Is Goku a superhero?

[rereboy]

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.

The problem with your definition is how broad the term hero is.

A world class athele is often considered an hero in a poor country due to how he inspires the youth, or a soldier who was forced to go to war and managed to kill a lot of enemies just by doing his job is also considered a hero, or a woman that manages to inspire millions of kids to study by dedicating her life to promoting it is also considered a hero.

If those people had the ability to heal very fast, they would automatically be considered superheroes according to you since they a) have extraordinary abilities, and b) are heroes.

But would they actually fit the term "Superhero"? No, they wouldn't because the term refers to a behavior that doesn't fit with what they do despite being considered heroes.

Superhero is more specific than that and that's why just saying " hero with abilities" doesn't work very well.

This is very relevant regarding Goku. He can certainly be considered a hero and he certainly has abilities... But does he really fit the term? Does he have the behavior of a Superhero? No.

As for the first part of your post regarding what I had said, clearly you misundestood my words since:

- following what I said, a regular fireman can be a hero but not really a superhero. To be one he would have to match the behavior of one and have extraordinary abilities. And

- There is no way to use what I said to argue that Superman isn't a Superhero. He matches the behavior and has the abilities. So, he clearly is.

[voltlunok]

Again, you are splitting hairs about this. You are over complicating what a Superhero is, and I think you are over complicating that definition to fit the argument that Goku isn't a superhero. The definition of Superheroes is and has been "a fictional hero having extraordinary or superhuman powers." as stated by about 6+ different dictionary definitions. You are over complicating this for no reason other then to say "Goku isn't a superhero."

Yes you can use your definition to state superman isn't a superhero because 90% of the time, Superman's actions are REACTIVE, he does not actively seek out crime 24/7 and by the definition you give, yeah, Superman isn't a superhero because he's reactive instead of proactive. Heck there are quite a few stories that have shown what happens when superman goes proactive against crime and he's usually seen as a tyrant, out of control or a VILLAIN.

By the actual definition of the word, yes, Goku is a superhero. If you don't want to believe that, then fine. That is your opinion and belief, but a personal definition and belief of what a superhero is does not constitute fact.

[rereboy]

Again, you are splitting hairs about this. You are over complicating what a Superhero is, and I think you are over complicating that definition to fit the argument that Goku isn't a superhero. The definition of Superheroes is and has been "a fictional hero having extraordinary or superhuman powers." as stated by about 6+ different dictionary definitions. You are over complicating this for no reason other then to say "Goku isn't a superhero."

You haven't provided any arguments agaisnt my examples for why that definition doesn't work very well.

I gave you concrete examples of how the term hero is kind of broad and why the mere addition of extraordinary abilities to the term doesn't always result in what we would consider to be a Superhero.

You just say that I'm overcomplicating but you don't actually refute my arguments.

Furthermore, you completely ignore that there are various kinds of definitions, ranging from basic definitions to extensive and precise definitions. That is why some dictionaries are better than others, depending on how basic and extensive they are compared to others.

I never denied that Superhero can have a basic definition like the one you stated, I just pointed out how it ends up not working very well, and thus offered a more extensive one that seems to work better.

Yes you can use your definition to state superman isn't a superhero because 90% of the time, Superman's actions are REACTIVE, he does not actively seek out crime 24/7 and by the definition you give, yeah, Superman isn't a superhero because he's reactive instead of proactive. Heck there are quite a few stories that have shown what happens when superman goes proactive against crime and he's usually seen as a tyrant, out of control or a VILLAIN.

Superman is tipically on the lookout for bad things to stop with his super senses and by actively looking for them. A number of his interventions being due to him just reacting, or the fact that it's impossible for him to be everywhere and be 24 hours a day searching for bad things, doesn't deny the fact that he actively searches for them.

Goku, on the other hand, never searches for them. He just keeps training and if something happens then he might do something. The fact that he could stop a lot of bad things just by searching for them in the city closest to his home once in a while is something that doesn't even cross his mind, like it does Gohan.

"With great power comes great responsability" is something that is not fully understood by Goku as proven by the fact that he doesn't feel that his power gives him the responsabiliy to be proactive in stopping bad things by looking for them.

Furthermore, like I've already said multiple times, just because a Superhero might fall to the "Dark side", that doesn't mean that before he fell he wasn't a Superhero in every sense of the word. We just have two moments in time there, and neither one denies the other.

So, no, that wasn't the conclusion from what I said.

By the actual definition of the word, yes, Goku is a superhero. If you don't want to believe that, then fine. That is your opinion and belief, but a personal definition and belief of what a superhero is does not constitute fact.

I never talked about any definition being fact so I don't know what you are talking about here.

[Kunzait_83]

A "superhero" in terms of genre fiction has a very simple recurring theme/through-line: helping people.

Yes there have been many, many "darker" superheros who kill people, brood, etc. But at the end of the day, what makes a superhero a superhero is the driving motivation of helping others.

Superman, Spider-Man, Batman, Wolverine, Daredevil etc. are all about using their powers for the benefit of others. Protecting people who would not be able to protect themselves, saving the world and so on. Even on the darkest, darkest extreme end of the spectrum - characters like The Punisher, Spawn, Rorschach etc. - at the end of the day their whole motivation revolves centrally around the protecting of innocents. A superhero is a character who's WHOLE reason for being is the benefit of other people.

There's NOTHING "overly complex" about that definition. The recurring theme ISN'T solely the presence of superpowers (though superpowers are often there 90% of the time granted): characters like Batman, The Punisher, Elektra, most of the Watchmen cast, etc. have NO superpowers whatsoever, and yet they are without a doubt still considered superheroes. The central definition of a superhero is putting on a costumed identity to fight bad guys in the specific interest of helping and protecting other people.

This motivation is almost NOWHERE to be found in Dragon Ball, outside of maybe Future Trunks (who's among the most Westernized characters in the series) and Gohan's almost literally two second dalliance with superheroing as the Great Saiyaman: Dragon Ball's central motivation for almost ALL its characters, Goku especially, is becoming a better martial artist and fighting to test one's skills.

Goku is indeed a hero and he does have supernatural powers, but doesn't even remotely fit the Western superhero definition: he's a "hero" in a VERY Eastern martial arts fiction sense, which means he fights primarily to better his own skills in an honorable and righteous way. He'll help others at times too, but that has NEVER at any point driven him as a character: its always been an element that's off to the (sometimes very far off) side for him. The central driving reason for being of Goku, and most martial arts fiction heroes in general, is for benefiting and bettering themselves.

I know I'm a broken record about this stuff, but the ENTIRE reason that conversations like this happen at all is because modern Dragon Ball fandom has almost NO real experience with martial arts fiction as a genre, outside of Dragon Ball and maybe at best one or two other notable works here or there (like an occasional Bruce Lee or more modern Jackie Chan or Jet Li film). Certainly not Wuxia or other supernaturally-driven martial arts works. Western Superheroes however is a genre that the modern DB audience is TOTALLY over-familiar with: hence why Dragon Ball gets lumped into it when it absolutely belongs nowhere within the same zip code.

Just about no one here's cracked a single Tsui Hark or Chang Cheh or King Hu movie ever, but they've damn sure watched the shit out of Bruce Timm's entire DC Animation oeuvre on Cartoon Network as well as tons of other Marvel cartoons: side by side along with the FUNimation DBZ dub. Hence the misplaced association. Nobody in ANY other fan community for ANY other supernatural martial arts fiction/wuxia work has debates like this. ONLY this one.

At NO point in Dragon Ball do Goku or ANY of the other characters (Great Saiyaman again excepted) fly around "patrolling" and LOOKING actively to help other people. Nor do they have any sort of "alert" or "distress beacon" sort of plot device warning them of when an imminent threat to humanity is present (apart from sensing others' Ki, which is a typical enough wuxia plot device anyway that's often used purely for self defense) that gets them going. They're not the Justice League or The Avengers. And Goku specifically is a FAR cry from Superman or Spider-Man or any other such character.

Hell, none of them even have alter ego's of any sort. Goku doesn't became "Super Ki Blast Man" or whatever when he goes out fighting bad guys. He's just Goku, while Tenshinhan's just Tenshinhan, Piccolo's Piccolo, etc. Most of the ENTIRE cast all originally came together through meeting up and facing one another at a fucking martial arts tournament. Competitiveness among one another is what drives all the characters to fight, NOT "saving the world".

Which sentence rings as more "Dragon Ball" to you: "Oh my god guys, its up to us to save the world!" or "I'm gonna surpass you someday!"

There's almost NOTHING in the way of genuine common ground between Dragon Ball/Goku and superheroes as a genre other than the presence superpowers and colorful outfits: the former of which in DB's case are purely rooted in martial arts myths, and the latter of which in DB's case are all martial arts dogis rather than "costumes" in the superhero sense.

Many times they have actively put the entire world and human race at direct risk for the opportunity to test their skills and abilities against a worthy (and very dangerous) opponent. Martial arts tournaments are MANY TIMES most often what gets them springing into action from their laurels. Even their fights against the Nappa and Vegeta and Freeza's army on Namek were mostly about the Z warriors protecting THEMSELVES rather than others (though others did indeed end up getting protected as well by extension).

Despite the powers, Goku's no more a superhero than Ryu from Street Fighter is. And if we start having a debate about whether or not Ryu is a superhero purely because he knows a technique like the Hadoken, I'm officially throwing in the towel on this discussion as being a totally lost cause.

Whatever your genre familiarity (or lack thereof) and whatever your history with DB on whatever programming block, neither Goku nor Dragon Ball are in any way of a piece with the superhero genre. Dragon Ball's a supernaturally and comedically oriented martial arts series (of which Goku's the central protagonist): a category of fiction which it is nowhere even vaguely close to being alone in.

There's nothing the least bit complicated about ANY of this: superheroes and martial arts fiction (wuxia and otherwise) are VERY simple genres to differentiate between and classify, provided you actually have real experience with consuming both.

Dragon Ball has simply had THAT much of a weird-ass history in North America to have indirectly spawned one of the most bizarrely warped/skewed fanbases for just about anything that I can think of, or at least that I've had direct experience with.

[rereboy]

Kunzait_83, I mostly agree, however I would argue that certain characters are only classified as superheroes in a basic definition, since they are more accurately defined as anti-heroes or anti-superheroes (punisher, hulk, etc).

Also, even though a lot of those characters have no genetic abilities, they have extraordinary abilities all the same, like incredible technology, inteligence, peak human ability, etc, that allows them to compete with genetic abilities (iron man, Batman, etc), so the common ground is extraordinary abilities, not genetic abilities.

[ABED]

A superhero is a character who's WHOLE reason for being is the benefit of other people.

I don't agree. Even Batman became Batman because he wanted to protect HIS city. It's a place that holds special meaning to him beyond just being where he hangs his hat.

[rereboy]

A superhero is a character who's WHOLE reason for being is the benefit of other people.

I don't agree. Even Batman became Batman because he wanted to protect HIS city. It's a place that holds special meaning to him beyond just being where he hangs his hat.

There's pretty much always a degree of ego or selfishness in selfness actions. That doesn't deny what he said.

Batman chose to protect his city, but he is still doing it with others as his objective. He isn't beating bad guys because he gets a kick out of it.

[ABED]

I think it does because there are other ways to help people than going out as a vigilante or he could've left Gotham. I also don't look at selfish as a pejorative or selfless as a virtue. And it depends on what version you are reading of Batman. I do think he enjoys beating up criminals, not neccessarily as a sadist, but there has to be some pleasure involved in punching evil in its dumb face.

[rereboy]

I think it does because there are other ways to help people than going out as a vigilante or he could've left Gotham. I also don't look at selfish as a pejorative or selfless as a virtue.

He doesn't consider those other ways to be as effective in stopping what he wants to stop. And he also uses his companies and fortune to create programs to help people.

Simply leaving Gotham wouldn't accomplish anything.

Him enjoying what he does doesn't deny the fact that other people are his objective, first and foremost.

[ABED]

But helping others is wholely about others. He has a huge fortune, it's not a sacrifice to him to give some to other people in bad circumstances.

No, leaving Gotham wouldn't have accomplished anything, that wasn't what I was getting at. If it was about helping others, then there's nothing about that which prevents him from moving somewhere else and helping. He's helping HIS city. It's his city in a very literal way as the Wayne family owns a huge chunk of the real estate in Gotham. In modern comics, that's one of the main ways they made their fortune.

Goku's motives are different in that he doesn't actively go out looking for people to help, but if there is someone that threatens people close to him, he will help. In that way, he's heroic.

[Kunzait_83]

A superhero is a character who's WHOLE reason for being is the benefit of other people.

I don't agree. Even Batman became Batman because he wanted to protect HIS city. It's a place that holds special meaning to him beyond just being where he hangs his hat.

A LARGE chunk of superheroes across the genre's history have had a specific city or area that they centrally guard and protect. Batman had Gotham, Superman Metropolis, Green Lantern Coast City, The Flash Central City, Shazam Fawcett City, and just about the entire Marvel Universe is fixated around New York, and so on.

Regardless of their location attatchment, Batman still protects Gotham in the interests of its citizenry. He's still out there on the streets fighting to defend OTHERS.

Are there selfish elements shading his motivations? Of course there are. Batman has his childhood trauma which he justifies as wanting to protect others from experiencing. But at the end of the day, there's still a more than sizable chunk of selfless altruism (or authoritarian fascism, depending on how you want to look at it) that's at the heart of the superhero. They put themselves in direct harm's way time after time after time for the express purpose of defending other people, of helping total faceless strangers.

Martial arts heroes like Goku don't have almost ANY of this in their makeup. They fight for the main purpose of testing the boundaries of their fighting skills and to grow as a fighter: little else. IF there's an opportunity along the way to help other people, sure they'll do it of course. But its totally ancillary to a martial arts hero, as opposed to a superhero where its THE central reason for being.

If there IS any real connecting thread between a wuxia hero and a superhero (and I'm sort of STRETCHING here to grasp at it) then one COULD maybe look to the medieval/anti-authoritarian nature of a wuxia/mythical martial arts hero. A great deal of wuxia myth is rooted in medieval Chinese lore, where governmental power structures are easily corruptible and to be utterly mistrusted at almost all times, and the best martial artist in the lands is seen by many common peasants as their best and more trusted line of defense against injustice and marauders and so forth. Fist of the North Star, in being set against a feudal, anarchistic Mad Max-ish post-apocalyptic background, plays a LOT with this theme.

You can TENUOUSLY make the connections there if you REALLY stretch back into the deepest guts of the genre's history like that, but there's still ultimately SO very many drastically different (and outright clashing) cultural and thematic differences between the two ultimately that the links between them are really, REALLY thin.

He isn't beating bad guys because he gets a kick out of it.

Obligatory, Brat Pack-ish mention of "superhero as metaphor for BDS&M sexual kink".

[rereboy]

But helping others is wholely about others. He has a huge fortune, it's not a sacrifice to him to give some to other people in bad circumstances.

And he does that and much more.

No, leaving Gotham wouldn't have accomplished anything, that wasn't what I was getting at. If it was about helping others, then there's nothing about that which prevents him from moving somewhere else and helping. He's helping HIS city. It's his city in a very literal way as the Wayne family owns a huge chunk of the real estate in Gotham. In modern comics, that's one of the main ways they made their fortune.

Yeah, because, like I said, even in selfness actions, there is an amount of ego. Even the most selfness persons will have a special care for their family, their city, their country.

Of all the cities he could have been Batman in, he chose his own. Why? Because he felt that Gotham needed it and because of his special care towards his city. But does that mean that his objective isn't other people first and foremost? No, not at all.

Goku's motives are different in that he doesn't actively go out looking for people to help, but if there is someone that threatens people close to him, he will help. In that way, he's heroic.

Yeah, but being a hero is different from being a superhero as I've already talked about.

[Kamiccolo9]

A lot of you are vastly oversimplifying the mindsets of western superheroes. This isn't the 60's anymore; most of these have way more complicated and morally ambiguous motivations now, especially in the last 15 years or so. Towards the end of the last Marvel run, for example, it's debatable whether you'd even consider Iron Man to be a "hero." These aren't static unchanging characters, any more than those in Dragon Ball are.

[ABED]

Martial arts heroes like Goku don't have almost ANY of this in their makeup.

Yes, to a smaller degree. If someone attacks Kuririn, Goku will help.

there's still a more than sizable chunk of selfless altruism

That really depends on how you define either. Altruism literally means "other-ism". There's no moral evaluation inherent in the definition. Doctors help people, sure, but they also are doctors because they find something interesting about the practice of medicine beyond helping people. Cardiologists find the human heart interesting. I think the same thing can apply to many superheroes. Soldiers in the military can have a number different motivations, some not good, but a good soldier goes into the military to protect his values.

And yes, if Goku runs into people who need his help he'll help, he doesn't actively seek out fighting injustice, but he'll do so. I can't help but feel you think that's an impure motive. If it's someone that's close to Goku then he will actively defend his values.

Of all the cities he could have been Batman in, he chose his own. Why? Because he felt that Gotham needed it and because of his special care towards his city. But does that mean that his objective isn't other people first and foremost? No, not at all.

I disagree. He's fighting for what he values - justice. Every city in the world needs help.

[rereboy]

A lot of you are vastly oversimplifying the mindsets of western superheroes. This isn't the 60's anymore; most of these have way more complicated and morally ambiguous motivations now, especially in the last 15 years or so. Towards the end of the last Marvel run, for example, it's debatable whether you'd even consider Iron Man to be a "hero." These aren't static unchanging characters, any more than those in Dragon Ball are.

Once again, just because a Superhero becomes a villain or a anti-superhero, it doesn't mean that the term Superhero is the same as a villain or a anti-superhero.

Superheroes that fall to the Dark side were still superheroes before falling, and villains that were previously superheroes are still villains nowadays.

What changes is the character, not really the term.

[Kamiccolo9]

A lot of you are vastly oversimplifying the mindsets of western superheroes. This isn't the 60's anymore; most of these have way more complicated and morally ambiguous motivations now, especially in the last 15 years or so. Towards the end of the last Marvel run, for example, it's debatable whether you'd even consider Iron Man to be a "hero." These aren't static unchanging characters, any more than those in Dragon Ball are.

Once again, just because a Superhero becomes a villain or a anti-superhero, it doesn't mean that the term Superhero is the same as a villain or a anti-superhero.

Superheroes that fall to the Dark side were still superheroes before falling, and villains that were previously superheroes are still villains nowadays.

What changes ia the character, not really the term.

I wasn't disagreeing with you.

[rereboy]

I disagree. He's fighting for what he values - justice. Every city in the world needs help.

That's what he tried to do in Batman incorporated.

If he could divide himself into a million batmen he would be in every city.

A lot of you are vastly oversimplifying the mindsets of western superheroes. This isn't the 60's anymore; most of these have way more complicated and morally ambiguous motivations now, especially in the last 15 years or so. Towards the end of the last Marvel run, for example, it's debatable whether you'd even consider Iron Man to be a "hero." These aren't static unchanging characters, any more than those in Dragon Ball are.

Once again, just because a Superhero becomes a villain or a anti-superhero, it doesn't mean that the term Superhero is the same as a villain or a anti-superhero.

Superheroes that fall to the Dark side were still superheroes before falling, and villains that were previously superheroes are still villains nowadays.

What changes ia the character, not really the term.

I wasn't disagreeing with you.

Maybe not consciously, but what you said was in opposition to some of what I had stated before, unless I interpreted what you said incorrectly

[Kunzait_83]

A lot of you are vastly oversimplifying the mindsets of western superheroes. This isn't the 60's anymore; most of these have way more complicated and morally ambiguous motivations now, especially in the last 15 years or so. Towards the end of the last Marvel run, for example, it's debatable whether you'd even consider Iron Man to be a "hero." These aren't static unchanging characters, any more than those in Dragon Ball are.

Really? No kidding. (also try telling THAT to most present day comic book fans, many of whom would love nothing more than to see the superhero genre regress back to the 1960s)

I'm "oversimplifying" not as a way of discounting and tossing aside decades upon decades of growth and evolution for the superhero genre (all of which I unquestionably value a great, great deal as a comics fan myself): what I'm doing is cutting back to the deepest, deepest core of the genre. The seed from which all else springs forth. When you do that, THAT'S where you can see what fundamentally separates a great, great many genres.

The superhero genre, in whatever form it takes today, comes from the initial seed of "gifted individual puts on a costumed alter ego and fights to help other people".

The mythical martial arts/wuxia genre comes from "talented fighter studies under a master and journey's throughout the lands to train and grow and blossom their innate potential". Various MacGuffins and "innocents in distress" side stories come up, but ultimately THAT'S the key central idea at the heart of it all.

Just like with superheroes, Wuxia/mythical martial arts fiction has grown and evolved a TREMENDOUS deal throughout the decades (or centuries in its case), and many aspects of it today are totally unrecognizable from its earliest medieval roots. But again, I'm just cutting back to the core-most basics to illustrate the VAST differences between both genres.

[ABED]

Goku isn't a superhero, but there's an implication that because he's not actively looking to help people that the strangers he encounters and helps taints his heroism.

Even superheroes don't always fight for others as much as an ideal - justice.

[Kunzait_83]

Goku isn't a superhero, but there's an implication that because he's not actively looking to help people that the strangers he encounters and helps taints his heroism.

Can't speak for anyone else, but I'M at least not saying that it "taints his heroism". All any of these arguments do is throw aside the idea that Goku fits into a specific Western mold of a superhero. That's it.

Within the structural makeup of his native genre (Eastern martial arts myth/fiction) Goku is UNQUESTIONABLY a hero and a noble/righteous one. The difference here is that the idea of "heroism" is in many ways greatly different between Eastern martial arts lore and Western comic book superhero standards. I'm not arguing for Goku to be seen as immoral or "tainted" (if anything, by Wuxia standards he's as "pure" as they can possibly get), just that we judge and gauge the standards of morality differently pending the genre (and moreover, the cultural origins) in question here, rather than in universal absolutes (which for many here tend to come from Western superhero-esque ideals).

if you took Goku as-is and plopped him into the Marvel or DC Universe, he'd be an unbelievably shitty superhero. Within his own "Jianghu on LSD" universe though, he's the epitome of martial heroism and nobility.