What Makes A Superhero?

This question was posed to me by one of my instructors and, the more I think about it, the more difficult it is fr me to come up with an answer. So, I'm going to walk through it here, and come to a conclusion alongside you, the reader.

A hero's roll can be just about anything, and this is where things get really muddy for me. Here we're going to largely only focus on those that deal with when things go wrong. We often refer to emergency response workers as heroes. to an extent, this is very true: Entering a dangerous profession meant to help the rest of society can be a fairly noble and important part of maintaining not only order, but safety and justice, and many people- I like to think the majority- value that aspect of their chosen careers above all of the benefits that come along with them, tangible or not.

That being said, some operate as volunteers who engage in the profession without monetary compensation. Volunteer firefighters rush into burning buildings and risk their lives so others may live, and many do perish in the process. EMTs risk a multitude of health risks ranging from assailants to disease exposure. And so on, ad so forth. so here's where there's a bit of a disparity among 'heroes'.

On the other hand, there are individuals that pursue careers in law enforcement for less-than-virtuous reasons and actively abuse their authority. Fire departments have a constant problem, having to weed out potential pyromaniacs. Lastly, many people called heroes are largely pursuing a career and just happened to make a significant difference by happenstance. this poses a question in my head.

Is it really wise to call someone a hero if they're paid to perform the task?

Another thing that puzzles me is that we often refer to soldiers as heroes. In some cases, this can be true. However, once a difference in opinion arises between two or more sides regarding political, religious, or cultural issues, which side is 'good' or 'bad' is completely and totally subjective. So, a set of questions arise from this.

Can a hero truly be a hero if they actively work to propagate non-universal ideals? And if so, does this mean a hero can also be considered a villain?

Let's go back to the first question, and answer it: It depends. the way I see it, there are various tiers of heroism: those that do things purely for the sake of trying to improve the world and actively deny compensation are at the highest tier, those that accept rewards or are actively paid for services rendered are at lower tiers, and so on. Let's say the Tangerine Flamingo was the only superhero capable of saving Troubled City. Let's say he has a contract with the city where he's paid on a per-incident basis, after damages, but hasn't received his last payment yet. If he still did the thing necessary to save the city knowing he may not get paid, then he's still a hero. If he actively refused to help until payment was rendered, then he would not. It really depends on where his priorities lay.

Now, for the second and third question: Of course! A hero is more likely than not going to have a set of strong, personally-held beliefs that bleed into their work, and that has to be acknowledged. People forget, however, about the people who have different cultural backgrounds or ideals. Sure, Superman may try to save people all over the world, but he's still seen-- and identifies as-- America-centric, fighting for 'truth, justice, and the American way", despite being an extraterrestrial. It's unrealistic for such a hero to be considered a hero universally. And that's fine. This means that, in theory, he should also be considered a villain. To Lex Luthor, for example, he is: Superman does make humanity more reliant on a celestial being to help solve their problems, and when he eventually dies or goes insane or evil, humanity would be worse off than if he never showed up in the first place.

The problem I have is that there's some unwritten rule that a superhero can only have a villain as an arch-nemesis. Anyone introduced into the superhero's story is usually treated as a villain rather than  an identifiable antagonist also fighting towards anther set of arguably beneficial ends. This is less of a problem in contemporary comic books, however superhero-infighting is largely short-term and relegated to crossover events.

What about the super- prefix?

I brought up heroes earlier for another reason. What's the distinction between a hero and a superhero? It's not the existence of superhuman powers: Batman has money, but even without it he'd be a crazy guy running around in the streets at night beating up criminals and fighting high-profile crime lords; the only things 'super' about him are his obsession with justice and determination.

So, that's where I draw the distinction between a volunteer firefighter rushing into an inferno to save an old lady and people who fly around in their underwear fighting crime: the dedication of the individual and their individual capability of effective change without significant help must be, to some degree, super-human. Batman is crazy and obsessed, pushing him into superhero status because he dedicates entire being to his cause, making up for his lack of real superpowers.

So, what makes a superhero?

After pondering all of these questions and exploring my issues with the term 'superhero' as a whole, I think I came up with an answer that satisfies my own need for a definition. This won't really apply to everyone's ideals or opinions on what a superhero should be, of course.

A superhero is someone who can- and does- strive to effect good positive change in a community. Some insist superheroes shouldn't kill, or don't count as superheroes if they do so. In my opinion, however, taking up a rigid 'no killing' stance can cause more harm in the long-term and only serves to help the superhero avoid an existential crisis in the short-term. There's also those that think superheroes shouldn't be compensated. However, medical bills- if applicable- are costly, as is the maintenance on costumes and equipment. No matter how resourceful they may be, these things still cost a ton. Superheros can accept rewards or payment. They just shouldn't be a jerk about it.

So to me, a superhero is an individual who can and tries to dedicate their lives towards a cause intended to improve their chosen community, be it in the long-trem or short term, and be it with or without compensation. They can kill, but it depends on the context. They can do it as a career, so long as they don't lose sight of the purpose of being a hero-for-hire. They can have powers or not, but they must still be able to affect the universe in some significant way a run-of-the-mill hero cannot. They can be villains to some, and probably should be. Lastly, 'good' does not necessarily mean 'nice'.