Do you guys agree with Superman's belief that his no kill policy is a better way than a hero who kills. Now...

Do you guys agree with Superman's belief that his no kill policy is a better way than a hero who kills. Now, I don't think Superman should be ok with killing people, his character is that he's against it and I feel any version of him (excluding elseworld/alternate universe versions) should respect it, I'm willinging to suspend my disbelief somewhat that people would agree with him after he gives an emotional speech.

But overall I can't deny it is completely the wrong way and makes these heroes responsible for hundreds if not thousands of deaths through inaction. I don't feel it's challenged enough, usually any character who kills and tries to change their mind is portrayed as the bad guy. Are you guys ok with this? Does it annoy you too much?

Other urls found in this thread:

greatkrypton.com/2012/10/31/superman-annual-10-the-death-sentence/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

He doesn't have a no kill policy though. What he disliked about the Elite is that they killed on sight instead of as a last resort when a villain cannot be subdued or rehabilitated.

>But overall I can't deny it is completely the wrong way and makes these heroes responsible for hundreds if not thousands of deaths through inaction.
Nope. They don't have to use their powers at all if they don't want to. You should be glad they're helping at all instead of leaving the planet or using them for their own benefit.

Killing is only acceptable in very few circumstances.

Why didn't Supes remove Atomic Skull's powers like he did the Elite?

Infact, why doesn't he just Keep the whole world in a bottle?

I'm ok with Superman killing when he has to.

If it's all about no killing why doesn't he just cripple the villain to make sure he doesn't kill again?
I call bullshit

The no-kill rule is great. The problem is that writers have to keep bringing back villains forever and ever in order to make money, so the idea that they are being put away for good or being reformed goes out the window.

Money ruins the message.

Was Atomic Skull being rehabilitated?

I think Supes is also making an effort to show the Elite how important he is as a symbol. Like, even if his methods weren't super effective at stopping villains, he knows that he has a secondary role as a role model and as someone that instills hope in the general populace.

With what this user said, and kind of what you said about it not being challenged, what we rarely see is the rehabilitation that is supposed to be the end goal. No warlords or psychopaths in comics change their ways otherwise the story's over

However, if that weren't the case, then I'd side with Superman. That's part of his character: that he sees the good in everyone

Heroes with "no-kill ever" rules are fucking idiots.

/thread

Where do you draw the line?

It's either: No-kill or All-Kill.

Either your Batman, or your the Punisher.

No one's allowed to be in the middle.

eh most heroes operate just fine in the middle actually, they'll kill if it's absolutely necessary but they won't just slaughter them all willy nilly either

What? Killing a villain who has killed innocents is the best way to prevent further civillian casualties. Villians hardly ever change or are put in a jail they can't escape. Once they take an innocent live they forefeit compassionate treatment.

I'd try to stray away with killing if it's just a petty thug, maybe even warn them to cut it out or use their powers for better purposes, though if I had to deal with someone like Joker, Green Goblin, or Carnage I'd kill them right on the spot and be done with it.

Since he can be subdued Superman believes it's the responsibility of the state to execute him then.

Yeah I get that's good and everything but I feel making sure Villains definitively cannot harm innocents is paramount and way more important than a symbol.

Generally yes, I agree.It shouldn't be up to an individual, even(especially?) one like Superman, do decide if someone deserves to live or die except when there is no other option. Of course we're never going to see a supervillain get a trial and lawfully executed because that's not the best story, but we have to accept that just as we accept that a yellow sun can make a man fly. Although I might be interested in a story where Superman serves as a one-man Seal Team Six for taking out some serious super-threat with the individual in question having already been legally and morally approved for execution. Not sure who would be best to write it.

Superman is literally in the middle so you're retarded

>Ironman
>Thor
>Wonder woman
>Batman (Terry)
>Wolverine
There are alot of heroes in the middle

So he puts laws over the lives of the people.

While what you're saying makes sense it's still not tye responsibility of the person who catches and stops the bad guy to make him not be evil. That is the villain's choice alone. As that user said the good guy has no responsibility to even try and stop them.

The American Way includes due process and all that stuff. Among other things.

Cops? Soldier? People who defend their lives?

>Do you guys agree with Superman's belief that his no kill policy is a better way than a hero who kills

No because it's a flimsy excuse to maintain the status quo and keep marketable rogues gallery for franchises with no clear direction.

I agree with Superman's no kill policy. Of course, there are exceptional cases but generally speaking, he should leave execution to the state/nation/authorities.

Same thing with the Batman/Joker thing. It's not Batman's fault for not killing the Joker, but the state's for only putting him in a relatively easily escapable looney bin instead of a supermax prison (assuming there's no capital punishment).

No, Atomic Skull does that. Superman saves innocent lives every time he stops him. Superman wants atomic skull to be rehabilitated, so Superman doesn't murder him. Suoerman doesn't even have any kind of responsibility to stop him in the first place so saying he is now responsible for the people Atomic Skull kills in the future is a special kind of stupid.

In all star Superman Lex Luthor is sentenced to death, if the state of metropolis is ok with this, why don't they kill anyother supervillains?

It always cracks me up when people try to insert "realist" ideals into characters like Superman. Besides, we're talking execution here, when's the last time any of you had to make a choice between life and death like that?

So Superman should become the Dictator of earth then? Injustice js the correct moral path for the character? He's smarternd fairer than all world leaders, he can get more done than them, anyone who dies of poverty, disease, etc is also on his head then right?

Superman wants to inspire people to be better and to help create a better world and a better future. He doesn't believe slaying his enemies and not caring about anyone will set a good example.

Meanwhile the Elite kill whoever they call an enemy, don't care about collateral damage or the people involved. They tell you to shut up, sit down and watch them get their hands dirty because the worlds a miserable, shitty place.

If Superman doesn't kill someone when he quite obviously can, what does that really say to you as a person? Does that make him an idiot? Does it mean he really does care about everyone? Or does it mean he willingly doesn't because it shouldn't be up to him.

I kinda wish Superman vs the Elite wasnt so strawmanish because it's a great idea to explore.

1. Inherent right to self defense
2. Defense of others
3. Defense of assets involving national security
4. Defense of inherently dangerous assets
5. Defense of national critical infrastructure
6. Prevention of serious offenses against persons

In all circumstances, deadly force shall only be used when nonlethal force proves ineffective and when the target has the capability, opportunity and displays intent to harm others.

>But overall I can't deny it is completely the wrong way and makes these heroes responsible for hundreds if not thousands of deaths through inaction.
Literally anyone can kill a villain once a hero detains them. It shouldn't be a hero's job to be executioner. At the same time, if a threat is beyond a hero's ability to detain without additional loss of life, that hero should feel free to use lethal force if they are able (some heroes just flat out aren't prepared to kill, which is fine, albeit it makes them a bit shittier of a hero).

A no kill rule that results in people getting killed because the only way to bring the villain in is to kill them is worthless. Violating a no kill rule only after the villain has killed enough people/the right person is fucking stupid. Not having a no kill rule is fine too, but not heroic.

Heroes aren't responsible for their villains (except, you know, when they are, but I digress).

I had an attempted rapist surrender to me once if that counts. Shit was awkward as fuck waiting for the cops while he stood there with his dick out. I doubt I would have gone full Punisher if he had resisted, but on some level I would have preferred beating his ass into the cement at the least instead of standing there between him and the lady he was beating on talking to 911.

Superman has killed but only as a last resort user. I feel it's a bad idea to let live villains that are completely non-redeemable complete mosters and every single possible alternative has been attempted to make such villains stop being complete monsters.

Why didn't you let him put his cock away

>Superman has killed but only as a last resort user
He straight up executed Zod and co with kryptonite.

Actually it makes the state responsible since they aren't executing or ensuring that the villiany are properly confined. It's like blaming the guy who sprays for roaches for them coming back when I keep piles of garbage lying around the house.

Inb4 Devil's advocate gets posted. It was a retarded story and makes no sense when Bats hated the Joker enough to let Gordon kill him in NML if he wanted to or threw his body in a dumpster after getting shot.

Ok about the responsibility thing let's say you end up in a room where there's a terrorist, he has a heartbeat monitor on him, killing this man will prevent a bomb, connected to said heartbeat monitor from killing 2000 schoolbuses full of children. Let's say you choose not to prevent this, everyone in the world is aware you had the chance to prevent this but chose not to, do you think when you walk out everyone's gonna be like, "It's all good man, you were under no obligation to stop those innocent people from dying, it's not your job!". No, you'd probably be charged with manslaughter on a genocidal level and everone would despise you.

Kinda yeah. In smaller scale, should a cop execute a disabled criminal because he thinks the law will go too easy on them?

>Why didn't you let him put his cock away
He did eventually when two other ladies walked up.

At one point the 911 operator cringed over the phone as I described the situation to them. God damn it fight or run. Don't make me babysit your ass while the cops drive over!

Maybe if the government warnt so shitty at their jobs Joker would be dead by now.

But the Superman solution wouldn't be to kill that guy it'd be to use some kryptonian heart stop technique and then defuse the monitor.

This, holy shit.

>depower a group of vigilantes that mean well, but are walking the wrong path and could probably be turned toward the light with enough effort
>meanwhile, fuckers like Atomic Skull, parasite, and entire legion of other get to keep their powers and continue the cycle of capture/escape/murder forever

Ruined the whole fucking thing for me.

I didn't like the movie adding the depowering part to the original story, it felt like overkill and made Superman look bad for not doing it earlier to Skull.

see
The argument isn't whether or not superman should kill ever, the argument is whether or not superman should execute defeated criminals.

With Atomicskull, superman can defeat him and have him locked up with reasonable safety. He's in the law's hands at that point. If he can't safely be contained, it's the people and the law's responsibility to pass the death sentence.
For your example, superman would absolutely kill them to save more lives, because he's forced to, not because it's easier like the Elites want to do.

He should stand on the side lines, let the humans rule their own world but only interfer when it will save lives, he is doing this already, just don't have half measures, if there's a killer kill them. And if you believe him doing this is bad because it's against the law, isn't being a vigilante against the law?

Uh i didn't read that issue yet so what was the context

So you didn't even restrain him? He just stood there like a child in time out and waited for the cops? What a faggot

Only Batman has a no kill rule. Every other superhero just doesn't like to kill unless they have to, including Superman.

This. The situation doesn't work with superman because he's superman and has a hundred ways to fix the problem.

Superman travels to alternate universe with alternate universe Zod and 2 followers.

Zod and co have murdered literally everyone.

Superman says as the last person in the universe it falls to him to be judge, jury, and executioner.

Superman pulls out kryptonite.

One of the three strangles another out of rage and the remaining two die of kryptonite exposure.

Superman has a mental breakdown and gets an actual murderer off death row to cope with the guilt of what he did.

Chester did bitch out in the end there.
>You're Superman. You don't do this!

Ok, literally what the fuck are you trying to say?

>So you didn't even restrain him?
He wasn't resisting and I'm not a cop.

If the rapist wants to wait for the cops, I'm not going to complicate shit. I do not know the specifics of citizens arrest laws to even attempt to fuck with a surrendered criminal. I was just at the CVS to pick up some god damn cold meds for my sister, not to spend the rest of my day talking my ass out of an assault charge.

Civilians in comics will always be overall a bunch of fucking idiots so things will always be bad. I'm not trying to be edgy i just read to not be able to b a optimist about things getting etter in universe

So Superman should be ok with Atomic Skull breaking out and rampaging because he wasn't supposed to be his burden.

If Superman is ok with letting unequipped people deal with this sort of thing when he has the ability to stop it permanently, doesn't that make him an asshole?

sueprheroes are not obligated to kill people, ever
it is a personal choice
superheroes are just there to figuratively trip the robber for cops to catch them, they are a public service, if a villian breaks out of prison to continue his rampage, thats on the cops for failing to contain him or give him the chair, but not on the superhero, who decided to stop the villian, when he otherwise was not obligated to
If a superhero decides to kill people, then that decision was his, and his alone

Yep, I guess that's my other problem, whenever a character tries for the opposing argument they always turn out to be assholes or monsters. It's never a straight debate because then Supes would lose.

If the superhero literally created the villain and they are put in a situation where literally the only way to stop the villain from killing someone is to kill said villain, then yeah, they are obligated to kill said villain.

Outside of dangers they created though, yeah, there's not obligation for killing.

>He doesn't have a no kill policy though.
Fuck off.

I well technically they killed everyone so i can't sy they desrved to live, who was the muderer he got off dead row?

Go read comics

lloyd corman

Maybe supes can't take away Atomic Skull's powers without killing him.

Uh doesn't ring a bell, i'm trying to find who that is but i'm not finding info

greatkrypton.com/2012/10/31/superman-annual-10-the-death-sentence/

I always loved Goku's no kill policy. It's not that he has an ethical problem with killing. He just like fighting strong people, so he doesn't kill them, because that means he can't fight them anymore.

>So Superman should be ok with Atomic Skull breaking out and rampaging because he wasn't supposed to be his burden.

No, he's not okay with him breaking out, that's why he insisted AS be locked up. If he could have predicted his escape, he would have done something else to prevent it, that he could escape at all was an anomoly caused by the greed of those who contained him wanting to use him for free energy, which Superman disagreed with but could find no fault in, as he did not know that they'd not taken the proper safety measures to ensure he couldn't siphon energy right back from a much bigger scale then he was previously able to obtain total. From Superman's perspective, he'd defeated the Skull, said skull was contained, and there was no reason to commit any further actions aside from the then unconfirmed idea he might possibly escape.

However, if one has to concede that he might escape, one must also have to concede that he might be rehabilitated. If the realm of possibility is up for debate, then his current actions of only containing him but having armed weapons pointed at him allowed for the contingencies of both. If the Atomic Skull is rehabilitated, then not only is that a benefit to society for one less criminal, but in Superman's world the superpowered threat is a little more common, and a hero who can give Superman a challenge and easily defeat heroes like The Elite would be a boon that could save thousands.

The morality you're presenting is only in the acceptable boundaries that one possibility, that he will escape, is a certainty, and ignores safe containment, rehabilitation, or just plain his power running out and he dies.

He's not an asshole for not murdering someone who, for all intents and purposes up till a safety failure, was safely held and being a boon to society.

Here's the problem with kill policies:
1. It requires justification on a paragon of justice's part. Supes could kill, but he doesn't because he upholds the morals and laws (to a lesser extent) of society. You'd have to vaporize a continent to get Supes to even consider murder in a lot of his renditions.
2. It requires creative effort. It's one thing to have a guy like Frank kill no-name criminal baddies, it's another to have Supes kill a huge cast of superpowered characters. While the tired comic trope of "they're only dead until the next reboot" holds, it still means for that saga that's one less character you have at your disposal and one more session of brainstorming you have to do to create a new character.
2b. As a result of this, you get more bullshit mary-sue villains that suck ass and should only exist on fanfiction sites becoming canon.
3. People don't like killing in capeshit. There's a reason everyone has such a massive hateboner for Frank, and that's because he's the odd one out.
3b. A lot of times in these continuous universes, having one character go around committing murder feels like a parody of the universe. That's why Frank feels out of place talking to the supers when there's a crossover - he doesn't really fit with the universe in most scenarios.

Superman should kill.

even in MoS, he did the right thing. Letting other people die because muh ideals is wrong, is being selfish and it goes against what being a hero is.

Fuck off.

>even in MoS, he did the right thing
Waited until a bunch of people he could have saved had been killed and then killed Zod?

Injustice did it better.

Superman operates similarly to the police. He acts using nonlethal force whenever reasonably possible to save lives and since he's superman, that's nearly every time. It's the same with the police, they're only supposed to use lethal force when lives are on the line, they're not as powerful as superman so they're forced to go in lethal more often.

Atomic Skull is like a dangerous criminal, superman can take him down nonlethally so he does. Atomic Skull is put through the legal system which didn't deem him worthy of a death sentence. Atomic Skull breaking out down the line isn't on the table because no one foresaw that.

To the cop analogy, if a cop goes by the book, encounters a dangerous armed criminal, knocks them out with a beanbag round and puts them through the legal system, it's again irrelevant to the situation that the criminal escaped and shot someone because that's wasn't foreseen. Your arguing that the cop should have taken the law into his own hands and shot an unconscious criminal because they thought they knew better.

The problem with MoS wasn't that he killed but that script was purposely railroaded to make him kill for stupid reasons

Zack wanted Supes to be an edgy neck snapper and created a contrived reason for doing so when any number of other alternatives could have happened.

like say moving the fucking family.

Why doesn't superman just take prisoners to his fortress of solitude and put them in a cage there?

It's not even an issue of due process or whatever, I mean half the villains he fights aren't even protected by US law or even international law considering they come from outer space, plus the point of due process is to counter corruption/error. Superman has literally no doubt that Doomsday or Brainiac are guilty as fuck

And he has robot housekeepers too, so it's not like it would be cruel or unusual punishment either, he could still have them fed, have them have human contact, w/e

that's what the green lanterns do

Darkseid, Doomsday, alternate-universe Zod, Imperiex, the Anti-Monitor, etc., have all been killed by Superman. Sometimes there are problems that can only be solved by lethal force, and Superman has no problems applying lethal force if it's absolutely necessary. It's not like he enjoys it or he's proud of it, although in the DCAU he was in denial of how personal his desire to kill Darkseid was.

But even then, he never actually directly killed Darkseid out of sheer personal anger: Batman made sure to keep him from crossing that line.

dat reference.

Also just the shitty framing that superman can't stop Zod from turning his head to heat vision a family and then have him snap it anyway.

Also they barely give it a second thought after the scene ends.

To be fair he took away the elites power by lasering something in their brain, and atomic skull doesn't exactly have a brain.

Probably because keeping them in the FoS is a bad idea given all the Kryptonian technology there. It's like locking the Joker up next to a chemical plant, you're just asking for a bad time should he escape.

> Superman has literally no doubt that Doomsday or Brainiac are guilty as fuck

That's still a problem because Superman is one guy and the world has to take his word that he's right. And what happens when he's wrong, like that time Luthor staged bombing a city just to make superman look bad (the Captain Marvel thing). And then what happens if someone impersonates Superman or another hero starts doing the same?

>Green Arrow kills that purple hatted guy that impersonated Kid Shazam or whatever his name was that was fucking with the league
>Doesn't kill the Joker

What?

you idiot.

the problem was not the family, Zod wouldnt stop and more people would die, even if the family moved.

the family is the humanity, if he lets zod go, he will kill them all, he had to kill him.

the problem was the scenes after.

>>meanwhile, fuckers like Atomic Skull, parasite, and entire legion of other get to keep their powers and continue the cycle of capture/escape/murder forever

But... Atomic Skull was hooked up to something SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO SIPHON HIS POWER

That was LITERALLY the entire point of his cell.

LITER-MOTHER-FUCKING-LY.

or actually, why hasn't he just throw everyone into the phantom zone

The movie didn't present it that way, it presented it like that one family was the last straw, and only because he wasn't able to stop those particular deaths.
It didn't show Superman looking over the damaged city thinking "i can't let this go any farther" all it showed was him straining to stop Zod from killing one family and begging him not to, then snapping his neck when it didn't work.

It's like the whole 'Martha' thing, you can say that it was the moment batman recognized superman as a person with parents just like he had, but shitty framing just makes it look like mommy issues.

Yes. Superman should kill everyone. Not just criminals, but everybody. They're going to let you down anyway, might as well kill them all.

:O Is it time for Moral Philosophy 101 with Sup Forums?

I think it is

Goku's a fucking faggot.

Now this guy here, he actually gets shit done by killing utter shitbags and actually manages to make the world around him better (His kid sidekicks create a whole military based around him.).

No one here's saying goku's a good guy, he's extremely selfish. The other user was just saying he appreciated that.

kill as a last resort. Most heroes are already operating outside the law. Playing Judge, Jury, and Executioner wouldn't really be a smart move. Detain them and let the government figure out what they want to do with the villains

I don't. I felt what was done to the atomic skull was cruel.
>no kill policy
he seems to have no problem with killing none humans
>general rule
I think him not killing is a good way to deflect "what if he turns on us" arguments but I think he should cut the corners where he can.

I pull the lever, not for any moral obligation, but because I want to wave at the people in the trolley just before it crushes the guy.

Post the one with Smash Mouth next.

the movie did, Zod literally said: I will kill every single human in this planet. And when Superman realized that he wouldnt stop, he snapped his neck.

This scene is not bad, the scenes after are.

*record skips*

Ever had to make a really hard choice before? Like, between a succulent Blue Rare T-bone or mouth watering Chicken Penne Al Fresco at that upscale restaurant on Broadway? Now you're probably all thinking to yourself, "how did a nobody like me wind up here?" Well, to answer that, we need to go back to one week ago today.

*tape rewinds*

>TFW a brooding martial artist who wanders around post-apocalyptic wasteland making assholes' heads explode is a way better hero than most of the ones talked about.
>TFW he's still a messiah figure.

I agree with your sentiment and the previous post you were responding to.
I think in a perfect world a super powered vigilante should act within the laws of their land and expose flaws in the system, then round up support for legal changes to fix them.
The problem here is that certain individuals in power will have a problem with this super powered being acting outside of the normal 'accepted' peerage of elected officials and rain down bad press on them, attempting to ruin their reputation to solve what THEY see as the problem at hand.

A guy like Superman would have a set of contingency plans all set to go for this scenario however. It's just a realistic chain of events we don't see in comics very often.

depending on the story he does that, sometimes he puts them in the zone