheme?

[marycatelli]

Then you've got to sort out your flunkies, and keep them limited in their crimes.

North Korea is certainly having its problems in generation three.

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

I don't think Generation One cares.

[marycatelli]

Yeah, but he was a Soviet flunky up front.

[nagasvoice.livejournal.com]

The history of colonialism provides a pretty close model for the failings and the abuses and the openings for resistance by those being controlled. Most Powerhouses would probably use whatever systems and patterns are already in place, and just juice up the parts they find useful. The minute you try to make people make other people do what you want--at a remove or two or three--you're right back into regular people controlling one another with the threat of backup from a more distant authority. It doesn't matter if it's Superman trying to get laborers to build railroads or the financiers of the nineteenth century, you have to provide incentives and order to make it happen.

[marycatelli]

And even Superman would have a real trick trying to ensure that the incentives are right, two or three layers down.

[izuko.livejournal.com]

Not often that you get mind control and Thomas Sowell in the same discussion.

[marycatelli]

I wonder why not?