Does Superman kill?

[Bored at 3:00AM]

One of the most disputed elements introduced by John Byrne during his run was his execution of General Zod & his crew during the whole Pocket Universe fiasco that spawned the Matrix Supergirl, which began the Linda Danvers Supergirl which begat Fire Angel Supergirl which begat Pre-Crisis Kara Zor-El Supergirl which begat the entire mess being swept under the table and never mentioned again.

Now, ignoring for the moment whether or not the Pocket Universe story is still around in current continuity, what do you think of the idea of Superman deliberately taking a life?

In Byrne's story, it was clearly established that Zod & company murdered the entire population of their Earth and had every intention of doing the same thing to Superman's Earth. Obviously, the point Byrne was trying to make is that Superman had no choice but to kill and to do otherwise would risk the lives of the entire planet.

Now, personally, I don't necessarily have a problem with killing people. If someone were to seriously harm or murder my own loved ones, I would do everything in my power to end their existence. Period.

On the other hand, I have serious reservations with allowing the government to do it given that they've proven time and time again that they'll happily execute people who've later been proven innocent, all the while wasting copious ammounts of taxpayer money. But, if you were to ask me if I had a problem with herding the worst serial killers and pedophiles on the planet into a room with the love ones of their victims and letting them deal with these monsters in their own way, I'd probably look the other way.

However, I am not Superman. The government is not Superman. Superman is supposed to be better than us. He's supposed to represent the very best in all of us.

Superman does not kill. Period.

What do you think?

[Duy]

"No one has the right to kill. Not you, not Mxyzptlk, not Superman... especially not Superman."

[NickFury90]

By the very definition, Superman is suppose to represent that all-good god that humankind can never be but can always strive for. So killing people would probably go against that. Then against, the Judo-Christian God apparently killed everybody on Earth 'cept Noah and them, and he supposely had good reason, if you believe that sort of thing.

Does that mean a God can kill, given the right motive? Doesn't it seem kinda odd for Superman to punch people in the face until their a bloody smear on his fist, but not go all the way, saving humankind from any more of their evil ways?

I don't know, honestly. but I know whatever decision he makes, its the right one.

[Mainline]

However, I am not Superman. The government is not Superman. Superman is supposed to be better than us. He's supposed to represent the very best in all of us.

Superman does not kill. Period.

What do you think?I think your conclusion doesn't follow your premise. If the government's incompetence is the only thing that vitiates their sovereign- that is de facto- "right" to capital punishment, then a being with superior competence ought not be impeached in that manner.

My view is that Superman is simultaneously idealistic and mature. An idealist guides their life with respect to ideals- general truths and principles- offering little compromise. HOWEVER, he is mature, recognizing those truths and principles to be filled with innumerable practical exceptions. He is not a pragmatist who cynically casts aside ideals because the principles are so eroded by circumstances and relativism as to be meaningless. But neither is he so mechanically inflexible and blindly devoted to follow principles which may be wholly inappropriate under specific facts.

In the fiction of the DCU, the latter series of facts tends not to exist (and when they do, sort of stand in stark and disjointed contrast to the norms of the fictional world) so it might be OK to say something as absolute as "Superman doesn't kill, period."

But in a "real world" ideal Superman characterization, I'd find that unrealistically immature. Law enforcement are typically armed with lethal force, not out of some sadistic desire, but because it is the most effective means of stopping evil in most cases. Superman, obviously, has more tools at his disposal meaning he can effectively use non-lethal force most times... but the principle remains: If cops can face escalation such that lethal force is not only necessary but entirely justified, it is completely possible for the same to apply to Superman (barring a fictional world written around him where the issue never arises).

Frankly, that's what Superman did to Doomsday for all intents and purposes. Sure, by technicality, Doomsday did not die, but the issue here is the mens rea, which Superman possessed when he gave his all to stop evil... even if it meant- in his mind- killing Doomsday. And immature mind is incapable of accepting that reality, which is why I wasn't a fan of Superman's angst over the execution or the Wonder Woman issue (not that she was, necessarily, justified- particularly with her completely arbitrary "man-monster" test; but his arguments could have been refined to more realistically portray a man who accepts killing as justifiable- just not with WW- and not an absolute evil). It was too simplistic for THOSE storylines (other times, the fallacious "you'll become what you fight" cheese works just fine).

As a practical matter, Superman is comfortable with Lois having high-end (and certainly lethal) weaponry in the home for self-defense. Characterization-wise, I think he should have the maturity to know when it's necessary, cling to the ideal that it rarely is for himself, and find it distasteful if he must do it, but not crippling (countless of soldiers and cops have had to take lives in the line of duty... and no one is saying they loved it or weren't affected by it, but by and large they get over it - the Max Lord guilt stuff was just absurd... the only way I can buy it is if Kryptonian psychology is just fundamentally different, which, maybe... it is).

[WorstThingUS]

My view is that Superman is simultaneously idealistic and mature. An idealist guides their life with respect to ideals- general truths and principles- offering little compromise. HOWEVER, he is mature, recognizing those truths and principles to be filled with innumerable practical exceptions. He is not a pragmatist who cynically casts aside ideals because the principles are so eroded by circumstances and relativism as to be meaningless. But neither is he so mechanically inflexible and blindly devoted to follow principles which may be wholly inappropriate under specific facts.


Exactly. Superman doesn't do it and he doesn't allow murder, but he's not out campaigning for the state not to execute people either and when white supremacists murdered people (including children) and made him think he'd accidentially done it, he confessed to Wonder Woman he wished he didn't have a code against killing. And pre-crisis, he wouldn't vote to kick Barry out of the JLA when Barry killed Professor Zoom when even Barry thought he would. And don't look at the Golden Age, when he'd let a guy crash a plane into him and die.

That said, I hated the Byrne "executions" because he surrendered his ideas and didn't have to. The situation pretty much had Superman killing because of a threat made to him by a powerless man on a dead world. It turned him into a raging hypocrite for 20 years.

[dupersuper]

"No one has the right to kill. Not you, not Mxyzptlk, not Superman... especially not Superman."

I love that quote. I voted never, but, that being said, I did LOVE the Exile/Krypton Man stuff that spun out of Superman 22.

[MythicBrawn]

I had no problem with Superman killing the PU Kryptonians. I didn't have any problems with WW killing Maxwell Lord either. I think in the realm of comics, it's about keeping or eliminating plot devices. Case in point, why is Superman/boy-prime still running around? The Guardians had a chance to put him down, but they chose to keep him imprisoned. His deeds rank up there with the PU Kryptonians, so why wasn't he executed? The acts of Superman and WW certainly caused controversy, especially considering it's being discussed in this thread, and I'm sure it will be discussed for a long time to come. Regardless, for me, sometimes heroes have to make the hard choices and live with the consequences. Unfortunately, no one wants the saintly/boy scout Superman doing things that would change his/her perception of him.

[ryerye17]

Why the hell not?

[superchick]

The trial of Star Boy tells me everything I need to know about Superman's policy on murder

[WorstThingUS]

The trial of Star Boy tells me everything I need to know about Superman's policy on murder

Old school points for you!

http://www.studiosanning.shawbiz.ca/legion_of_super-heroes/essays/trial_of_star_boy/superboy_defends.jpg

[show name]

I voted no.

I suppose you could argue that Superman is supposed to do anything and everything necessary to protect the innocent from harm. But IMO Superman's job is not to solve every last problem on the face of the Earth. He helps, and does the best he can, and he inspires. If the guy does not want to kill out of compassion, mercy, or the desire to set a worthy example for other heroes, that's his right.

As far as I can tell, the Kant vs. Hume morality debate is not ultimately resolvable on a rational level. In the end it's all about what people feel and what they value.
As long as peoples' choices are motivated by the desire to help others, or at least to do no harm, and their vision is clear enough that they are aware of the possible consequences of their actions, then I don't think we can really fault their choices.

[Slaughter]

Frankly, that's what Superman did to Doomsday for all intents and purposes. Sure, by technicality, Doomsday did not die, but the issue here is the mens rea, which Superman possessed when he gave his all to stop evil... even if it meant- in his mind- killing Doomsday.

I think that's the only kind of situation where Superman should consider lethal options: When the threat is so big and impossible to contain that there's no other way.

Interesting that someone said that Supes has less right to use lethal force than the average person because its much easier for him to go non-lethal. This makes me wonder why in hell Batman never killed someone yet. Hell, Batman doesn't even use guns.

[Duy]

I love that quote. I voted never, but, that being said, I did LOVE the Exile/Krypton Man stuff that spun out of Superman 22.
I liked it too, mostly because Gangbuster is AWESOME and I really liked Kerry Gammill's art, especially on that issue where Superman exiles himself to an abandoned world and just starts farming. I thought it was charming.

[dupersuper]

I liked it too, mostly because Gangbuster is AWESOME and I really liked Kerry Gammill's art, especially on that issue where Superman exiles himself to an abandoned world and just starts farming. I thought it was charming.

Yeah, the exiled alien turned farmer...nice nature/nurture theme there. Too bad the planet had other ideas...

[marshal99]

If there's a super villain that threatens your entire world , then exceptions should be made. Superman can't be a super sap.

http://superman.nu/tales3/last/10.gif

[Captain Smith]

Exactly. Superman doesn't do it and he doesn't allow murder,


He engaged in trickery once so that the Spectre could take Satannus. Spec is known for killing you in fun manners. So the premise is not true.

That Satannus showed up later is just because no one really totally dies in comics.

[Totoro Man]

Superman either knowingly killed, or allowed people to die, surprisingly often in the Golden Age. in the first two volumes of the DC reprints he's responsible for the death of at least three or four people. granted, those deaths don't happen on-panel. but cars in the 1940s weren't engineered to allow for people flying off a ravine-side road and dropping hundreds of feet into the water!

he also threatened to kill people pretty often. it wasn't always clear whether these were bluffs (that nobody in their right mind would want to call) or threats he would follow through on.

of course, Golden Age Batman killed people in every other issue (often two or three at a time)!

[marshal99]

Ex


He engaged in trickery once so that the Spectre could take Satannus. Spec is known for killing you in fun manners. So the premise is not true.


When was this ?!?

[Raptor]

I voted never, he's superman.

However I can see a very few, very extreme circumstances where it wouldn't bug me if he killed somebody.

Mind Control/emotion control.

Under effects of odd kryptonites.

Maybe if someone killed all or most people inmportant to him in hte world too close together.


Like I said rare circumstances. In which time he wouldn't really be himself.

For the sake of comics I say no, but then he could have a whole run of him chastising himself and feeling like horseshit for it.

[Mat001]

I voted never, he's superman.

However I can see a very few, very extreme circumstances where it wouldn't bug me if he killed somebody.

Mind Control/emotion control.

Proven that he couldn't do it in "Hush" and kept resisting in "Sacrifice".

Under effects of odd kryptonites.

Black and Red.

Maybe if someone killed all or most people inmportant to him in hte world too close together.

The Joker tried it and Batman convinced him not to.

[stingerman]

Voted never, Superman is so powerful he doesn't need to. :smile:

[JCAll]

I don't really like Superman to kill. Probably for the same reasons given in this thread, he doesn't have to, he's so powerful that there's always another way.

I hate the pocket Kryptonians thing, but I kind of like his reaction to the whole thing, and that it seems to have strengthened his resolve never to do that again. When the Joker and Manchester Black put him in similar situations he didn't go for it again to their amazement, which I absolutely loved. God I miss Manchester Black, bring back Manchester Black!

I think that's why, Supes reacted so bad the the Max Lord neck snapping incident by Wonder Woman, because it's a situation he's been in and he didn't understand her reaction.

Doomsday seems to be the exception, because I can't see any wy that could hve been avoided. It would be neat to know how Supes would have reacted to "killing" Doomsday if he hadn't died himself.

[Stanlos]

Proven that he couldn't do it in "Hush" and kept resisting in "Sacrifice".


I remember Lois falling from a building snapped him out of it in HUSH. But Sacrifice? His mind was completely subjugated.

[show name]

With the Doomsday scenario, I also think it's important to draw a distinction between going all out on an opponent and killing them without having had the specific intent to end their life, and actually planning in advance to kill them and following through. I don't remember which was the case in the Death of Superman story...

I agree that Superman probably does feel he needs to go all out when faced with an opponent equal or superior to him in power. But in my mind I think he could in the heat of battle hit as hard as he can and as many times as he can without actually thinking about destroying his opponent's life. After all, if a being already has enough invulnerability to stand up to Superman's hardest blows, it's very difficult to know what will or will not kill them. Boxers, for example, hit as hard as they can, and on rare occasions they've killed each other, even though they were only going for a knockout.

[Mainline]

With the Doomsday scenario...

Boxers, for example...You bring up a good point that most legal and moral systems make distinctions between different degrees of intent. Accidental manslaughter is different than premeditated murder. Some might say Superman should never be involved in any variety.

That said, the threshold for premeditation is very low and with Doomsday, Superman is not cleared in terms of intent (he wasn't "accidentally" punching Doomsday). His intent was to stop Doomsday, but he still accomplished it via assault. His intent, however, is justified under the defense of others.

Whether you think Superman had the specific intent to kill or not would be irrelevant to the legal standard of murder. If you punched someone in the face on the street, merely intending to KO them, but they died... you could be rightly charged with murder. If you shot someone in the foot- without justification- intending only to wound, but they either bleed out or die of infection a few days later... again, you could be properly charged with murder.

Boxing is a bad example, because the context of the fight vitiates the question of intent. The ring- and the legal structures and authorities around it- gives the boxer a limited license to commit assault. Indeed, even if the boxer has a genuine murderous intent, he will not be charged with murder even if he succeeds (or attempted murder if he fails).

[jgiannantoni05]

No comic should show modern Superman kill. Period.

I liked many of Byrne's ideas, but have argued vehemently against Byrne's idea of having Superman execute the PZ criminals. Worst Superman story ever IMHO. No story aroused such anger in me (worse, they kept referring to it and using it). It's wipe from continuity was quite pleasing to me; was a horrid black stain on the Superman mythos.

[dupersuper]

Ex


He engaged in trickery once so that the Spectre could take Satannus. Spec is known for killing you in fun manners. So the premise is not true.

That Satannus showed up later is just because no one really totally dies in comics.

He showed up later for the same reason Supes had no problem letting Spectre take him out; he's a demon. To paraphrase South Park, "Where did you expect him to go, Detroit?"

I remember Lois falling from a building snapped him out of it in HUSH. But Sacrifice? His mind was completely subjugated.

I can't believe he was, because Batman's still breathing.

[Mat001]

With the Doomsday scenario, I also think it's important to draw a distinction between going all out on an opponent and killing them without having had the specific intent to end their life, and actually planning in advance to kill them and following through. I don't remember which was the case in the Death of Superman story...

I agree that Superman probably does feel he needs to go all out when faced with an opponent equal or superior to him in power. But in my mind I think he could in the heat of battle hit as hard as he can and as many times as he can without actually thinking about destroying his opponent's life. After all, if a being already has enough invulnerability to stand up to Superman's hardest blows, it's very difficult to know what will or will not kill them. Boxers, for example, hit as hard as they can, and on rare occasions they've killed each other, even though they were only going for a knockout.

If I recall in parts six and seven, Clark makes it clear that he has to go all out to stop Doomsday. He didn't specifiy that he was going to kill Doomsday, but he was willing to do whatever it took. And that came about because he was out of options. He had no Phantom Zone projector and he wasn't at Pre-Crisis power levels. He just kept hitting Doomsday until they both went down.

I liked many of Byrne's ideas, but have argued vehemently against Byrne's idea of having Superman execute the PZ criminals. Worst Superman story ever IMHO. No story aroused such anger in me (worse, they kept referring to it and using it). It's wipe from continuity was quite pleasing to me; was a horrid black stain on the Superman mythos.

It was kept in reference for so long because it was the basis for everything that has happened since then. It also served as a reminder that he shouldn't kill and the consequences for having done so.

[M. Bushbug]

If there's a super villain that threatens your entire world , then exceptions should be made. Superman can't be a super sap.

http://superman.nu/tales3/last/10.gif

Yeah. because people from Brooklyn are ok with murder.

[M. Bushbug]

You bring up a good point that most legal and moral systems make distinctions between different degrees of intent. Accidental manslaughter is different than premeditated murder. Some might say Superman should never be involved in any variety.

That said, the threshold for premeditation is very low and with Doomsday, Superman is not cleared in terms of intent (he wasn't "accidentally" punching Doomsday). His intent was to stop Doomsday, but he still accomplished it via assault. His intent, however, is justified under the defense of others.

Whether you think Superman had the specific intent to kill or not would be irrelevant to the legal standard of murder. If you punched someone in the face on the street, merely intending to KO them, but they died... you could be rightly charged with murder. If you shot someone in the foot- without justification- intending only to wound, but they either bleed out or die of infection a few days later... again, you could be properly charged with murder.

Boxing is a bad example, because the context of the fight vitiates the question of intent. The ring- and the legal structures and authorities around it- gives the boxer a limited license to commit assault. Indeed, even if the boxer has a genuine murderous intent, he will not be charged with murder even if he succeeds (or attempted murder if he fails).

Actually intent (or malice aforethought)is key for a murder charge. Without being able to show this the best charge you'll be able to convict on is Manslaughter.

If you are willing to show legal precedence that proves your argument. I might be able to change my mind.

[Mainline]

1L wannabe lawyers crack me up. Are you really defaulting to the common-law for something regulated by statute in every jurisdiction in the Union? :rolleyes: Come back after you've looked up second-degree murder.

[show name]

You bring up a good point that most legal and moral systems make distinctions between different degrees of intent. Accidental manslaughter is different than premeditated murder. Some might say Superman should never be involved in any variety.

That said, the threshold for premeditation is very low and with Doomsday, Superman is not cleared in terms of intent (he wasn't "accidentally" punching Doomsday). His intent was to stop Doomsday, but he still accomplished it via assault. His intent, however, is justified under the defense of others.

Whether you think Superman had the specific intent to kill or not would be irrelevant to the legal standard of murder. If you punched someone in the face on the street, merely intending to KO them, but they died... you could be rightly charged with murder. If you shot someone in the foot- without justification- intending only to wound, but they either bleed out or die of infection a few days later... again, you could be properly charged with murder.

Boxing is a bad example, because the context of the fight vitiates the question of intent. The ring- and the legal structures and authorities around it- gives the boxer a limited license to commit assault. Indeed, even if the boxer has a genuine murderous intent, he will not be charged with murder even if he succeeds (or attempted murder if he fails).

I'm definitely one who believes that intent determines the moral status of an action. I don't know much about the legal system so perhaps you are right that from a legal standpoint, Superman could be accused of some grade of murder if he wasn't holding back. For myself, though, I wouldn't really consider him a "killer" unless he was shown to explicitly be seeking that outcome. If he goes all out and his opponent dies as a result of damage sustained, yet the whole time he was hoping merely to incapacitate/knockout, and he feels remorse after the other perishes, then I don't consider that to be a violation of his code. Again, not sure how it was with Doomsday.

Interestingly, while responding to a thread similar to this one not too long ago, I re-read the climactic battle scene in CIOE and was suprised to see that Superman of Earth-2 explicitly declared his intention to destroy (kill) the Anti-Monitor before he threw the final punch.

You are right that boxing and crime-fighting are very different situations. I merely brought up boxing to illustrate an example of where two people are hitting with all their might without the intention to kill, and yet sometimes accidentally killing anyway.

If I recall in parts six and seven, Clark makes it clear that he has to go all out to stop Doomsday. He didn't specifiy that he was going to kill Doomsday, but he was willing to do whatever it took. And that came about because he was out of options. He had no Phantom Zone projector and he wasn't at Pre-Crisis power levels. He just kept hitting Doomsday until they both went down.


Yeah, could be he was thinking to risk killing in that case. I'd have to re-read it. I'd like to think, though, he was going all-out and at the same time hoping for merely a KO.

Actually intent (or malice aforethought)is key for a murder charge. Without being able to show this the best charge you'll be able to convict on is Manslaughter.


Yeah, that's what I thought too.

[show name]

1L wannabe lawyers crack me up. Are you really defaulting to the common-law for something regulated by statute in every jurisdiction in the Union? :rolleyes: Come back after you've looked up second-degree murder.

Just read this after submitting my last post. You seem to have a law background. Can you elaborate for us laypeople?

I wiki'd "murder". So is it that manslaughter is when an action directly leads to another's death, but without malice or intent to harm? And murder is any action with malice or intent to harm that directly causes death of another, whether or not lethal intent was there or not? I notice in the wiki page under "mitigating circumstances" that killing in self-defense or defense of others is generally considered legally justifiable. Is this so? Because that would seem to exonerate Superman from any possible charges of murder in the Doomsday situation (if Doomsday had actually died, that is).

[Mainline]

For myself, though, I wouldn't really consider him a "killer" unless he was shown to explicitly be seeking that outcome.Most would agree with a caveat for two large exceptions... the first, less controversial one, would be depraved indifference or criminal recklessness... where, even lacking the specific intent to explicitly kill anyone, the behavior is so obviously dangerous that a murder charge is proper. If you blindfold yourself and shoot a gun in a crowded theater, shoot someone, or drop them unconscious onto concrete... or if Superman were to use a Vanishing Device a second time (if you saw the premier of ABC's Flashforward... it makes the implications of suddenly unpiloted vehicles quite visual; something his device would've probably done if "real world" rules applied)... the harms are so obvious as to warrant a charge irrespective of specific intent. This variety of action is pretty common in Superhero genre, however, so few fans would think of this as murder. The second, more debated, variety of unintentional killing that could constitute murder is loosely stated as a crime of passion... you don't have the time or capacity to formulate intent and are provoked to violence. Applied to Superman, in Kingdom Come, if he had torn down the UN while occupied that would've fit both.

Yeah, could be he was thinking to risk killing in that case. I'd have to re-read it. I'd like to think, though, he was going all-out and at the same time hoping for merely a KO.I think DC was intentionally vague about it, but from a realistic perspective I think he wanted to put Doomsday down. Having seen Doomsday's durability and regenerative abilities, I doubt unconsciousness would've been enough to meet Superman's goal of keeping Metropolis safe before he died himself... for all he knew, Doomsday would get KOed and then get right back up (as everyone expected of Superman). I think the killing issue here is mitigated not by Superman's intent, but by Doomsday's nature (ignoring the defense of others justification).

I think Superman fully intended to permanently stop Doomsday... and if Doomsday were a robot or non-sentient animal/monster, we probably wouldn't blink anymore than we do when Superman tears the tentacles off alien beasts. Doomsday is definitely more on the monster/demon spectrum than sentient being (although, curiously, in 761, he spares demons too though). Superman is comfortable subjecting such beings to fates, arguably, worse than death (leaving Doomsday to end-of-time entropy for example)... and never felt any guilt whatsoever (when the same type issue would typically torment a jailer more than an executioner). So the code isn't entirely justifiable or reasonable... but it's at least rationalized.

Yeah, that's what I thought too.He moved the goal posts from a charge to a conviction but even then he's not necessarily right depending on your jurisdiction the burden may lay with the defendant to vitiate recklessness, not for the prosecution to prove intent.

[Mainline]

I notice in the wiki page under "mitigating circumstances" that killing in self-defense or defense of others is generally considered legally justifiable. Is this so? Because that would seem to exonerate Superman from any possible charges of murder in the Doomsday situation (if Doomsday had actually died, that is).Of course, but for the purposes of this thread some people hold that Superman should never commit even justifiable homicide. I suspect there's a faction that probably believes Superman is even permitted attempted homicide so long as he doesn't succeed (again, note the great irony of Kingdom Come Superman's departing from humanity because they gave up on law & order to satisfy mob anger... but when Superman succumbs to that same rage at the end, there are no legal consequences for him at the end because humanity looks the other way rather than hold him to a law & order standard for the attempted slaughter of the world's leaders!).

Overall, I'm comfortable with Superman killing when justified, but raising the bar for that justification such that it's practically impossible... and made impossible by the surrounding fiction which avoids the issue. Comic books aren't reality and shouldn't be subject to the rigors of reality... otherwise Superman's world turns pretty grim if he's privy to every audible rape, abuse, etc. outside of his purview. The issue is escaped by it simply not being in the book, likewise the situations where Superman needs to kill ought to be- by and large- avoided. Once in a generation, maybe, but only if the story was worth it.

[JCAll]

Yeah, could be he was thinking to risk killing in that case. I'd have to re-read it. I'd like to think, though, he was going all-out and at the same time hoping for merely a KO.

For a long time I wondered why it was that Doomsday started talking, sort of, at the end of Death of Superman. But finally I thought, it was to show that this wasn't just the standard evil robot of the day that Clark had to take down, it was a living sentient being, however deranged, that he had to make the decision to kill.

And he must have intended to kill Doomsday, not at the beginning of course, but at least at the end when he realized he was going to go down too and no help was coming. I remember in a recent issue, a young Superman reacted badly to accidentally killing Soloman Grundy, even after Green Lantern sat him down and explained that Grundy was immortal he was still horrified at what he did. But with Doomsday, his last words were literally, "Did I stop him?" And there was relief, not horror, that he had.

[Mat001]

Yeah, Doomsday spoke to show that it wasn't totally mindless. But as to what he was, it was still unclear if he was organic or machine based. Clark never bothered to use his vision powers on him, other than heat. It was clear that Doomsday could feel pain when Clark kicked part of the bone spur on his knee off in Superman #75. It is interesting to note that Clark did not feel any guilt for killing Doomsday after coming back to life. He only did when Doomsday was left at the end of time, he expressed some confusing emotions to Waverider. But unlike the Pocket Universe Kryptonians, he didn't suffer long lasting guilt. And he and Kara both expressed concern when the Kryptonians beat Doomsday to death recently. Though we don't know if it was due to Doomsday's dying or how his people were able to take the beast out so swiftly and not feel anything but elation.

[Darth Joker]

I'd be fine with Superman being guilty of "accidental manslaughter", where a difficult foe forces Superman to go all-out, and this results in that foe's unintended death.

But for Superman to kill in cold blood... it's just out of character for him, imo. Superman, in my view, should be a man that always looks for the best solution possible, and that this would never involve killing in cold blood (if the situation is a 'cold blood' one, you probably have the resources and time to deal with the problem at hand with out resorting to killing).

Basically, Superman as executioner or assassin or Frank Castle-esque "soldier against crime", doesn't really fit for me. It's not necessarily a moral issue (I perfectly get why Frank does what he does, for example) but an established characterization issue. For good or for ill, Superman stands for something pretty specific, in my view, and what that is doesn't really make allowances for killing in cold blood.

[Zembo]

I believe Superman's code against killing doesn't extent to robots. Would there be an issue if Superman melted a crowd of killer robots?

Interestingly, I believe Superman in TAS was willing and even eager to kill Darkseid, which I saw as believeable. Would fans have been upset if Superman had managed to kill Doomsday but survived?

I think Superman should not kill unless there's no other way or innocent lives are in danger. After all other possibilities are eliminated and the threat remains, then he should reluctantly kill. A dead hero can save no one.

[show name]

Most would agree with a caveat for two large exceptions... the first, less controversial one, would be depraved indifference or criminal recklessness...


I agree that killing resulting from those conditions is worthy of condemnation, but in my mind I wouldn't be labeling the person a "killer", I'd be thinking they were precisely what you described, criminally reckless, depravedly indifferent, etc...of course if they fully expected people to die and showed absolutely no remorse about afterward it really does cross into killer territory.
Just semantics, though.


Overall, I'm comfortable with Superman killing when justified, but raising the bar for that justification such that it's practically impossible... and made impossible by the surrounding fiction which avoids the issue. Comic books aren't reality and shouldn't be subject to the rigors of reality... otherwise Superman's world turns pretty grim if he's privy to every audible rape, abuse, etc. outside of his purview. The issue is escaped by it simply not being in the book, likewise the situations where Superman needs to kill ought to be- by and large- avoided. Once in a generation, maybe, but only if the story was worth it.

My attitude is pretty close to this too. On an emotional level I feel "no, there should be absolutely no situations under which he'd kill," but it's not really possible to say this with total conviction unless I could imagine every possible set of situations that could ever manifest, which obviously I can't. Frankly, I'd be happy if writers don't push it too far, either, for the reasons you mentioned. At this point his no-kill threshold is so high they'd have to seriously perversely twist conditions to make him tempted again -- and I don't read Superman comics to become disturbed or depressed!

[meathead320]

I think that's the only kind of situation where Superman should consider lethal options: When the threat is so big and impossible to contain that there's no other way.

Interesting that someone said that Supes has less right to use lethal force than the average person because its much easier for him to go non-lethal. This makes me wonder why in hell Batman never killed someone yet. Hell, Batman doesn't even use guns.



While Batman is human, because of his vast skills, wealth that affords him such great technology, he too has the power to stop most situations without killing.

I think that is what it is about, power and restraint.

If they have the power to solve the problem without lethal force, yet they chose to kill, then they have stopped being the defender of human rights, and have assumed the roles of a judge jury and executioner.

To do all 3 crosses a lot of ethic boundaries. Even police are only allowed to use lethal force when absolutely necessary. As much as they would like to just shoot and accused pedophile in the head, even if they caught him in the act, unless he pulls a gun on the cop, the officer must adhere to the word of law and bring them in to face a jury.

With Superman and Batman, that is a very important boundary, as if they start to exercise such power to judge and deliver justice, then they are assuming the role of a god.

For humans, to exercise such power under lawful statue is fair, because of equal power. There is no power other than what the humans have built for themselves. There should be no individual who uses their power to just bypass this, and pass judgement.

If that power level is exceeded by wealth, or being metahuman , then for them to kill when they have other options is an abuse of power.

With Superman and Doomsday the power was not an ethical issue, and it was like a thug pulling a gun on a cop.