Is Goku a superhero?

[Dr. Casey]

I'm going to go against the grain here, methinks. I'm not a fan of the "hope of the universe" Goku. Even the movie Toei Goku can get a bit outside of the character at times. But I honestly feel the accidental hero, selfish manchild aspect is far too overstated as well. Maybe it's fans pulling against FUNimation's depictions. Maybe it's Toriyama pulling against Toei's depictions. But Goku is (or was at least) very selflessly heroic. I think he, unfortunately, became less so over time as he began inheriting "Saiyan" characteristics that were then claimed to have always been there. But remember this is a guy who abandons his epic quest without hesitation to carry a sea turtle back to his home, with no thought of reward or expectation of fighting, just because it's the right thing to do. He finishes gathering all the Dragon Balls, even the ones he doesn't care about, just to bring an innocent man back to life. Yes, he is driven by battle. Yes, he is simple and is often motivated by his own desires. Yes, he can often make reckless decisions. No, he does not live by an overt code or sit in the Hall of Justice waiting to battle the Legion of Doom. And I love all of those things about him. But that's not all Goku is at all, and it pains me that he continues to be pushed further in that direction as the years go on.

I'm glad this was pointed out, because I've always felt this way. For much of Dragon Ball, Goku wasn't a battle maniac at all. I honestly don't remember many examples of 11 or 12 or 15 year old Goku particularly enjoying fighting outside of a tournament context (the Tenkaichi Budokais being something he of course very much loved). He never shied away from fighting someone, but his attitude when fighting Yamcha or Piccolo Daimao or the members of the Red Ribbon Army was very serious and focused with elements of "Man, I am so pumped up!" creeping in only seldomly. The earliest that I remember the lust for battle kicking in would be... Mr. Popo, maybe, since I don't remember Goku being entirely certain as to the seriousness of the fight, but still getting excited anyway. Before that, I think Goku honestly could have taken or left martial arts were it not for the Tenkaichi Budokais spurring his interest. I think that for much of the original Dragon Ball anime, in the absence of the Budokais Goku would have been content to just return to a life in the wilderness at Mt. Paozu, and that he would have been someone who simply wants a very active life, rather than someone who lives for martial arts specifically.

I actually don't personally mind the shift for the most part and like Goku a lot as either a child or an adult, with the exception of the 28th Tenkaichi Budokai where he basically just seems to have devolved into an obsessive musclehead; before that his Z characterization was closer to simply being a very serious and devoted martial artist who made questionable choices whenever the adrenaline of a good battle got to his head. I do think that both the fanbase and newer materials retroactively assign Goku traits that were either absent or vastly less prominent during the early run, though. There wasn't much 'poison' (to use Toriyama's own well-chosen word) to 11 or 12 year old Goku at all, he was an almost perfectly family-friendly child protagonist that rarely if ever did anything very controversial at all and whose actions anyone could get behind as being justified and moral. Goku's vices don't really start coming into play until the 23rd Tenkaichi Budokai.

EDIT: Or maybe it would be more accurate to say that his 23rd Tenkaichi Budokai/Saiya-jin/Frieza saga self was simply "a serious and devoted martial artist who made questionable choices whenever the adrenaline of a good battle got to his head." His flaws became more prominent, but during that time period it was more just for flavor rather than being something that genuinely threatens the audience's feelings towards him. The "Goku, what the hell are you doing?" element of his character doesn't really get cranked up until after Frieza, probably starting with the decision not to take advantage of Trunks' warning, at which point he consistently makes more controversial choices and becomes a more challenging character for the remainder of the story.

[ABED]

You need context. Doom rules a country with an iron fist. Doing anything drastic would be an act of war, and you'd have Latveria pissed off at America. He rules a country and has diplomatic immunity. You can't straight up kill or take out the leader of a country, and not expect a problem with the people. Darkseid is the same as he's god of Apokolips. I'm not going to go into politics of why that is right or wrong, but let me put it this way of why context is important.

Doom causing chaos is already an act of war. Who cares if Latveria is mad? If their king attacks, then it's rightfully self defense. Diplomatic immunity is a cute excuse but one that doesn't hold up to genuine scrutiny. It doesn't give blanket immunity to everything. No, you can't kill a leader and not expect trouble, but what's the alternative? Let them get away with killing people? What they did was already an act of war, that's why your argument falls flat.

Depends on the one's. Usually it's part of a no killing rule

A rule that drops context and is dogmatic.

He told him to go build up his power and come fight him again later. A move that not only backfired, but nearly got everyone he cared about killed. Not for some desire for Freeza to learn his lesson, or for justice, but because he wanted a rematch. It's also why he let Vegeta go. Both being wrong.

I know what you're referring to, but you and others that bring up this point constantly outright ignore him leaving Freeza to die. It's only after Freeza's pleas that he lets him live.

[Kamiccolo9]

Latveria could wipe every other country off the map easily. That's why they care.

[dbzfan7]

Doom causing chaos is already an act of war. Who cares if Latveria is mad? If their king attacks, then it's rightfully self defense. Diplomatic immunity is a cute excuse but one that doesn't hold up to genuine scrutiny. It doesn't give blanket immunity to everything. No, you can't kill a leader and not expect trouble, but what's the alternative? Let them get away with killing people? What they did was already an act of war, that's why your argument falls flat.

Latveria could wipe every other country off the map easily. That's why they care.

Brilliant idea. Piss off the country that can wipe out ALL the others. What a smart move. Doom is also a very VERY powerful figure. We're talking a guy who's gotten godly powers every now and then. Powers far above most heroes. The power cosmic that'd make Dragon Ball figures wet themselves. Starting a war with Doom is a horrible idea.

Your argument is terrible as you ignore context. I showed what happens when we ignore Goku's context. It's not really fair when we do now is it? You can't compare Goku to Marvel or DC. They have far more in-depth reasons for things, while Goku is a simple country bumpkin.

A rule that drops context and is dogmatic.

It's not at all. It's a rule people go by so they don't go killing everyone. Or they'd be like the Punisher who basically does that. Much better than "I wanna fight strong guys and put everyone's lives at risk."

I know what you're referring to, but you and others that bring up this point constantly outright ignore him leaving Freeza to die. It's only after Freeza's pleas that he lets him live.

Which was a horrible decision so he could let him live, and come back one day. Which he did, and nearly killed everyone. Brilliant.

[Polyphase Avatron]

Again, if anyone wants I can name many acknowledged 'superheroes' who are less moral/heroic than Goku is.

You mentioned the Punisher but, to be fair, no one in the MU considers him to be a superhero. They all think he's a murdering lunatic.

Not debating the overall point, but the Punisher's not the best example.

What about Magneto? He's been on the hero side many times yet has still done many evil things. In fact he could be compared to Vegeta as he once wanted to conquer/destroy Earth and then joined the heroes' side.

What about Niles Caulder from Doom Patrol? He actually manipulated his future teammates into suffering life-impairing accidents that would give them superpowers but destroy their personal lives and make them into freaks, just so he could have a team of superpowered individuals. Goku would never do something as immoral as that.

What about Hank Pym? He's known for beating his wife... Goku only ever hit Chichi by accident and was really sorry afterwards.

There's Ozymandius from Watchmen - he engineered a plan to kill millions of innocent people and carried it out because he thought it was the right thing to do to preserve world peace. Also from Watchmen, Rorschach is a paranoid psychopath who burns people alive and hates society, and Comedian shot a pregnant woman who was carrying his child.

Going back to more mainstream heroes, we have the Hulk. He is considered a public menace, the military is always hunting him, he is known for smashing and destroying everything in his way... when people hear that the Hulk is in the area the most common reaction is to riot, panic, and try to leave town.

There is the Spectre, who is known for using his powers to torture criminals in horrific ways.

Speaking of torture, Swamp Thing has killed people by causing plants to grow at an accelerated rate and consume their bodies from the inside-out.

Iron Man led a fascist government program to control all superpowered beings and fought against his former friends and teammates to force them into it.

Namor the Sub-Mariner routinely invades the surface world, destroys ships and submarines, and generally goes around causing chaos and destruction. Most people's reaction to him is the same one they have to the Hulk.

Drax the Destroyer is known for destroying planets and killing people all across the universe.

Etrigan is a literal demon from Hell who enjoys and embraces being what he is, and has a very cruel and destructive personality.

There's even a character from the team Section 8 who is a serial rapist.

There are also characters like Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver, Jean Grey, Hal Jordan, etc. who routinely switch between being heroes and villains.

All of these people are considered superheroes, so the idea that Goku is somehow not heroic enough to be called one is just ridiculous.

[Kamiccolo9]

Again, not debating the overall point. Just saying that the Punished is not a good example. His entire point is that he does the things that superheroes can't or won't do. Calling him a superhero totally misses the point of the character.

[rereboy]

All of these people are considered superheroes, so the idea that Goku is somehow not heroic enough to be called one is just ridiculous.

Those people are considered to be superheroes only when they are behaving as such.

Oxymandias, for example, was clearly a superhero in every sense of the word in the past, but he was a villain (or at best an anti-hero) when he did those terrible things.

Goku, however, was never a superhero in every sense of the word.

[dbzfan7]

All of these people are considered superheroes, so the idea that Goku is somehow not heroic enough to be called one is just ridiculous.

Those people are considered to be superheroes only when they are behaving as such.

Oxymandias, for example, was clearly a superhero in every sense of the word in the past, but he was a villain (or at best an anti-hero) when he did those terrible things.

Goku, however, was never a superhero in every sense of the word.

That's an interesting point I agree with. Just cause someone does hero things sometimes, doesn't make them always a hero. Goku has done some heroic things sometimes, but he's also makes horrible decisions a lot too. I've seen him as a hero sometimes and in some occasions, but I don't see him as a Superhero since his motive is not always one I'd think a Superhero would indulge in.

[rereboy]

To clarify:

If Goku started to behave like, say, Superman after the Buu saga for a few years, he would be a Superhero during that time. He still wouldn't be a Superhero regarding the time before that because before then he never was a Superhero in every sense of the word.

It's basically the same as bad guys who become good. They are only good when they act good and in regards to the time before then they are still considered bad.

[ABED]

To clarify:

If Goku started to behave like, say, Superman after the Buu saga for a few years, he would be a Superhero during that time. He still wouldn't be a Superhero regarding the time before that because before then he never was a Superhero in every sense of the word.

It's basically the same as bad guys who become good. They are only good when they act good and in regards to the time before then they are still considered bad.

I'm just making this a semantics issue, but I would say that it depends on the severity of the sin. I still don't think Vegeta can be considered a good guy even by the end. He's a bad person who does some good things. So I don't think Vegeta could ever be considered a superhero.

I do think Goku fits part of the definition of a superhero, but I would call him more of a mixed bag. He certainly has a lot of virtues and is overall a kind person, but he's also prone to making some irrational and reckless decisions (which his friends and family more often than not enable), though they aren't done out of malice. Ergo, I would put Goku firmly in the good guy camp.

[rereboy]

To clarify:

If Goku started to behave like, say, Superman after the Buu saga for a few years, he would be a Superhero during that time. He still wouldn't be a Superhero regarding the time before that because before then he never was a Superhero in every sense of the word.

It's basically the same as bad guys who become good. They are only good when they act good and in regards to the time before then they are still considered bad.

I'm just making this a semantics issue, but I would say that it depends on the severity of the sin. I still don't think Vegeta can be considered a good guy even by the end. He's a bad person who does some good things. So I don't think Vegeta could ever be considered a superhero.

I do think Goku fits part of the definition of a superhero, but I would call him more of a mixed bag. He certainly has a lot of virtues and is overall a kind person, but he's also prone to making some irrational and reckless decisions (which his friends and family more often than not enable), though they aren't done out of malice. Ergo, I would put Goku firmly in the good guy camp.

Forgiving or forgetting past actions is basically irrelevant. A character can be a villain and then change his mind and start to behave exactly like Superman. From that point there is no doubt that he is behaving and fulfilling the role of Superhero in the story in every sense of the word, even if other characters and even readers don't forget and forgive his past.

Unless something happens to put into question his time as a Superhero, for that time he will be a Superhero in every sense of the word.

But of course I do understand what you mean and it makes sense from a global and realistic point of view. But we also have to understand that these are characters fulfilling a role in a story, and that role often changes, sometimes into a Superhero role.

[Polyphase Avatron]

All of these people are considered superheroes, so the idea that Goku is somehow not heroic enough to be called one is just ridiculous.

Those people are considered to be superheroes only when they are behaving as such.

Oxymandias, for example, was clearly a superhero in every sense of the word in the past, but he was a villain (or at best an anti-hero) when he did those terrible things.

Goku, however, was never a superhero in every sense of the word.

So you selectively call them superheroes when they are doing good and not when they are doing questionable things? So then why not call Goku a superhero when he's fighting Cell and then call him not one when he gives Cell a senzu bean, or whatever? This seems like a bunch of double standards. You also only replied to one of my examples.

I could call Vegeta an 'anti-hero' but not Goku.

Let's look at another one of my comparisons, with the Hulk. He is a superhero and acknowledged as such. But let's compare his 'heroic' behavior to Goku:

If you told Goku that the Earth was in danger and everyone needed his help, he would readily agree to help, and do his best to fight the threat and prevent anyone from being hurt or killed.

If you told the Hulk that the Earth was in danger and everyone needed his help, his most likely response would be to say that he doesn't care and wants to be left alone. If you kept following and begging him he might even get annoyed enough and kill you. He would only be likely to help if the threat attacked him directly, or if someone he knew and really trusted (people who fit this criteria can be counted on one hand) begged him to. Even if he was convinced to help, he would be liable to cause more damage while fighting the threat than the threat would have in the first place.

Yet Goku is "not a superhero" and the Hulk is?

[rereboy]

All of these people are considered superheroes, so the idea that Goku is somehow not heroic enough to be called one is just ridiculous.

Those people are considered to be superheroes only when they are behaving as such.

Oxymandias, for example, was clearly a superhero in every sense of the word in the past, but he was a villain (or at best an anti-hero) when he did those terrible things.

Goku, however, was never a superhero in every sense of the word.

So you selectively call them superheroes when they are doing good and not when they are doing questionable things? So then why not call Goku a superhero when he's fighting Cell and then call him not one when he gives Cell a senzu bean, or whatever? This seems like a bunch of double standards. You also only replied to one of my examples.

I could call Vegeta an 'anti-hero' but not Goku.

Let's look at another one of my comparisons, with the Hulk. He is a superhero and acknowledged as such. But let's compare his 'heroic' behavior to Goku:

If you told Goku that the Earth was in danger and everyone needed his help, he would readily agree to help, and do his best to fight the threat and prevent anyone from being hurt or killed.

If you told the Hulk that the Earth was in danger and everyone needed his help, his most likely response would be to say that he doesn't care and wants to be left alone. If you kept following and begging him he might even get annoyed enough and kill you. He would only be likely to help if the threat attacked him directly, or if someone he knew and really trusted (people who fit this criteria can be counted on one hand) begged him to. Even if he was convinced to help, he would be liable to cause more damage while fighting the threat than the threat would have in the first place.

Yet Goku is "not a superhero" and the Hulk is?

There is a clear difference between being a villain, bring an anti-hero, being a good guy, being a hero, and being a Superhero. All of those are different, and the same character can, as he evolves and changes, assume any one of those roles in the story.

Being a Superhero in every sense of the word is not just a matter of having powers and doing good things. You can use that term to describe powered people who do good but at the end of the day that's just an over simplification.

If that was all that it took for a character to behave as a Superhero, than someone like Doom saving Earth because he doesn't want to see it destroyed would be classified as a Superhero, at least at that moment. Does that make sense? No, because his behavior and his attitude doesn't fit a Superhero in every sense of the word since Doom would only save Earth for selfish reasons.

Hulk, for example, has frequently assumed the role of the villain or adversary and is most of the time an anti-hero. You are calling him a Superhero just because he has powers and does good things sometimes while forgetting that his behavior also doesn't fit a superhero in every sense of the word. Many people do that oversimplification of the term but that doesn't make it any more correct.

Goku simply also has never fit the role of a Superhero in every sense of the word. The only Superhero in every sense of the word in Dragon Ball is Gohan because he is a good guy that does heroic things by using his powers to seek out crime and injustice all around and stop it. Thus his behavior actually fits a Superhero.

Goku merely reacts to bad things. That makes him a good guy with powers, that sometimes does heroic things since that reaction makes him stop villains, but it doesn't fit a Superhero.

There is a simple exercise to see if a character's behavior is superhero-like: compare it to Superman. Superman is the embodiment of what a Superhero is in every sense of the word.

[Polyphase Avatron]

What do you mean "every sense of the word"? Your are just making up your own definitions and applying them inconsistently. 99% of all Marvel/DC heroes are not "superheroes in every sense of the word" if you think that way.

[rereboy]

What do you mean "every sense of the word"? Your are just making up your own definitions and applying them inconsistently. 99% of all Marvel/DC heroes are not "superheroes in every sense of the word" if you think that way.

Answer me this: what is the difference between a Supervillain and a Superhero? Is it powers...? Race...? Country...? No, it's their behavior.

Behavior is what makes the difference between a Supervillain and a Superhero.

And what's the difference between an anti-hero and a Super-hero? Is it powers...? Race...? Country...? No, once again it's their behavior.

Hulk, like you pointed out yourself, doesn't have the behavior of a Superhero, at least most of the time. He merely fits the description of "being with extraordinary abilities that sometimes does good things". But many villains and anti-heroes would also fit that description so, obviously, unless you also want to consider many villains and anti-heroes as superheroes, that description is clearly not enough.

Maybe instead of claiming that I'm "making up definitions and applying them inconsistently" you should reflect on the term Superhero yourself and realize just how broadly and incorrectly it is used to describe basically any character with extraordinary abilities. Your very own example of the Hulk should have been a dead giveaway already of that since you are clearly aware of the difference of behavior between someone like the Hulk and someone like Superman and yet you don't question at all if the term is correctly applied to him, you just assume it is, you don't question it.

As for 99% of all Marvel/DC heroes not being superheroes, the vast majority of all marvel/DC heroes are good guys with extraordinary abilities that are actually seeking out and fighting bad things and injustice. So, no, actually the behavior of the vast majority ends up fitting.

If you want another good example of someone being a Superhero in every sense of the word (besides Superman): Spider-man. Guy gets spider-powers, so he has extraordinary abilities. What is his behavior? He remains a good guy and he actively starts using his powers all around the city to stop bad things and injustice. He doesn't become bad, he doesn't do bad things with his powers, he doesn't merely react to things that happen and he doesn't choose to not use his powers. Overall, he fits the behavior of a Superhero.

[Polyphase Avatron]

He made a devil with Mephisto (i.e. the devil) to retcon away his own marriage.

[rereboy]

He made a devil with Mephisto (i.e. the devil) to retcon away his own marriage.

He sacrificed his happy relationship to save his aunt from death.

Anyway, like I've already said, many characters have been Superheroes (in every sense of the word) for a time but have been something else in other moments. A character doesn't have to fit the superhero behavior in every point of his existence to fit that behavior during a particular point in time. There have been Superheroes who have gone off to the "dark side" and other variations. That doesn't mean that they didn't fit the superhero behavior before going "dark side".

[voltlunok]

He made a devil with Mephisto (i.e. the devil) to retcon away his own marriage.

There's a bit more context to that though. Remember the loss of his marriage was the price to save Aunt May's life. Peter didn't want out of his marriage, just wanted to save May.

I think we're holding the defination of a 'Hero' too closely to Superman. He's the IDEAL hero but well...Heroes come in all shapes, sizes, forms, and minds. In many ways Taurus Harbinger from Saint Seiya Omega was considered a hero, enough that Athena made him Pope, but lets keep in mind, this is the same Harbinger whose hobby is beating people up so he can listen to the sound of their bones breaking, among other things Harbinger did. Heck, look at Guy Gardner, he was basically the Dirty Harry of the Green Lanterns, he was completely OK with killing people, breaking the guardians' rules and a lot more, and I know that he was labeled a superhero. I think Goku is a superhero but he's one in his own right that is a little different from the superman ideal.

[rereboy]

He made a devil with Mephisto (i.e. the devil) to retcon away his own marriage.

There's a bit more context to that though. Remember the loss of his marriage was the price to save Aunt May's life. Peter didn't want out of his marriage, just wanted to save May.

I think we're holding the defination of a 'Hero' too closely to Superman. He's the IDEAL hero but well...Heroes come in all shapes, sizes, forms, and minds. In many ways Taurus Harbinger from Saint Seiya Omega was considered a hero, enough that Athena made him Pope, but lets keep in mind, this is the same Harbinger whose hobby is beating people up so he can listen to the sound of their bones breaking, among other things Harbinger did. Heck, look at Guy Gardner, he was basically the Dirty Harry of the Green Lanterns, he was completely OK with killing people, breaking the guardians' rules and a lot more, and I know that he was labeled a superhero. I think Goku is a superhero but he's one in his own right that is a little different from the superman ideal.

Being a hero is different from being a superhero.

An ordinary man or a man with extraordinary abilities who stops a burglar that is robbing a store is a hero because what he did was heroic.

But a Superhero is different. A Superhero makes his formal or informal job out of using his extraordinary abilities to achieve heroic things and stop bad things and thus actively seeks that out.

Goku is a hero. But he is not a Superhero.

[voltlunok]

Being a hero is different from being a superhero.

An ordinary man or a man with extraordinary abilities who stops a burglar that is robbing a store is a hero because what he did was heroic.

But a Superhero is different. A Superhero makes his formal or informal job out of using his extraordinary abilities to achieve heroic things and stop bad things and thus actively seeks that out.

Goku is a hero. But he is not a Superhero.

I'm really sorry but that just sounds like you're trying to actively split hairs over what a superhero is. I mean if that is your belief then fine but, A hero is a hero. By the definition you give, you can actively argue a regular fireman or police officer, is a superhero, heck you could use that definition to argue that Superman ISN'T a superhero. In all honesty its just simpler to define a superhero as a hero with extraordinary abilities. which many official definitions for the word superhero do. So yeah, Goku is a superhero.