Woahhh I just thought of something

[botch]

I've been rereading the 'revamp' line of Superman books, the Kelly, Loeb, Immonen run and I noticed the emphasis on Supes' belief in not killing. And I always believed as many others did that there would be 1 time(okay 2) where Supes would kill, both are metatextually important, ie a final battle with Luthor or saving everything. So what if Final Crisis does this, plays on this, where Superman will have to kill to save everything, deliver the killing blow to the Anti-Monitor thus mimicing Earth 2 Kal-L, saving the universe and 'doing what must be done'.

Maybe something to the thought of in the real world sometimes things like that must be done.

I mean his holding back on killing is noble for various reasons but also naive which I guess is a flaw and a pretty deep one that many people overlook, which is what makes him a great character. So flawed that he is willing to do whats right in his mind to not misuse the trust of the people(least important to him), become a monster like that he is fighting(very important)but lose control(most important - i always believed that if he did kill he would see the truth of humanity and not stop, not kill everyone, but just use lethal force all the time). But to think someone so noble shouldn't kill something that with its death would undoubtedly make the world a better place, I don't mean a mob boss(though personally I take a stand with the Punisher here) but I mean Imperiex, the big things(In Batman's case the Joker - which he came to realize in DKR - my favourite part of it). But I mean Aragorn kills and he is one of the most noble, valiant, heroic characters in fiction, most people believe he is THE most. John McClane kills, Wolverine kills, Han Solo kills. Of course we all know this has molded superman because of the comics code but it's become an interesting aspect of the character. LISTEN TO ME MORRISON!

Just a thought.

[isaaklown]

An idea I've had for awhile is that since Jimmy Olsen is getting all these powers from the different versions of him... what if the Monitors tell Superman the only way to save the Multiverse is to kill Jimmy Olsen? That would explain the "Jimmy Olsen must die" countdown slogan and could explain why Superman is crying in the first teaser image...

[gwor]

A hero does not kill. An anti-hero does. (IMHO)

[botch]

thats an archtypal superhero convention, but i'm talking in a more existential sense. not kill as in the punisher or wolverine, but kill to save the world. you're thinking too basic.

[lovefist911]

With the stupid Jimmy Olsen stories going on, I hope he does die, but from something else. I read that the coountdown teaser with Superman crying in Wonder Woman's arms was from a "parental issue", maybe it has to do with Chris Kent or Lois. What if one dies? One can only wonder as we head for Final Crisis.

[Adamantium_Avatar]

OK, this might make be sound really stupid but.. Who is Chris Kent?

[Paul Newell]

The son of General Zod and Ursa. He was born in the Phantom Zone and is part of the "Last Son" arc by Geoff Johns and Richard Donner. Clark and Lois have become his foster parents.

[Duy]

Superman killing to save the world has been done already. There's no need to do it again.

[trickster]

A hero does not kill. An anti-hero does. (IMHO)
Yeah we've all seen how well this bull works in Sinestro Corps War, when you're not doing armchair philosophy.

[matt_hatyber]

An idea I've had for awhile is that since Jimmy Olsen is getting all these powers from the different versions of him... what if the Monitors tell Superman the only way to save the Multiverse is to kill Jimmy Olsen? That would explain the "Jimmy Olsen must die" countdown slogan and could explain why Superman is crying in the first teaser image...

that would be SICKKKK

[isaaklown]

lol.. and it only took somebody two weeks to post a response about my idea.

[Spiffy]

lol.. and it only took somebody two weeks to post a response about my idea.
I know its not your title, but I think the "Woahhh I just thought of something" title for a topic is not conducive to people actually looking inside topics.

[isaaklown]

Basiy I'm just happy somebody thought it was a good idea instead of the typical message board banter I find along the lines of "that idea sux" or "stupid noob idea there".

Considering I haven't been reading DC for a little more than a year at this point (52 was the first thing I picked up) I didn't think I had a good grasp on some of the characters and things they would or would not do.

I still think it's a good idea though, the Monitors are considered about anomolies jumping from universe to universe and we have one man that is basically channeling abilities of himself from other universes... which kinda makes him a focal point for crossing the boundaries. What if Jimmy Olsen must die to protect the multiverse? What if they allow it to build so much that only somebody like Superman will have the ability to stop him? Granted, I would like to see somebody else save the day... but the idea of Superman having to kill his best friend would definatly make me pick up more Superman than I currently am (only picking up stuff that Donner is writing).

[TotalWorldDomination]

The problem with a superhero, espeicialy superman, resorting to leathal force is one of ease. If superman were going to just fry every villian or street thug he came across he'd end up killing dozens of people a day. With Lazer vision no less. Often before they had done somthing that would have threatened Sups. Lets say superman sees someone firing into a crowd of civilians. He blasts his head off with Lazer vision. Why not just fly over there, pick him up, toss him in a lake or some such? It's not like one measely guy could stop him. It dosn't make him evil, it makes him a bully- the one superstrong kid bashing all of the much weaker kids.

Against more poweful threats, we've often seen Superman not hold back. I doubt he goes in with the intention to kill, but when you're fighting an imperix or a darksied you're not exactly thinking "Oh golly, I best not punch too hard".

Finaly Sups is too boyscoutian to do somthing like that. His whole character is based on his ultra-innocent outlook on the world. Wonder Woman, Batman... they might kill at some point (and have), but Sups is the last one I'd pick.


I DO Like the concept that he might have to kill Jimmy Olsen at some point though. That'd be neat.

[Duy]

The problem with a superhero, espeicialy superman, resorting to leathal force is one of ease. If superman were going to just fry every villian or street thug he came across he'd end up killing dozens of people a day. With Lazer vision no less. Often before they had done somthing that would have threatened Sups. Lets say superman sees someone firing into a crowd of civilians. He blasts his head off with Lazer vision. Why not just fly over there, pick him up, toss him in a lake or some such? It's not like one measely guy could stop him. It dosn't make him evil, it makes him a bully- the one superstrong kid bashing all of the much weaker kids.

Against more poweful threats, we've often seen Superman not hold back. I doubt he goes in with the intention to kill, but when you're fighting an imperix or a darksied you're not exactly thinking "Oh golly, I best not punch too hard".

Finaly Sups is too boyscoutian to do somthing like that. His whole character is based on his ultra-innocent outlook on the world. Wonder Woman, Batman... they might kill at some point (and have), but Sups is the last one I'd pick.


I DO Like the concept that he might have to kill Jimmy Olsen at some point though. That'd be neat.
You are aware that before they retconned it out and before Wonder Woman killed Maxwell Lord, Superman was the only one of those three who has killed?

[Spiffy]

Yeah. Batman is actually the least likely one of the trinity to kill. Which is at odds with the fact that he's also usually scripted to be the "coldest" one otherwise--the one with the scariest intimidation factor.

I guess the fear is supposed to be that Batsy is perfectly willing to hurt you, badly if necessary, he just won't kill.

I'm pretty sure he HAS allowed people to die though, right? As long as HE hasn't, ehem... pulled the trigger.

[Anodyne]

I've been wondering...If Superman, or anyone, had the power to save the universe by killing, would he truly be acting heroically if he refused to kill, thereby sacrificing everything to keep his own hands clean? Or, to paraphrase a well-known quotation, is it a case of "he who (surrenders) his (hero-hood) shall find it"?

"Heroes don't kill" is a modern idea. The classic hero was expected to slay the dragon, the ogre, the evil baron....

[Choppa]

Who has batman killed?

And I'm pretty sure that he hasn't killed anyone indirectly by allowing them to die. This isn't the movies people!

[Captain Smith]

Since we know in the DCU that there are various afterlife options, what's the big deal about killing.

In our universe, we do have some doubt that dead real means dead and we don't have proof that you go to heaven or hell.

That's different in the DCU. Anyway, Supes has let folks go bye bye with his inactions or in a plot.

About the use of force. The comic world is remarkedly ignorant of lethal force doctrines anyway in law enforcement situations. Lethal force methodology is used to stop someone who is endangering others with serious harm. That level of force may not kill the bad guy but if it does, it is justifiable. A person who doesn't use that level and lets folks be at risk would be fired. Supes if he definitionally doesn't use that level in a situation that would lead to the death or grievous bodily harm to innocents would be morally culpable and shouldn't be in the business.

Supes has a greater ability to stop without lethal force but if that's all he has and doesn't - he's wrong.

This debate was interesting put in the recent encounter with Hitman. Supes realized that usually he or Bats can finagle out of killing but sometimes you have to do the deed.

[TotalWorldDomination]

You are aware that before they retconned it out and before Wonder Woman killed Maxwell Lord, Superman was the only one of those three who has killed?

Realy? When?

[Paul Newell]

Realy? When?
He executed three Kryptonian criminals from another dimension. It happened at the end of John Byrne's run on Superman v2.

[botch]

I've been wondering...If Superman, or anyone, had the power to save the universe by killing, would he truly be acting heroically if he refused to kill, thereby sacrificing everything to keep his own hands clean? Or, to paraphrase a well-known quotation, is it a case of "he who (surrenders) his (hero-hood) shall find it"?

"Heroes don't kill" is a modern idea. The classic hero was expected to slay the dragon, the ogre, the evil baron....

modern idea inforced by the comics code, but cmon man, Aragorn killed and he is the most heroic dude next to Superman. But I like how they have used this code to change the ideas in their stories.

[botch]

Since we know in the DCU that there are various afterlife options, what's the big deal about killing.

In our universe, we do have some doubt that dead real means dead and we don't have proof that you go to heaven or hell.

That's different in the DCU. Anyway, Supes has let folks go bye bye with his inactions or in a plot.

About the use of force. The comic world is remarkedly ignorant of lethal force doctrines anyway in law enforcement situations. Lethal force methodology is used to stop someone who is endangering others with serious harm. That level of force may not kill the bad guy but if it does, it is justifiable. A person who doesn't use that level and lets folks be at risk would be fired. Supes if he definitionally doesn't use that level in a situation that would lead to the death or grievous bodily harm to innocents would be morally culpable and shouldn't be in the business.

Supes has a greater ability to stop without lethal force but if that's all he has and doesn't - he's wrong.

This debate was interesting put in the recent encounter with Hitman. Supes realized that usually he or Bats can finagle out of killing but sometimes you have to do the deed.

I was thinking about this the other day, but Supes has never been put in a position where he would have to kill, where he has no choice. Eg if he was powerless and was a woman in the Punisher story "the slavers", he would kill. generally supes doesn't have to kill and there is always another option but there has never been a time when he hasn't had no other option, the real worl no options are everywhere but in a comic supes always wins so he won't be put in that position. Not even in a position that lays many lives at stake, there is always an option for him. In the real world we don't have those options.

[Slaughter]

I think Superman woud not kill bandits. Instead, Superman would only kill UBER Cosmic Menaces, like Darkseid, Emperiex or the Anti-Monitor.

Sure, a Vigilante CAN kill, after all, they aren't bulletproof. But someone as powerful as supes is, he can't simply go on and kill petty thugs and lousy villains. That would not be something Superman would do.

And let's not forget that Superman killed three Kryptonian criminals and "killed" Doomsday in their first fight. And I think the Three Kryptonians' death should NOT be retconned, as that experience made Super a more complex character. It was very interesting to see Supes slowly going mad, see phantoms of the Kryptonians, turn into Gangbuster, kill three thugs and then exile himself into space. I think it made a whole lot of sense for someone as ethical as Supes to exile himself. Not only that, but Supes was right in killing the three criminals: He was the ONLY justice that remained in that world and they should've payed. Not only that, but all the faced gave him a reason to be adamantly against killing because he already done it and it caused him a great lots of problems. Remember when Manchester Black began his "Ending Battle?" Manchester tried and tried to make Super kill him, Supes even imaginated that, but no, he would NOT kill Black. In the end, it was a illusion all along and Lois was alive! After all that happened and with the Russian Zod's appearance, Superman even went to a psichastr. In the battle against Zod, Supes DID NOT KILL HIM. Who killed Zod was Zod himself by atacking Supes when the yellow sun returned. I liked the killing of the phantom zoners, as it explained why Superman did NOT kill anymore.

[TotalWorldDomination]

He executed three Kryptonian criminals from another dimension. It happened at the end of John Byrne's run on Superman v2.

What was the situation? I mean its not like it was a bank-robber who could'nt possibly hurt superman, it was three Kryptonians so my theory of scale still applies.

[Duy]

What was the situation? I mean its not like it was a bank-robber who could'nt possibly hurt superman, it was three Kryptonians so my theory of scale still applies.
We're not disputing your theory of scale, but your assertion that Superman would not kill while Diana and Bruce would because Kal is too "boyscoutian".

Superman is an idealist, yes, but to call him boyscoutian is far, far generalizing it.

[Slaughter]

Superman looks like the kind of guy that's very good, kind and compasionate. But, when the man of steel gets angry, hold on passagers, we're in for a tough ride.

[Paul Newell]

What was the situation? I mean its not like it was a bank-robber who could'nt possibly hurt superman, it was three Kryptonians so my theory of scale still applies.
It was in the Pocket Universe that the Matrix/Supergirl came from. It was basically Pre-Crisis versions of General Zod and two other Phantom Zone criminals. They'd completely destroyed the Earth in the Pocket Universe and were going to do the same to the regular DC Earth. Superman knew he could never stop them and exposed them to Kryptonite from that dimension until they died.

[StephenSanders]

As for Batman, the only instance of his killing someone post-Crisis that I recall was during his encounter with the KGBeast. Basically Bats realized he'd met his better and conned his foe into stepping into a room down in the sewers which had only one steel door which Bats shut as fast and as permanently as he could.

As far as Batman knew he was consigning him to a long cruel death by starvation.

Whether it is still in continuity is debateable as it was during the Cold War which makes it at least 20 years ago!

I'd have to agree that the Byrne story gives Superman a great in-story motivation why he doesn't kill. ie he was driven half mad by guilt when he did it before.

Even people who 'had to' kill, such as soldiers are often haunted by their actions. 'Flags of our Fathers' is one example of many where the children of WWII vets found that their fathers refused to talk about what they did during the war.

During the recent commemoration of the Falklands War it emerged that more UK soldiers who took part in it have committed suicide since than actually died in the war.

There was an excellent documentary called 'The Truth about Killing' which stated that during WWII, only about a fifth of the soldiers were actually shooting to kill. (obviously the army was horrified and has been trying to get around this built-in inhibition since.)

Superman's being unwilling to kill, having done it before, actually makes him more realistic and human than many of the 'killing machine' characters that populate comics.

A bit heavy for a thread about the Man of Steel, but there you go....

[botch]

As for Batman, the only instance of his killing someone post-Crisis that I recall was during his encounter with the KGBeast. Basically Bats realized he'd met his better and conned his foe into stepping into a room down in the sewers which had only one steel door which Bats shut as fast and as permanently as he could.

As far as Batman knew he was consigning him to a long cruel death by starvation.

Whether it is still in continuity is debateable as it was during the Cold War which makes it at least 20 years ago!

I'd have to agree that the Byrne story gives Superman a great in-story motivation why he doesn't kill. ie he was driven half mad by guilt when he did it before.

Even people who 'had to' kill, such as soldiers are often haunted by their actions. 'Flags of our Fathers' is one example of many where the children of WWII vets found that their fathers refused to talk about what they did during the war.

During the recent commemoration of the Falklands War it emerged that more UK soldiers who took part in it have committed suicide since than actually died in the war.

There was an excellent documentary called 'The Truth about Killing' which stated that during WWII, only about a fifth of the soldiers were actually shooting to kill. (obviously the army was horrified and has been trying to get around this built-in inhibition since.)

Superman's being unwilling to kill, having done it before, actually makes him more realistic and human than many of the 'killing machine' characters that populate comics.

A bit heavy for a thread about the Man of Steel, but there you go....

It's a bit different for a soldier taking part in something that he was maybe wrong about. Falkland islands is a prime example of that, the UK soldiers haunted by killing teenage Argentines.

But Aragorn killing bad guys? Wrong? or The Punisher killing the head of a sex slave operation? Law should be upheld but the world is a better place without them. But like Supes says, killing is all too easy. But it's not that black and white. I don't think many people would argue against killing Hitler. But in the DCU they would.

[lawman]

I think it made a whole lot of sense for someone as ethical as Supes to exile himself. Not only that, but Supes was right in killing the three criminals: He was the ONLY justice that remained in that world and they should've payed.... I liked the killing of the phantom zoners, as it explained why Superman did NOT kill anymore.
I agree that his self-exile made sense, given the guilt he felt from that action. I vehemently disagree that the act was right in the first place; indeed, Byrne went out of his way to set it up as not necessary in the story. Superman had already defeated the Phantom Zoners by using Gold K to remove their powers permanently. Yes, they were still mouthing empty threats, but he had no reason to take them seriously, and plenty of opportunity to come up with some form of secure imprisonment. Instead, he executed them in cold blood. And no, I don't think this made him "deeper": the Superman I grew up with understood that killing other thinking beings was wrong; he didn't have to try it first to figure that out.

All that said, the story was canon for 19 years, and I don't really think it was necessary to retcon it out again at this point... especially as doing so just throws up the nagging question of what did motivate Superman to take that space journey (and thus meet the Eradicator, Warworld, etc. etc.).

[Captain Smith]

If you look at Countdown 24 - you see that Prime has destroyed an entire planet - killing billions.

If 'our' Supes or Guardians had killed him when he was captured, those billions would be alive.

Thus, this noble Superman stuff is really moral crappola. If DC wants a universe with genocidial villians, they need for their 'heroes' to read some moral philosophy or at least adopt standards that real world military, police and the justice system deal with.

Interesting - Goody two shoes no killing Bats gets incinerated by Prime on that Earth. I'm sure he toasted thinking about (if he knew) what a good moral decision 'our' Kal and Guardians made.

[botch]

Thus, this noble Superman stuff is really moral crappola.

That's the flaw of Superman and Batman, that's what makes them such interesting characters, because they are pretty wrong in some respects.

batman letting the joker live is the biggest mistake one can make, but he's that disturbed and traumatized by his parents death that he can't bring himself to kill him, this is explored in the dark knight returns(my favourite part) where he finally realizes he was wrong and he should have killed him.

I'm with the Punisher, rip open sex slave bosses.

[lawman]

Cap, Botch-

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you both. If we want to talk about this in terms of moral philosophy, then violence is only acceptable in defense of self or others, and only as a last resort -- and even then, concepts of "necessary force" come into play.

That is to say, the level of force that's morally acceptable is no less than necessary to resolve the situation, but with no more than the minimum possible suffering involved -- including that of one's opponent(s). Killing in "defense" of completely hypothetical future victims is thus out-of-bounds, and "ripping open" anyone clearly emerges as an act driven by vengeance, not justice.

And unlike real-world human beings -- a distinction the recent JLA/Hitman special illustrated very effectively -- super-heroes virtually always have the capacity to resolve a problem without killing anyone.

By these standards, then, Superman and Batman (not to mention Spider-Man, and Captain America, and Green Lantern, and quite a few other characters) are very much in the right. A reluctance to kill is by no means a "flaw" of any kind.

[Captain Smith]

Given the high probability of a villian with Prime's abilities getting loose, your analysis is naive. There was a short term resolution to the situation by imprisoning prime, that's true. However, without some guaranteed rehab (like a mind wipe), the risk was too great.

The predicted loss of billions outweighed your analysis. For example, in Garner vs. Tenn., shooting a fleeing suspect was allowed if you thought the suspect was on the way to commit more harm. Predicted future harm is a recognized doctrine for use of lethal force.

Since in the superhero world, such escapes and predicted harm are likely - the execution would be truly moral. That they didn't - led to the death of billions. It is your subjective opinion that prediction doesn't allow action - since that isn't a physical law of the universe, I opine that in these supervillian cases your view is morally invalid and empirically shown to be incorrect.

[botch]

Cap, Botch-

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you both. If we want to talk about this in terms of moral philosophy, then violence is only acceptable in defense of self or others, and only as a last resort -- and even then, concepts of "necessary force" come into play.

That is to say, the level of force that's morally acceptable is no less than necessary to resolve the situation, but with no more than the minimum possible suffering involved -- including that of one's opponent(s). Killing in "defense" of completely hypothetical future victims is thus out-of-bounds, and "ripping open" anyone clearly emerges as an act driven by vengeance, not justice.

And unlike real-world human beings -- a distinction the recent JLA/Hitman special illustrated very effectively -- super-heroes virtually always have the capacity to resolve a problem without killing anyone.

By these standards, then, Superman and Batman (not to mention Spider-Man, and Captain America, and Green Lantern, and quite a few other characters) are very much in the right. A reluctance to kill is by no means a "flaw" of any kind.

your analysis is a bit naive, its different in the comic world because we know what will happen, in the real world we dont and thus killing could be all too easy. but if you ask me should batman kill the joker? i say yes. and I would if he was real and prison didn't work. Plus people in the real world don't have the luxury that Batman and Superman have, they both always have a way out of a situation. In the real world a sex slave in eastern europe does not have the skills of Bats or the power of Supes and the villains she faces are far far worse than a Lex Luthor or your Two face, she has no choice bu to kill them all for her own life, plus personally the world is better off without them.

[Duy]

This is all a moot discussion.

Yes, we all know that in the real world, Joker would have fried by now.

But, we're talking the DC Universe, where the Joker is an incredibly marketable character, going so far as to place number 5 on the CBR Top 50 list. Given that, a serial company can't kill the Joker, because of the amount of mileage he gives them.

Since the Joker is pretty much the worst of the lot (a point that is hard to argue), superheroes can't kill supervillains without killing the Joker.

Hence, the point is moot.

My rationale: Superman doesn't kill, because if he does, he might not know where to draw the line the next time. Yes, it's hacky, but it works for me.

[lawman]

Given the high probability of a villian with Prime's abilities getting loose, your analysis is naive...
Nonsense. How do you calculate the risk of something like that? He was in the hands of arguably the most technologically advanced law-enforcement organization in the galaxy. Moreover, on what basis do you suppose he couldn't be rehabilitated?

...in Garner vs. Tenn., shooting a fleeing suspect was allowed if you thought the suspect was on the way to commit more harm. Predicted future harm is a recognized doctrine for use of lethal force.
You're actually thinking of Tennessee v. Garner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner) here, and your understanding of the case is a little too broad. The holding acknowledged that "apprehension by use of deadly force" must be judged (as a seizure, in 4th Amendment terms) by "the totality of the circumstances" -- i.e., to be permissible, it must be "necessary to prevent the escape and the officer [must have] probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. IOW, a mere hypothetical future risk is insufficient; as with any self-defense claim, the risk must be significant and imminent. The decision actually narrowed a Tennessee law that allowed officers to use "all necessary means to effect the arrest," and the shooting in that specific case was deemed to have been impermissible.

It is your subjective opinion that prediction doesn't allow action - since that isn't a physical law of the universe, I opine that in these supervillian cases your view is morally invalid and empirically shown to be incorrect.
You seem to have a peculiar notion of what the word "empirically" means.

your analysis is a bit naive, its different in the comic world because we know what will happen, in the real world we dont and thus killing could be all too easy. but if you ask me should batman kill the joker? i say yes...
Wow, two posters in a row calling me naive. :rolleyes: I guess being opposed to killing is unpopular these days. Funny, you'd think that people who enjoy reading about heroes who value life wouldn't be so quick to disdain that attitude.

I don't doubt that if a situation arose in which Batman had to choose between the death of the Joker and the death of innocents, and had no other option available, the Joker would be pushing up daisies. Obviously, however, such a situation has never arisen. Moreover, I'd opine that if Batman were of such reduced competence that killing his enemies was the only way to stop them, he'd be much less interesting to read about.

Plus people in the real world don't have the luxury that Batman and Superman have, they both always have a way out of a situation...
Already acknowledged: that's why I referred to the JLA/Hitman special. I don't for a minute disagree with the choice Tommy Monaghan made in that story -- for him, the circumstances literally left no other choice, by the very moral standards I was discussing upthread. However, this discussion is about what Superman and Batman themselves should do, and their abilities do give them other choices.

Moreover, consider things from Superman's point of view: who is he to be the arbiter of who "deserves" to live? If he makes that choice for anyone, his powers put him in a position to make it for everyone. But it's only his power that are superhuman, not his judgment -- he's as fallible as anyone else. Thus, he leaves such matters to be decided by due process of law, as he should. Indeed, I was always fond of the Silver Age version of his oath against killing: that if he ever took a life, he would hang up his cape, because he had betrayed the trust that had to go with his powers. (Alan Moore used that to good effect in his classic "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow.")

[botch]

Moreover, consider things from Superman's point of view: who is he to be the arbiter of who "deserves" to live? If he makes that choice for anyone, his powers put him in a position to make it for everyone. But it's only his power that are superhuman, not his judgment -- he's as fallible as anyone else. Thus, he leaves such matters to be decided by due process of law, as he should. Indeed, I was always fond of the Silver Age version of his oath against killing: that if he ever took a life, he would hang up his cape, because he had betrayed the trust that had to go with his powers. (Alan Moore used that to good effect in his classic "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow.")

Hey I agree with you there, to me killing is a last resort but Supes and bats were both wrong say in Maxwell Lord's death, it was the first time Wonder Woman had no option but this is where I see the 'flaw' of bats and supes which makes them as interesting as the characters marvel have who all have a 'flaw' so to speak. Batman doesn't kill because he is that traumatized that he will put the joker away in the hope law and righteousness will win but of course it doesn't, he goes out and kills again. I'd always be the person that for them killing would be a last resort but i'm not like supes that i'd blame someone when they had no choice, he's superman, he's always going to have an option. But like I said, some young woman constantly being raped by a russian gangster doesn't have the options Superman has. You should read 'The Slavers' which is the best Punisher story ever written and one of the best story arcs i've ever read in comics and tell me you think the people in there should be left alive.

I can see from Supes point of view that he personally shouldn't kill because then it throws away the trust he gives, that he shouldn't be the judge of right and wrong(even if he is), but to tell Wonder Woman off is completely naive and illogical(of course Lois was there to represent logic and agree with Wonder Woman). Personally Supes is a noble enough person that I wouldn't look down on him if he did kill people because i know he wouldn't become the monster he fights. I mean Obi Wan kills, you think he's wrong? Aragorn the most noble guy in literature, he kills. Yoda kills. none of these guys are bad guys or become the bad guys they kill. Supes and Bats are written that way because of the comic code and they have used that to their advantage but in the real world, i'd side with Obi Wan, Aragorn and Yoda(sounds funny but you get my point).

Hell, you could read Sinestro Corps, if I was a Lantern I wouldn't be too fussed from saving the world from a bunch of psychos with incredible power by killing them.

[Captain Smith]

My point was that future predictive actions have been used, so as a general principle it cannot be discarded. Tenn. vs Garner was just an example relevant to police officers.

The superhero world is different in the magnitude of the escape possibilities and future harm possibilities. Someone like Prime was too great a risk to be allowed to continue to live. Esp. has they had no rehabilitation treatment planned. They basically put a psychotic in a cell and that's it. That is rather cruel and unusual if we are using our judicial standards.

By empirical - I meant the evidential base in the DCU. Not real world evidence but evidence based on the assumptions of that universe. Bats and Supes and the Guardians wuss around the use of lethal force and/or the death penalty. Thus, billions died. Based on the evidence in that universe (hence the term empirical) their decisions are wrong. They continue to allow threats to exist and innocents die because they like the fiber to act for the greater good.

If police shoot someone, you find a high percentage leave the force after a few years. They can't handle the stress or feel that they cannot act with lethal force again. Thus, they are threats to their fellow officers and the public. By that standard, the definitional ability of some heroes not to use such force should disqualify from those situations. The mantra that Bats and Supes can always find away is just a literary conceit because they didn't!

They should go into medicine or disaster relief as their failure to act disqualifies them from police or military like situations.

[lawman]

Hey I agree with you there, to me killing is a last resort but Supes and bats were both wrong say in Maxwell Lord's death, it was the first time Wonder Woman had no option...
On this I think we can find common ground. IMHO Diana probably could have come with other options, once she had Lord captured, rather than believe his statement that the only option left was to kill him... but under the circumstances it was still a reasonable decision, and (especially given the nature of those circumstances) Clark was implausibly judgmental in condemning her for it. (His attitude toward Tommy in the Hitman special seems far more in-character.)

(The same sort of question came up years ago, when the League voted on whether to expel Flash during his trial for killing Reverse-Flash... although then it wasn't used to set up a universe-spanning crossover.)

You should read 'The Slavers' which is the best Punisher story ever written and one of the best story arcs i've ever read in comics and tell me you think the people in there should be left alive.
Could be, although I'm not much of a Punisher fan. One of the trends I find somewhat disturbing in contemporary popular fiction (in and out of comics) is to make "villains" so over the top -- so violent, disgusting, inhuman, contemptible, irredeemable -- that audiences want to see them die violently. Once in a while it works; more often, it seems like stacking the moral deck.

Aragorn the most noble guy in literature, he kills...
Sure -- but he's an ordinary (albeit very long-lived) human soldier, facing armies of orcs. He has no special abilities that give him other options, and his enemies are (by the nature of his world) literally irredeemable, so he kills when he has to -- but he still doesn't do so when he has a choice. In the same trilogy, I'd argue that Frodo's decision not to kill Gollum when he had the chance was critical to his standing up against the temptations of the ring.

...By empirical - I meant the evidential base in the DCU. Not real world evidence but evidence based on the assumptions of that universe. Bats and Supes and the Guardians wuss around the use of lethal force and/or the death penalty. Thus, billions died. Based on the evidence in that universe (hence the term empirical) their decisions are wrong. They continue to allow threats to exist and innocents die because they like the fiber to act for the greater good.
First of all, you're judging their decisions after the fact based on information (i.e., consequences in later stories) that obviously could never be known at the time of the decisions.

Beyond that, I think we're verging on a philosophical and political difference that goes beyond the realm of comics. I'd argue that the death penalty is morally wrong, period, and should not be imposed on anyone. Most of the civilized world agrees with me on this, although most Americans don't. You obviously don't.

[Captain Smith]

The superhero world is unique in that a criminologist in that venue who did analyses on supervillian prison breaks and subsequent genocidal actions would find that it occurs quite a bit. Holding the superpowered Charley Mansons of the DCU or MU doesn't work. Also, despite all their tech and magic, rehabilitation doesn't work. The JLA mind wipe fiasco is evidence of that.

That is quite different from our world, where life without parole is a possibility. We still do have lot of murderous recidivism from folks. Megan's law was an attempt to deal with repeaters in the sex crime realm.

The problem in the DCU is much worth. One can easily predict that a supervillian of Prime's capabilities will get away and kill. Kind of like a parole board of our world that does try to predict future behavior. So, it is done. We do make decisions on predicted future behavior in our world.

For the DCU, to make a simplisitc moral point against killing, given reasonable statistic prediction, is to accept that this moral point will predict the death of millions.

I find it morally bankrupt to adopt the view that the death penalty is wrong given the predictions that social scientific principles would make in the DCU.

[lawman]

I find it morally bankrupt to adopt the view that the death penalty is wrong given the predictions that social scientific principles would make in the DCU.
You're interpolating the "social scientific" predictions; there's really nothing in-story to support what you say. It's worth noting that a number of villains have in fact reformed over the years, and also that many of the ones who haven't that we think of as "killers" today were not so earlier in their careers, in a less shock-and-gore driven era of comics storytelling.

As a general thing, imaginary statistics about prison breaks and recidivism notwithstanding, the principles underlying an objection to capital punishment remain the same as they are in any other universe. It probably can't be administered without bias; it can't be undone; you can't ever eliminate the possibility of error; it's driven more by vengeance than justice; it relies on unprovable assumptions about recidivism; it's not actually an effective deterrent... and, hanging over it all, it's simply hypocritical to punish the act of taking lives by taking lives.

At any rate, to accuse those who disagree with you of "moral bankruptcy" is absurd overreaching. It suggests that you quite simply don't understand the conceptual underpinnings of the DC universe and its central characters, what they stand for and fight for and why. At the very least, if capital punishment is to be administered in the DCU (and we know that it sometimes is), it should be done by due process of law, not by Superman or Batman or Green Lantern or any other self-appointed arbiter.

[Jon-El]

Discussions like this make me wonder if we are'nt tying to force mature ideas on a medium not necessarily suited for it. No not all comics are for kids but that was the idea originally. :)

[lawman]

Discussions like this make me wonder if we are'nt tying to force mature ideas on a medium not necessarily suited for it. No not all comics are for kids but that was the idea originally. :)
Tell you what -- to the extent that they're for kids, that's all the more reason that they shouldn't be propagating the irresponsible message that killing people is a way to solve problems.

[botch]

Tell you what -- to the extent that they're for kids, that's all the more reason that they shouldn't be propagating the irresponsible message that killing people is a way to solve problems.

Problem is sometimes, it's true.

[botch]

Deleeettteeee Thiiissss Posssssttttt

[botch]

Discussions like this make me wonder if we are'nt tying to force mature ideas on a medium not necessarily suited for it. No not all comics are for kids but that was the idea originally. :)

comic have changed.

the medium is suited for it, in fact this is what makes comics great, it's a medium with endless possibilities thanks to the maturity of comics.

deal with it superboy prime.

[Duy]

comic have changed.

the medium is suited for it, in fact this is what makes comics great, it's a medium with endless possibilities thanks to the maturity of comics.

deal with it superboy prime.
Indeed, I'm all for the evolution of comics. I curated an exhibit on it and coordinated with Art Spiegelman and everything. I'm also up for it in superhero comics - my favorite comic ever is Watchmen, and I'm as big a fan of Moore's Miracleman as anyone.

But not for Superman. Use analogues if you must tell this "Superman has to kill" story, but I want a Superman I can give to my nephew and have him idolize. At no point in time in the next four years do I ever want to have to tell my nephew, "Oh yeah, see, Superman HAD to kill that guy, because... well... no, he's against killing, but he had no choice... Yeah, yeah, he HAD to kill that guy... no... there was no other way... SUPERMAN couldn't find another way..."

I've always been of the school that Superman should be a character who exercised our imagination and woke up the ideals in us. There are places better suited for the "superheroes must kill" theme. Superman doesn't have to deal with that. He shouldn't have to.

[Captain Smith]

Irresponsible message that killing people is a way to solve problems.



Two more points.

1. If Supes is to be seen as above killing, then he should not be in stories where such occur. He can stop tornados or save kittens from trees.

2. Being a grown-up it is unfortunate that killing people is a way to solve problems. It is a sad resort but it happens. Since I know people who do this for a living, I don't view the military or police as irresponsible when they are forced to use lethal force. To save the life of a hostage, one might have to do such.

It may be regretable that children learn such but it is not irresponsible. The fault, if any, is that the DC story line set up such a situation for heroes that perhaps shouldn't be put in such.

I return to my basic point that the inability to eliminate threats like Prime is naive. I also see nothing to negate my argument that such behavior can be easily predicted - something I also know quite alot about in the real world - sigh.

[botch]

Indeed, I'm all for the evolution of comics. I curated an exhibit on it and coordinated with Art Spiegelman and everything. I'm also up for it in superhero comics - my favorite comic ever is Watchmen, and I'm as big a fan of Moore's Miracleman as anyone.

But not for Superman. Use analogues if you must tell this "Superman has to kill" story, but I want a Superman I can give to my nephew and have him idolize. At no point in time in the next four years do I ever want to have to tell my nephew, "Oh yeah, see, Superman HAD to kill that guy, because... well... no, he's against killing, but he had no choice... Yeah, yeah, he HAD to kill that guy... no... there was no other way... SUPERMAN couldn't find another way..."

I've always been of the school that Superman should be a character who exercised our imagination and woke up the ideals in us. There are places better suited for the "superheroes must kill" theme. Superman doesn't have to deal with that. He shouldn't have to.

so what did you tell your nephew about Aragorn, the most noble hero in Literature? I'm sure alot of kids who watched lord of the rings idolized him despite the fact he kills....alot too.

[botch]

Tell you what -- to the extent that they're for kids, that's all the more reason that they shouldn't be propagating the irresponsible message that killing people is a way to solve problems.

The second thing about this, is 'irresponsible message'. Well that message is read 90% by people who are over 18 and should then be able to question whether it's right or wrong. Just because a small percentage(and that's friggin small) read comic books, doesn't mean it should change for them when the key target demographic are adults(it's smart business sense, it's why comics have stayed adult). kids might like superman but I doubt many buy his comic books, hell even the adults don't buy his comic books.

[Duy]

so what did you tell your nephew about Aragorn, the most noble hero in Literature? I'm sure alot of kids who watched lord of the rings idolized him despite the fact he kills....alot too.
He kills orcs and monsters and such. I don't recall him taking a human life.

And quite honestly, where does this "most noble hero" thing come from? How do you define noble?

In addition, the Lord of the Rings does not concentrate on killing as the main theme of the story. It's a war, people die, it's a given. What you are suggesting with Superman would involve making the action of killing the central theme of the story. Which would probably involve a lot of internal monologue about how Kal comes to that decision.

There are better vehicles suited for that. Diana did it last year; Superman ALREADy did it. There's no reason to do it again. There's no point.

[lawman]

so what did you tell your nephew about Aragorn, the most noble hero in Literature? I'm sure alot of kids who watched lord of the rings idolized him despite the fact he kills....alot too.
Geez, I liked LOTR too, but don't you think you might be overstating the case a bit here?

At any rate: in your latest posts both you and Captain Smith are comparing super-heroes with soldiers (whether real or fictional) engaged in military conflict . That's really not a valid analogy. It's understood, in military situations legitimately entered into, that all other options for resolving a situation have been exhausted and no recourse save violence remains.

Even there, though, there are rules of engagement; e.g., deadly force is limited to the battlefield. What you're proposing that heroes do (with, e.g., the Joker or SBP) is more akin to killing prisoners of war -- which is forbidden, even if you know those prisoners are your enemies and will once again attempt to kill you and your allies should they manage to escape.

...that message is read 90% by people who are over 18 and should then be able to question whether it's right or wrong... kids might like superman but I doubt many buy his comic books...
Did you read the post I was replying to? I wasn't arguing that comics are or should be primarily for kids; it was Jon-El who put forward that proposition. I merely remarked that to the extent it may be true, it only strengthened my argument. Fortunately, however, my argument did not and does not actually rely on that proposition.