The feud between Zod and Clark Kent could be traced back to the earliest comics. This Kryptonian General was Superman's greatest archenemy aside from Lex Luthor, and in many cases, he even surpassed Luthor in appearances and page time, causing Superman enormous trouble every time.
Because Superman was a heroic figure, he always defeated the evil alien general and protected Earth and his city. Yet whenever Superman defeated General Zod, it never felt as satisfying as watching him defeat other enemies. Instead, there was always a faint sense of frustration.
The reason was that they were both Kryptonians. Zod wanted to revive Krypton, while Superman wanted to protect Earth. In principle, that counted as a clash of ideals, but the problem was, why did two Kryptonians have to fight it out on Earth to prove their ideals?
Even if Zod had no ideals to prove and simply wanted to invade Earth and turn it into a second Krypton, Krypton's destruction had nothing to do with Earth. Your own civilization destroyed itself, yet you wanted to use Earth as a replacement? What kind of logic was that?
Most importantly, the battlefield was Earth. If they lost, Earth would be occupied. If they won, Metropolis would still be wrecked. So humanity lost either way?
Wasn't that like Germany and the Soviet Union signing a non-aggression pact while Poland scratched its head in the middle?
Reason told readers that Superman stood with humanity and defended Earth, but it was hard not to wonder: if Superman had never come here, would Zod have come at all?
When reading the comics, it might have seemed like nothing more than spectacle. But upon thinking back on it afterward, the whole thing felt increasingly wrong.
And from Superman's perspective, it was even more frustrating.
When Krypton was