Should superhero kills ?

Should superhero kills ?

(with exception of batman)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=PfH3bDPNGHw
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

It doesn't matter. Comics are fiction, they don't have to abide to logic.

Realistcally yes.

But most cape comics are not realistic so no.

Only in extreme circumstances.
If they have time, they should do something much, much worse than simply kill

If they can fly, they can probably find a way to solve the situation without killing. Also, the whole "don't kill rule" is a nice lesson of "don't try any easy solutions, work harder to find something better". And I think that's a fine messenger to be found in comics.

>work harder
>just so the supervillains can kill more people

>"don't try any easy solutions, work harder to find something better"
Its also good advice for the writers

>If they can fly, they can probably find a way to solve the situation without killing
But why should they?
>Also, the whole "don't kill rule" is a nice lesson of "don't try any easy solutions, work harder to find something better".
But Killing is obviously the better solution in 99% of these situations. This is just giving the lesson “Work hard to find more obscure and inefficient ways of dealing with a problem to be a hipster”.

how would Batman respond if Joker was given the death penalty?

They're not cops so the moment they start killing they'll lose the support of law enforcement also there's such a thing as due process and if they have the capability to stop a guy without killing they should also go for it, I mean would you want normal policemen indiscriminately killing people?

>They're not cops so the moment they start killing they'll lose the support of law enforcement
Because they were so helpful before right? Besides, while they may lose official support, half the cops are gonna then a blind eye to the vigilante who put down the super terrorist that’s been plagueing their city
>also there's such a thing as due process and if they have the capability to stop a guy without killing they should also go for it, I mean would you want normal policemen indiscriminately killing people?
That’s not how superheroes work. They don’t conduct investigations, Amass evidence, and then try and arrest suspects, they jump into crimes already happening or where Villians/criminals are obviously hanging it and doing bad shit and beat The ever living shit out of them. Pretending that Due process was ever a factor in this is ludicrous.

Some can, just has to make sense narratively.

No, they shouldn't.

Superheroes are super because they can get away with situations in which us mere mortals would have to be logical and choose. When in a hostage situation irl, you either negotiate with the criminals or enter to shoot, but Batman can solve the situation without shooting anyone. When Spiderman has to choose between saving MJ or the people of NY in the first SM movie, he chooses what superheroes must choose: to save both. And he can do it. The superhero can do it, he can be above the logic that the villain presents them with. Otherwise, he fights just like the villain (or like a police man, or an agent of the goverment, or a bounty hunter) and the issue is resumed as a matter of taking sides and going for the elimination of the other. The hero does not try to erase the other, he is able to reason with that evil other, he wins by his very own stance on a certain issue (see Luke and Vader), rather than by simply using his power to conquer over the situation.

Is there nudes of OP? Mmmmmm

Superheroes tend to be vigilantes. They're lucky enough to have the police force and/or government even slightly trust them. Why ruin that by playing executioner?

...

Because superheroes are the law. The cops can't enforce a law that doesn't even make an attempt to address Super crime.

If the fuckwits would convict him for one of the hundreds of deaths he actually commited, he would be okay.
But the only time they give him the death penalty is for a crime he didn't commit, forcing Batman to try and solve the case.

Only if they absolutely have to. Like Superman killing with kryptonite in the Phantom Zone. Sometimes the villain doesn't give you a choice. The Joke should have died forever ago.

>Because superheroes are the law.
No they aren't. Do you not know what that word means?

It depends. That's all there is to say about it. Why should there be a moral by which every character from a certain genre abide regardless of context.
Also fuck you for making this thread again, I hope you stub your toe.

This is the worse use of the slippery slope I have ever seen. Also equating cigarettes with Gun deaths? Shitty argument all around.

Intent murders via guns =/= manslaughter via accidentally crashing into someone's car

yes but only for villains who commit monstrous crimes at least twice. normal justice was not enough, end the issue before another jailbreak and mass murder happen.

there are two elements to this question: should superheroes have the moral authority to kill, and should superhero comics be written with characters who kill?

to the first question: no, they should not. just like police should not kill, the objective of anyone intervening in a dangerous situation should always be to halt the situation and ensure the safety of everyone involved so the next step of figuring out what happened and applying justice can happen. if cops just rush in and shoot everything, it only makes the situation worse.

as for the second question, should stories be written where superheroes kill: do cops kill IRL?

Batman is not there to make sure the everyone in the entire world lives a happy life. he is there to bring in the people the cops can't touch, can't find, or won't touch. Batman is an extension of the police. what the justice system does with the people he brings in is not his concern.

Well let's break this down super satan.
>Cops can't enforce the law
Ignore supervillains and alien invaders. Cops can't handle crime period as most major american cities are ina stranglehold of organzied crime. Superheroes are the ones who are shown to actually do anything.
>legislators have ignore reality.
The superhuman population will only grow and unless society address it they will find living by obsolete laws.

>thinking drinking and driving is an accident

>strawmanning
It is an accident when you compare it to very intentionally walking into a school and shooting up everybody.
If it was found that most shooters were drunk/drugged at the time, you might have an argument.

not even a 2nd amendment nut, but Flash has a point. not to protect guns, but against the authoritarian thinking that Superman is engaging in. people need to come to their own conclusions, sometimes. when enough people get tired of murdering each other, they will ban guns, on their own. Nobody can argue that Japan, Europe, and Australia are less safe because they don't allow handguns and assault rifles. but, people in those countries don't want those weapons, either. people in the US do, so we have them and we are okay will high suicide, crime, and mass shootings.

>we are okay will high suicide, crime, and mass shootings.
Well we're used to it.

Honestly, Japan might be safer with guns. The fucking insane kinds of crimes they have over there doesn't even touch our mass shooter nuts.

How about if instead of a hero who decides that fighting the same bad guys over and over solves nothing and so he kills them we get a hero who decides that killing villains over and over solves nothing and so he sends them to prison instead?

>checkmate after every point
>nobody calls check
It hurts me how ham-fisted this metaphor is

theres a robot chicken sketch that answers your question just look up the show and joker and you'll find it

Not bats, not supes and not anyone who works with them, or whose moves they are aware of.
So, no jl either.

Realistically no. We wouldn't let some superhuman do whatever the fuck he wanted outside of the government and laws unless he was a boy-scout about it.

.ost gun related deaths are suicides and robberies
Now I would rather people have a gun to commit suicide than having them try something way more fucking dangerous that could leave them alive but fucked for life or get other people killed or injured in the process
As for robberies that still happens and still happens a lot in countries without guns because you can't ban anything that's a weapon and when you ban guns criminals still get access to them regardless
I have always wondered why people want guns banned because let's be honest if it was out of the kindness of your heart and geniune concern you wouldn't be out there harrassing people and acting like a self entitled cunt over it so I guess you are afraid of guns Wich doesn't make any sense since banning guns wouldn't stop criminals from getting them
I honestly can't understand the reasoning behind it, it solves nothing.

>country with high amount of crazies and suicide rate
>Hey let's give them easier means of doing that

>We wouldn't let some superhuman do whatever the fuck he wanted outside of the government and laws
The fuck you gonna do?

Murder them with the combined might of the US government.

How about a world where ressurection has a price tag.

This means succesful villains and heroes can just keep getting back up as long as they're still succesful.

The only permadeaths are the minor guys with nothing under their name, but then those guys can also be dealt with non-lethally since they're probably less capable, enough to be common thug tier.

No I'm not smoking anything.

You rang?

Guns fix every issue

they should, but they should also die and cycle out and let new heroes enter the spotlight.

They're playing chess at super-speed, they don't have time to call check when matches are over in a couple of seconds.

If these comics followed accurate superhero ideals then yes. A real hero would know that while following a moral code is righteous. You don’t always have to spare the enemy and being truly courageous is doing what needs to be done and killing them because it’s obvious the incarceration of the villains are only half measures that will never work out in how a comic society works

>Get rid of guns
I'm fine with that.
>Get rid of cigarettes
I'm fine with that
>Imprison people for speeding and leaving dangerous dogs unchained
There are already legal repercussions for speeding and leaving dogs unchained
>Kill people who don't recycle
Nigger what? I didn't say to kill people who have guns. Just enforce recycling.

I'M DAH LAW BIATCH

have you heard kansas innocent people got killed by cop ?

There are already legal repercussions for committing crimes with guns.
So we're good then.

Depends on the narrative. Problem with modern superhero comics is that they've been using the same characters so long that throughout the years they had to raise the stakes more and more to the point of "no kill rule" being absolutely nonsensical and only in place to keep status quo.

Once upon a time Batman's no kill rule was admirable, albeit debatable. Now it's just plain retarded.

Well that and the justice system not just taking out those Batman villains.

...

pretty much this;

youtube.com/watch?v=PfH3bDPNGHw

No
Vigilantism only works if people are brought to justice in a way that the law could, but doesn’t.
Capturing criminals that escape the law is the whole point of a vigilante. Someone sees that the criminal justice system isn’t working that well so the take the law into their own hands. If they don’t follow the law, you can’t ssy that their motivations are any better than the criminals. Obviously there are exceptions, but you can’t murder a robber and claim you’re better than the mafia killing people that try to deal them dirty.

>so we have them and we are okay will high suicide
How the fuck would banning guns stop suicides, people would just find other ways to kill themselves, killing yourself is the easiest fucking thing any chucklefuck can do, I say let them have a relatively painless way to do it.

Killing should be avoided as much as possible, but in some cases, killing is literally the only option, especially against someone like Doomsday. Although it gets more complicated with beings like Brainiac and Mongul since they're an alien, and not really bound to Earth rules and laws.

I do know that in one story, Supes had killed an alternate version of Zod and pals after they genocided an alternate version of Earth. He only did this though because they were not humans, but Kryptonians.

Marvel has also shown that killing Skrulls is 100% okay, as Carol is more than happy to massacre invading Skrulls.

So in the end, it's not really a Yes/No type of question. But it's easy to figure out when heroes should kill and when they should not. They should try their very hardest to not kill if they're a Superman-tier character who's able to crack the earth on a whim. People are already scared of those types of heroes, and a Superman-tier just doling out justice his own way is gonna cause mass panic. You wanna know why that is? Because everybody fears a Plutonian-type of situation happening, which is the ABSOLUTE worst case scenario, where a Superman-tier goes batshit insane and genocides people as a fucking hobby. Best case scenario is an Injustice situation where this superhero becomes a super tyrant and even that's still fucking bad.

Flash confirmed for /k/ as fuck

Yes. Extremely and immediately.

Meanwhile Superman has in the past given close allies Kryptonite incase he goes rogue as self defense, even though the sole purpose of them having the radioactive rocks is to either kill or incapaciate him.

Superman has lots of powers, but apparently spotting irony isn't one of them.

Of course.

This isn't a problem with literally any other genre, capeshit just keeps to it because they don't want to run out of villains. And then after the fact they try to say it's actually a philosohpical statement while the villain of the week than gasses another bus full of children to death.

Sometimes, yeah. Basically Iron Man's POV makes the most sense. Sometimes, some people, just really need to fucking die.

sure, if they have to, just not piles of civilians

>these faggot replies to this
After I'm done shooting my guns I'll come over to your houses and fuck your wives.

>all those non moralfags in this thread

Hmmmm that's some straw man argument there Flash

Its understandable not to kill in cases of normal crime...but it gets absurd when someone flinches at killing Darkseid.

no only rape

Except they don't keep popping up because jails don't work but because they are valuable characters.
If heroes killed villains all the time, incarceration would paradoxically be the obvious better way, because villains would not keep coming back.

>Probably over 200 pounds
>Most likely never had a date
>Has to be a tough guy on the internet
Get to second base then try making xbox live tier threats boy.

Not me necessarily strawman but there are more than enough retorts and counter arguments to make.
It's more like Superman is the strawman who was deliberately made stupid.

that is fucking retarded

"Realistically" the answer is when necessary, but also "realistically" prison breakouts should be much less common and the most vile and dangerous arrested villains would be straight up executed by shadowy quasi-government agencies.

Yeah, the whole thing is a strawman argument.
Superman should not argue to do away with guns. That is a terribly reductionist idea and can be swatted away easily.
Just as a call to outlaw cars because speeding is a thing could be.
Really, this is the author being a smug libertarian douche.
And the "checkmate" calls make it really obnoxious.
A sensible argument would go along the lines of how to reduce violence with firearms effectively.
And it would contain a detailed analysis of violent crime statistics, legal systems that have promising outcomes and successful strategies that could be adopted.
Including better ways of categorisation, enforcement, licensing, storage requirements, vetting, healthcare and mental health spillover effects, poverty and social security impacts, and minimum wage vs cost of living analysis.
Because it's not how many guns there are, but why people resort to violence with them, how they are stored commonly, how to prevent crime effectively by addressing root causes etc.
One could begin by making legislation unified, clear and enforceable.

It seems Hamil will voice Joker in anything he is asked to I like it, his Joker is GOAT

The thing you're not considering or didn't realize is that if you mildly inconvenience a person's ability to kill themselves for all of 30 seconds they realize it was a really stupid fucking idea a majority of the time.
Only an extremely small percentage of people are actually going to be determined enough to go through with it if they have to actually put in ny effort.
So yes, it does solve something, we even have statistical evidence from when England banned the sort of ovens that people would use for suicide showing that those people didn't all move onto something more painful.

Oh and the banning guns not making criminals have less idea is also really fucking stupid because it assumes that if you can't get 100% of them then it's useless
Less of them will end up with guns because there will eventually be less of the product itself to sell to the criminals. Anyone getting the materials,ammunition or reported as having one would be easily identifiable to law enforcement which criminals generally don't want to be. It's a funny idea but only has real world relevance due to the sheer and massive amount of guns in the US combined with fanaticism.
TLDR Explosives shouldn't be banned because the terrorists would get them anyway even though them trying to get or make explosives is how many of them get caught.

>prevent the destruction of the whole planet at the coast of a single city
>people still bitch abut it

I always think civilians in cape stories are fucking dumb, but just look at this, it actually happens

>You share a board with this many anti-gun commies.

Depends on the villain
Deranged fucks like joker and mindless beasts like doomsday deserve to die


Someone like lex luthor would be a waste to kill and should just get locked up

I think it depends on the story, someone like spider man or superman shouldn't ice people left and right unless they are deranged psychopaths

more grounded/gritty superheroes like Batman should kill realistically

>I mean would you want normal policemen indiscriminately killing people?
What I want is for you to break up your run-on sentences.

Against petty crooks like muggers, shoplifters, burglars or even supervillains who just want to make a quick buck and nothing else? Usually no with a warning or trying to convince the supervillains to turn good and use their powers for something worthwhile

Against murderers, rapists, and especially guys like Joker, Carnage, Green Goblin or dangerous supers like Zod? Kill on sight.

"Villain" who just wants revenge on a shitbag who fucked them over? Leave them alone or pretend to lose to them.

The “Cop” approach is the best one at all times really.
Incapacitate and Subdue. Only use lethal force when necessary.

Now if this shit is out of control because they always subdue a mass murderer, then let the state decide if the Death Penalty is necessary.

However this is only applicable when the story goes for a realistic or naturalistic approach. Often times the constant switch to comedy, family friendly or satire will undermine this.

But still, should capes kill? Yeah. Sparringly or given the nature of the character, but not everybody and not all of the time.
Unless it’s Mortal Kombat, then they have to.

Why don't they just cripple the villains?

>The “Cop” approach is the best one at all times really.
>Incapacitate and Subdue. Only use lethal force when necessary.

that's not the American cop approach

>Comparing a tool made for killing with recycling
What?

>(with exception of batman)
But Batman has some great kills

It depends on the level of power involved.

If you are Superman, you dont need to kill. There are, like, 5 guys on the planet you cant put down effortlessly at no risk to yourself.

If you are a street level hero with no immunity to bullets? You might have to kill. It shouldnt be plan A, but if you go against a room full of guys with gins its understandable if you have to take them out quick and dirty to save the day. Its less than ideal, but its not unforgiveable.

At a certain point, yes.

I don't think they should make it public though.

So what is the purpose of getting rid of guns, if not to save lives?

The safest spaces are prisons and padded rooms, do you want to save everyone? how much liberty are you willing to give up for a little security, and why do you wish to force your life choices on others?

I think they should kill if it fits their personality and story. For instance, if Superman kills a bad guy, even if the bad guy was really REALLY evil, he should probably at least feel very bad about it and try not to do it again if he can. Because that's Superman's character and that's how he' written.

Power Rangers on the other hand? Hell no, they'll cut down giant monsters and kill them all the same. That monster had a wife and kids? Too bad, he was the size of a skyscraper and about to step on a church. The monster isn't actually all that evil and is being forced or manipulated by the real bad guy? Too bad, he's fighting on the wrong side of people vs monsters. They're usually just teenagers but being merciless is natural for them.

if every villain on comics wasnt protected by paper prisons and plot armor then many of them wouldn't have to

the Justice system would function and stopping them once would put them away forever

but lazy writers always let them out a month later and more people die

the lawful good heroes believe the system works in a world where it arbitrarily doesn't. that's the only reason killing seems like an option.

.... and even that would only keep them away slightly longer than prison

Supervillains shouldn't be killed, but utterly humiliated. Imagine if Superman gave Lex Luthor a spanking on worldwide live television every time he tried to sink California; Batman fulfills the Joker's comedy fetish by putting him in the stocks to be pelted with rancid tomatoes by the enraged citizens of Gotham.

If the people of Gotham unanimously voted that next time Batman captures the Joker; he kills him, would he?

Joker should get silently executed without Batman's knowledge.

Yes. Butt he real question is when should they kill?

As far as I am concerned, the only reason to have a no kill rule is because of the fact that writing villains so that they are able to escape after being defeated is hard to do right. I personally think that all violent criminals should be executed after their first offence, and killed immediately if caught in the act of the crime.

>prisons
>safe
What country do you life in? It probably doesnt have a gun problem.

T.gun grabber

T.statist