Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 23,357
|
Post by Legion on Nov 9, 2013 19:59:40 GMT -5
I always assumed Supes didn't kill, and looked down on those who do, because that isn't their place.
They are the heroes, they save the day, they capture the bad guy. The courts then take over. The criminal justice system. If the criminal gets off, or gets chucked in jail, and doesnt get the death penalty, then that is because that is what the system in that places allows for.
Superman isn't the judge, he isn't the executioner. He just stops the crimes.
If he became the judge, and became the executioner then he steps over the line. He stops being a force inside the system and becomes the system. And once he does that, he may as well just become world dictator.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2013 20:04:28 GMT -5
This is one of the many reasons why I think Superman is one of the worst heroes ever... You kinda defeat - or at least bungle up the argument - by saying both these things. Superman is kinda outdated, but that doesn't make him awful. He was the product of an age with.....frankly a different grasp on morality than the modern age. Like Stan Lee said, "With great power comes great responsibility." It said/says a lot about a hero who CAN kill who chooses to for reasons of "being better than that." For a character like Superman, whose creators most likely intended for him to have that kind of morality (not all heroes do), killing isn't really an option at all. Killing is not the easy way out, although as the years have progressed and the world evolved in how it thinks (women voting? black folks being equal to whites? gays marrying?) the idea of killing vs. not killing - as serial killers get more awful, wars wear on the national psyche, and so on - has adapted as well. As for letting villains live, those older days of comics were a time where the "romantic" view of bad guys was created, and it's something that continues today. In reality, bad guys are awful and should die; but in fiction there's something quite fantastical with the bad guy being able to get away and to keep coming back to fight another day. I mean, the guys who created the Joker KILLED HIM very early on, but when people reacted and wanted more of him, and as their view of who and what Batman was (and how much money he made DC Comics) evolved, they brought him back.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,909
Member is Online
|
Post by Mozenrath on Nov 9, 2013 21:18:10 GMT -5
Superheroes that won't kill make life more difficult for the citizens of their cities. By now, I doubt anyone would have a problem with Batman killing the Joker. He's a major threat constantly and the longer he's kept alive, the more people will die. Better to end it all once and for all. Maybe the citizens of the city should step up and do it then? They have the power to elect people in and write laws in favor of harsher punishments, it shouldn't all fall on one person to find, subdue, judge, and execute that person. There's that. Batman has never, to my knowledge, come out against capital punishment, but that it is not his to exact on criminals. If the government made some sort of declaration calling on citizens to kill Joker, as unorthodox as it'd be, there'd be little Batman could or would do about it.
|
|
|
Post by Cela on Nov 9, 2013 21:42:59 GMT -5
The inherent tragedy of Superman is that as powerful as he is, he can't save them all. Every time he has a long drawn out fight with a super villain, people are dying somewhere in the world, that he could have saved. He must be tempted to go for the quickest win possible, not matter whether the opponent dies... I think if they touched on that side of him more, and kept his powers dialed back to 'awesome, but not omnipotent' then he'd be a much more interesting character. Batman has killed in the past, his old stories often ended with the villain dead. But that Batman is like Adam West Batman, it has no bearing on what the character has become.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Nov 9, 2013 22:26:23 GMT -5
Maybe the citizens of the city should step up and do it then? They have the power to elect people in and write laws in favor of harsher punishments, it shouldn't all fall on one person to find, subdue, judge, and execute that person. There's that. Batman has never, to my knowledge, come out against capital punishment, but that it is not his to exact on criminals. If the government made some sort of declaration calling on citizens to kill Joker, as unorthodox as it'd be, there'd be little Batman could or would do about it. Basically, yeah. I get the notion that these people should be taken of, it's ridiculous that people who have shown no remorse about mass murdering never have to face that for dramatic convenience, but I disagree with the notion that it should be the heroes who make those decisions. If we want to talk real-world dynamics in superhero stories, no one has absolute power over the punishment of the people they arrest.
|
|
|
Post by Jedi-El of Tomorrow on Nov 10, 2013 5:19:14 GMT -5
Besides, the superhero genre's been overridden by grim and grit for so long that I'd say Superman deserves a lot more appreciation than he gets for bucking trends. You damn skippy. When he lost it against The Elite, that's when everybody got scared, and realized what a Superman without that moral code would do. Without that moral code, and taking it upon himself to be judge, jury, and executioner, he becomes scarier than the villains, and a bigger threat.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Nov 10, 2013 9:37:46 GMT -5
Supervillains are too powerful. They'd just escape.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Nov 10, 2013 9:57:30 GMT -5
Supervillains are too powerful. They'd just escape. Nah, they have the technology to detain anyone who operates on Earth, and take out any villain who operates on Earth, they just don't want to use it. For literary convenience (easier to use existing characters rather than come up with new villains regularly), the citizens just don't support capital punishment so the villains can afford to wait around for someone else to compromise the system. The only people that realistically couldn't be handled by Earth forces are people like Darkseid, Amazo, Eclipso, Zod (depending on who has kryptonite) etc. Of course, that doesn't take into account people like Batman villains, who would be quite easy to detain considering most have all or minimal powers at best. Guys like Joker and Riddler fall on the citizens of the citizens of Gotham (or the state of... umm... New Yorkennsachusetticcut) for not being willing to truly put an end to it. But I guess we could grant the people with the power to move mountains, create city-wiping tsunamis and tornadoes, and disintegrate dudes complete and total unchecked rights to use their powers to judge and punish people solely by their own heightened sense of morality. People with insane amounts of power can always be trusted to use it properly and there's no way that could ever backfire in any medium.
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Nov 10, 2013 10:06:28 GMT -5
Superman can get away with not ever killing anyone because he exists in a 'verse where he never needs to. the Elite were a pastiche of The Authority, who live in a universe where they damn well had to kill every single thing that they fought because otherwise the entire planet would go kaboom. that's why I always thought the story was off-base. it was a false comparison. you can't present heroes in a universe where the villains are omnicidal baby-eating rape-beasts who will kill everyone for shits and giggles (and CAN easily do that) and then say the hero's the better man for not killing them. that's why Superman (and Batman for that matter) don't really work when you make the villain too dark/edgy because their codes about killing makes them look ineffectual (see: the way Joker became almost a caricature of evil and yet nobody ever killed him off). Supes is fine in his own stories where nobody ever really gets killed. works great as escapist fantasy. it's when some writers get "too real" and try presenting the character with moral dilemmas he was never meant for that he falls apart. and then they go pat themselves on the back because they made Superman "more dark/edgy/adult".
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Nov 10, 2013 10:12:51 GMT -5
Maybe the citizens of the city should step up and do it then? They have the power to elect people in and write laws in favor of harsher punishments, it shouldn't all fall on one person to find, subdue, judge, and execute that person. There's that. Batman has never, to my knowledge, come out against capital punishment, but that it is not his to exact on criminals. If the government made some sort of declaration calling on citizens to kill Joker, as unorthodox as it'd be, there'd be little Batman could or would do about it. while we're talking about The Elite, and by proxy, the Authority, this is why it was a bad idea to put Stormwatch in the same universe as Batman. Midnighter has all the ability in the world to 'port into Gotham, go to Arkham, kill all Batman's rogues, leave a sarcastic "you're welcome" note for Batman, and head back home in time for tea. and on top of that he'd be chomping at the bit to do it, both because of who he is and because of his new one-sided rivalry with Batman he had for a bit. hell, his partner Apollo was introduced on the run after having murdered a ring of child molesters. you cant have a Superman and a Batman who won't (and don't have to) kill in the same world as a Batman and Superman who both must and do.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Nov 10, 2013 10:23:38 GMT -5
There's that. Batman has never, to my knowledge, come out against capital punishment, but that it is not his to exact on criminals. If the government made some sort of declaration calling on citizens to kill Joker, as unorthodox as it'd be, there'd be little Batman could or would do about it. while we're talking about The Elite, and by proxy, the Authority, this is why it was a bad idea to put Stormwatch in the same universe as Batman. Midnighter has all the ability in the world to 'port into Gotham, go to Arkham, kill all Batman's rogues, leave a sarcastic "you're welcome" note for Batman, and head back home in time for tea. and on top of that he'd be chomping at the bit to do it, both because of who he is and because of his new one-sided rivalry with Batman he had for a bit. hell, his partner Apollo was introduced on the run after having murdered a ring of child molesters. you cant have a Superman and a Batman who won't (and don't have to) kill in the same world as a Batman and Superman who both must and do. I would agree that mixing completely disparate universes really doesn't work. There's probably a dozen or so DC characters that'd work so much better if they weren't in the same universe as the main league. Wildstorm and Dakotaverse should have been kept separate, and people like John Constantine should be doing their own thing in their own world.
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Nov 10, 2013 10:29:11 GMT -5
while we're talking about The Elite, and by proxy, the Authority, this is why it was a bad idea to put Stormwatch in the same universe as Batman. Midnighter has all the ability in the world to 'port into Gotham, go to Arkham, kill all Batman's rogues, leave a sarcastic "you're welcome" note for Batman, and head back home in time for tea. and on top of that he'd be chomping at the bit to do it, both because of who he is and because of his new one-sided rivalry with Batman he had for a bit. hell, his partner Apollo was introduced on the run after having murdered a ring of child molesters. you cant have a Superman and a Batman who won't (and don't have to) kill in the same world as a Batman and Superman who both must and do. I would agree that mixing completely disparate universes really doesn't work. There's probably a dozen or so DC characters that'd work so much better if they weren't in the same universe as the main league. Wildstorm and Dakotaverse should have been kept separate, and people like John Constantine should be doing their own thing in their own world. while we're at it, the X-men should've been left in their own universe separate from the rest because their inclusion raises too many questions about the "discriminated minority" aspects of the book. but I guess it's too late to put that genie back in its bottle.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Nov 10, 2013 10:36:13 GMT -5
Supervillains are too powerful. They'd just escape. Nah, they have the technology to detain anyone who operates on Earth, and take out any villain who operates on Earth, they just don't want to use it. For literary convenience (easier to use existing characters rather than come up with new villains regularly), the citizens just don't support capital punishment so the villains can afford to wait around for someone else to compromise the system. The only people that realistically couldn't be handled by Earth forces are people like Darkseid, Amazo, Eclipso, Zod (depending on who has kryptonite) etc. Of course, that doesn't take into account people like Batman villains, who would be quite easy to detain considering most have all or minimal powers at best. Guys like Joker and Riddler fall on the citizens of the citizens of Gotham (or the state of... umm... New Yorkennsachusetticcut) for not being willing to truly put an end to it. But I guess we could grant the people with the power to move mountains, create city-wiping tsunamis and tornadoes, and disintegrate dudes complete and total unchecked rights to use their powers to judge and punish people solely by their own heightened sense of morality. People with insane amounts of power can always be trusted to use it properly and there's no way that could ever backfire in any medium. Wouldn't change much in the superhero universes, since they could simply rule the world of their accord anyway given enough powers. If they must exist, then they could be recruited in some sort of black ops/Section 31 type organisation where supervillains of persistent danger to be the public would be eliminated. Batman is already operating outside the law, so killing the Joker and thus sparing Gotham anymore trouble wouldn't be too much outside the ordinary for what he does on a daily basis anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Nov 10, 2013 10:49:07 GMT -5
Nah, they have the technology to detain anyone who operates on Earth, and take out any villain who operates on Earth, they just don't want to use it. For literary convenience (easier to use existing characters rather than come up with new villains regularly), the citizens just don't support capital punishment so the villains can afford to wait around for someone else to compromise the system. The only people that realistically couldn't be handled by Earth forces are people like Darkseid, Amazo, Eclipso, Zod (depending on who has kryptonite) etc. Of course, that doesn't take into account people like Batman villains, who would be quite easy to detain considering most have all or minimal powers at best. Guys like Joker and Riddler fall on the citizens of the citizens of Gotham (or the state of... umm... New Yorkennsachusetticcut) for not being willing to truly put an end to it. But I guess we could grant the people with the power to move mountains, create city-wiping tsunamis and tornadoes, and disintegrate dudes complete and total unchecked rights to use their powers to judge and punish people solely by their own heightened sense of morality. People with insane amounts of power can always be trusted to use it properly and there's no way that could ever backfire in any medium. Wouldn't change much in the superhero universes, since they could simply rule the world of their accord anyway given enough powers. If they must exist, then they could be recruited in some sort of black ops/Section 31 type organisation where supervillains of persistent danger to be the public would be eliminated. Batman is already operating outside the law, so killing the Joker and thus sparing Gotham anymore trouble wouldn't be too much outside the ordinary for what he does on a daily basis anyway. yeah but Batman doesn't kill for personal reasons. I can completely buy that HE won't kill Joker. for that matter, i can buy most of his ex-sidekicks and Commissioner Gordon not doing it, for similar reasons. the problem is "why hasn't anyone else?"
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Nov 10, 2013 11:22:30 GMT -5
I would agree that mixing completely disparate universes really doesn't work. There's probably a dozen or so DC characters that'd work so much better if they weren't in the same universe as the main league. Wildstorm and Dakotaverse should have been kept separate, and people like John Constantine should be doing their own thing in their own world. while we're at it, the X-men should've been left in their own universe separate from the rest because their inclusion raises too many questions about the "discriminated minority" aspects of the book. but I guess it's too late to put that genie back in its bottle. I can't remember who, but someone else on this forum really had a great explanation for why humanity would be less trusting of mutants than of other heroes, and it came down to the fact that anyone could wake up and be a mutant. Parents could find that one day their son couldn't touch anything without blowing it up, or that he could grow fur and three heads and there's nothing they could do about that, and that is terrifying. Their son isn't going to wake up and be a party-boy billionaire tech genius, or get bombarded with cosmic radiation while flying an untested spaceship, so they don't really have to worry about that. The only issue is that other heroes who are allies of the X-Men don't do more to improve human-mutant relations. But then again, after all the mutant threats to reality, that's not guaranteed to work. Wouldn't change much in the superhero universes, since they could simply rule the world of their accord anyway given enough powers. If they must exist, then they could be recruited in some sort of black ops/Section 31 type organisation where supervillains of persistent danger to be the public would be eliminated. Batman is already operating outside the law, so killing the Joker and thus sparing Gotham anymore trouble wouldn't be too much outside the ordinary for what he does on a daily basis anyway. That's sort of the point though, the heroes could rule Earth, but they don't. Their philosophy is, for the most part, to let humans make those big moral decisions for themselves and that's what stops them from being tyrants and taking control of everything themselves. The heroes give humanity a large degree of automony, and their aversion to killing everything themselves is emblematic of it. Humanity has the tools, if it so chose, to take care of these threats once they were brought in, and them not doing so is their own decision. They'll step in to protect innocents, to stop disasters or tragedies or mass murders when possible, but they don't interfere with humanity's right to decide it's own future. Take that away, then you get any of the alternate realities where heroes taking that role has backfired.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Nov 10, 2013 12:24:44 GMT -5
Wouldn't change much in the superhero universes, since they could simply rule the world of their accord anyway given enough powers. If they must exist, then they could be recruited in some sort of black ops/Section 31 type organisation where supervillains of persistent danger to be the public would be eliminated. Batman is already operating outside the law, so killing the Joker and thus sparing Gotham anymore trouble wouldn't be too much outside the ordinary for what he does on a daily basis anyway. yeah but Batman doesn't kill for personal reasons. I can completely buy that HE won't kill Joker. for that matter, i can buy most of his ex-sidekicks and Commissioner Gordon not doing it, for similar reasons. the problem is "why hasn't anyone else?" If Batman killed enemies it would significantly improve his effectiveness in protecting Gotham City. I was playing a Batman video game and while sitting on a rooftop looking down at the violent armed criminals below guarding a communications device I was struck by the thought that if Batman used a high powered sniper rifle, Gotham would be much safer. But apparently jumping down into the middle of the mooks and fighting them by hand leaving them only temporarily incapacitated is a better option for him. My theory is that Batman simply likes to fight criminals but never to see them vanquished entirely. If they were dead, he'd have no purpose in life.
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Nov 10, 2013 12:30:43 GMT -5
yeah but Batman doesn't kill for personal reasons. I can completely buy that HE won't kill Joker. for that matter, i can buy most of his ex-sidekicks and Commissioner Gordon not doing it, for similar reasons. the problem is "why hasn't anyone else?" If Batman killed enemies it would significantly improve his effectiveness in protecting Gotham City. I was playing a Batman video game and while sitting on a rooftop looking down at the violent armed criminals below guarding a communications device I was struck by the thought that if Batman used a high powered sniper rifle, Gotham would be much safer. But apparently jumping down into the middle of the mooks and fighting them by hand leaving them only temporarily incapacitated is a better option for him. My theory is that Batman simply likes to fight criminals but never to see them vanquished entirely. If they were dead, he'd have no purpose in life. but that's the point. maybe he would be more effective, but his "I don't kill people" code is central to who he is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2013 13:22:03 GMT -5
I can't remember who, but someone else on this forum really had a great explanation for why humanity would be less trusting of mutants than of other heroes, and it came down to the fact that anyone could wake up and be a mutant. Parents could find that one day their son couldn't touch anything without blowing it up, or that he could grow fur and three heads and there's nothing they could do about that, and that is terrifying. Their son isn't going to wake up and be a party-boy billionaire tech genius, or get bombarded with cosmic radiation while flying an untested spaceship, so they don't really have to worry about that. The only issue is that other heroes who are allies of the X-Men don't do more to improve human-mutant relations. But then again, after all the mutant threats to reality, that's not guaranteed to work. That explanation only works if people know the origins of the superheroes and even then that only works if the hero is seen as trustworthy enough not to lie about it. If I had mutant powers in the Marvel Universe and got seen using them, I'd totally lie about how I got them. Unless you've got people running around all over the place blood-testing heroes, nobody knows precisely who carries the X-Gene and who doesn't. So theoretically your kid could wake up to be the next Captain America or Spider-Man. Nobody (as far as the average Marvel citizen) knows for sure if they are or aren't mutants. Which is why I thought the writers were normally lazy when it came to the X-Men. Mutants are the discriminated minority and the only way you can tell who is a mutant is they have to have powers and/or they have to look "inhuman." Nearly all the heroes who have powers would come under scrutiny. Those who don't have a good PR campaign or someone to vouch for them would likely get pegged as mutants. Not to mention you'd definitely have heroes who looked like assholes when they've got nothing to say or do while the US government continues to screw around with mutants. Funnily enough, that would actually be fine within the narrative, but that's all Marvel's issues with never letting any of their heroes really face any far-reaching consequences or implications for their actions where they will not come out looking heroic. The average Marvel citizen would be holding their heroes to a lot more scrutiny if the Mutant narrative made sense.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Nov 10, 2013 13:34:59 GMT -5
I can't remember who, but someone else on this forum really had a great explanation for why humanity would be less trusting of mutants than of other heroes, and it came down to the fact that anyone could wake up and be a mutant. Parents could find that one day their son couldn't touch anything without blowing it up, or that he could grow fur and three heads and there's nothing they could do about that, and that is terrifying. Their son isn't going to wake up and be a party-boy billionaire tech genius, or get bombarded with cosmic radiation while flying an untested spaceship, so they don't really have to worry about that. The only issue is that other heroes who are allies of the X-Men don't do more to improve human-mutant relations. But then again, after all the mutant threats to reality, that's not guaranteed to work. That explanation only works if people know the origins of the superheroes and even then that only works if the hero is seen as trustworthy enough not to lie about it. If I had mutant powers in the Marvel Universe and got seen using them, I'd totally lie about how I got them. Unless you've got people running around all over the place blood-testing heroes, nobody knows precisely who carries the X-Gene and who doesn't. So theoretically your kid could wake up to be the next Captain America or Spider-Man. Nobody (as far as the average Marvel citizen) knows for sure if they are or aren't mutants. Which is why I thought the writers were normally lazy when it came to the X-Men. Mutants are the discriminated minority and the only way you can tell who is a mutant is they have to have powers and/or they have to look "inhuman." Nearly all the heroes who have powers would come under scrutiny. Those who don't have a good PR campaign or someone to vouch for them would likely get pegged as mutants. Not to mention you'd definitely have heroes who looked like assholes when they've got nothing to say or do while the US government continues to screw around with mutants. Funnily enough, that would actually be fine within the narrative, but that's all Marvel's issues with never letting any of their heroes really face any far-reaching consequences or implications for their actions where they will not come out looking heroic. The average Marvel citizen would be holding their heroes to a lot more scrutiny if the Mutant narrative made sense. I thought Captain America's origin was public knowledge, and always imagined Spider-man's public image was mixed for the most part, thanks to Jameson's efforts. But you are right, it is inconsistent if you consider that most people won't know how all these people got their power, and even more so when you consider that the Avengers gets mutant members on a fairly regular basis.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave is Correct on Nov 10, 2013 13:35:11 GMT -5
I would agree that mixing completely disparate universes really doesn't work. There's probably a dozen or so DC characters that'd work so much better if they weren't in the same universe as the main league. Wildstorm and Dakotaverse should have been kept separate, and people like John Constantine should be doing their own thing in their own world. while we're at it, the X-men should've been left in their own universe separate from the rest because their inclusion raises too many questions about the "discriminated minority" aspects of the book. but I guess it's too late to put that genie back in its bottle. For the most point they kinda do... not officially... as the X-men do show up in other books (and there's the Uncanny Avengers) but currently the whole Infinity books where Thanos has invaded Earth... hasn't appeared in any of the X-men books at all. You'd think that would be kinda hard to miss
|
|