Daria & Jane
Ha, I too opened this thread just to say Lord Vetinari from the Discworld series.
There are other characters who are kinder, more noble, or whose beliefs more closely align with mine, I think all of them would be in danger of being either corrupted or worn down by the job. Although (as Stealth Potato says) I wouldn’t exactly trust Vetinari, I would have confidence that he would remain cool-headed, logical, and unswayed by outside special interests or his own self-interest. Well, for the most part. His harsh restrictions on mimes in Ankh-Morpork is based solely on his personal dislike for them, but it happens to serve the common good as well so I’m not complaining. 
Another vote for Vetinari, and I’m sure he’d find our approval very charming.
President John Sheridan wouldn’t do a bad job either. Mind you, he’d have a population already used to world government.
Living under Dr. Who’s rule would be safe, I think. It’s a shame his utter refusal to take the job would make him so eminently qualified for it.
True. But anti-government intervention. He’s designed to appeal to everyone.
Came in here to suggest him–at least he’s held the world’s and universe’s fate in his hands quite a few times, so far with pretty favorable results.
Ed Stevens, of TV’s Ed. There’s something appealing about the Supreme Master of Earth operating out of a bowling alley in Ohio.
Mentor of Arisia. I suppose that technically any Lensman would work too, but the former would be my preferred pick.
Oh god, I’d HATE to live in a world ruled by Superman… That’s just ultimate totalitarianism right there basically…
Maybe Batman, but even then, society would only REACT to things and not prevent it. So I’m going to have to go with Ventinari on this one too.
DOOM!
Doctor Doom would really work out for the best (campaign slogan right there). His ego would be easily appeased with world domination, and he’s surprisingly more of a rule-of-law guy than an atrocities-shall-rain-on-them man like his name suggests. I believe he once ruled the world for a short period in the comics, but gave it up as the utopia he created bored him.
After him, Alan Moore’s Miracle Man made a pretty spiffy utopia.
Superman is way too much of a Hamlet-esque hemming-and-hawing moralist for an overlord.
Mycroft Holmes.
I’d vote Atticus Finch in a heartbeat for President, but World Overlord? His first official act would be to resign, and who knows who his successor would be (he’d try to ensure that he didn’t have one, of course, but let’s be realistic here).
We need someone who is capable of running the world, in a way that’s to the world’s benefit, and who would actually have some inclination to do so. So I think I’m forced to choose Vetinari, also.
Came in to cast another vote for the Patrician, but obviously got beaten to the punch a long time ago.
Makes me wonder though. Why do ya’ll think it is we all agree he’d make such an effective world leader? He is unequivocally a despot. All the other suggestions for supreme world leader have been heroes (Kirk, Superman, the Doctor etc.). So what makes a trained killer (Assassin’s Guild alumnus after all) and admitted tyrant so well suited for the job?
Heh. 
Remind me to tell ya later why this one’s especially appropriate for this thread.
You can’t be World Overlord without being a tyrant in the classical sense, and Vetinari is not a tyrant in the modern sense.
Unlike most hero characters, Vetinari actually has executive experience. Hero characters that are leaders of a team, like Kirk, are working with a group of like-minded individuals and don’t usually have to get competing factions to cooperate before they can get anything done. Vetinari does that all the time. The strict moral code that many heroes abide by also means that, given absolute power, there’d be a considerable risk that they’d go to extremes in imposing this code on others. It’s easy for me to imagine Overlord Superman making lying a serious crime, or banning alcohol, or requiring that all movies be rated G. But Vetinari doesn’t care if his subjects are behaving morally as long as they aren’t causing too much trouble for others.
The heroes who would be best able to resist the temptation to impose their morality on others would be those who place a strong value on individual freedom and/or are aware of their own dark sides. Such heroes would probably refuse the job of World Overlord if offered. Thinking of Discworld characters, there’s no way Sam Vimes would agree to be Overlord – he’d probably have to cut his own head off if he did!
I’d like to see Mother Abagail from Stephen King’s The Stand as World Overlord. And at 108 years of age we wouldn’t have to worry about term limits.
Come to think of it, Randall Flagg a.k.a. the Dark Man might be more effective and entertaining.
I need to give this more thought before making my decision.
His Grace, The Duke of Ankh, Commander Sir Samuel Vimes AKA His Excellency, Ambassador for Ankh-Morpork AKA Blackboard Monitor Vimes
Like others I thought of Veterinari, but then I also thought of my favourite Pratchett character … Vimes is anti-authoritarian, but unlike most self-professed anti-authoritarian he distrust not only other peoples power but also the power he himself wields. Veterinari must have seen that too, and thought, just the man to transfer more power to, and so in each book he has bribed, blackmailed or manipulated Vimes to accept more powerful positions.
Yeah OK, sparks will fly if Vimes ever becomes patrician, or World Overlord, Disc- or Round-. He’ll piss off a lot of people, and be a miserable bastard himself a lot the time. But I can’t help thinking he’ll be a more believable World Overlord than Veterinari. I think Veterinari is a wonderfully written character, but often it feels like his rule is succesful because thats how it fits the story. I know, narrative casaulity is powerful stuff.
Julius Caesar, as depicted in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar.
A Batman who’d decided to be the autocrat of the entire would would be every bit as bad as a Superman who’d done the same. The primary difference between the two of them would be that everything under Superman would be public, whereas under Batman, it wouldn’t.
Superman would publicly banish those he felt needed to be removed to the Phantom Zone - until he moved on to public executions.
Batman, they’d simply disappear, never to be seen again.
It kinda occurs to me that an overly moral or idealistic character who didn’t go vicious and drunk with power might be as bad as one who did. They might become so concerned with their own moral culpability over hard (or simply unpleasant) situations that they become ineffectual, paralyzed. Or, like Ro0sh says, they might have worked themselves into a position where they only react to things, rather than try and prevent them from becoming problems in the first place, or from becoming problems again.
The worst tragedy might not be an out of control Superman-tyrant (or “Lawful Good” overlord, if you will), but an honestly good Superman-tyrant who stays so true to himself that he becomes a mere accomplice to evil. (To coin a comparison. 
)
What Superman would try to make the world into is unquestionably better than what Vetinari would try to make it into. But Superman would not succeed, while Vetinari would, and what Vetinari would actually accomplish would be far greater than what Superman would actually accomplish.