how bad is Lex

[BlueRanger]

^ LEX did that to himself he didnt want to be "saved" in all honesty. Lionel made the effort to be redeemable while lex was snarky about it, pretending to want it while doing other stuff behind clark and everyone's back. His way was the right way.

[TessLuthor]

Lex did not kill Tess! It was Clone!Lex they are not the same thing. There is only one Lex Luthor and he died in season 8. A clone killed her. Yes the clone had Lex's memories but as we see with the other clones, and Alexander that they become their own beings, they are not an extension of Lex he does not just live on through them. They have his memories but they are not him.

[MozartRequiem]

"Lex did not kill Tess! It was Clone!Lex they are not the same thing. There is only one Lex Luthor and he died in season 8. A clone killed her. Yes the clone had Lex's memories but as we see with the other clones, and Alexander that they become their own beings, they are not an extension of Lex he does not just live on through them. They have his memories but they are not him."

Hey been a while since anyone's posted in this thread, but wanted to respond to this: actually it was the real Lex Luthor in "Finale". It was just that he was resurrected using pieces of his clones. That's why his label before he is brought back is "Lex Luthor: 0". Remember how all the other clones had numbers, like "Lex Luthor: 1", "Lex Luthor: 2", etc? This one was zero, suggesting that it was in fact the original Lex Luthor. He may have had cloned body parts to heal his injuries but his body as a whole was still the same.

Hope that shed some light on it, as I know there's been a lot of confusion from fans about this!

[Freawaru]

I think the original Lex Luthor wouldn't have any number. All numbers refer to clones. When you make copies of something you usually don't give the original a number, only the copies. I think the zero stands for a composite clone that was intended to be composite from the beginning.

However, the Lex Luthor in the SVS11 could still be the original Lex if he had his soul. Judging from what I read in season 11 it looks like it is the pre-Arctic Lex again, not at all like the Lex's season eight and ten, except for that odd dislike of Superman or the house of El, that might be a remnant of the program the clones recieved. Anyway, Smallville lore allows for transference of a soul from one body to the next so it is possible that we have our original Lex back.

[MozartRequiem]

But when you number things you usually don't start with zero. You start with 1. That's why I think Lex: Zero refers to the original Lex. Otherwise what would be the point of calling him that? (Plus the cinematic language that was used with the epic zoom-in of the camera and intense music, etc.)

Good point about soul transference and how it is definitely possible in "Smallville"!

[Freawaru]

But when you number things you usually don't start with zero. You start with 1. That's why I think Lex: Zero refers to the original Lex. Otherwise what would be the point of calling him that? (Plus the cinematic language that was used with the epic zoom-in of the camera and intense music, etc.)

Well, I can't be sure of course what the writers had in mind. But a typical scientific approach would have been to create clones, starting with number one. But for whatever reason the Lex clones were not stable - it is odd because Lex was able to create Grant Gabriel, right? The first Julien clone still aged too fast, but not Grant. So what was the problem with the Lex clones? Anyway, when it turned out that all Lex clones had their problems the next step would have been to create a composite clone, using the best parts of the other clones. Because this clone was different it was not given the next number but "zero", indicating it was special.

Good point about soul transference and how it is definitely possible in "Smallville"!

Thank you.

I do hope it is really Tess' soul that is now in Lex's body, too. Would make for an interesting dynamic, right? And a way, we, the audience, can learn how Lex thinks and his motives. For example, we already learned that the present Lex really does not trust Superman, but he isn't all sure Superman will destroy humankind, either. Thus, it is plausible to assume that much of what Lex does in regard to Superman is testing him, finding out what Superman's true goals are. And we know that the present Lex is not interested in being Superman's enemy or something like that (as the Lex's in season eight and ten), but he really wants to save humankind from alien attacks, again.

[laurarawlins]

murdering people is pretty much evil of Lex that goes without saying, but for me, I would have to go with the fake pregnancy that Lex created by the use of synthetic hormones causing Lana to believe that she's pregnant when she never was to begin with.

[Freawaru]

murdering people is pretty much evil of Lex that goes without saying, but for me, I would have to go with the fake pregnancy that Lex created by the use of synthetic hormones causing Lana to believe that she's pregnant when she never was to begin with.

Yes. That wasn't nice. However, he didn't actually harm her by it, neither physically, nor emotionally (she is not the first woman to loose her baby early in the pregnancy, nor the last - it is not exactly a rare occurrance and being pregnant one has to anticipate that possibility). And his motive was to enhance her decision to marry him, too, nothing bad in that. However, what the Kents did in Asylum, allowing an innocent friend to be drugged, imprisoned, and tortured for over a month, that really was evil - and for no reason but their envy, too. Lex never had given them a reason to harm him like that, on the contrary, he always had tried to help them. No wonder Clark always had a bad conscience after that. I never understood how either Martha or Jonathan were able to even look Lex in the eye again. I guess, they simply don't have any conscience at all. They are truely evil - not Lex.

[The Fallen Sky]

Yes. That wasn't nice. However, he didn't actually harm her by it, neither physically, nor emotionally (she is not the first woman to loose her baby early in the pregnancy, nor the last - it is not exactly a rare occurrance and being pregnant one has to anticipate that possibility).

He didn't harm Lana by drugging her and making her think she was pregnant? Are you kidding me?! Yes, she may not have been physically harmed, at least not in any permanent way, but she most certainly was emotionally scarred, both by the loss of her baby (and no, it doesn't matter that there never was a baby, because she believed there was and the pain of loss she felt was real) and by the betrayal she felt when she found out that Lex had drugged her and lied to her about the whole thing. It doesn't matter that Lana wasn't the first or last woman to lose her baby early in a pregnancy. The point is that Lex violated her, physically and emotionally, by drugging her and lying about it the entire time. Anyone who can do that is evil, plain and simple.

And his motive was to enhance her decision to marry him, too, nothing bad in that.

There's nothing bad about manipulating someone, deliberately deceiving them, in order to force them to do something that they may not have wanted to do in the first place? Again, are you kidding me?! If Lana didn't want to marry Lex, then he should've let her go, and he certainly didn't have the right to fake a pregnancy in order to make her marry him. Manipulating and lying to someone in order to get them to do what you want isn't love. If Lex truly loved Lana, he wouldn't have resorted to such underhanded and morally reprehensible tactics in order to get her to marry him. The ends do not justify the means, certainly not when it come to love and relationships. Love is a two-way street, either the person you love loves you back, of their own free will, or they don't. You can't make them love you. Again, Lex is just plain evil, and his actions here prove it.

However, what the Kents did in Asylum, allowing an innocent friend to be drugged, imprisoned, and tortured for over a month, that really was evil - and for no reason but their envy, too. Lex never had given them a reason to harm him like that, on the contrary, he always had tried to help them. No wonder Clark always had a bad conscience after that. I never understood how either Martha or Jonathan were able to even look Lex in the eye again. I guess, they simply don't have any conscience at all. They are truely evil - not Lex.

Dude, seriously? The Kents were envious of Lex, and that's why they didn't allow Clark to rescue Lex from the asylum? That couldn't be further from the truth. The Kents never envied the Luthors, if anything, they feared and/or pitied them. The reason the Kents didn't allow Clark to rescue Lex is because they were afraid that Lex would expose Clark's secret, or that Clark would expose his secret himself by rescuing Lex. If you ask me, those were legitimate fears. And while it wasn't cool to knowingly sit by and do nothing when Clark could've saved Lex, the Kents' first priority was to protect Clark at all costs, and if that meant allowing Lex to suffer in the asylum, then so be it. However, just because the Kents didn't try to save Lex, doesn't mean they weren't concerned for his well-being. Sometimes, hard choices have to be made, and people have to be sacrificed for the greater good, and if Lex being sacrificed meant that Clark could remain safe and eventually fulfill his destiny, then it was the right move. After all, Clark's destiny is far more important than one man's life/sanity. Were the Kents perfect? No. Did they do the best they could given the circumstances and the knowledge they possessed at the time? Yes.

[Freawaru]

He didn't harm Lana by drugging her and making her think she was pregnant? Are you kidding me?! Yes, she may not have been physically harmed, at least not in any permanent way, but she most certainly was emotionally scarred,

Nothing compared to the scarring Jonathan and Martha (and also Clark) gave to Lex. If Clark had simply saved Lex after he found out that he truely was drugged Lex could have been spared a lot of physical and emotional pain. But he didn't. And both Jonathan and Martha even told him not to after he got second thoughts on the matter.

There are also two other reasons why Lex did what he did, btw. First, Lana and Lex were playing the Luthor game. Lana entered it knowingly and willingly and already told Lex weeks before he started to give hormones to her that she played this Game on his level. But she wasn't! She should not have been able to be drugged or poisoned. Lionel taught this lesson to Lex way more painful. The other reason is that Lex had had enough warnings that he himself might turn against humankind one day. That is why he trained Lana to inherit Luthorcorp. Even after she returned to Clark he allowed her to spy on him and find out his secret activities so that she would be able to take over if he changed.

both by the loss of her baby (and no, it doesn't matter that there never was a baby, because she believed there was and the pain of loss she felt was real) and by the betrayal she felt when she found out that Lex had drugged her and lied to her about the whole thing.

As Lex told Clark - and Clark was not able to disagree - Lana didn't learn about betrayal from Lex. I think Lex would have treated Lana differently if she had not been betrayed by Clark many times before.

It doesn't matter that Lana wasn't the first or last woman to lose her baby early in a pregnancy. The point is that Lex violated her, physically and emotionally, by drugging her and lying about it the entire time. Anyone who can do that is evil, plain and simple.

If that is evil - what are the Kents? Ultimate evil?

There's nothing bad about manipulating someone, deliberately deceiving them, in order to force them to do something that they may not have wanted to do in the first place?

Such as all the deceiving Clark does to his friends? All the lies the Kents told Clark's friends to force them to do what they wanted and even bringing them into mortal danger by it?

Again, are you kidding me?!

Nope.

If Lana didn't want to marry Lex,

But she wanted to - until Clark interfered again. Lana always wanted the most powerfull male around and she thought that was Clark. We saw it several times before: in Nicodemus for example. The moment Lana has no inhibitions she wants Clark, and if she cannot get him she wants Lex. The problem with Lex was that Lana was also scared of Lex - because of all the lies about him the Kents and others had told her. That was why she turned to Clark the moment he became avaiable again.

But we saw in season seven that Lana was not able to let go of Lex. Nor really in love with Clark (the Bizarro affair for example showed this pretty clearly).

then he should've let her go, and he certainly didn't have the right to fake a pregnancy in order to make her marry him.

I agree to you in general, but not in this case.

Manipulating and lying to someone in order to get them to do what you want isn't love.

Like Jonathan and Martha - even lying to each other about the important things (such as where the octagonal key is)?

Dude, seriously? The Kents were envious of Lex, and that's why they didn't allow Clark to rescue Lex from the asylum? That couldn't be further from the truth. The Kents never envied the Luthors, if anything, they feared and/or pitied them. The reason the Kents didn't allow Clark to rescue Lex is because they were afraid that Lex would expose Clark's secret, or that Clark would expose his secret himself by rescuing Lex. If you ask me, those were legitimate fears.

Had Lex ever given them reason for that fear? Up until that point Clark didn't even know that Lex would be Sageeth. Lex was Clark's best friend - like a brother, even. He always helped the Kents, gave them back the farm when they needed it. He was always there if they needed help. How many times did Clark go to Lex so that he would fix something. And whenever Lex felt to be in real danger he went to Clark. They were true friends. Lex also was already good at keeping secrets, much better than Pete or Chloe or Lana. No, the Kents based their decision on nothing but predudice, based on jealousy because they didn't have money (many times Jonathan mentioned his bad conscience that he couldn't give Martha what he thought she deserved, moneywise). Of course, the fact that Martha's rich and powerfull (and as such Luthorlike) father didn't accept Jonathan didn't make it easier for Jonathan. Still, he should not have let his frustration and anger for Martha's father influence his feelings for Lex. They had nothing in common but money. It is not money that makes a person, but inner values. Jonathan was never able to see this.

And while it wasn't cool to knowingly sit by and do nothing when Clark could've saved Lex, the Kents' first priority was to protect Clark at all costs, and if that meant allowing Lex to suffer in the asylum, then so be it.

I think to turn your back on your best friend like that, a friend like a brother who had been always there for you, is evil. They didn't even know that Lex would harm Clark, right? In fact, everything that had happened before showed that Lex would have protected Clark at all costs. Lex was innocent and the Kents knew that and still allowed him to go to something worse than prison. The Kents are simply evil and taught Clark their evil ways.

However, just because the Kents didn't try to save Lex, doesn't mean they weren't concerned for his well-being. Sometimes, hard choices have to be made, and people have to be sacrificed for the greater good,

This attitude is called "the ends justify this means".

and if Lex being sacrificed meant that Clark could remain safe and eventually fulfill his destiny, then it was the right move.

I agree with you when it comes to Martha potting to kill Lex to save the world from Zod. But there was no danger in letting Lex know in Asylum - he had already suspected for a long time anyway and would have known for sure if his friendship with Clark would not have prevented him from really spying on him. Remember Onyx? The moment Lex didn't have this softer feelings of friendship and loyality to Clark any more he knew that Clark was an alien with superpowers and that he didn't like meteor rock. The Kents had no reason to mistrust Lex at the time of Asylum. Still, they were happy enough to know him tortured forever. These are very dark feelings that influence the Kents. They don't act out of love or compassion, but have hidden selfish and evil agendas. Unfortionately, they believe themselves to be good and thus never question their decisions or their haveing agendas.

Guess that is why I like Clark so much. He is able to question himself and his decisions and to overcome the evil his parents taught him.

[The Fallen Sky]

Nothing compared to the scarring Jonathan and Martha (and also Clark) gave to Lex. If Clark had simply saved Lex after he found out that he truely was drugged Lex could have been spared a lot of physical and emotional pain. But he didn't. And both Jonathan and Martha even told him not to after he got second thoughts on the matter.

I've got news for you, Lionel scarred Lex far worse than anything the Kents or Clark ever did. Also, it was never as simple as Clark saving Lex. You have to realize that Lionel was responsible for Lex being drugged in the first place, and if Clark intervened, Lionel may have discovered Clark's secret, and then Clark, the Kents and Lex would've been in terrible danger. I don't doubt that Lionel would've killed the Kents and Lex, if necessary, in order to learn about Clark and possibly even control him. That's too great a risk, which is why the Kents told Clark to stay away and not to save Lex.

There are also two other reasons why Lex did what he did, btw. First, Lana and Lex were playing the Luthor game. Lana entered it knowingly and willingly and already told Lex weeks before he started to give hormones to her that she played this Game on his level. But she wasn't! She should not have been able to be drugged or poisoned. Lionel taught this lesson to Lex way more painful.

Ah, but Lex shouldn't have been playing games with Lana in the first place. You don't do that to someone you love, especially not to someone you want to spend your life with. Lionel was sick and twisted, which explains why he taught Lex that everything was a life and death struggle, that you can't trust anyone, not even family. That's no way to live. Besides, I don't believe Lana was in on this 'Game', not really. I think she believed Lex was testing her loyalty, but I highly doubt she thought he'd mess with her heart and mind by drugging her and making her think she was pregnant. Also, if they were playing a game, what was the purpose of the faked pregnancy? Personally, I think Lex just wanted to make sure Lana didn't leave him, and he knew that if she knew the real him, then she'd eventually leave him, just as everyone else he'd cared about had done.

The other reason is that Lex had had enough warnings that he himself might turn against humankind one day. That is why he trained Lana to inherit Luthorcorp. Even after she returned to Clark he allowed her to spy on him and find out his secret activities so that she would be able to take over if he changed.

I disagree. Lex never saw himself as evil. He always believed he was the hero, the one person who was smart and driven enough to take on and defeat any threat. He wanted to be in control of everything, people included, because he believed he knew best. You see, the greatest villains never try to be evil. They believe they're doing good, doing what's best for mankind, but in actuality, they're committing terrible acts of evil. Lex, in his attempt to protect humanity from the meteor infected and from an alien invasion, rounded up and experimented on innocent people, even killed some of those people, and all in the name of the greater good. Lex didn't want to prepare Lana to take over in case he turned evil, because he never believed he would. Instead, I think he wanted to prepare her in case he was killed by one of the 'villains' he was fighting against.

As Lex told Clark - and Clark was not able to disagree - Lana didn't learn about betrayal from Lex. I think Lex would have treated Lana differently if she had not been betrayed by Clark many times before.

Again, I disagree. Lex would've treated Lana the same no matter what. By this point, Lex was beyond redemption, and his actions were all centered around himself, what he needed and wanted. Yes, he wanted to be the savior of the world, but not because he wanted the world made safe from evil. He wanted to be the one to do the saving, to get the credit, to be recognized for his genius. Sure, Clark may have taught Lana about betrayal, but Lex gave her a Doctorate in betrayal. I mean, just look at the episode 'Lexmas'. Lex saw the life he could have if he'd just give up his ambitions toward power and controlling everything and everyone. Instead of learning the lesson that love is something gentle that can't be forced or controlled, Lex decided that if he truly wanted the life he saw, he'd have to take it by force. To me, that was the signal that Lex was completely lost to the darkness, that he wasn't good or capable of being good.

If that is evil - what are the Kents? Ultimate evil?

I'm not sure what your definition of evil is, but it's definitely not the same as mine. The Kents did questionable things in order to protect Clark and ultimately protect the future of humanity and the world. Lex did questionable things for his own benefit, whether he believed he was doing them for the greater good is irrelevant.

Such as all the deceiving Clark does to his friends? All the lies the Kents told Clark's friends to force them to do what they wanted and even bringing them into mortal danger by it?

What were they supposed to do? They couldn't just tell people the truth, that Clark is an alien with super powers. If they'd told people that, even Clark's friends, they'd have put them in more danger than by lying to them. Again, Lionel, as well as other agencies and people, would stop at nothing to control Clark and his powers, to study him and possibly learn how to duplicate those powers. That being the case, anyone knowing Clark's secret would be in mortal danger. Plus, how trustworthy are teenagers, even ones you think you know? One nasty incident or misunderstanding, and one of Clark's friends might rat him out. No, Clark and the Kents did the right thing by lying to people about Clark.

But she wanted to - until Clark interfered again. Lana always wanted the most powerfull male around and she thought that was Clark. We saw it several times before: in Nicodemus for example. The moment Lana has no inhibitions she wants Clark, and if she cannot get him she wants Lex. The problem with Lex was that Lana was also scared of Lex - because of all the lies about him the Kents and others had told her. That was why she turned to Clark the moment he became avaiable again.

Again, I disagree. Lana was having doubts about marrying Lex, which is why Lex resorted to faking the pregnacy. Why else would he do something so foolish, something that could end up turning Lana against him for good? And I think Lana was scared of Lex because she could sense that he wasn't good at heart. I think she wanted to believe in the good that he could do, and that she believed she could help keep him from going down the path to evil, but deep down, she knew Lex wasn't as good as he would have people believe. I do agree that Lana was drawn to men with power, men who were special in some way, because she didn't really have her own identity, other than being the little girl who lost her parents in the first meteor shower.

But we saw in season seven that Lana was not able to let go of Lex. Nor really in love with Clark (the Bizarro affair for example showed this pretty clearly).

Actually, Lana wanted to hurt Lex, make him suffer for all the horrible things he'd done to her. She wasn't in love with him, at all. In fact, I think, had Clark not stopped her, she may have killed Lex. I'm not sure if she was really in love with Clark or just in love with her idea of who Clark was. Personally, I think she was in love with the idea of Clark, which would explain why she had the affair with Bizarro.

I agree to you in general, but not in this case.

Dude, manipulating someone for any reason is wrong, and it's particularly offensive to think it's okay to manipulate someone(fake a pregnancy) in order to get them to love/marry you. You don't play with people's emotions like that unless you're evil.

Like Jonathan and Martha - even lying to each other about the important things (such as where the octagonal key is)?

I'll agree, that was wrong, but Jonathan and Martha already loved each other, had built their relationship on love and trust long before Clark came into their lives, so it's not the same as what Lex did to Lana. Yes, the Kents did something wrong, but it was in an effort to protect each other and Clark. Lex did something wrong because he wanted Lana and wasn't certain she'd choose him of her own free will, so he made sure there was no choice.

Had Lex ever given them reason for that fear? Up until that point Clark didn't even know that Lex would be Sageeth. Lex was Clark's best friend - like a brother, even. He always helped the Kents, gave them back the farm when they needed it. He was always there if they needed help. How many times did Clark go to Lex so that he would fix something. And whenever Lex felt to be in real danger he went to Clark. They were true friends. Lex also was already good at keeping secrets, much better than Pete or Chloe or Lana. No, the Kents based their decision on nothing but predudice, based on jealousy because they didn't have money (many times Jonathan mentioned his bad conscience that he couldn't give Martha what he thought she deserved, moneywise). Of course, the fact that Martha's rich and powerfull (and as such Luthorlike) father didn't accept Jonathan didn't make it easier for Jonathan. Still, he should not have let his frustration and anger for Martha's father influence his feelings for Lex. They had nothing in common but money. It is not money that makes a person, but inner values. Jonathan was never able to see this.

I think you're way off base and confusing seperate issues. First, the Kents were scared of Lex because he's a Luthor, and they knew full well what Lionel was capable of, and since Lex was raised by Lionel, there was a good chance Lex would be like his father. Even if Lex didn't give them reason to fear him, the Kents knew that Lex and Lionel were always at odds, constantly fighting, and if Lex knew Clark's secret, Lionel would stop at nothing to learn what Lex knew, which would've been bad for everyone. So, instead of taking an unnecessary risk, the Kents chose the safer path and simply lied in order to protect everyone.

Also, Jonathan was not jealous of people with money. Sure, he would've liked to have been able to get his wife certain things and not have to worry about how they were gonna pay their bills all the time, but he wasn't envious or jealous of those with money. he certainly didn't like those with money, but that's because he'd experienced, first-hand, that people with money didn't treat those without money very well. For instance, Martha's father didn't like Jonathan, because he didn't think Jonathan was good enough for Martha. he thought Martha would be wasting her life and her potential by marrying a farmer. And since Martha's father didn't like Jonathan, was prejudiced against him first, Jonathan didn't like Martha's father. similarly, Jonathan didn't like the Luthors, Lionel in particular, because Lionel thought he could buy anything and anyone as long as the price was right and he got what he wanted. That kind of thinking goes against everything Jonathan believes, so it's no wonder that Jonathan didn't like the Luthors, Lex included.

I think to turn your back on your best friend like that, a friend like a brother who had been always there for you, is evil. They didn't even know that Lex would harm Clark, right? In fact, everything that had happened before showed that Lex would have protected Clark at all costs. Lex was innocent and the Kents knew that and still allowed him to go to something worse than prison. The Kents are simply evil and taught Clark their evil ways.

Couldn't disagree more. Just because Lex might not have been a threat to Clark, doesn't mean Lionel wasn't. I mean, Lionel always knew what Lex was up to, and if Lex knew about Clark, Lionel would've done anything and everything to learn what Lex knew, including kill and torture. I have little doubt, had Lionel not been in the picture, that Clark or the Kents probably would've told Lex about Clark's secret, but with Lionel looming in the background, they simply couldn't take the chance of him finding out, which he most certainly would have. Just because you do certain questionable things in order to protect the ones you love doesn't mean you're evil. The Kents were simply trying to protect Clark, and also Lex, by lying and not allowing Clark to intervene.

This attitude is called "the ends justify this means".

And that's exactly what Lex did with Lana by manipulating her. It's also what he always does. He believes he's doing good, saving the world, but he does great evil in order to achieve his goals.

I agree with you when it comes to Martha potting to kill Lex to save the world from Zod. But there was no danger in letting Lex know in Asylum - he had already suspected for a long time anyway and would have known for sure if his friendship with Clark would not have prevented him from really spying on him. Remember Onyx? The moment Lex didn't have this softer feelings of friendship and loyality to Clark any more he knew that Clark was an alien with superpowers and that he didn't like meteor rock. The Kents had no reason to mistrust Lex at the time of Asylum. Still, they were happy enough to know him tortured forever. These are very dark feelings that influence the Kents. They don't act out of love or compassion, but have hidden selfish and evil agendas. Unfortionately, they believe themselves to be good and thus never question their decisions or their haveing agendas.

Totally disagree. Lex was under constant surveilance in Asylum, so there was great danger in telling Lex Clark's secret. As I've stated, Lionel wanted to know the truth about Clark, and if Lex knew, Lionel would've done anything he had to in order to extract the information. So, telling Lex the truth would've made things worse for him, not better. Plus, it would've endangered Clark and the Kents, because Lionel would go after them as soon as he'd broken Lex and gotten the information he wanted. Also, I don't believe for a second that the Kents were happy about Lex being tortured. You seem to have a bias against the Kents which is coloring your perception of the events. Just because they didnt' let Clark help Lex doesn't mean they enjoyed the prospect of Lex being tortured. Also, I think the Kents constantly questioned their choices, but they accepted their decisions and lived with the consequences because they believed they had no other choice.

Guess that is why I like Clark so much. He is able to question himself and his decisions and to overcome the evil his parents taught him.

Clark's parents didn't teach him evil. Were they always right in everything they taught him? No. But they never taught him evil. They did the best they could, and no one is perfect. I seriously think you're being too hard on the Kents and not hard enough on Lex. At the end of the day, Lex is supposed to be evil; it's his destiny, and the Kents are supposed to be good, which is why Jor-El sent Clark to them.

[Freawaru]

I've got news for you, Lionel scarred Lex far worse than anything the Kents or Clark ever did.

Actually, I think the worst that was done to him was by his mother and by Helen. He loved both and thought they loved him and that they were good. But both betrayed him, turned out to be not what he thought they had been. That is why he started to hallucinate in both cases. Lex always knew how Lionel was. Lionel never pretended to be otherwise than he was, the lenghts he would go to reach his aims. But the Kents were like his mother and like Helen. Pretending to be good and compassionate but in truth only interested in their own selfish goals and willing to go through corpses to reach their goals.

Also, it was never as simple as Clark saving Lex. You have to realize that Lionel was responsible for Lex being drugged in the first place, and if Clark intervened, Lionel may have discovered Clark's secret, and then Clark, the Kents and Lex would've been in terrible danger.

But a hero is somebody who saves somebody else regardless of the danger to himself. Like Lex did in Jitters, when he offered his own life for the lifes of those kids. There was no possible way to survive that crazed guy and the expoding plant and Lex knew that, and still he went to save those kids. Or like Lex did in Fade when he placed his own body in front of Lana's to take a bullet for her. That is truely heroic! To just use secret superpowers to save people without any danger to oneself is good, no doubt about that, but it is not heroic.

On the up-side I think Clark learned from this experience and his terrible bad conscience. After Asylum he never really listened to his parents any more and went his own way.

I don't doubt that Lionel would've killed the Kents and Lex, if necessary, in order to learn about Clark and possibly even control him. That's too great a risk, which is why the Kents told Clark to stay away and not to save Lex.

As it turned out Lionel knew about Clark being the Traveler the whole time. And he knew that there was a device to control the Traveler, but he didn't try to get the second key. The Kents were wrong about Lionel Luthor and his goals all the time. Predjudice again.

The Kents pretended (and even believed) they were good and compassionate and helpfull, but there were episodes that showed that they were in fact predjudiced and selfish. Martha didn't take in little Kal El because she was so compassionate, but because a child was her own desire and Kal El was so cute. That is hormones, instinct, not compassion. In Subterranean Clark has to teach her compassion. Jonathan always considered himself to be soo helpful to others but in Nicodemus, when his inhibitions were reduced, we see that in fact he always expected something in return. No different from Lionel, except that Lionel was truthfull about it while Jonathan lied all the time.

Ah, but Lex shouldn't have been playing games with Lana in the first place.

How else should he have taught her what she would need to inherit Luthorcorp? To be the wife of Lex Luthor? In contrast to Lionel Lex wanted a full partner as a wife, somebody he could rely on. Lionel had secrets from his wife to protect her but Lex was sick of this attitude. So he taught Lana what she would need to survive. As a Luthor she would be in danger of attacks on her life every day, including poisoning. But she didn't pay attention to that or she would have known about the hormones earlier.

You don't do that to someone you love, especially not to someone you want to spend your life with. Lionel was sick and twisted, which explains why he taught Lex that everything was a life and death struggle, that you can't trust anyone, not even family.

But without it Lex would have died. How many times were people hypnotized or possesed and didn't act as usual? Pete tried to kill Lex twice, when he was under a drug. Lex tried to destroy humankind (possesed by Zod). How many people wanted Lex dead? Everybody he cares for, especially a wife and children, were in lethal danger from the Hardwicks and the Teagues and whomever. That was a mistake Lana did all the time and the reason she didn't recognize that it was not Clark but Bizarro - because she trusted too much. Chloe realized that something was wrong because she is as paranoid as Lex - due to the teachings of Lionel. Lana it took much longer to take this step.

That's no way to live.

Unfortionately, in Smallvilleverse it is the only way to survive.

Besides, I don't believe Lana was in on this 'Game', not really. I think she believed Lex was testing her loyalty, but I highly doubt she thought he'd mess with her heart and mind by drugging her and making her think she was pregnant.

No, she didn't expect that. Her mistake. Once she was pregnant she should have gone to another doctor but the one Lex told her. Anyway, she expected something. She was in on this Game, we saw it in her dealings with Dr. Grohl and how she held back the energy device of the Black Ship. So she knew that something would happen. And ever after season six she kept playing that Game with Lex. Spying on him, trying to get on the top so he would have to play, too.

Also, if they were playing a game, what was the purpose of the faked pregnancy?
Personally, I think Lex just wanted to make sure Lana didn't leave him, and he knew that if she knew the real him, then she'd eventually leave him, just as everyone else he'd cared about had done.

I don't think that the real Lana would leave the real Lex. Lana has some very dark sides, had them from the beginning. We see them whenever her fear is gone. As to Lex's motivation for the faked pregnancy: I think there were several. One was - as you said - he wanted her to marry him. Because he loved her, trusted her (not easy after Helen), and wanted her to take his place in case something happened to him. But for the goal of her inheriting Luthorcorp she needed to be able to survive on her own (because Lex could not protect her any more), she needed to learn how to deal with people like the Hardwicks and Teagues, she needed status and reputation. Even as ex-Mrs. Luthor Lana would not have had all those problems a Tess Mercer had when becoming Lex's heir. Remember how much trouble Tess had in season eight, the directors of Luthorcorp even wanted to remove her as CEO. But from the outside the who-is-who would only see that Lana Lang had tricked Lex Luthor into a marriage, got a divorce with ten million dollars, and obviously must have something in her hand so that both Luthors would let her get away with it. Fazid: Lana Lang is somebody dangerous. Don't anger Lana Lang. Unlike Tess Mercer nobody would have challenged her if Lana had inherited Luthorcop. People might even have thought that she had a hand in the deaths of both Lionel and Lex. Both courting, wedding and divorce were very public - and I think this was intentional on Lex's side. To give Lana the reputation she needed to survive in that world.

I disagree. Lex never saw himself as evil. He always believed he was the hero, the one person who was smart and driven enough to take on and defeat any threat.

I don't see what is so wrong about wanting to use one's powers to help others. lex was powerfull, right? What is so wrong about him wanting to use that power to save humankind?

He wanted to be in control of everything, people included, because he believed he knew best.

If he had wanted that why did he never try to control Clark? He knew that Clark was special since season one. Why did he never try to control Chloe? He knew that she was bright. Why did he never try to control Lana but let her return to Clark and spy on himself?

You see, the greatest villains never try to be evil. They believe they're doing good, doing what's best for mankind, but in actuality, they're committing terrible acts of evil.

Like Jonathan and Martha not allowing Clark to save his best friend. Like Jonathan running for senator when he was not even able to run his own farm. Like Martha plotting to kill Lex.

Lex, in his attempt to protect humanity from the meteor infected and from an alien invasion, rounded up and experimented on innocent people, even killed some of those people, and all in the name of the greater good.

Whom did he kill? Let's face it Clark killed more meteor infected than Lex. Lex just acted like Dr. Magnus in the TV series "Sanctuary" and rounded up and hid those meteor infected that were a danger to everybody else because of the infection rendering them psychotic. Like Dr. Magnus the only experiments he did on them were to find a cure and to get an idea of their power. He didn't allow experiments that put the infected into leathal danger and even confronted and killed Dr. Knox personally when he found out that Dr. Knox killed them. And as we saw in Cure and also Homecoming, the meteor infected were healed by Lex and set free again. I really cannot see anything Lex did in regard of the meteor infected that was less than responsible.

This stands in contast to the Kents selling their kryptonite contaminated products as healthy, even after they knew that it would make people who eat it insane.

Lex didn't want to prepare Lana to take over in case he turned evil, because he never believed he would.

How could he know that? He had experience himself being hypnotized and possesed. Something like with Zod could happen again every moment.

Instead, I think he wanted to prepare her in case he was killed by one of the 'villains' he was fighting against.

That, too. There was alway the danger somebody like Milton Fine would kill him.

Again, I disagree. Lex would've treated Lana the same no matter what. By this point, Lex was beyond redemption, and his actions were all centered around himself, what he needed and wanted. Yes, he wanted to be the savior of the world, but not because he wanted the world made safe from evil. He wanted to be the one to do the saving, to get the credit, to be recognized for his genius.

If so why did he hide everything he did from the public eye. I mean, who should regognize his genius, who should give him credit for saving the world if nobody knew about it? The majority of people didn't even learn of the Black Ship and teh two Kryptonians killing humans. Lex always did his best to hide his good deeds - not the best strategy if one wants applaus for them.

Sure, Clark may have taught Lana about betrayal, but Lex gave her a Doctorate in betrayal. I mean, just look at the episode 'Lexmas'. Lex saw the life he could have if he'd just give up his ambitions toward power and controlling everything and everyone. Instead of learning the lesson that love is something gentle that can't be forced or controlled, Lex decided that if he truly wanted the life he saw, he'd have to take it by force. To me, that was the signal that Lex was completely lost to the darkness, that he wasn't good or capable of being good.

I interprete Lexmas differently. We were shown that what Lex really wants is to lead a life like everybody else (which includes having money problems and shows that he never craved money), to be loved by the Kents, Clark, Chloe, and Lana. In Lexmas he was shown how he could reach that goal and he had already decided to go this route when he was confronted with the fact that if he chose this path he was too powerless to save those he loved.

Lexmas showed that Lex was still the same person he had been in Jitters. Willing to put his own desires and happyness and even life at stake to save those he cares for. It was a heroic decision, one only a truely good person would be able to make.

I'm not sure what your definition of evil is, but it's definitely not the same as mine. The Kents did questionable things in order to protect Clark and ultimately protect the future of humanity and the world. Lex did questionable things for his own benefit, whether he believed he was doing them for the greater good is irrelevant.

I see it the other way round. The Kents did questionable things for their own benefit and believed it was for the greater good - but in their case it was without cause. Lex on the other hand had hard proof of serious dangers to mankind and that was the reason for some of his harder decisions (like giving some guy he didn't really know superpowers and killing a corrupt senator). The Kents on the other hand didn't know that Clark was destined to become mankind's saviour - in fact all they had were Jor El's words that Clark would conquer humankind (and let's fact it, even to Clark it sounded as if he would become a tyrant) and an obscure centuries old prophesy that had not even been written down but had been passed on in tales and had several interpretations. At the time of "Asylum" (season three) the Kents didn't trust Jor El at all and didn't really believe in the Kawatchee prophesies, either. So their idea that Clark would be a global saviour was pure projection, wishful thinking, nothing substantial, and in fact we learn later that it is not sure whether the Traveler will save humankind or destroy it. So again, their choice to keep Clark from saving his best friend was evil. And btw, with a little planning they would not have been in danger from Lionel at all. They could have gone into hiding until Clark and Lex had solved the problem. So why didn't they?

What were they supposed to do? They couldn't just tell people the truth, that Clark is an alien with super powers. If they'd told people that, even Clark's friends, they'd have put them in more danger than by lying to them.

Clark could have broken Lex out of Belle Reve, just as he planned at the end of Asylum when he learned of the electro-shocks Lex would get as "therapy". Lex already had almost won against Lionel, a little help and Lionel would not have been any threat at all any more - not to mention that he was already terminally ill anyway. It would have been perfectly save - except for them having to put their predjuced at bay.

Again, I disagree. Lana was having doubts about marrying Lex, which is why Lex resorted to faking the pregnacy.

Actually, he faked her pregnancy before proposing. Lana had no doubts and showed no wish to return to Clark at the time Lex must have started to give her hormones.

And I think Lana was scared of Lex because she could sense that he wasn't good at heart.

Lana sensing something. That would be a first. Just think of all her boyfriends. Whitney put Clark on the cross. Adam almost killed her. Jason murdered Bridget Crosby to get her Stone. Lana never senses anything, least of all the heart of those she thinks she is in love with.

I think she wanted to believe in the good that he could do, and that she believed she could help keep him from going down the path to evil, but deep down, she knew Lex wasn't as good as he would have people believe.

I think she believed that Lex was not as evil as people believed. Remember that Lex Luthor's reputation was hardly saintly. There were several people who warned Lana about Lex.

Actually, Lana wanted to hurt Lex, make him suffer for all the horrible things he'd done to her. She wasn't in love with him, at all.

If so, why didn't she hurt him? Why did she just spy on him, trying to find something evil he did. Without success I may add. Lana learned Lex's most secret projects and there was none she considered bad or evil. Only Project Scion, she couldn't find out what it was until Lex showed her - and it was hardly something she could blame him of, too. And why did she kiss back when he kissed her?

In fact, I think, had Clark not stopped her, she may have killed Lex.

I don't think so. She was angry and really confused and blamed Lex for it all. But in her heart she loved him, still.

I'm not sure if she was really in love with Clark or just in love with her idea of who Clark was. Personally, I think she was in love with the idea of Clark, which would explain why she had the affair with Bizarro.

I think she loved that she felt protected and save. And he was in love with his idea of who Lana was.

Dude, manipulating someone for any reason is wrong,

As all the characters manipulate somebody for their own reasons - from the Kents to Lana, Chloe, Ollie, and even Clark - they are all evil by your definition.

Yes, the Kents did something wrong, but it was in an effort to protect each other and Clark.

If so, why it is better than Lex protecting not only those he cares for but even humankind as a whole? His fears were sound, the danger of aliens invading Earth and killing humans was no illusion. Milton Fine was still out there. There were other Kryptonians that could come to Earth. Not to mention the possibility of other species (like Darkseid).

Lex did something wrong because he wanted Lana and wasn't certain she'd choose him of her own free will, so he made sure there was no choice.

If so he didn't really know Lana and Clark. Lana was willing to leave Lex on the wedding day (serioiusly, couldn't she have waited at least a few weeks before deciding to get a divorce ?) and Clark was happy enough to adopt Lex's child.

I think you're way off base and confusing seperate issues. First, the Kents were scared of Lex because he's a Luthor,

So what if he is a Luthor? Isn't Martha also the daughter of her father and still not agreeing with him. Lex had proved again and again that he didn't agree with Lionel - why does his heritage make him evil? Again, that is pure prejudice on the side of the Kents and that is what makes them evil.

and they knew full well what Lionel was capable of, and since Lex was raised by Lionel, there was a good chance Lex would be like his father.

If they had been willing to take a good look at Lex they would have seen that he was not. Lionel would not have gone to his death to save some kids.

Even if Lex didn't give them reason to fear him, the Kents knew that Lex and Lionel were always at odds, constantly fighting,

They only were fighting after Lex decided to stay in Smallville to help the people Lionel fired. Seriously, at first the Kents always said how much evil Luthorcorp brings to Smallville and when Lionel decides to close the plant and to stay away from Smallville they said Smallville needed the plant. That was the reason Lex decided to go against his father, right? He founded Lexcorp to help those people who would loose their job if the plant closed. And then the Kents punished him for it. That is so evil.

and if Lex knew Clark's secret, Lionel would stop at nothing to learn what Lex knew, which would've been bad for everyone.

Lex had proved to be way more reliable and able to keep secrets than Pete. Not to mention Chloe who always wanted to babble everything out to everybody or Lana who tried to manipulate Clark's secret out of him with her doe-eyes and tears.

So, instead of taking an unnecessary risk, the Kents chose the safer path and simply lied in order to protect everyone.

Does that mean that to save an innocent - who even happens to be one's best friend - from a fate worse than jail is unnecessary?

Also, Jonathan was not jealous of people with money. Sure, he would've liked to have been able to get his wife certain things and not have to worry about how they were gonna pay their bills all the time, but he wasn't envious or jealous of those with money.

He was shown so. He even told Clark that his own father prevented him from going that route and glued him to the farm. And in the end he even tried to become senator leaving his farm and all. Why? To prevent Lex from becoming senator? I ask you! Jonathan had no idea about politics, and without Lionel's help he would never have made it. But he prided himself to be able and desired it because being a farmer was never good enough for him anyway. He was shown to be jealous of those with money and power from the first season to his death.

he certainly didn't like those with money, but that's because he'd experienced, first-hand, that people with money didn't treat those without money very well. For instance, Martha's father didn't like Jonathan, because he didn't think Jonathan was good enough for Martha. he thought Martha would be wasting her life and her potential by marrying a farmer. And since Martha's father didn't like Jonathan, was prejudiced against him first, Jonathan didn't like Martha's father.

And that gave him reason to think that all people with more money than him were like that? One experience! And btw, it is not unusual that parents think their son's or daughter's choice of mate as good enough - has nothing to do with money or farmer.

The correct reaction would have been to show Martha's father that this way of life would make his daughter happy. Instead, Jonathan was hurt and grumbled. He would not have felt hurt if he had not thought that Martha's father was right in the first place. Jonathan's reaction shows that he agreed with Martha's father: being a farmer is not as good as being a lawyer - or senator.

similarly, Jonathan didn't like the Luthors, Lionel in particular,

How could he? He only knew Lionel. He never even met Lillian. It is not right to not like a family just because one does not like one member of it.

because Lionel thought he could buy anything and anyone as long as the price was right and he got what he wanted.

This belief of Jonathan about Lionel showed his jealousy.

That kind of thinking goes against everything Jonathan believes, so it's no wonder that Jonathan didn't like the Luthors, Lex included.

Actually, it is exactly what Jonathan believes in. That one can buy anything with money. Only Lex, who always had more money that he knew what to use it for realized that one cannot buy what one really wants - such as friendship, trust, and love. If Jonathan had known that he would have seen what Lex really wanted from Clark. But he couldn't because Jonathan really believed that one can buy anything with money.

Couldn't disagree more. Just because Lex might not have been a threat to Clark, doesn't mean Lionel wasn't. I mean, Lionel always knew what Lex was up to, and if Lex knew about Clark, Lionel would've done anything and everything to learn what Lex knew, including kill and torture.

If so, why didn't Lionel kidnap the Kents and tortured Clark's secret out of them? All he did was trying to use Chloe - seriously, he of all people had other means than Clark's highschool friend who wasn't in the secret anyway - and just liked snooping. How many times were we shown that whenever a reporter or FBI agent or somebody like that became suspicious about Clark and really investigated he found out everything about Clark? So why didn't Lionel hire some professional instead of doing everything in his power to divert any attention from the Kents?

I have little doubt, had Lionel not been in the picture, that Clark or the Kents probably would've told Lex about Clark's secret, but with Lionel looming in the background, they simply couldn't take the chance of him finding out, which he most certainly would have.

I think if Lex had been in on the secret it would have been way more easy to keep the secret. Just think of all the infected that knew Clark's secret and ended up in Belle Reve - easy enough for Lionel to question them there.

Just because you do certain questionable things in order to protect the ones you love doesn't mean you're evil.

I agree. And that is why Lex is not evil.

The Kents were simply trying to protect Clark, and also Lex, by lying and not allowing Clark to intervene.

They were protecting Lex by preventing Clark to get him out of Belle Reve, where he was drugged and might have ended up with his brain destroyed? Or had to stay for the rest of his life? What part of Lex were they trying to protect?

Totally disagree. Lex was under constant surveilance in Asylum, so there was great danger in telling Lex Clark's secret.

I think you recall this wrongly. Lex already knew Clark's secret when he was put into Belle Reve (he had his ideas about Clark since the Pilot and in Shattered he witnessed Clark). And Lex kept it - as he even told Clark. In fact, to let him stay there, where he could have told Lionel about it in exchange for his freedom would have been the real danger - if Lex had not always been more protective of Clark than himself. In Asylum again we were shown that Lex protects Clark, even if it means that he himself has to suffer prison, drugs and possibly fatal electroshocks.

Look, Lex knew that Lionel was obsessed with Clark. He could have made a deal with Lionel any time: Clark's secret against his own freedom. But he didn't and endured the torture in Belle Reve. If this does not show that somebody is willing to keep a secret no matter what I really don't know what is.

As I've stated, Lionel wanted to know the truth about Clark, and if Lex knew, Lionel would've done anything he had to in order to extract the information.

And that is the reason the Kents should have been desperated to get Lex out of Lionel's hands. They knew that Lex had witnessed Clark's superstrenght, right? But as usual they were not able to look beyond their own narrow minds.

Also, I don't believe for a second that the Kents were happy about Lex being tortured.

They said if they were lucky Lex would spend the rest of his live in a place where nobody would believe him if he told about Clark's superpowers. Oh, yes, they were happy. Especially Jonathan who acted as if it was christmas.

You seem to have a bias against the Kents which is coloring your perception of the events.

Or you have a bias against Lex which is coloring your perception of the events.

Just because they didnt' let Clark help Lex doesn't mean they enjoyed the prospect of Lex being tortured.

If one sees somebody in danger and does nothing to help he or she can go to jail for it. There is something like helping those in need, even if it is somebody's else's fault. To know about Lex being held at Belle Reve innocently and not doing anything against it makes them co-perpetrators of Lionel in the eye of the law. To keep the person who could have helped from doing so makes them even worse.

It is like they find somebody they don't like on the streets hit by a car and not only they don't alarm the police but even prevent somebody who wants to help from doing so. It is an evil act.

Look, Clark could have broken Lex out of Belle Reve and hid him in Mexico or whereever. And then they could have made a plan how to solve the situation. There was no danger at all involved. Though Lionel might have suspected he could not have done anything or prooven anything. It would have been a safe thing - except for the Kents enjoying that Lex was finally not close to Clark any more.

Also, I think the Kents constantly questioned their choices, but they accepted their decisions and lived with the consequences because they believed they had no other choice.

Yes. The ends justify the means - especially if one's last name is Kent.

Clark's parents didn't teach him evil.

They taught him predjudice. They taught him to not see what is but to twist the truth until he believes in his own fantasies. They taught him to be selfish, to not put others lifes before his own farm (or the savety of the world before his carrer as highschool footballplayer). They taught him to do nothing until whatever threat knocks at his door (you may recall that Ollie was really irritated with this typical Kent-attitude). They taught him never to look farther than his own farm and to not feel compassion for those who won't pay their dept to him. They taught him never to question himself or his decisions - because after all he was a Kent and taught by a Kent and thus every decision he made was inherently good (this was actually what Jonathan told him "even when I am gone you will make the right decisions because we taught you what is right and what is wrong"). So, yes, they taught him a lot of lessons in evilness.

They did the best they could, and no one is perfect.

I agree. They never meant to teach evil. They had good intentions alright. And they believed in their own inherent goodness and the impossibility that they could do wrong. And as Clark is Clark he will sooner or later overcome all these indoctinations. After Asylum he never abandoned those he cared for again. He allowed Chloe to learn his secret in the Fortress. He was willing to befriend Oliver Queen, another billionare with questionable means.

I seriously think you're being too hard on the Kents and not hard enough on Lex.

I think you are too hard on Lex and not hard enough on the Kents.

At the end of the day, Lex is supposed to be evil; it's his destiny, and the Kents are supposed to be good, which is why Jor-El sent Clark to them.

Maybe in some Superman comics. And in the movies. But not in Smallville. We learn in Skinwalker that Clark alone is not able to save humankind. He needs Lex. According to the legend only Naman and Sageeth together provide the balance between Light and Darkness. Clark is the Bearer Of Light and Lex is the Bearer Of Darkness and together they provide Balance. The Traveler journals display an identical message: Saviour and Destroyer are both needed for the balance that prevents Earth from annihilation. That is the only reason why Lex is Clark's most powerful adversary: because Light and Darkness are opposite forces in Smallvillever, and the two are the bearers of them (like Frodo was the bearer of the Ring). It has nothing to do with Clark being destined to be good and Lex destined to be evil. They are both destined to save the world, together.

[Dagenspear]

^ LEX did that to himself he didnt want to be "saved" in all honesty. Lionel made the effort to be redeemable while lex was snarky about it, pretending to want it while doing other stuff behind clark and everyone's back. His way was the right way.

Quite a few times he showed that he did. Especially in the early years. But after Clark let Lex get his brain fried, Clark left him to the wolves. Why wouldn't he do stuff behind everyone's back? Clark's way and word are not law. Lex doesn't have to consult with him or them about anything. Lionel did just as bad (if you can call it that), if not worse, and didn't want nor care about redemption, the only reason he started to change in the first place was because of being Jor-El's vessel.

[Aurora Moon]

Gotta disagree with that. Lionel had a lot of factors going for him that Lex doesn't. He was possessed by Jor-El, had his crush on Martha, realised how badly he'd screwed up with Lex, and saw Clark as a surrogate son. All those factors contributed to making his turn-around real. Lex has none of that going for him, and on top of that, some of his behaviour suggests that he's borderline insane. I don't think he's even close to salvageable.

The thing is... you forget that Jor-El was just as evil as Lionel Luthor was... in fact Jor-El the AI was pretty much downright psychotic and had killed people in the past. And you think being possessed by something like that would magically make him all better and reformed? Nope! I have never brought into that and I never will. If anything that should had only made Lionel Luthor twice as evil and even more scheming than ever.

And at least Lex can be excused in that his behavior didn't start until after the Zod incident.... which leads me to the theory that a little bit of Zod was left behind in him... and that's why he started acting all evil. I don't think that the "good lex" we saw were an false front at all... far from it. not to mention all the traumatic injuries he had, the pstd from the island.. not to mention the damn electroshock that Lionel did on him.
plus, when people keep on dumping on you for no good reason at all, and constantly on a regular basis, you have no more obligation to ever be nice to them at all. Especially if you're trying to save the Earth from an Alien invasion.... and if people try to stop that just because they don't agree with your methods, wouldn't you start to see them as the enemy?

[Jennsen]

The thing is... you forget that Jor-El was just as evil as Lionel Luthor was... in fact Jor-El the AI was pretty much downright psychotic and had killed people in the past. And you think being possessed by something like that would magically make him all better and reformed? Nope! I have never brought into that and I never will. If anything that should had only made Lionel Luthor twice as evil and even more scheming than ever.

And at least Lex can be excused in that his behavior didn't start until after the Zod incident.... which leads me to the theory that a little bit of Zod was left behind in him... and that's why he started acting all evil. I don't think that the "good lex" we saw were an false front at all... far from it. not to mention all the traumatic injuries he had, the pstd from the island.. not to mention the damn electroshock that Lionel did on him.
plus, when people keep on dumping on you for no good reason at all, and constantly on a regular basis, you have no more obligation to ever be nice to them at all. Especially if you're trying to save the Earth from an Alien invasion.... and if people try to stop that just because they don't agree with your methods, wouldn't you start to see them as the enemy?

WORD to all of this.