Batman doesn’t kill Joker, Scarecrow, etc so we get more stories where he goes against them. Many people like the villains so it makes since to have more stories with them.
Minor villains like Film Freak or the Weasel can die at the hands of a superhero because they aren’t as interesting. Writers can’t do much with them or are not as likely to try.
White Knight dealt more with the fact that Batman is a vigilante, and while technically militias are supported by the second amendment, I don’t think he nor the justice league register themselves.
I think a better example would be the Grim Bat. . While controlling Gotham was a bit extreme, the riddance of supervillains is what I mean.
The killing joke shows it best I think. SPOILER IF YOU HAVE NOT READ DISREGARD THIS COMMENT Batman realizing how no matter what he does he is going to fight joker till the bitter end. So he decides to Kill the joker, this is up for interpretation being that they don’t show anything. But I guess to make a long story short when they realize that no matter what evil will not stop till it destroys good no matter how many times good comes back.
That is kind of my point. Superman was only able to kill Joker because he had the power to do so. If any of those people in Gotham who he had been tormenting for years had the ability to kill him, wouldn’t they have already done it? But Superman is a Superhero, people look up to him. Why should he break his code only when he loses everything but not after watching so many other lose the same for so many years?
I didn’t know that Zoom information. That is actually interesting.
If I was in Superman’s place. I can’t say for sure what I would do. I hope that after everything I had been through I would know not to act impulsively immediately after a traumatic experience. But when something hits so close to you, logical thinking usually goes out the window.
At the same time though, even if I was in Superman’s place and I reacted the same and killed the Joker, does that make it the right decision? No, just because two people do the same thing, it doesn’t make it the right one. Superman is supposed to be better. Not the same.
I still think that Superheros who have that code shouldn’t cross it. Just because someone has power doesn’t mean they get to decide who lives and who dies.
that does make sense, but most of the time they’re defending others? So does that grant them permission to kill?
I guess since I recently started reading comics again, the only one I can think of is superman when he kills joker(wow, that is the most popular answer in this thread) tefe in swamp thing was kind of crazy, but she did a group of men that tried to rape a minor. So I’m OK with that right there.
No, I think there’s a difference there. If you’re being targeted by someone who is going to kill you, you have the right to act in self defense. Or, if you’re in a situation where someone is threatening to do harm to another, you have the right to act in their defense. With heroes it’s different. They’re actively seeking out those situations, which gives a certain intentionality to their subsequent decisions. It’s vigilantism, rather than self defense, or policing.
Absolutely, Joker killed Jason, paralyzed Barbara, blew up dozens of police officers and so much more. Every time Batman doesn’t kill him hundreds or more die, but lots of readers like the Joker which is why it’s convent for him to be locked away so he could come back sooner or later.
I think it’s fine to kill major supervillains before a major reboot or if it’s an alternate universes as long as it fits the heroes persona.
No offense,but I don’t think you understand Superman. The entire point of Supes is he DOESN’T do what I would do if I were in his shoes. He’s an ideal to reach for.
Court’s aren’t allowed to kill. Instead, there is an entire Judicial and penal system in place with appeals and checks and balances. The more severe the punishment, the more protections. The Giuardians have a similar thing, which is why the rings have a lethal force prohibition in the rings in all but extreme circumstances.
I’m also not saying a superhero can never kill, I’m saying they should never kill. Putting them in this impossible situation creates for the drama that we love. And if they do, there need to be ramifications. (Superman’s decision to murder the AU Phantom Zone criminals nearly drove him insane in the 80s). Without that moral line, then the only difference between Zod and Superman is that the reader agrees with that the people Superman kills deserves to die.
A vigilante works outside the system. They don’t get warrants and mobilize quicker. I’m saying they work outside the policing system. Once they cross the line, then they become what they hunt. It’s corny, but Superman sums it up perfectly in Kingdom Come:
Never, if they kill in the name of justice they become injustice. It’s crossing a line that you can never come back from and you have to show that justice works, that you don’t have to kill someone to get the job done. It’s also likely that the writer kills the villain off because they just want one film with the actor and never have to pay them millions of dollars for the next one.
Ok, maybe I don’t. At least not as enough as I thought I did. But I do know superman would always do the right thing, he knows he can’t do everything, i know he just wants to help because mentally he’s as human everyone else. That’s part of the reason why i loved injustice because it shows that even the strongest of us can fall, everyone needs a friend in our toughest times. Especially someone who lost everything in a day.
The strongest of US can fall,but Superman doesn’t fall. It’s fun to see an else worlds story sometimes where he does,but notice that it always ends badly. The “real” in -continuity Supes is strong enough to not kill.
it’s a religious experience.