It was pointed out fairly early, I think, that Captain Carrot has the great sense to know that his own job is that of King, if ever needed - but what’s more regularly needed is someone like Vetinari.
While I agree with Loach that Miles Vorkosigan would be good, so would his foster brother Gregor as well as his father Aral, both of whom has some real experience running a planet.
Changing genres I’d feel safe under Bran Cornick.
Superman of course. I trust Jor-El’s judgment…
Y’know, I’m not quite sure on that score… He knows how a king ought to behave, and he behaves that way, but I’m not convinced that he’s consciously aware that he is the king. It almost seems to me like he subconsciously refuses to be aware of it, so as not to interfere with the job Vetinari is doing.
The trouble with the suggestions posted so far is that they focus on qualities like judgement, honesty, fairness, competence, etc., all of which are important and highly desireable in a world overlord, but none of which speak to the person’s political philosophy, economic beliefs, social values, etc., all of which are perhaps just as important. It is nice to know that a man is honest and trustworthy, but I also want to know whether he leans to the left or the right in the area of economic policy, whether he believes in the welfare state or rugged individualism, whether he favors an elitist approach to social structure or a leveling one. We lack this sort of information on almost all of the fictional characters mentiond so far. I can think of an awful lot of people who are nice, admirable human beings who I would not want to be President of the United States, let alone World Overlord. I’m afraid I have to say I don’t know whom I would pick.
Jimmy Neutron.
The way I figure, any world overlord will drive the universe into the ground within a hundred years anyway, and Jimmy could actually make the process pretty interesting and fun. I shamelessly admit to loving the movie, and I watch it every couple of months.
I’m of the opinion that as long as someone has their subjects’ best interests at heart and governs with honesty and integrity, then it doesn’t really matter what the details of their policies are; they’ll go with what seems to work and abandon what doesn’t work. I don’t and have never wanted leaders who follow specific ideologies, I want a leader who can see what works and makes their subjects/constituents happy in general.
Since we can’t assume that real leaders do any of this stuff, we need to look at what they advocate and decide, individually, if we think that’s going to be what works best.
This is so well phrased that I must agree with you.
Superman HAS been put in charge of the world (or given power in the past) to rule over the world, and basically it’s always led to terrible terrible things (though I never read the one where he was voted president). But Superman would go for TOTAL utopia, even if it meant taking away individual rights “For the greater good”. Superman is the ultimate Big Brother of sorts. A being capable of preventing every little crime that he could, and regretting it every time he failed. So at what point does he STOP trying to prevent crime and just decide it’s better to cull the herd? That’s the fear of a world under Superman. Absolute Power corrupts absolutely, and everyone including superman has a limit… The problem is a being of superman’s capabilities’s down fall would be so huge that it always leads to the doom of humanity usually.
I wouldn’t want to live in a world where my EVERY action would be watched over by Superman, where he draws a line at what can or cannot happen. Sure, he’d be great for settling problems like Natural disasters or alien invasions, but how often does that REALLY happen? What would superman do against NATIONS that constantly warred? He would make peace. But how?
That’s the fear- I believe Superman would become an enforcer and basically ENFORCE the law to create peace.
Batman would be the person who would Punish you AFTER you did the deed. He would be the one to punish a nation for building nukes, or espionage, or an act of hostility AFTER the deed was done- that’s how he’d deter crime. He’d make an example out of someone who did something wrong, and he’d show what happens if you do it.
Superman would do the same, but he’d do it BEFORE it happened- which sounds like a good idea in theory, but in practice, it’s sort of like heavy handed moderation. Who gets to pick what’s enforceable? Superman of course. With Batman, you’d see what the mistake was and what was the punishment. With Superman, you’d only see the punishment, and what “could” have been.
If X nation reports that Y nations would Superman take action pre-emptively vs. them? Of course. I’d think Batman would use more quiet means to do so and less public ones as well. But he wouldn’t pre-preemptively invade another nation just to figure out the facts. Superman would easily do that. After all what’s to stop him?
Especially if he became the leader of the entire world. He becomes Humanity’s keeper then. He doesn’t favor one nation over another, but rather the Species. Which is great when he’s on YOUR side, but there’s always that fear that He’ll just realize it’s not worth keeping X around. If he decides a certain nation is simply unfit to exist for the GREATER good… And he’s the only one in charge, he could easily use his boyscout justifications to commit massive acts of genocide/horror.
And we wouldn’t be able to stop him. A good leader understands balance… An extremist would make a terrible leader- and that’s what Superman is… an extremist even if he means well.
=(
He was elected as the head of the High Council of Time Lords on Gallifrey at the end of “The Five Doctors”, and his reponse was to flee: he’d rather be a chaotic good temporal vagabond of no fixed abode than rule over anybody.
On first reading, I liked this answer, but I’m not sure how far I’d trust Mike- he did well for Luna, but we didn’t see a long-term position of command for him, and I wonder if he wouldn’t be too easily manipulated by his human friends. Remember, Mike trusted Man, Wyoh, and the Prof and did what they asked, which was a an armed rebellion. He did it not for the greater good, but because his friends wanted it. I don’t know if he’d be right as an Overlord- an Overlord shouldn’t be so easily bent to another’s will.
I came in here to nominate Prof. Bernardo de la Paz. I think he’d be entirely willing to act when necessary, very pragmatic, and would stay the hell out of everyone’s hair.
He’d do a fine job.
Pres. Bartlett might work.
Tommy Chong, man!
Greg House.
Ender Wiggin.
Tyrion Lannister.
I trust Doom as Overlord, but I wouldn’t like him.
My vote is for Prez Rickard, the Sandman version.
Good choice. In the same vein, I’d vote for Gaiman’s Emperor Norton: after all, he was Death’s favourite temporal ruler, and since she’s met them all in the course of her duties, that has to count for something. “He has shed no blood, robbed no-one, and despoiled no country, which is more than can be said of his fellows in that line”.
Travis Magee’s longtime friend Meyer. He’s already a world-class economist, little kids are drawn to him, he has empathy, and he understands that in a moral crisis, the thing that’s the hardest to do is the right choice.
Milo Minderbinder.
Oh wait - it already happened.
Professor Xavier might be a good candidate. I’d definitely trust him.
Wouldn’t have much of a choice, would you ? 
That’s the problem with mind controllers in power - free will might still be around or it might not, but you’ll never know. Well, you’ll know even less than you do now 
I wouldn’t trust him to do the job, but I’d like to see what Gaius Baltar does with the world…