Would it even be worth it to try policing superheroes?

[jwl]

I'm not sure why Marvel keeps being brought up as an example here. Marvel has people like Franklin Richards and Mad Jim Jaspers in it, so good luck regulating them. "Sorry, Franklin, you can't create a universe without authorisation, it's the law".

A more logical universe for examples would be something like the Incredibles (where, incidentally, superheros actually are regulated).

[Simon_Jester]

Probably because Marvel and DC have much richer levels of detail than The Incredibles, which gives us two hours of footage and some promotional side-products to describe everything that's going on.

Frankly, you can't regulate demigods (beings whose powers are less like 'powers' and more like 'forces of nature') meaningfully and anyone with sense is aware of that. But you can liaise, seek to persuade, try to keep them metaphorically inside the "tent" of civilization as we know it.

[Gaidin]

Frankly, you can't regulate demigods (beings whose powers are less like 'powers' and more like 'forces of nature') meaningfully and anyone with sense is aware of that. But you can liaise, seek to persuade, try to keep them metaphorically inside the "tent" of civilization as we know it.

One of the demonstrable reasons why Marvel and DC can only half-ass it. And that's just Thor. Not one of the Greater Gods.

[Q99]

I'm not sure why Marvel keeps being brought up as an example here. Marvel has people like Franklin Richards and Mad Jim Jaspers in it, so good luck regulating them. "Sorry, Franklin, you can't create a universe without authorisation, it's the law".

I will note that during Civil War, when Iron Man approached Dr. Strange, he basically went, "Pfft, I am Stephen Strange. Call me if something cosmic comes up, I've got more important things to deal with."

Now, mind you, just because some people are too powerful *to* regulate, does not devalue to the concept of superhero registration.

In Marvel I'll point to Molecule Man. A supremely cosmically powerful being who... wants to live an ordinary life. With such powerful beings, it's worth it for the government to go up to them and ask, "Ok, do you want to be left alone? Or we can set you up with a house in a neighborhood and make it so you don't have to deal with paperwork."

Probably because Marvel and DC have much richer levels of detail than The Incredibles, which gives us two hours of footage and some promotional side-products to describe everything that's going on.

Frankly, you can't regulate demigods (beings whose powers are less like 'powers' and more like 'forces of nature') meaningfully and anyone with sense is aware of that. But you can liaise, seek to persuade, try to keep them metaphorically inside the "tent" of civilization as we know it.

Also, even demigods have *some* checks and balanced if you have some of your own on your side.

Granted, Marvel US doesn't have any top tier heroes in their pocket so in order to do that they need to call the Avengers (which is not a bad approach itself- asking registered heroes to talk to heroes and advise them on perks, pros, and cons, honestly), but DC US has traditionally had Captain Atom. He's not quite Superman, but he can give Clark a tussle, and gives a peer to approach powerful supers with.

[Elheru Aran]

With god-level supers... about all you can do is come up to them and say nicely "We would very much like to be on good terms with you, pretty please?" Because frankly there's not much else you can do. Piss them off and they can more or less straight-up waste your whole country (or planet, or solar system, or galaxy, depending on power level).

So, depending on how common god-level supers are, it might be worth the effort by a country or coalition of countries (think UN) to basically pay them off by offering them and/or those they're involved with a comfortable living situation. Say if the US quietly decided to make it so that Pa and Ma Kent own their farm free and clear and never have to pay taxes again if they don't want to, and that Superman always has a posh apartment in Metropolis to come 'home' to. This, in exchange for an agreement to not wreck anybody's shit, and to prevent other god-levels from wrecking shit.

It does make one wonder if there is any sort of, at least, informal relationship between the literal pantheons that exist in the various comic-book universes and the Earth governments. I mean, when you have actual proof that there are living Aesir in Valhalla, that's going to make things mildly awkward when there's one of them smashing stuff up due to the machinations of his lying-asshole brother, in a diplomatic sense anyway...

EDIT: There's also Themyscira from Wonder Woman, which is a more or less physical location with a literal army of highly trained female warriors, closely connected to literal Greek Gods. That's right 'here' on DCU Earth, versus Asgard which is at least in a physically separate plane of reality (if my vague interpretation of how it works in the Marvel Universe is right anyway).

Throwing god-beings into the mix just... yeah, there's really nothing you can do about that. Think Thanos, Galactus, or if you want a DC equivalent, Guardians of the Universe. One of those guys shows up, all the mundanes can do is make nice, hunker down, and prepare for clean-up after the supers have done their thing.

[biostem]

I think that efforts would best be spent trying to reign in the people who are *just* gun/tank level power, vs the god-tier ones. They are the ones who are more likely to not know the full extent of their power, and are also likely to use their powers are a whim.

[Q99]

It does help that god-tier ones tend to be few in number, often of the "alien or from a magic place, so already fully experienced in not smashing stuff and of an adult mindset." Not the type to need much to act reasonably if they're non-villain, and the other ones are an all-hands-on-deck situation, not a registration situation.

[Broomstick]

For some reason americans always start with the question: "How can this be used against me?" as if the government and all its forms are an evil alien force hell bent on screwing people over as opposed to the primary pillar of order and welfare in a society.

We ask that question a lot because historically our government HAS fucked over a lot of people.

Personally, I'm inclined towards registering only those who actually utilize their powers, either as vigilantes, as part of their jobs, or as criminals and leave alone those who simply don't use their powers. That's idealistic, though, and probably wouldn't work.

Just thinking out loud here... while most medical conditions have little to no impact on one's legal life, some do. For example, someone with epilepsy is going to have issues getting a driver's license. It's possible, provided their condition is under control. Someone with an STD may be subjected to having their sexual contacts notified regardless of their consent or lack of it. This almost always comes down to risk to other people. We don't let people with uncontrolled epilepsy to drive because it isn't fair to the other people they might involve in an accident. Some supers can't or can't easily control their powers - Cyclops, for example, is completely dependent on external aids or keeping his eyes closed to contain his optic blasts. Isn't it reasonable to insist people with "incontinent" powers either come up with a reliable way to protect others or be subjected to restrictions? Not because they're evil or criminal but because their existence poses a risk to others? No, it's not fair - being Typhoid Mary wasn't fair either (but she would have been permitted to live unrestricted had she agreed to NOT prepare food or beverages for others, or similarly put people at risk, but she insisted on working as a cook).

What about that kid that would suck the life out anything nearby, completely without any control over it, and wiped out his family and small town? In the comics Wolverine was sent to deal with him by, let's be frank, murdering the kid. How would we deal with someone whose mere existence is deadly to those nearby? Nothing fair about that, either. Somebody's civil rights get violated either way.

What about Wolverine? He carries deadly weapons around and can not be disarmed - how would that affect him, for example, appearing in a court room where weapons are forbidden? Granted that able-bodied adult humans are capable of mayhem even when stark naked, but other humans can match them and restrain them, even martial arts experts. There are a number venues where we expect people to disarm themselves, how do you treat Logan? Is he even permitted to board a commercial aircraft? It's not like he can sneak through security without raising a flag.

But, if I may, I'd like to interject a slight legal tangent regarding the law. Many regulations in the workplace center around the capabilities and vulnerabilities of normal human beings. For example, there's a weight limit for lifting at my workplace that applies to everyone. Now, as it happens, I can lift that amount with one hand, and can lift 2-3 times that amount on my own even as a middle-aged woman (admittedly, I may be stronger than average for my age/gender and don't worry, I've sworn to use my powers only for good). Nonetheless, it is a violation of workplace rules for me to lift more than that. Well, what if Jessica Jones, super-strong PI, decides to quit her self-employment and take a job where I work? The lifting limits are ridiculous in her case, yet shouldn't she be bound by them as they apply to all employees? Think about this in heavier work - Clark Kent doesn't need to use a forklift, but should he use one anyone because that's how a particular workplace is set up? Can corporations ignore worker safety regulations if they hire the invulnerable for positions exposed to toxic chemicals? In most scenarios supers are not common enough that they're likely to displace normal workers, but if they are then you get issues around discrimination. If they aren't common, shouldn't they have to follow the rules like everyone else? If Clark Kent became a policeman would/should he be required to wear a bullet-proof vest like everyone else even if he doesn't need one?

It's not on the same level as "don't murder" and "don't steal" but aren't those considerations on the spectrum of concern as well? If telekinetics are not allowed to use their powers to cheat at gambling are the super-strong allowed to use their strength in mundane jobs?

And if exceptions to normal workplace rules ARE allowed for certain types of supers, how do you also come up with reasonable safeguards? Again, while Clark Kent is invulnerable the super-strong Jessica Jones is not, what workplace safeguards are appropriate for her level of powers?

Yes, this is kind of all over the place, but it's all connected to policing people - workplace regulations and rules about what you can and can't carry onto a commercial airplane aren't usually thought of as "policing" but they are connected. It's about rules enacted with the intent to protect others. How do they apply to supers? What should the exceptions be, if any?

[Purple]

As to worker safeguards I think we should just not make exceptions. Any exception will just be used by greedy employers to try and abuse their superpowered employees. Not to mention the massive potential inherent in hiring Clark Kent to replace the entire unloading crew of say a major port because he can. Workers rights demand either way that this not be permitted.

[Elheru Aran]

I think there should be some situational flexibility as far as workplaces go. Regarding safety, presumably the supers will be aware of their limits to some degree, and a conversation with their supervisor would be mandatory, of course.

Regarding security issues... well frankly that's different. In the case of some supers an exemption could be filed and a proper identifying card carried. With others, who are in less control of their powers, they would be unable to take a plane/enter a courtroom/whatever, unless some sort of restraining device could be used. Cyclops would be a good example, make it clear to him that deliberately removing his visor would be considered a felony unless he's in the middle of a fight or some such. Wolverine on the other hand, insane healing factor aside, is fairly low-level; he would be an candidate for the ID card.

Hmmm... though that does bring up the thought: what about high-end psychics like Charles Xavier? What do you do if he comes into court to contest a traffic ticket or some such? He could quietly tweak the judge's mind so he lets the ticket go, or even pays a settlement, without anybody being the wiser. If you cannot develop some sort of psychic neutralizer... what do you do then?

[Purple]

I think there should be some situational flexibility as far as workplaces go. Regarding safety, presumably the supers will be aware of their limits to some degree, and a conversation with their supervisor would be mandatory, of course. ?

The concern is that we can't be sure a supers power actually work the way he thinks they do. Say he is immune to radiation. Or so he thinks. When in reality his power only 100ples the lethal dose. He gets hired to clean up Chernobyl. Dies. Oops.

This isn't something he or the employer can plausibly know in advance. So better safe than sorry.

[Elheru Aran]

I think there should be some situational flexibility as far as workplaces go. Regarding safety, presumably the supers will be aware of their limits to some degree, and a conversation with their supervisor would be mandatory, of course. ?

The concern is that we can't be sure a supers power actually work the way he thinks they do. Say he is immune to radiation. Or so he thinks. When in reality his power only 100ples the lethal dose. He gets hired to clean up Chernobyl. Dies. Oops.

This isn't something he or the employer can plausibly know in advance. So better safe than sorry.

Eh, on the other hand, it *can* be pointed out that the super should have used reasonable precautions to start with. As long as those are made available by the employer, the actions of the employee are entirely up to him/her, and if disregard of the safety equipment/procedures cause injury to the employee, the employer isn't liable for the employee being an idiot.

[Simon_Jester]

As to worker safeguards I think we should just not make exceptions. Any exception will just be used by greedy employers to try and abuse their superpowered employees. Not to mention the massive potential inherent in hiring Clark Kent to replace the entire unloading crew of say a major port because he can. Workers rights demand either way that this not be permitted.

Yes. The problem then is that this almost eliminates any point in hiring people with superhuman powers. If you aren't hiring Clark Kent for his super-speed, super-strength, super-invulnerability, et cetera... why bother?

[Okay, Clark Kent is a bad example because he's a top-notch journalist for reasons that apparently have nothing to do with his powers, but you get the idea]

[Purple]

Eh, on the other hand, it *can* be pointed out that the super should have used reasonable precautions to start with. As long as those are made available by the employer, the actions of the employee are entirely up to him/her, and if disregard of the safety equipment/procedures cause injury to the employee, the employer isn't liable for the employee being an idiot.

I do not think you understand the context I am talking about. I am talking about a situation where the employer explicitly creates a job with the description of "Will hire a person immune to radiation to clean Chernobyl without any of the expensive safety gear. Superhumans wanted!"

Yes. The problem then is that this almost eliminates any point in hiring people with superhuman powers. If you aren't hiring Clark Kent for his super-speed, super-strength, super-invulnerability, et cetera... why bother?

And that is bad? At worst it only protects the average worker from being made redundant by superhumans with an unfair inborn advantage. At best it protects the superhumans them selves from being exploited by ruthless capitalists.

[Gaidin]

As to worker safeguards I think we should just not make exceptions. Any exception will just be used by greedy employers to try and abuse their superpowered employees. Not to mention the massive potential inherent in hiring Clark Kent to replace the entire unloading crew of say a major port because he can. Workers rights demand either way that this not be permitted.

Yes. The problem then is that this almost eliminates any point in hiring people with superhuman powers. If you aren't hiring Clark Kent for his super-speed, super-strength, super-invulnerability, et cetera... why bother?

Break Iron Man's suit up into it's parts and give its pieces to the proper industries, and hell let him keep the weapons if he wants to be self righteous about it, and many industries would be revolutionized. From wireless communications, to hostile environment exploration, to mining, to god knows what else. And that's just from the parts. You don't need Stark to be a hero. You just need Stark to be an Engineer.

[Simon_Jester]

Stark is independently wealthy. Massively so, because he already did that. Or rather, he already did that with other technologies that are basically pocket chance compared to the technical gold that goes into his suits.

I was talking about Clark Kent, Superman's civilian/secret identity. Clark Kent is not massively wealthy or powerful except insofar as he is secretly Superman.

Now, suppose Clark Kent wants a job. Set aside Kent's resume as a first-class journalist for Metropolis' biggest newspaper for a minute. How would Clark Kent go about getting a job that capitalizes on his talents? Well, his most obvious talents, things he can do that other people can't, involve being inhumanly strong, tough, and fast, being able to see at incredible distances, with amazing precision, and even through solid objects, and so on.

Purple is proposing that no matter what job Kent takes, he should be required NOT to use those powers in a way that might take the jobs of other people. So no hiring him to speed-read 100 books in an hour when it would normally take ten people 100 hours to do that. And no hiring him to carry stuff around without a forklift.

And also proposing to require that he not use his powers in the workplace in ways that would otherwise violate safety rules. So no having Clark Kent become a police officer and leave his bulletproof vest at home because he's so invulnerable that his toenails are better body armor than a dozen bulletproof vests could ever be. No having Clark work in a place where his superhuman reaction times permit him to do something OSHA wouldn't deem it safe for normal people to do.

The problem is that this basically makes Clark's special skills useless in the job market, and in some ways may make him LESS employable, because if Clark gets hired and does "too well," say because he can read books and compose documents at super-speed... suddenly the employer may get sued for hiring a superhuman who outcompetes normal workers.

This strikes me as rather silly.

[Kojiro]

Surely the kind of job for someone like Superman would be, excluding super heroics, being a highly efficient tool? For example, could Superman get a new piece up to the ISS more or less on a whim? Hell he could likely lift an entire pre built station into orbit, or at the very least significant sized parts. Surely he could charge enough to make a decent living even if he only charged a fraction of normal launch costs.

Not utilising superhumans seems like a terrible waste. To be more on topic though, I would suggest just because they can do X there should be no compulsion to do X. If Superman doesn't want to lift things into orbit or lay deep sea cables he should be free to choose not to.

[Broomstick]

I think the solution there would be that in a normal or typical work environment (such as I dwell in 40 hours a week) no exception would be made. There would be no big incentive to hire Kent over me (as an example). You don't need someone with super-strength to do what I do, or even someone as strong as purely non-meta me.

However, there are niche industries where normal rules might not apply (or can be waived with the proper application of paperwork) such as specialty heavy-life operations like putting large HVAC units on top of buildings in crowded urban environments (we do that with specialized helicopters, Kent could just fly the thing up there) or clean of of particularly nasty accidents (Chernobyl) that could really use someone of Kent's unique talents, and that would really be a better fit if you're looking for something requirement his super-abilities.

[biostem]

Surely the kind of job for someone like Superman would be, excluding super heroics, being a highly efficient tool? For example, could Superman get a new piece up to the ISS more or less on a whim? Hell he could likely lift an entire pre built station into orbit, or at the very least significant sized parts. Surely he could charge enough to make a decent living even if he only charged a fraction of normal launch costs.

Not utilising superhumans seems like a terrible waste. To be more on topic though, I would suggest just because they can do X there should be no compulsion to do X. If Superman doesn't want to lift things into orbit or lay deep sea cables he should be free to choose not to.

I realize it's rarely portrayed, but does Superman ever drop things? I mean, if a space agency or insurance company is going to trust Superman to deliver a multi-million dollar payload to orbit, I'd want to make sure that he won't drop the thing. I suppose that he's no worse off than conventional launch vehicles, and they could probably rig up some sort of harness if they really wanted to.

This could have interesting implications, if he were to now start demanding compensation for his non-superheroic work. It takes him virtually no effort to lift this stuff, and he can do it much faster and with less preparation than regular means.

[Kojiro]

Well I'd presume if NASA was going to use him for something, the payload would be designed with him in mind. I don't know if that means steel cables or some sort of reinforced cradle the payload goes in (which he just reuses each time). It'd be the exact same way they design stuff for the the launch vehicles now but presumably with significantly broader specs. I mean, if we take Superman Returns into account he can lift a small island into orbit. He could probably shuttle the parts of a lunar base back and forth within a few days. Make it reasonably modular and he could even assemble it there.

And hey if something does go wrong, if a chunk of space station does fall from orbit, Superman is already right there.

But more seriously there'd have to be millions of applications for different super powered people. If nothing more there's a ton of mutants and such that are energy generators on a stupidly powerful level. Cyclops for example is solar powered (much like Supes actually) but puts out far more energy than he absorbs. Somehow. Why blast a mountainside when you can have Cyclops pulverize the rock right with a glance?

[Simon_Jester]

I think the solution there would be that in a normal or typical work environment (such as I dwell in 40 hours a week) no exception would be made. There would be no big incentive to hire Kent over me (as an example). You don't need someone with super-strength to do what I do, or even someone as strong as purely non-meta me.

As noted, Clark Kent's super-strength isn't necessarily as valuable to an employer as his super-speed; he can do vastly more work in a very short amount of time. Now, it may be that the sheer subjective boredom of spending hours doing routine tasks at ten or 100 times the speed of ordinary mortals would result in him demanding more money per hour than said mortals would. But there are a lot of situations where the employer would still come out ahead.

To be fair, speedsters aren't as common in most superhero settings as very strong or durable people, but this is still an issue.

However, there are niche industries where normal rules might not apply (or can be waived with the proper application of paperwork) such as specialty heavy-life operations like putting large HVAC units on top of buildings in crowded urban environments (we do that with specialized helicopters, Kent could just fly the thing up there) or clean of of particularly nasty accidents (Chernobyl) that could really use someone of Kent's unique talents, and that would really be a better fit if you're looking for something requirement his super-abilities.

That seems the logical approach- but the original proposal I was responding to included a ban on hiring superhumans in ways that might 'destroy the jobs' of mundane people. In which case even these niches might well be closed. That's why I said what I said.

[Purple]

That seems the logical approach- but the original proposal I was responding to included a ban on hiring superhumans in ways that might 'destroy the jobs' of mundane people. In which case even these niches might well be closed. That's why I said what I said.

And why is that a bad thing? Being superhuman is an inborn trait just like say being male or black. Do you think it is not alright to have laws that prevent massive lopsided cases of discrimination against a demographic to the point of driving hundreds out of the workplace?

Because that is what we are talking about here. If superman can displace 100 dock workers than how is that different to say firing them all in favor of 100 people of a different race, gender, sexual orientation etc? In fact it's worse since in the later case you at least employ 100 people as opposed to just one.

=============
Another massive issue with exceptions is that in order to at all be able to have a legal framework for them you have to establish a legal framework for evaluating and certifying superpowers. And given the often unique and complicated nature of these doing so is going to be very costly and spawn a huge bureaucracy.

[Simon_Jester]

That seems the logical approach- but the original proposal I was responding to included a ban on hiring superhumans in ways that might 'destroy the jobs' of mundane people. In which case even these niches might well be closed. That's why I said what I said.

And why is that a bad thing? Being superhuman is an inborn trait just like say being male or black. Do you think it is not alright to have laws that prevent massive lopsided cases of discrimination against a demographic to the point of driving hundreds out of the workplace?

Because that is what we are talking about here. If superman can displace 100 dock workers than how is that different to say firing them all in favor of 100 people of a different race, gender, sexual orientation etc? In fact it's worse since in the later case you at least employ 100 people as opposed to just one.

Except you're setting yourself up for situations where the alternative to "hire Superman" is "hire nobody." Superman's ability to put satellites in orbit cheaply is something no one else can duplicate; a lot of the payloads he could orbit simply wouldn't ever fly if he isn't willing to do it. Radiation Man's ability to clean up hideously radioactive accident sites isn't something normal humans can do even with heavy equipment; that's precisely why the zone around Chernobyl is still unpopulated thirty years after the accident. We cannot clean it up.

So in cases like that, it's not that the superhero displaces the labor of 100 people, it's that the superhero performs a service others can't compete with.

=============

Another massive issue with exceptions is that in order to at all be able to have a legal framework for them you have to establish a legal framework for evaluating and certifying superpowers. And given the often unique and complicated nature of these doing so is going to be very costly and spawn a huge bureaucracy.

If we follow your system we have to do that anyway, because it's often hard to distinguish "very effective" from "superhuman."

For example, Clark Kent has (in some depictions) a perfect memory, phenomenal ability to compose text at high speed, and is utterly, utterly trustworthy. He'd make a great secretary for some high-powered official or corporate type, as long as you don't want him doing something corrupt.

Now, can someone else sue him because he 'took their job' by exploiting his superpowers? Under your proposed legal system, yes... BUT it's debatable whether Kent's powers are letting him do anything here that some other human can't. It's not like there aren't real people with phenomenally good memory and typing/composition ability.

How do we keep track of which people are getting hired because they're just good at their jobs, versus which people are getting hired because they're superhuman? In some cases it's obvious, in others, less so.

And what about people who acquire superpowers by mastering some sort of discipline or training? A lot of magicians and such in comic books gained their power by studying or learning from a good teacher; are you going to argue that they are doing something normal people can't do and should be barred from taking jobs where it gives them an advantage? If so, are you also going to ban people from hiring Ph.D. recipients?

If Ralph Dibny hires out as a private detective, do we sue because his detective skills put other detectives out of business? His known powers involve stretching and shape-changing, which can give him some advantages in that field... but he's also just plain a good detective, much like Batman. Is he supposed to be restrained from practicing in a field where he is skilled, just because he brings an extra ability or two to the table because of his physiology?

[Purple]

Except you're setting yourself up for situations where the alternative to "hire Superman" is "hire nobody." Superman's ability to put satellites in orbit cheaply is something no one else can duplicate; a lot of the payloads he could orbit simply wouldn't ever fly if he isn't willing to do it. Radiation Man's ability to clean up hideously radioactive accident sites isn't something normal humans can do even with heavy equipment; that's precisely why the zone around Chernobyl is still unpopulated thirty years after the accident. We cannot clean it up.

So in cases like that, it's not that the superhero displaces the labor of 100 people, it's that the superhero performs a service others can't compete with.

And how does that in any way contradict my thesis that we should prevent situations when he does in fact displace 100 people?

I do not follow.

If we follow your system we have to do that anyway, because it's often hard to distinguish "very effective" from "superhuman."

For example, Clark Kent has (in some depictions) a perfect memory, phenomenal ability to compose text at high speed, and is utterly, utterly trustworthy. He'd make a great secretary for some high-powered official or corporate type, as long as you don't want him doing something corrupt.

Now, can someone else sue him because he 'took their job' by exploiting his superpowers? Under your proposed legal system, yes... BUT it's debatable whether Kent's powers are letting him do anything here that some other human can't. It's not like there aren't real people with phenomenally good memory and typing/composition ability.

How do we keep track of which people are getting hired because they're just good at their jobs, versus which people are getting hired because they're superhuman? In some cases it's obvious, in others, less so.

And what about people who acquire superpowers by mastering some sort of discipline or training? A lot of magicians and such in comic books gained their power by studying or learning from a good teacher; are you going to argue that they are doing something normal people can't do and should be barred from taking jobs where it gives them an advantage? If so, are you also going to ban people from hiring Ph.D. recipients?

If Ralph Dibny hires out as a private detective, do we sue because his detective skills put other detectives out of business? His known powers involve stretching and shape-changing, which can give him some advantages in that field... but he's also just plain a good detective, much like Batman. Is he supposed to be restrained from practicing in a field where he is skilled, just because he brings an extra ability or two to the table because of his physiology?

1. The moment you notice a single person displacing a huge amount of other people that's wrong. So 1 displacing 1 is fine. 1 displacing 5 is ok. 1 displacing 100, 1000 or god knows how many isn't. How is that complicated?

2. Learned skills are learned skills. They don't count.

[Simon_Jester]

Except you're setting yourself up for situations where the alternative to "hire Superman" is "hire nobody." Superman's ability to put satellites in orbit cheaply is something no one else can duplicate; a lot of the payloads he could orbit simply wouldn't ever fly if he isn't willing to do it. Radiation Man's ability to clean up hideously radioactive accident sites isn't something normal humans can do even with heavy equipment; that's precisely why the zone around Chernobyl is still unpopulated thirty years after the accident. We cannot clean it up.

So in cases like that, it's not that the superhero displaces the labor of 100 people, it's that the superhero performs a service others can't compete with.

And how does that in any way contradict my thesis that we should prevent situations when he does in fact displace 100 people?

I do not follow.

Because we could always argue that in theory, instead of hiring Radiation Man to clean up around Chernobyl, we could hire a crew of 100,000 highly trained radiation workers with heavy equipment specially designed for the job that just happens to not exist yet. If we were willing to spend enough billions we probably could do the job... but it is grossly uneconomical to do so.

If the Ukrainian government chooses to spend ten million paying Radiation Man to do it in a year, that's a lot of potential jobs 'lost...' except that this potential was never realistically going to become a reality.

How does the law account for whether potential jobs will or will not become reality?

If we follow your system we have to do that anyway, because it's often hard to distinguish "very effective" from "superhuman."

For example, Clark Kent has (in some depictions) a perfect memory, phenomenal ability to compose text at high speed, and is utterly, utterly trustworthy. He'd make a great secretary for some high-powered official or corporate type, as long as you don't want him doing something corrupt.

Now, can someone else sue him because he 'took their job' by exploiting his superpowers? Under your proposed legal system, yes... BUT it's debatable whether Kent's powers are letting him do anything here that some other human can't. It's not like there aren't real people with phenomenally good memory and typing/composition ability.

How do we keep track of which people are getting hired because they're just good at their jobs, versus which people are getting hired because they're superhuman? In some cases it's obvious, in others, less so.

And what about people who acquire superpowers by mastering some sort of discipline or training? A lot of magicians and such in comic books gained their power by studying or learning from a good teacher; are you going to argue that they are doing something normal people can't do and should be barred from taking jobs where it gives them an advantage? If so, are you also going to ban people from hiring Ph.D. recipients?

If Ralph Dibny hires out as a private detective, do we sue because his detective skills put other detectives out of business? His known powers involve stretching and shape-changing, which can give him some advantages in that field... but he's also just plain a good detective, much like Batman. Is he supposed to be restrained from practicing in a field where he is skilled, just because he brings an extra ability or two to the table because of his physiology?

1. The moment you notice a single person displacing a huge amount of other people that's wrong. So 1 displacing 1 is fine. 1 displacing 5 is ok. 1 displacing 100, 1000 or god knows how many isn't. How is that complicated?

So, one, where do you draw the line for legal purposes?

And, two, how do you define "displaced?" How do you count the number of workers that a business would have to hire? If they'd have to spend twenty times more money to hire enough workers to do the same amount of work, there's a very good chance that they simply wouldn't do that much work at all. So it's unrealistic to compare one superman to twenty normal people just because theoretically that's the number of people it would take to do the superman's job.

2. Learned skills are learned skills. They don't count.

At which point a character with inborn superpowers may reasonably argue that you're discriminating against them. Because you're willing to let a sorceror who studied under Merlin lift HVAC units to the roofs of buildings, but you're not willing to let the Masked Levitator who was born with telekinesis do it. The effect on the economy is the same either way