PDA

View Full Version : Has Superman ever killed anyone?



Andrewman
05-26-2011, 01:04 PM
I'm just curious if he has and I don't mean anyone like Mongul or Doomsday, but a human super villain/Metahuman of any kind. Whether under mind control or by any other kind of accident or a what have you circumstance.

Shawn Hopkins
05-26-2011, 01:10 PM
That kid he had go give a message to some violent drug dealers in the Grounded storyline died. Simple logic.

Jody Garland
05-26-2011, 01:17 PM
Well, prior to Infinite Crisis, he had executed three Phantom Zone criminals for killing all life on an artificially created Earth.

Mat001
05-26-2011, 01:33 PM
The Adventures Of Superman #444 and Superman #21 and 22, "The Supergirl Saga". He killed General Zod, Zaora and Quex-Ul when he went to visit the Pocket Universe for the second time. And technically, he killed Doomsday the first time they fought even though he came back to life afterwards. As noted, these Kryptonians had wiped out all life on Earth and Clark used some Gold Kryptonite to depower them. But because he didn't know how to repair the Phantom Zone projector and didn't know that Gold Kryptonite was irreversible, he was forced to use Green Kryptonite to end their lives. They had threatened to destroy his Earth if they had regained their powers.

Iroquois
05-26-2011, 01:35 PM
He killed the original Metallo back in his first appearance by replacing his Kryptonite heart with a trick rock.

Are you counting other media as well (outside of comics)? Because the headcount is considerably increased there.....

OldSchoolfan
05-26-2011, 01:36 PM
The Adventures Of Superman #444 and Superman #21 and 22, "The Supergirl Saga". He killed General Zod, Zaora and Quex-Ul when he went to visit the Pocket Universe for the second time. And technically, he killed Doomsday the first time they fought even though he came back to life afterwards.

Yes, I think killing Doomsday counts. Its one of the things that made his sacrifice that much bigger in my view. He had to stop Doomsday and that meant sacrificing himself too.

mwiggins
05-26-2011, 01:48 PM
Pre-Crisis Superman killed Mxyzptlk in Action #583. Tore his body in half with a phantom zone projector.

MFitzH2O
05-26-2011, 02:15 PM
Pre-Crisis, you bet your sweet bippy: he let people die all the time, didn't do a damn thing to save them and watched them die which makes me want to say he was responsible for deaths.

Jake V
05-26-2011, 02:18 PM
I guess he sort of killed Darkseid at the end of Final Crisis.

Ramage
05-26-2011, 02:24 PM
In the movies, he killed two of the three Phantom Zone villains. That plucky Lois Lane killed the third.

In the old 1950's television series, he took two badguys who found out his secret identity to the top of Mt Everest. He went to get supplies to build them a dwelling and they fell to their deaths trying to escape. I always thought that was kind of cold, although the series didn't have a reaction shot of George Reeves.

stk
05-26-2011, 02:27 PM
I remember him swatting attacking planes out of the air in the Golden Age, so those pilots would have died. But that kind of thing happened with almost every Golden Age hero. They played more seriously back then. The heroes didn't go hunt people down to murder them (mostly, anyway), but if someone came after a hero with lethal force, hey, that was on them. Those criminals brought it on themselves. And most times, the hero wouldn't waste any time crying about it. For example, if you look at the early Hawkman stories in Flash Comics and All-Star, he racked up a pretty good body count back then.

Predabot
05-26-2011, 02:30 PM
I believe Superman-homepage did a feature on this a few years back. I believe they found an instance Pre-Crisis where he let a bad guy who thought he had a mighty weapon, to kill Supes with, blow himself up. ( the weapon was malfunctioning, and Supes knew this, but let him shoot it anyway.)


I guess he sort of killed Darkseid at the end of Final Crisis.That's not entirely on Superman, tho. I'd say that's equally on Batman and the Flashes as well.

But then we're not sure he's dead. Or if we can even say he ever truly came back to life... ( see the end of "Return of Bruce Wayne")

Jody Garland
05-26-2011, 02:30 PM
Yeah, he definitely kills a pilot and an infantryman in Action #2, wherein he fights against a South American country.

MajorHoy
05-26-2011, 05:47 PM
I'm just curious if he has and I don't mean anyone like Mongul or Doomsday, but a human super villain/Metahuman of any kind. Whether under mind control or by any other kind of accident or a what have you circumstance.

This is a question that could be taken on lot of different levels. Are you talking about him purposely killing a villain or also accidentally/letting a villain do something that resulted in his death?

Also, are you talking about since he was first created in the 1930's, or are you looking for more "modern" instances. ("Modern" can be anytime in the 21st century; or could go back to the reboot after Crisis on Infinite Earths in the mid-1980's; or even back to the late 1950's/early 1960's and the start of the Silver Age of comics, the "Earth-1" days for old timers (and NOT the recent JMS story).)

As to those instances in the early days where people say he "killed" people, the question also develops as to whether we saw him actually "kill" those people, or are we just logically assuming they died as a result of his actions? A lot of WWII stories where heroes fight Nazis and what not fall into this area . . . flying planes get smashed or have bombs "returned" to them, but do we actually see the battered and/or burned corpses in the story? It's especially questionable when fighting a war . . . it would take a lot of time to rescue all those enemy combatants at the last second, and would the U.S. Military want to promote such an idea when we're training soldiers to kill "Nazis" and "Japs" in an effort to defend our country and other nations like ours?

(Oh, and on that note . . . Happy Memorial Day Weekend.)

Mat001
05-27-2011, 12:19 PM
In the movies, he killed two of the three Phantom Zone villains. That plucky Lois Lane killed the third.

They weren't dead. If you look closely on "The Richard Donner Cut" in the deleted scenes section, you can see that Zod, Ursa and Non are still alive and are being placed within the back of the truck of the Arctic Patrol, where Lex is then placed. All four were locked up as a result. In the five films, Superman never once kills any of the villains. Lex, Otis, Lenny, Ross, Vera and Lorelei are locked up. Or in Lex and Kitty's case, stranded on a deserted island. Zod, Ursa and Non are imprisoned. The first Nuclear Man was destroyed, but due to his genetic impurity. Something Superman didn't intend to happen. The second was left inside of the smokestack that lead into the nuclear reactor, where he powered the city and without exposure to the sun, he's permanently immoblized. Evil Superman was already dying when Clark choked him and you can even see him react slightly when he vanished. Stanford and the rest of Lex's men were not intentional kills as they lagged behind trying to grab their money and other personal belongings while Lex and Kitty made it to the helicopter in time.

NotSuper
05-27-2011, 12:25 PM
In current continuity, no. I don't think Doomsday counts, as at the time the creature was non-sentient and existed only to destroy. Plus, Doomsday is more like a machine than life-form, it doesn't so much "die" as it breaks down, repairs itself, and adapts against what "broke" it. (In the Superman/Doomsday movie, this metaphor was a lot more literal--Doomsday even had Terminator-vision.)

stk
05-27-2011, 12:33 PM
Stanford and the rest of Lex's men were not intentional kills as they lagged behind trying to grab their money and other personal belongings while Lex and Kitty made it to the helicopter in time.I hadn't even thought of that, but intentional or not, they died. It's at least manslaughter.

Mat001
05-27-2011, 12:59 PM
In current continuity, no. I don't think Doomsday counts, as at the time the creature was non-sentient and existed only to destroy. Plus, Doomsday is more like a machine than life-form, it doesn't so much "die" as it breaks down, repairs itself, and adapts against what "broke" it. (In the Superman/Doomsday movie, this metaphor was a lot more literal--Doomsday even had Terminator-vision.)

Doomsday is very sentient as we saw on multiple occassions. He recognized Bertron as the being who had created him. When he saw Superman he would also see Bertron's face over his. He would laugh whenever he did something that he found to be impressive. He was capable of making the connection between the pro wrestling PPV promo on television, where the word Metropolis was uttered to the sign pointing out how far they were from there. And he even said "Muh-trop-olis" once he made the connection to the sign and then when he got a good look at Clark on Caltron. And in the Gog story arcs, Doomsday showed that he could evolve enough to develop an intellect on par with your average living being. He was even capable of using a GL power ring and was smart enough to figure out how to trigger explosions after doing so the first time.


It's at least manslaughter.

Involuntary since he was unaware that they didn't get on the copter and he was too busy focusing his energies on lifting the island up out of the water.

NotSuper
05-27-2011, 01:06 PM
Doomsday is very sentient as we saw on multiple occassions. He recognized Bertron as the being who had created him. When he saw Superman he would also see Bertron's face over his. He would laugh whenever he did something that he found to be impressive. He was capable of making the connection between the pro wrestling PPV promo on television, where the word Metropolis was uttered to the sign pointing out how far they were from there. And he even said "Muh-trop-olis" once he made the connection to the sign and then when he got a good look at Clark on Caltron. And in the Gog story arcs, Doomsday showed that he could evolve enough to develop an intellect on par with your average living being. He was even capable of using a GL power ring and was smart enough to figure out how to trigger explosions after doing so the first time.
I don't think that's evidence to suggest he's sentient. Mimicry doesn't imply intelligence. Likewise, his later evolutions are unimportant since Superman first "killed" him before those. But Doomsday did not have choice in the same way a sentient being does--he couldn't choose not to kill, it was wired into him. He had cunning, but it was the cunning of a beast. Otherwise, he had very little in common with an organic being--he didn't eat, breathe, sleep, leave waste, reproduce, or have natural feelings of fear (which Superman confirmed when Doomsday did gain intelligence and thus fear).

Doomsday was little more than a machine that killed.

NotSuper
05-27-2011, 01:12 PM
Doomsday (except when he's gained intelligence) has never been shown to have any subjective feelings, only rough memories that led him to things to destroy. But those were simply shadows that led him, not subjective feelings. You can't be sentient without subjective feelings.

And, on a more metaphysical level, Doomsday probably doesn't have a soul. I'd guess the same rules that apply to clones (that they have to "earn" a soul) apply to an aberration like Doomsday.

Iroquois
05-27-2011, 01:13 PM
Involuntary since he was unaware that they didn't get on the copter and he was too busy focusing his energies on lifting the island up out of the water.
it really doesn't matter. He knew what would happen top-side when he picked up the island. At the very least, he didn't care if they lived or died. I still count that in my book.

stk
05-27-2011, 01:26 PM
Involuntary since he was unaware that they didn't get on the copter and he was too busy focusing his energies on lifting the island up out of the water.Lawyers would argue about this, because he knew they were on the island. Legally, I guess it's moot if they were outside of US waters, but that isn't what would matter to Superman anyway.

I agree with you about Doomsday, though.

And @NotSuper: I think laughter strongly suggests subjective feelings.

NotSuper
05-29-2011, 10:24 AM
And @NotSuper: I think laughter strongly suggests subjective feelings.
That was after his first battle with Superman and thus a different case.

NotSuper
05-29-2011, 10:28 AM
In any case, Superman (as revealed in issue #666 of Superman) doesn't believe he's killed anyone. Thus, he doesn't consider Doomsday to fit in his code, much like machines or vampires.

Iangould
05-29-2011, 11:14 AM
I don't think that's evidence to suggest he's sentient. Mimicry doesn't imply intelligence. Likewise, his later evolutions are unimportant since Superman first "killed" him before those. But Doomsday did not have choice in the same way a sentient being does--he couldn't choose not to kill, it was wired into him. He had cunning, but it was the cunning of a beast. Otherwise, he had very little in common with an organic being--he didn't eat, breathe, sleep, leave waste, reproduce, or have natural feelings of fear (which Superman confirmed when Doomsday did gain intelligence and thus fear).

Doomsday was little more than a machine that killed.

I'd say the ability to read a road sign is clear evidence of intelligence.

Psychopaths are sentient.

Captain Smith
05-29-2011, 11:22 AM
I'd bet you that Doomsday would pass the common psychological test for self-awareness. That entails putting a red dot on the forehead of an animal when it is asleep and see if it notices it in a mirror. Primates, elephants do.

Vampires are clearly self-aware also.

It's parsing semantics to argue that killing a self-aware being isn't killing.

BTW, in the Days of Vengenance arc, IIRC - Supes let Spectre destroy Satannis (sp?) with a bit of a plot. So that was death by in action. True, Satannis came back but that wasn't known at the time.

Mat001
05-29-2011, 12:07 PM
That was after his first battle with Superman and thus a different case.

No, that was during the first battle. Doomsday did laugh in Superman #75 and he did speak during that arc. And last I checked, any human or humanoid that can speak shows signs of intelligence and thus is sentient.

doc13
05-30-2011, 05:26 AM
He did in Superman v Aliens if i recall.

Ballistic27
05-30-2011, 08:22 AM
Pre-Crisis Superman killed Mxyzptlk in Action #583. Tore his body in half with a phantom zone projector.

I actually just read that story in the "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" Deluxe HC. It was good stuff and my first time reading a pre-crisis Superman tale.

Mat001
05-30-2011, 10:01 AM
He did in Superman v Aliens if i recall.

Kara, not Kara Zor-El, activated a self destruct that would destroy the Argo planetoid and kill the Aliens, while also freeing their escape pods. Clark did try to kill various warriors and drones, but couldn't do it. It was either Kara or one of the other survivors that killed them on Argo. Or Lois and the name escapes me at the moment, the Lexcorp scientist on the Lexcorp space station. The closest to actually killing was when Clark regurgitated the Queen Face Hugger after regaining his powers. Clark couldn't bring himself to kill in the first series and it was mostly Orion and Darkseid who did the killing in the sequel. In "Superman/Batman Vs Aliens/Predator", Clark insisted that neither species be killed while Bruce was willing to, at least for the xenomorphs.

Surtur
05-30-2011, 12:31 PM
It should be noted that not only did he kill 3 Kryptonian's, he took away their powers permanently before doing so.

Though as one might expect..doing that sort of drove him crazy for a while.

Lorendiac
06-01-2011, 12:48 PM
It should be noted that not only did he kill 3 Kryptonian's, he took away their powers permanently before doing so.

I think it would be more accurate to say: "He did something which, according to what he'd heard about the different physical laws applying to Kryptonite and Kryptonian powers in that pocket universe (as opposed to the New Earth universe he came from), theoretically might result in their powers being permanently removed. However, Zod promptly started bragging about how he was sure he and his friends could eventually find a way to undo the effect and get back to full power!"

Since Gold K did not even exist in Superman's native timeline, he had no solid basis for judging how hard or how easy it would be for Zod to actually find a way to regain his powers. So he assumed the worst.

NotSuper
06-01-2011, 07:31 PM
No, that was during the first battle. Doomsday did laugh in Superman #75 and he did speak during that arc. And last I checked, any human or humanoid that can speak shows signs of intelligence and thus is sentient.
Where did you check that at? That's not the dictionary definition of sentience. Speaking does not imply sentience. A being that can mimic speech isn't necessarily capable of understanding it.

And Superman himself pretty much said it best when Doomsday gained intelligence: "You're different now. You can think for yourself. So think about this. Before, you were a mindless thing. Nothing could hurt you. You couldn't feel pain, much less understand it. But once you have felt it — it changes you — forever. And you'll begin to understand something new. Fear."

Doomsday was a mindless beast that couldn't understand pain or fear. Sentience requires this kind of understanding. (Even if a sentient being can't feel pain, they ought to know what pain is.) Doomsday didn't understand these subjective states--it just killed endlessly.

NotSuper
06-01-2011, 07:34 PM
sentience [ˈsɛnʃəns], sentiency
n

1. the state or quality of being sentient; awareness
2. sense perception not involving intelligence or mental perception; feeling

According to Superman, Doomsday felt no fear or pain and didn't even understand what they were.

NotSuper
06-01-2011, 07:38 PM
I'd say the ability to read a road sign is clear evidence of intelligence.
Mimicry is not intelligence.


Psychopaths are sentient.
Psychopaths lack empathy, but studies show they can understand right from wrong, they simply don't see why they should follow these rules. Furthermore, they do understand what subjective feelings are--they just don't care. Doomsday, as described by Superman, was less than a psychopath.

For more information, go here: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/723848

Surtur
06-03-2011, 01:55 PM
I think it would be more accurate to say: "He did something which, according to what he'd heard about the different physical laws applying to Kryptonite and Kryptonian powers in that pocket universe (as opposed to the New Earth universe he came from), theoretically might result in their powers being permanently removed. However, Zod promptly started bragging about how he was sure he and his friends could eventually find a way to undo the effect and get back to full power!"

Eh, honestly..what did he expect Zod to say in a situation like that?

marshal99
06-03-2011, 08:02 PM
Superman couldn't risk it , the kryptonians in the pocket universe were vastly stronger and more powerful than superman.

Ace Grayson
06-03-2011, 08:08 PM
http://www.dccomics.com/dcu/graphic_novels/?gn=1559

4thHorseman
06-03-2011, 08:31 PM
Doomsday was a mindless beast that couldn't understand pain or fear. Sentience requires this kind of understanding. (Even if a sentient being can't feel pain, they ought to know what pain is.) Doomsday didn't understand these subjective states--it just killed endlessly.

*cough*

http://i462.photobucket.com/albums/qq348/4thHorseman/498817-superman_vs_doomsday_16_super.jpg


:wink::tongue:

NotSuper
06-03-2011, 09:03 PM
*cough*

http://i462.photobucket.com/albums/qq348/4thHorseman/498817-superman_vs_doomsday_16_super.jpg
Ah, but was it pain or frustration? Pain is different than a reaction to force.

And Superman himself said--much longer after the fight--that Doomsday couldn't feel OR understand pain.

Checkmate. I sunk your battle-ship. :wink: :tongue:

Mat001
06-04-2011, 11:48 AM
Read what Clark thinks in that scene. "Yes! I finally managed to hurt him!" Roger Stern, who had access to Dan Jurgens script for that issue when he adapted it in his novelization, also wrote that Clark hurt Doomsday when he broke the bone spur off. We can chalk up what was written in Action Comics #823 as bad writing by JD Finn.

NotSuper
06-04-2011, 12:22 PM
Read what Clark thinks in that scene. "Yes! I finally managed to hurt him!" Roger Stern, who had access to Dan Jurgens script for that issue when he adapted it in his novelization, also wrote that Clark hurt Doomsday when he broke the bone spur off. We can chalk up what was written in Action Comics #823 as bad writing by JD Finn.
No we can't "chalk it up" to that. It happened, it's part of continuity--old takes are superseded by new takes.

Besides, Jurgens was guilty of such things himself. He contradicted himself with the Cyborg-Superman and Superman's intentions regarding his "death." In the original Return story, it's clear that Superman is intending to murder Henshaw via super-vibration; however, when Henshaw next returns, Superman says he wasn't trying to kill Henshaw and knew he'd survive. Clearly, he changed it when he (or someone) decided that Superman wouldn't kill a defenseless opponent (not after the pocket universe incident).

So yeah, I'm going by the latest in-continuity explanation, which is Doomsday NOT being sentient.

Mat001
06-04-2011, 01:22 PM
No we can't "chalk it up" to that. It happened, it's part of continuity--old takes are superseded by new takes.

Actually, that's a potential future and not the actual future. Hence we can chalk it up to this JD Finn, who is apparently an alias for someone who didn't want to credit themselves for the crappy writing.


Besides, Jurgens was guilty of such things himself. He contradicted himself with the Cyborg-Superman and Superman's intentions regarding his "death." In the original Return story, it's clear that Superman is intending to murder Henshaw via super-vibration; however, when Henshaw next returns, Superman says he wasn't trying to kill Henshaw and knew he'd survive. Clearly, he changed it when he (or someone) decided that Superman wouldn't kill a defenseless opponent (not after the pocket universe incident).

So yeah, I'm going by the latest in-continuity explanation, which is Doomsday NOT being sentient.

Except in Superman #82, it's brought up that Henshaw could still be around and hidden somewhere in Engine City, by Steel, I believe. Which is why Hal does a quick check with his power ring and states that he can find no trace of him. Ergo, Clark knew that he didn't kill him.

NotSuper
06-04-2011, 02:38 PM
Actually, that's a potential future and not the actual future. Hence we can chalk it up to this JD Finn, who is apparently an alias for someone who didn't want to credit themselves for the crappy writing.
No, it isn't. Superman references the first encounter with Doomsday--and HOW THE CREATURE FELT NO PAIN OR FEAR. It was only later that Doomsday was returned to an earlier timeline state. And no, the dialogue was written by Jeph Loeb, not a pseudonym. It's in Superman Vol 2 175 (http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Superman_Vol_2_175). This was before the LATER timeline mess.


Except in Superman #82, it's brought up that Henshaw could still be around and hidden somewhere in Engine City, by Steel, I believe. Which is why Hal does a quick check with his power ring and states that he can find no trace of him. Ergo, Clark knew that he didn't kill him.
No, look at the panel.

http://superman.nu/theages/History/wanted/cyborg.jpg

Superman clearly INTENDED to kill Henshaw--that Henshaw might survive was a noted possibility, but Superman clearly wants to and tries to kill Henshaw.

"If so..." speaks volumes.

So yes, Jurgens did retcon Superman's intentions.

NotSuper
06-04-2011, 02:43 PM
What you're thinking of, Mat, is a different storyline. Your JD Finn story was later, and does nothing to contradict the dialogue I posted. Fact is, Superman says Doomsday did not feel pain or fear back WHEN HE FIRST FOUGHT HIM.

Iroquois
06-04-2011, 06:04 PM
Does it matter that much if Superman killed a sentient Doomsday the first time around? I'm quite a bit of a purist myself when it comes to Superman not killing, but if I would ever go along with him doing so, it would be with his last breath, in a desperate, irrational struggle to put an end to a threat that has outdone even him.

That "Return" panel, however, is a tad disturbing-- and I didn't even remember it.

invisible
06-04-2011, 10:21 PM
I imagine all of those bullets bouncing off his chest early on might have killed a few innocent bystanders (not to mention all of the rubble created during his fights in metropolis, but this probably true for most supers).

Didn't supes change his costume to a bullet-catching one early on because of this?

dupersuper
06-06-2011, 03:45 AM
And, on a more metaphysical level, Doomsday probably doesn't have a soul. I'd guess the same rules that apply to clones (that they have to "earn" a soul) apply to an aberration like Doomsday.

Metaphysical/superstitious hokum...tomato/tomAto...


In any case, Superman (as revealed in issue #666 of Superman) doesn't believe he's killed anyone. Thus, he doesn't consider Doomsday to fit in his code, much like machines or vampires.

Barring sentient machines, of course. As for Doomsday, can you count temporarily killing some one? If they get better, that sounds like attempted murder at most.

Surtur
06-06-2011, 09:38 AM
Superman couldn't risk it , the kryptonians in the pocket universe were vastly stronger and more powerful than superman.

I'm not saying I don't understand his reasons, but either way he still killed them.

Though I will point out that Supes is the same guy who wanted to give Superboy Prime another chance, and Prime was vastly more powerful then the pocketverse Kryptonians.

Mat001
06-06-2011, 11:12 AM
No, it isn't. Superman references the first encounter with Doomsday--and HOW THE CREATURE FELT NO PAIN OR FEAR. It was only later that Doomsday was returned to an earlier timeline state. And no, the dialogue was written by Jeph Loeb, not a pseudonym. It's in Superman Vol 2 175 (http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Superman_Vol_2_175). This was before the LATER timeline mess.

And in Superman #75, Superman injured Doomsday and saw that he hurt him. If Loeb screwed up, that's on him, which isn't the first time he's screwed up characterizations to fit his goals.


No, look at the panel.

http://superman.nu/theages/History/wanted/cyborg.jpg

Superman clearly INTENDED to kill Henshaw--that Henshaw might survive was a noted possibility, but Superman clearly wants to and tries to kill Henshaw.

"If so..." speaks volumes.

So yes, Jurgens did retcon Superman's intentions.

Which doesn't change Loeb's screw up, nor what's on panel from Superman #75. You can make the arguement from Jurgens messing up his own writing, but you cannot with Loeb. Not when you can read any book he wrote and see how he contradicts characterizations. Such as when he had Lex purposely inject Kryptonite into his veins, knowing full well that it could kill him after what it did the last time. Or when Loeb outright contradicted Two-Face's origin by tying it into "The Long Halloween" or Dick Grayson's origin by tying it into "Dark Victory".


Though I will point out that Supes is the same guy who wanted to give Superboy Prime another chance, and Prime was vastly more powerful then the pocketverse Kryptonians.

That's because it was stated that the writers intentionally retconned the events of "The Supergirl Saga", so that he had not killed anyone. Hence Superman #666 was correct based on their own retconning of events. Which is why Johns wanted to redeeming Prime.

Surtur
06-06-2011, 01:49 PM
You are saying that Prime now didn't kill all those heroes who came to fight him during his fight with Superboy?

Since I know for sure that there was a comic where the Legion and Superman were both fully aware of what the guy had done, and Supes still wanted to give him a chance.

Mat001
06-06-2011, 02:03 PM
You are saying that Prime now didn't kill all those heroes who came to fight him during his fight with Superboy?

No, Prime killed. It's the Superman of Earth-0 who has never killed as of "Infinite Crisis" #6. Though Geoff Johns avoided refering to it in issue one, when the argument about killing was going on. Johns wrote Clark wanting to redeem Prime because he didn't believe in killing, since in the current continuity, he had never killed. Busiek had dealt with the killing subject a few months earlier in Superman #666.

Kurt Busiek
06-06-2011, 06:02 PM
Busiek had dealt with the killing subject a few months earlier in Superman #666.

Not really. #666 establishes that Superman doesn't remember killing anyone -- but Rakkar wasn't making it up, either. So it was a mystery, at the very least.

kdb

NotSuper
06-06-2011, 07:04 PM
Not really. #666 establishes that Superman doesn't remember killing anyone -- but Rakkar wasn't making it up, either. So it was a mystery, at the very least.

kdb
A shame we won't get to find out. I thought it was an interesting storyline.

tgjensen
06-06-2011, 11:27 PM
Mimicry is not intelligence.

I don't see how you can call that mimicry. There's a difference between associating two objects (the sign and the city), which many animals can learn through Pavlovian conditioning for example, and comprehending that a sign - never seen before by Doomsday, mind you - indicates the whereabouts of a city many miles away. That requires some level of true intelligence in my eyes.

That Superman claims that Doomsday wasn't intelligent when they first met doesn't necessarily mean anything, either. That was just the character's impression. He could have misjudged, what with being busy getting killed and all.

vitruvian
06-07-2011, 01:40 PM
That's because it was stated that the writers intentionally retconned the events of "The Supergirl Saga", so that he had not killed anyone. Hence Superman #666 was correct based on their own retconning of events. Which is why Johns wanted to redeeming Prime.

How was "The Supergirl Saga" actually retconned, though? What did he do to the Phantom Zone villains of the pocket universe if he did not kill them?

Crisis
06-07-2011, 01:52 PM
the golden age superman killed. more than once.

dupersuper
06-07-2011, 07:58 PM
How was "The Supergirl Saga" actually retconned, though? What did he do to the Phantom Zone villains of the pocket universe if he did not kill them?

It's never been said. My personal theory is that Time Trapper killed them and gave Supes false memories to descredit him/drive him mad in his quest to prevent him inspiring the LoSH.

NotSuper
06-08-2011, 01:56 AM
And in Superman #75, Superman injured Doomsday and saw that he hurt him. If Loeb screwed up, that's on him, which isn't the first time he's screwed up characterizations to fit his goals.
You're missing the point. DC accepted it as continuity--so it WAS continuity. And, no offense, but you yourself screwed up in this thread by claiming someone else wrote the dialogue I posted when it was Loeb (who, I might point out, was given a lot of free reign over continuity).


Which doesn't change Loeb's screw up, nor what's on panel from Superman #75. You can make the arguement from Jurgens messing up his own writing, but you cannot with Loeb.
Retcons aren't screw-ups. You might not like the idea, but it was his call to make.

And yes, Jurgens did change his own writing when Henshaw returned. I'm not saying he was wrong to do so (because it WAS out of character for Superman to TRY to murder someone--especially after he swore never to after killing the PZ Criminals). Actually, that's a similar case to this one: Jurgens having Superman TRY to kill Henshaw directly contradicts his vow to NEVER AGAIN take another life after his trip to the pocket universe. He even later points this vow in (you guessed it) a Jurgens story (this was in the Electro-Superman era).

NotSuper
06-08-2011, 01:58 AM
How was "The Supergirl Saga" actually retconned, though? What did he do to the Phantom Zone villains of the pocket universe if he did not kill them?
It probably never happened to the Earth-0 Superman. The references the Trapper makes to it are probably just a reference to the Byrne-Superman killing them.

Superman only remembers meeting one Zod--the current one.

dupersuper
06-08-2011, 09:33 PM
It probably never happened to the Earth-0 Superman. The references the Trapper makes to it are probably just a reference to the Byrne-Superman killing them.

Superman only remembers meeting one Zod--the current one.

Not in my awesome personal continuity. DC Editorial may continue to bite me.

Jody Garland
06-10-2011, 12:34 AM
I just read a Silver Age story- Action Comics #278, to be specific- that has a particularly mind boggling ending. Supergirl, using White Kryptonite, kills a plant based parasite infesting Perry White. Thing is, it was intelligent. Like, really intelligent. It built a radiotelescope out of a television to contact its superiors and everything. It was pretty :eek:.

BTW, evil Perry had a Red Kryptonite spear and a Green Kryptonite sword. That is badass.

Lee Stone
06-10-2011, 06:47 AM
the golden age superman killed. more than once.

Didn't he throw someone "far away" once? And we never saw where the body landed.

Jody Garland
06-10-2011, 07:14 AM
Didn't he throw someone "far away" once? And we never saw where the body landed.

Yup, in Action #2.

Crisis
06-13-2011, 01:55 PM
The Golden Age/Earth 2 Superman was pretty hardcore...then he changed his 'morals' and no longer killed anyone. Sorta like Batman originally had no problem carrying and using a gun...then that changed.

Mat001
06-13-2011, 03:14 PM
You're missing the point. DC accepted it as continuity--so it WAS continuity.

Eddie Bergenza wasn't paying as close attention as his predecessors had.


And, no offense, but you yourself screwed up in this thread by claiming someone else wrote the dialogue I posted when it was Loeb (who, I might point out, was given a lot of free reign over continuity).

I didn't screw up. You didn't specifiy which story, which is why I cited Austen's story and not Loeb's. I recalled Austen's story because it was a major plot point and not a throw away line under Loeb.


Retcons aren't screw-ups. You might not like the idea, but it was his call to make.

We're assuming that it was an intentional call to make and not that Loeb and Bergenza didn't pay attention to the contents of Superman #75, where Doomsday clearly feels pain.


It probably never happened to the Earth-0 Superman. The references the Trapper makes to it are probably just a reference to the Byrne-Superman killing them.

No, Johns was specifically refering to this Superman and this Legion, not an hypertype retcon. Johns wrote that the Trapper was doing his best to alter history and along the way, they still existed and still found each other. He wasn't saying that MOS is a separate universe. In fact, Clark remembers encountering each Legion in Action Comics #864, which Bruce also remembers. The Trapper's first efforts resulted in a Kal-El who was never Superboy and a Legion that was inspired by his creation. The next effort was that the Legion was inspired by Valor thanks to Glorith. Then it was the heroes of the late 20th century that served as inspiration and that M'Onel was freed from the Stasis Zone with the help of Kon-El. Then it was the Legion who thought that the heroes were fictional beings, since data from the early 21st century was scarce and incomplete. Now it's that three universes exist at once and one of which was inspired by Kal-El when he was a teenager and grew into an adult hero.

A statement, I think from Busiek, said think of it not as Zod but as Dod or Fod or something like that.

d0dg3r
06-14-2011, 08:39 AM
http://comicbooks.bad-dreams.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/superman-kills.jpg

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100823044324/marvel_dc/images/thumb/7/71/Superman_kills_01.jpg/563px-Superman_kills_01.jpg

The answer is yes.

Mat001
06-14-2011, 10:57 AM
Short answer, yes. Long answer, no due to retcons that take those stories out of continuity.

gorosaurus
07-06-2011, 09:21 PM
Superman couldn't risk it , the kryptonians in the pocket universe were vastly stronger and more powerful than superman.

This story seemed to violate its own rules. The villains were supposed to be
Pre-Crisis Kryptonian strong, but they have to wear masks to breathe in space. And I didn't think green K could kill non-super Kryptonians ( in the Pre-Crisis Pocket Universe, anyway).

NotSuper
07-06-2011, 11:25 PM
Eddie Bergenza wasn't paying as close attention as his predecessors had.
Oh please. There's no way you could possibly know that. You're speculating. I've already explained how it was in continuity. There's no need for walls of text--it's a simple fact.

What you think OUGHT to have been the case doesn't matter. Only what is (or in this case, was) matters.

NotSuper
07-06-2011, 11:27 PM
This story seemed to violate its own rules. The villains were supposed to be
Pre-Crisis Kryptonian strong, but they have to wear masks to breathe in space. And I didn't think green K could kill non-super Kryptonians ( in the Pre-Crisis Pocket Universe, anyway).
Yeah, looking bad it was a pretty bad story. It almost seemed like the pocket Earth was destroyed because DC didn't want another universe (even a pocket one) to exist. Kind of a waste, really. (Not that it was a good retcon in the first place, but something good could've possibly been done with it.)

Mat001
07-07-2011, 10:32 AM
Oh please. There's no way you could possibly know that. You're speculating. I've already explained how it was in continuity. There's no need for walls of text--it's a simple fact.

What you think OUGHT to have been the case doesn't matter. Only what is (or in this case, was) matters.


It's not about what I think it ought to have been. It's what was until Loeb changed it, because he didn't pay attention to the details or ignored it for his own purposes. Doomsday could feel pain and reacted to it. It's right there in Superman #75.

Jody Garland
07-07-2011, 10:38 AM
http://comicbooks.bad-dreams.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/superman-kills.jpg



The answer is yes.

The first pic is somewhat misleading. The guy in question tried to stab Superman whilst he was jumping through the air, causing Superman to jump into a bridge support, or a building. Superman was able to right himself, but he dropped the guy. He didn't mean to drop him or anything.

liheibao
07-07-2011, 02:35 PM
Action Comics Annual #2, and I'm paraphrasing: "I am the last son of Krypton1 I am Kal-El! And I do not kill!"

Captain Smith
07-07-2011, 04:04 PM
Remember when Supes and Lois fought that goddess from Krypton - what happened to her?

dupersuper
07-08-2011, 12:30 AM
Remember when Supes and Lois fought that goddess from Krypton - what happened to her?

She's trapped in the sun. I always wanted Supes to mention that to the Religious Cast in World of New Krypton...

lewis_alwin
07-15-2011, 03:23 AM
yes he has, although not in modern comics. when he first came out he was a differant character, he could not fly only "leap tall buildings ina single bound" and such as he is show crushing "thugs" and throwing them off buildings and such
in modern comics, he killed Doomsday but that is all that comes to mind.

Gary DJ
07-18-2011, 12:34 PM
I just read a Silver Age story- Action Comics #278, to be specific- that has a particularly mind boggling ending. Supergirl, using White Kryptonite, kills a plant based parasite infesting Perry White. Thing is, it was intelligent. Like, really intelligent.

Yes, and a few panels later, Superman himself kills the host plant.

http://www.wtv-zone.com/silverager/sasar3/archive68.shtml

Superman accidentally kills a ghost (how do you do that?) when the spirit sticks his hand in the path of Superman's heat vision.

http://supermanfan.nu/main/?p=3515

Although it can't be considered canon, here's a related gag from PLOP, DC's humor comic.

http://supermanfan.nu/main/?p=4611

The supermanfan links are dead, but I'm leaving them up, in case the material is still there, maybe someone can navigate to it.


In the movies, he killed two of the three Phantom Zone villains. That plucky Lois Lane killed the third.

Superman did toss General Zod into the icy depths, but Non killed himself, when he tried to fly without super powers.

Richard Donner's cut aside, MAD Magazine's spoof of Superman II speculated that the villains were frozen and might be thawed out for a future sequel. I didn't think that was too far-fetched from actually being the case.