What are your thought on the no-kill policy?

What are your thought on the no-kill policy?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/Ag_AFraxj-4
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

It can be frustrating in extreme cases like Batman where all anyone wants is for him to not go breaking a cops arm if they try to shoot Joker. It's endearing in cases like Spider-Man where he actually does hold back his powers.

I prefer No Kill to Kill All No Matter What ultimately.

The whole "no kill" policy is a mostly a matter of accountability. If Batman killed someone and dumped his dead body at the morgue with nothing but a note of "he was a bad guy trust me", then batman would have to be taken in. You can't have vigilantes killing people outside of the law. Everyone answers to a higher or equal power (theoretically) so if someone dies its supposed to be justified to the eyes of the people.

Even if everyone sees Batman getting shot at by some robbers at a bank Batman still really doesn't have the right when you consider he wasn't there in the first place and escalated the situation by violently entering it.

Killing is for edgy tryhards and Zimmermans.

I prefer heroes like Superman and Spider-Man that DON'T KILL and instead SAVE people.

/thread

>I prefer heroes like Superman and Spider-Man that DON'T KILL and instead SAVE people.
Unless they are aliens because they ain't human.

>"Being a hero is bullshit."
Kirkman might as well have fondled my gag reflex himself.

Anyway
An absolute No-Kill policy seems kind of overrated to me, if I'm being honest. For guys like Superman, it makes sense because it's a testament to such a powerful being's self-control and high regard for human life.
In cases like Batman's, though- if you're consistently going up against freaks like the Joker, it's probably wildly irresponsible to continue to leave him alive.

The fuck you talking about Spider-Man's killed before multiple times

>The whole "no vigilante" policy is a mostly a matter of accountability. If Batman broke someone's arm and dumped him at the hospital with nothing but a note of "he was a bad guy trust me", then batman would have to be taken in. You can't have vigilantes punching people outside of the law. Everyone answers to a higher or equal power (theoretically) so if someone gets hurt its supposed to be justified to the eyes of the people.

one of my favorite "recent" Spider-Man moments relating to this is in Punisher Warzone, when he finds out Frank used one of his devices (i think it was a web-line) to kill members of the exchange.

Pete goes apeshit on him and demonstrates what would happen if he were to face off against a non-Super. of course, Punisher bullshit ensues and cars explode and Pete looks like an idiot after but still.

Above all else it's very, very annoying when they actually write stories about it either way. Thankfully that is a rarity though.

If they don't like killing they will just do something else and that's that. Doesn't have to be an active thought.

It's mostly editorial/fan driven.
In universe, there are characters for whom it makes sense and others where it doesn't.
The only reason it's an "issue" to some autists is because editorial and fans want reoccuring villains, so prisons don't work, and for that matter, neither does killing anyway. If that wasn't the case no kill and kill policies would both be valid, as is neither is.

Faggots like OP make me miss the rape the Joker forced meme.

What bugs me about this page and the idea behind it is that what he's doing here doesn't have anything to do with being a hero or not. Spider-Man doesn't resent soldiers defending their country by killing ISIS soldiers; he only doesn't kill people because he's essentially a glorified (and unsanctioned) police officer, it isn't his place to be enacting corporal punishment, he just rounds them up and puts them into the slammer. Mark isn't choosing not to be a hero by killing these fucks who are unaccountable to anyone other than him, no human on Earth can do shit against the Viltrumites and they want to take over Earth so yeah kill 'em all if you need to dude, it's fine.

Characters with a really extreme no-kill policy like Batman usually annoy me. Those that try not to kill but in special cases will put the villain down if there's no other option are cool though.

Generally I do enjoy the edgy anti-heroes more. Just my personal preference though, I don't know why people get so mad when someone likes/doesn't like the no-kill policy. Is Invincible good? What are some good, entertaining edge comics? Just finished The Authority.

It can create some nice moments and stories. Like when the hero does end up killing, how would he take it? Also if the hero constantly killed their enemy, it would get boring.

Real life doesn't work that way. People try, but often don't have a choice. If someone breaks into your house, you're not thinking about saving anyone.
>But they're super heroes!!
I realize that, but the sooner people abandon naive expectations like that, the better. If someone comes at you with killing intent, your first thought shouldn't be "maybe we should have a nice talk".

A no-kill policy is just a matter of selling more comics.

That's all.

Anyone who believes different is an idiot.

user, you do realize almost everyone in Gotham can tell the difference between some random petty criminal to a full blown terrorist like the Joker right?

I don't think Gotham of or anyone else would mind if Joker's body showed up at the morgue with a bat note attached to ti

Back in the day, superheroes didn't kill but villains still died, mostly by their own hubris and the writer's sense of irony. Batman never tried to kill Strange but the fucker "died" almost every major appearance.

This is not true at all if you spend even 10 seconds thinking about it. If they wanted to they could just write the popular villains escaping and avoiding being killed while the unpopular throwaway ones are dealt with.

Nigga we're talking about cape comics, not your wet dreams about shooting some guy who deserved it.

>I don't know why people get so mad when someone likes/doesn't like the no-kill policy.

I think it's because it always turns into an argument about which is a better policy. Of course, neither are particularly effective at removing overall crime, they're just personal moral/accountability stances, so it's a silly thing to argue.

From a ME perspective-
Invincible is lame. Everyone acts lame and they do lame things and it doesn't even make sense most of the time.

From an edginess enthusiast perspective-
It's dumb.
Everyone is either completely invulnerable to attacks or their bodies act like plastic baggies filled with corn syrup.

>that spoiler

ideally the justice system would enact the death penalty on the Joker. He couldn't consistently use the insanity plea as an excuse, it wouldn't even work twice if he were killing people, that's why i prefer Joker as more of a bank robber/gangster who doesn't kill a lot because it doesn't set the precedent that he needs to die. Besides, as a billionaire Bruce should just campaign to have the death penalty enacted in Gotham as the final solution to the abundancy of psychopaths if he doesn't genuinely believe in curing their mental illnesses (which he has no reason to)

Even if they sentence him to death it's not like he wouldn't break out before they could actually kill him. It takes decades to actually kill someone via the law.

I think that it depends on the character.

Superman should probably not kill anyone because he's supposed to be all high ideals and infinite capacity for solutions, either through (will)power or creative thinking..
Batman should probably not kill anyone because he's fucked in the head and being forced to cross a weird moral line like that would kind of cause the collapse of the weird internal logic the character has built.
Spider-Man should probably not kill anyone because he's supposed to be your average joe, and joe average hasn't killed anyone.
Iron Man should probably kill people because he's a explicitly a weapons designer. Weapons are for killing people. Plus, he's rich, so he can get away with it.
Cap should kill, but only in situations where there's no alternative. Soldiers aren't supposed to execute the enemy if they can subdue them without bothering. It should be an extreme situation kind of thing.
Then you have people like the X-Men who should probably avoid killing purely for political reasons ("Did you see what those muties did?")

Sometimes someone just needs to fucking die but by and large killing shouldn't be done. Like if a person has committed horrible atrocities and is too smart to properly lock up forever or punish then just throw him into the damn sun already.

I prefer it when it's

'Don't kill unless its absolutely necessary."

Comic book writers all seem to be shut in faggots who have no idea that the real world is full if horrible people. "No one is beyond saving," "always a way," blah blah blah

Now look, I'm not trying to sound like an edgy faggot kid with the "HURR DURR KILL EM ALL" mentality. Sometimes, people need a second chance. Sometimes, there's a way to stop someone peacefully who in most people's eyes should die

But more often than not, the world isn't sunshine and rainbows. There is such a thing as the point of no return. There are such things as irredeemable people. Some bullies bully simply because they're sadists, rather than the "oh he has problems at home" shtick so many cartoons push.

Bottom line is, real life isn't as black and white as comics and cartoons and other media make it out to be. Violence isn't always the answer, but the same goes for pacifism.

In the words of Wolverine, "sometimes, people deserve to die,"

>they're just personal moral/accountability stances
They're not even personal for a lot of people, or at least in my case.

I don't condone vigilantism and violent decapitations in real life, I just find it entertaining in fiction.

You could go full Batman Beyond and get your villains killed off accidentally.

When that happens all the time people call it bullshit because it made the heroes look like idiots.
Which isn't wrong either.

Reoccuring villains are bound to make someone look bad, except if you can't kill them or imprison them, and can just banish them temporarly.

then cape comics have bad morals? Also, Spider-Man has killed and has been willing to kill before.
>your wet dreams about shooting some guy who deserved it.
Most pro-gun people have expressed to me their desire to never have to shot someone else, not everyone is going to give you that choice. Having my home broken into and my life threatened are not my idea of good times.

I meant more for the characters, not the readers.

What's going on in this image?

I'm fine with it normally but not when the villain has been written in such a way that not killing them makes you look like a piece of shit i.e. Batman and the Joker.

Really? Because most of the time when I hear people talking about guns they seem to almost be fantasizing about being given an excuse to use them

Granted, if you're talking loudly in public to random people about how much you love guns and are ready to defend yourself at a moment's notice, maybe you're less typical and more cuckoo, but there's a lot of them!

Yeah I won't disagree with that. It just bugs me when people try to argue that the no-kill rule only exists so villains can be reused as if it's the only way to keep villains alive in-story.

...

Why being super strong/being able to fly should give you the right to kill anyone? It's not their fucking business to decide.

yeah but once he's out on the street with a death sentence the next cop that sees his ass can light him up

There's a middle ground between 'No killing absolutely ever' and, well, Punisher.

Invincible is probably not a bad example of this. He has killed, but in completely reasonable situations. The vast majority of the time he tries not to.

Which is one of the reasons Invincible is so good. The characters have reasonably reactions to the events around them.

it's okay to kill as long as they are not humans or half humans

I think those messages are more supposed to be inspirational than directly word-for-word applied to real life.

Life is nuances of grey, but some contrast can make for fun stories (and has the bonus of being much easier to write if you don't poke at it too much).

Maybe I've meet more people who are not idiot teenagers or rednecks.
>But there's a lot of them!
So what? Do responsible folks have to suffer because you're afraid? Maybe there's as much educated gun users than gun nuts, you've never considered that possibility?

That would be a video

I didn't understand why Thragg actually cared that that kid got murdered. I mean he has dozens, maybe hundreds more of them. Also, did Mark actually kill that girl by smashing her face into the ground?

It makes sense if you're just fighting street thugs.

It makes less sense if you're fighting say, Hydra. If they have a plan to blow up the world and you're trying to stop them, it'd be pretty dumb to slow yourself down by worrying about not killing the foot soldiers.

It makes absolutely no sense if you're fighting an alien dictator who can level a building with a single punch, and who could not be held by any jail known to man.

I think it would depend on the hero. If you're someone like Superman, who can shrug off bullets like raindrops and benchpress the moon, there's very little justifiable reason for him to use lethal force in most situations.

She's still alive, dude. Did you even pay attention?

No Batman doesnt kill his villains becauss DC writers cant constantly come up with new villains so they just reuse tge old ones over and over.

Won't someone please think of the henchmen?
youtu.be/Ag_AFraxj-4

would one of those reasons be to save the lives of innocent people from being killed with heat vision?

Asking for a friend.

Yeah, unless a hero can be reasonably threatened by a criminal, "killing in self defense" doesn't cut it.

I guess you have a point. After all, it's fiction and fiction should be inspiring. After all, someone who has the power and nobility not to kill is pretty inspiring/entertaining.

That said, I hate it when said super powered guys who can clear out a battalion of ISIS fighters without shedding blood tries to get up in the reader's grill for not thinking the same.

.What, you though *GASP* killing would be right in this situation? You sick fiend!

Well, golly gee, how could I have not thought of crushing their armored vehicles with my bare hands before knocking them all out in one punch as the bullets from their hand me down AKM's bounce off me?

I can take a character who can do these things and realize that we can't, but when they judge everyone else by their standards, that pisses me off. Prime example

>THIS IS THE WEAPON OF THE ENEMY. WE DO NOT USE IT, WE DO NOT NEED IT.

Hey Bruce, you insane faggot, I DO need it and I DO use it. Don't hop on my dick for not being able to do the same shit you do

The only thing that triggers me with this scene is that he snaps the laser-emmiting head IN THE DIRECTION OF THE HOSTAGES. They should have died.

Other than that I don't think it's a great way to establish a new Superman, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it.

>ideally the justice system would enact the death penalty on the Joker.

This. If Batman was authorized to kill criminals and had no qualms in doing so, I would just be reading Judge Dredd in Gotham.

I would add that it's also a litterary device which could be reversed: Batman could have been killed many times, if his opponents didn't want to finish him off in a grandiose way.

Also, that family should have already been dead. All Zod needs to do is look at them.

I think if they'd built up his no-kill policy and raised the question of when it was necessary to break it, it might have worked better as a scene.

Not killing is for edgy tryhards.

russian swat successfully baited two kid thugs into doing kid thug things then proceeded to scare the living shit out of them by firing blanks close range.

kids effectively neutralized, proceed to arrest.

this is a massive risk because the kid is armed with a gun and can kill the officer baiting the kids

brazil does this too except they shoot real bullets.

The problem with a kill policy is mainly that you can't be a judge, jury and executioner on the field. As a hero, your only real call is taking someone in.

The only time a no kill policy should be evaluated is when hostile intent eclipses the need to preserve human life. Just like actual law enforcement. Comics just place most of the weight of life and death on the hero for dramatic purposes. In reality, Gotham criminals would have all gotten the death penalty or been gunned down in crossfire ages ago. With probably a lot of lost innocent life in the process because of Batman's lack of agency.

Didn't they do that?
Gotta admit I've only watched once years ago.

I'm more talking about Superman first facing ennemies he can overcome without snapping their neck. And yeah you could say it builds on previous depictions of Supes but then don't make it a point to make this an origin movie and tell us this version of the guy was jerking around on fishing boats for 15 years.
I didn't buy it was a shock for him because I was never shown him being right thinking "there's always a way" in the first place.

That scene is meant to establish the cost of killing though, to be the origin of Superman's code of ethics into its traditional form. MoS is an origin story after all.

Spidermans killed people and deliberately maimed them also. Supes has killed a few people too.

I think there is a political element to it. Wertham accused Superman (and superheroes by extent) of being a fascist fantasy, and people like Joss Whedon use the term "fascist" to describe the Punisher a lot. Superheroes arbitrarily applying lethal force to wrongdoers outside of any sort of due process tends to not sit well with the general public and runs contrary to the values espoused by liberal democracy. For whatever reason, the general public is fine with beating up criminals and leaving them for the police, but killing them would somehow upset the general rule of law.

Which is why pretty much every situation where Superman HAS used lethal force (Doomsday, Imperiex, Darkseid, etc.) doesn't cause too much of a stir.

Consider an scenario were killing one bad guy saves a 100 not-bad guys, and there's no work around,
What choice is someone like superman is going to take? It's not even a "sadistic" choice, it's a pretty clear problem.
Now consider the same scenario, but instead of 100 people being in imminent danger, they will be in the future. What's going to be Superman choice?
In my opinion, if Superman chooses to save the bad guy in the second scenario, is that he's not taking his super hero role seriously, if he's going to be that fickle and selfish about not killing in order to keep his self imposed "moral code".
If someone like Batman thinks that killing someone is going to compromise his entire hero identity, then how can you call Batman a reliable person, much less sane.
Moreover, if someone is willing to go through the ordeal of killing someone, it doesn't mean they can't wish for a world where they didn't had to do that choice in the first place.

It was sort of in there, but sort of obfuscated by his dad not really encouraging him/keeping him grounded in Good American Ideals, and by the story dumping lots of messiah overtones into all the scenes. I think it was a good idea in theory and they clearly knew it should be there, but it just doesn't work as written.

Killing someone because they could be a future problem is sort of a minority report situation, isn't it?

>That scene is meant to establish the cost of killing though
How does it do that though, when killing was literally the solution to the problem?
Yes, he hated killing Zod, and that's a good reason for him wanting to find another way (not that he went straight to killing him either), not a reason to believe there is one.

Metas shouldn't be killing normal humans. They should be executed though a court of law.

However, I don't mind if they kill objectively evil things that normal humans can't touch. Shit like Darksied.

The only 2 I ever liked were Batman and Goku from DBZ. Batman does it because he's insane, dangerous, and the cops are only sometimes on his side. If he started killing people, he'd lose every friend he had in the GPD, and that would make it a lot harder to work.

Goku does it because he like fighting people, and you can't fight anyone if they're dead. So he lets them live, hoping they'll become strong enough to challenge him.

"I try not to kill, if I can help it" is a good policy

"I will never take a life, no matter what" is fucking stupid

Do the fans like the bad guy?
Because if so killing him wont prevent him from committing future crimes.

Not exactly, if that someone has killed people before, time and time again.

>he's killed multiple times

List them then.

lol you think Goku doesn't kill people

I like "I will always look for a better way, and if I have to kill, I'll take steps to prevent that situation from happening again."

>"Oh no, this genocidal maniac is going to kill, and kill again if I don't put him down for good, but if I kill him to save countless innocent lives, I'm as bad as he is."
It's stupid.

The whole point of Superman having that moral code is that there is ALWAYS a work-around. If there isn't, he makes one himself. He's Superman. He can move planets and travel through time. How are you gonna tell him what's impossible or not?

You never lose hope in the idea that there is a way to save everyone. That's why Man of Steel was shit; because Superman lost hope and resorted to snapping necks.

The "S" means "Hope". As in, "I hope you don't make me snap your neck."

Here's a better way of looking at the issue: What villains SHOULD be killed? Like, if you were working on a "kill list" for the Marvel and DC universes, who would you be okay with letting people kill on sight?

That could just be the Thing. Decapitation never stopped it.

The unpopular ones.

The Punisher.

I've always found heroes that have to shoulder the burden much more appealing.
I can see you being mad at Man Of Murder because it compromises an established character, but if it was anyone else I wouldn't really care as much if he snapped the genocidal alien's neck.
Superman ends up being a symbol in the end, hoping for the best outcome. I can see that, but I don't necessarily have to like it.
The initial problem was "someone like Superman" not "THE Superman."

>and there's no work around
Here's your first problem. There's literally always a workaround because this is FICTION written so that the good guys win without killing.
>instead of 100 people being in imminent danger, they will be in the future
You're going to have to clarify this statement because right now it sounds like some serious thought policing shit. If I think that you might be about to conduct illegal activity I should act as a vigilante and kill you?
>how can you call Batman a reliable person, much less sane
literally nobody who knows a decent amount about Batman considers him sane.
>If someone is willing to go through the ordeal of killing someone, it doesn't mean they can't wish for a world where they didn't had to do that choice [sic] in the first place
This is the only non-retarded thing in your entire post.

Honestly, whatever the character does, I just want them to stand by it. The moment Batman deliberately puts a bunch of people in a lethal, possibly inescapable situation and says "I DON'T HAVE TO KILL YOU BUT I DON'T HAVE TO SAVE YOU", you know he's fucked up his own morals.

When did that happen?

Not that user but he killed The Thousand (Tangled Web story by Ennis); and Morlun (from JMS' first story ark with Ezekiel).

Police would have to take Batman in regardless because vigilantism is illegal.

Batman Begins, when he fucks up the train so it can't stop and then fucks off while pretending he's not the reason they died.

Of course, Nolan Batman probably killed a few people.

Waaaaiiiiit wait wait wait wait.
Ennis came up with The Thousand?

>If Batman was authorized to kill criminals and had no qualms in doing so, I would just be reading Judge Dredd in Gotham.
I feel like this is what a lot of people don't get. These no-kill ideologies of certain heroes are there because it's part of their character and makes their stories play out a certain way, sometimes leading them to be faced with moral dilemmas.

The hero's moral code isn't there as a moral guide to the reader, fiction isn't all aesop's fucking fables where you're expected to take a moral lesson from the story.

>That said, I hate it when said super powered guys who can clear out a battalion of ISIS fighters without shedding blood tries to get up in the reader's grill for not thinking the same

When does that ever fucking happen? Superheroes rarely get into real world war because anyone with a brain knows it's not something they should be in. And if they do, it's mostly anti-war lessons, which is pretty reasonable and exactly the kind of thing they shouldn't want.

>Hey Bruce, you insane faggot, I DO need it and I DO use it. Don't hop on my dick for not being able to do the same shit you do

Are you seriously getting mad at a guy whose entire shtick is that he's emotionally scarred by guns? Are you that much of a child?

>Of course, Nolan Batman probably killed a few people.
He caused the death of a group of ninjas in BB and also deliberately killed Two-face and Talia. Nolan's Bat was retarded.

Not against them though shouldnt be something everyone has.

I feel its important to Batman and superman's characters, but otherwise i dont think its mandatory

Makes a bit more sense in hindsight, doesn't it?

...

It's mostly pretending he's not guilty of manslaughter in BB that bothers me. He gave the order to blow up the bridge and then deliberately did not save the people on it while openly pretending it wasn't his responsibility.

Police let a lot of illegal things go. Catching Batman is nearly impossible and would drain resources from the department that would be better used on more typical criminals they can actually contain. Even if the commission didn't personally trust Batman, making the decision to go after him isn't as cut and dry as it sounds.

>Here's your first problem. There's literally always a workaround because this is FICTION written so that the good guys win without killing.
>FICTION
no, it's called bad writing.
>You're going to have to clarify this statement because right now it sounds like some serious thought policing shit
I did here If someone is a repeated offender, does a superhero really has the luxury to spare him again for the umpteenth time?
Superman (and most people in general) can't read minds or look into the future, the only way to know if someone is going to act again is if they've done it in the first place, and superheroes often deal with such people.