Superman In Therapy Storyline Question

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

Logically, it was self defense in the first place. The only conceivable way someone couldn't justify it as defense would be if they were against the death penalty to an absurd degree. He kills them when they threaten to find a way to come back, and clearly he takes no joy in it as he does it.

No, it wasn't.

They were powerless, and unable to do anything.

So what if they threatened him? They had no way of actually carrying out those threats. It was already established in the PU Superboy story and then reiterated in Superman #22 that gold kryptonite meant a permanent loss of power. He had even planned to kill them before they threatened him, as he had kept the green kryptonite on location.

It was an execution, plain and simple.

[Kuwagaton]

It wasn't his kryptonite, so no, he didn't plan it. But even if it was, he wouldn't have been able to use it had he not spotted the gold kryptonite.

The threats had much to do with everything. We're privy to finding out without question that the Zoners had no remorse and if there was even a half of a percent that they repowered, they were at pre-crisis power levels and would kill Superman easily if those powers came back. We have justification for the decision because of what they confirm in speech and at that point know that there's no turning back, whether or not Superman had the means to kill them. As for the permanence of the gold K, we as readers would know from previous stories like Whatever Happened that even if they didn't get their powers back (as Byrne showed possible in his much later comic, Generations) that they still could have produced offsprings capable of the same feats had Superman allowed them a reasonable chance to sustain life.

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

It wasn't his kryptonite, so no, he didn't plan it. But even if it was, he wouldn't have been able to use it had he not spotted the gold kryptonite.

He did not "spot" the gold kryptonite, he went looking for it. Lex told him what he had to do, and Superman did it.

The threats had much to do with everything. We're privy to finding out without question that the Zoners had no remorse and if there was even a half of a percent that they repowered, they were at pre-crisis power levels and would kill Superman easily if those powers came back. We have justification for the decision because of what they confirm in speech and at that point know that there's no turning back, whether or not Superman had the means to kill them. As for the permanence of the gold K, we as readers would know from previous stories like Whatever Happened that even if they didn't get their powers back (as Byrne showed possible in his much later comic, Generations) that they still could have produced offsprings capable of the same feats had Superman allowed them a reasonable chance to sustain life.

What does a different continuity matter to Superman #22? In the comic in which Superman commits the murders, gold kryptonite is described as permanently taking away the power of kryptonians. They were powerless and he killed them.

Killing people because they might pose a problem in the future through their children or because they don't show any remorse for their actions doesn't justify the act of killing them.

Bryne ended his run by making Superman a murderer.

[Kuwagaton]

Yes, Luthor did basically hand him the gold K, but he didn't encounter them with it. Had he not been in the middle of getting killed by Quex and decided that he could find another way, there's nothing to say he would have still used it.

I bring up another continuity because that's the basis of gold K in the first place. Because the pocket universe is essentially another continuity, we as readers know different implications than Superman does. Because he's not of that world, he has to take them (meaning everyone: it also makes it easier to understand why Lex wouldn't have used it aside from phenomenal hubris) at their word. He has no proof that gold K permanently removes powers and has no proof that it doesn't. What he does know if beyond a shadow of a doubt that they will make good on their word, as they have proven genocidal and Quex even kills Zod himself. If we judge Superman there is a reasonable exculpation.

But anyway, I'm not saying that he didn't act as executioner. He did literally execute them and did have a choice, even if it was devoid of sense. An arrested Hitler wouldn't be able to do anything even if the courts decided to keep him alive, and his fate would also be execution over self defense for the court staff. But in Superman's case the act itself was defense in that it was based on the idea of ensuring that they would not repeat their actions, as there was literally no one capable of stopping them on either planet. By the slimmest of odds, once they overcame gold K it was all over.

If you are dead set on believing that there is no rationale, even in the event that a case of Superman as killer would not be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, that's your thing. But that's not the point the writers of the 80s-90s were trying to make and obviously Kelly's Action Comics #797 agrees.

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

Yes, Luthor did basically hand him the gold K, but he didn't encounter them with it. Had he not been in the middle of getting killed by Quex and decided that he could find another way, there's nothing to say he would have still used it.

He encountered Quex while searching for the gold kryptonite. He went looking for it after it became clear that depowering them was the only way he could beat them.

I'm not saying Superman went to the PU with the intention of killing them, but once Lex told what had to be done, Superman decided to kill them. That was the point of turning Superboy's lab into a makeshift cell and hiding the green kryptonite.

I bring up another continuity because that's the basis of gold K in the first place. Because the pocket universe is essentially another continuity, we as readers know different implications than Superman does. Because he's not of that world, he has to take them (meaning everyone: it also makes it easier to understand why Lex wouldn't have used it aside from phenomenal hubris) at their word. He has no proof that gold K permanently removes powers and has no proof that it doesn't.

And in that continuity it was established that gold kryptonite permanently took away powers. It had been mentioned to him by people from that Universe that knew of the effects of gold kryptonite.

What he does know if beyond a shadow of a doubt that they will make good on their word, as they have proven genocidal and Quex even kills Zod himself. If we judge Superman there is a reasonable exculpation.

Not there isn't, he killed them while they were powerless. They had no way of hurting him, and could have been contained in several other ways.

But anyway, I'm not saying that he didn't act as executioner. He did literally execute them and did have a choice, even if it was devoid of sense. An arrested Hitler wouldn't be able to do anything even if the courts decided to keep him alive, and his fate would also be execution over self defense for the court staff. But in Superman's case the act itself was defense in that it was based on the idea of ensuring that they would not repeat their actions, as there was literally no one capable of stopping them on either planet. By the slimmest of odds, once they overcame gold K it was all over.

Killing people because there's a slim chance that they might prove be a future threat, when they have been depowered, is not acting in defense.

If you are dead set on believing that there is no rationale, even in the event that a case of Superman as killer would not be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, that's your thing. But that's not the point the writers of the 80s-90s were trying to make and obviously Kelly's Action Comics #797 agrees.

Oh yeah, the writers definitely didn't agree.

Killing by superheros has rarely been handled well, and "justifiable" murder is something a lot of people are actually keen on.

[Francisco]

It was an execution. Superman acted as judge, jury and executioner.

[Kuwagaton]

He encountered Quex while searching for the gold kryptonite. He went looking for it after it became clear that depowering them was the only way he could beat them.

I'm not saying Superman went to the PU with the intention of killing them, but once Lex told what had to be done, Superman decided to kill them. That was the point of turning Superboy's lab into a makeshift cell and hiding the green kryptonite.

And in that continuity it was established that gold kryptonite permanently took away powers. It had been mentioned to him by people from that Universe that knew of the effects of gold kryptonite.

These to me are semantic arguments. You could say that having the green K on hand before killing them makes it premeditated, but the lack of killing intent when he first arrived is part of my point. In your own words, he went to the pocket universe without the intention to kill, sought gold K because he couldn't beat them otherwise, and had it mentioned to him by people in that universe that gold K removed powers.

Even though the criminals of that same universe swore that it wasn't permanent and would absolutely do it all over again.

Not there isn't, he killed them while they were powerless. They had no way of hurting him, and could have been contained in several other ways.

Killing people because there's a slim chance that they might prove be a future threat, when they have been depowered, is not acting in defense.

They could be contained but not monitored. Either he left them in that universe free from all but the compromised judgment of a Luthor who refused to use gold K and stop them from killing billions, or he'd bring them home and risk any possible thing happening while they were alive and available to do what evil they could.

The slim chance of being repowered is a pretty bad one to take. Killing them while depowered with realistic odds of them not repeating their actions if repowered would be a different story, but they were clearly set on killing again and anything less for killing five billion just doesn't fly in any court we've seen.

Oh yeah, the writers definitely didn't agree.

So we have corroboration in Adventures #494 by Ordway, Action #683 by Stern, Superman Annual #10 by Jurgens, and DeMatteis in JLA #35. That accounts for the main writers of Superman except Simonson, Michelinie, Immonen, and Kesel, but I haven't seen them state otherwise. Later, Kelly in #797 and similarly I don't remember Schultz, Casey, or Loeb saying something else. Who did you mean?

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

These to me are semantic arguments. You could say that having the green K on hand before killing them makes it premeditated, but the lack of killing intent when he first arrived is part of my point. In your own words, he went to the pocket universe without the intention to kill, sought gold K because he couldn't beat them otherwise, and had it mentioned to him by people in that universe that gold K removed powers.

But they aren't.

He didn't end up killing them in the heat of the moment. He went out to look for the gold kryptonite with the intent of killing them.

He trapped them in a secure location from which they couldn't escape, and then executed them. It doesn't matter that he didn't plan to kill them from the moment he arrived, because he did plan to kill them before he did.

Even though the criminals of that same universe swore that it wasn't permanent and would absolutely do it all over again.

Empty threats.

Further proof that gold kryptonite was permanent was that Krypto never got his powers back.

And once again, you can't kill three powerless individuals because they threaten to do something terrible again.

They could be contained but not monitored. Either he left them in that universe free from all but the compromised judgment of a Luthor who refused to use gold K and stop them from killing billions, or he'd bring them home and risk any possible thing happening while they were alive and available to do what evil they could.

That risk didn't exist, and they could be monitored if not by Superman then by several other organizations in the DCU.

The slim chance of being repowered is a pretty bad one to take. Killing them while depowered with realistic odds of them not repeating their actions if repowered would be a different story, but they were clearly set on killing again and anything less for killing five billion just doesn't fly in any court we've seen.

Why do you keep bringing up courts?

I am making a moral argument that someone shouldn't kill three defenseless people.

Executing three people, when they've been made powerless because someone thinks there is a chance that they might kill again is not self defense and is not justifiable.

Superman killed three people in revenge. End of story.

So we have corroboration in Adventures #494 by Ordway, Action #683 by Stern, Superman Annual #10 by Jurgens, and DeMatteis in JLA #35. That accounts for the main writers of Superman except Simonson, Michelinie, Immonen, and Kesel, but I haven't seen them state otherwise. Later, Kelly in #797 and similarly I don't remember Schultz, Casey, or Loeb saying something else. Who did you mean?

I mistyped there, I meant that they did agree.

But only to a point, and after Exile they tried to tweak it to make it more justifiable.

[Kuwagaton]

But they aren't.

He didn't end up killing them in the heat of the moment. He went out to look for the gold kryptonite with the intent of killing them.

He trapped them in a secure location from which they couldn't escape, and then executed them. It doesn't matter that he didn't plan to kill them from the moment he arrived, because he did plan to kill them before he did.

We are in the unique position of actually being able to read his thoughts, and yet we have no proof of when exactly he realized what he would do. We don't know whether or not experiencing the savagery of Quex-ul had an effect on his decision.

And the secure location from which they couldn't escape was not a position in which they could stay. Not unless Lex brought them food and water for the rest of his life and by some miracle they never just decided to ambush him in the process.

Further proof that gold kryptonite was permanent was that Krypto never got his powers back.

No one bothered to repower a dog? That... doesn't say much to me, tbh. I'm pretty sure the people who swore to get their powers back would try a little harder. Especially when the only person literally left in the world is the one person they could possibly torture into figuring it out.

And once again, you can't kill three powerless individuals because they threaten to do something terrible again.

And yet he did. Who was even left to argue the decision? They wiped out all of society.

That risk didn't exist, and they could be monitored if not by Superman then by several other organizations in the DCU.

"Someone else will take care of them" would have been a pretty lazy risk on Superman's part. Even if that were true, they'd kill a lot of people before the threat was assessed and dealt with.

Why do you keep bringing up courts?

I am making a moral argument that someone shouldn't kill three defenseless people.

Executing three people, when they've been made powerless because someone thinks there is a chance that they might kill again is not self defense and is not justifiable.

Superman killed three people in revenge. End of story.

End of story is a phrase usually signifying that something is unanimous and beyond discussion. That's not what this is, is it? It's pretty hard to believe that people can't feel differently on this. I'm at least one person. DC has put out several stories where he tells someone as if it's his deepest, darkest secret and the result is the person he tells not even feeling that bad about it. They bolster it with claims of defense because they feel it's worth justifying. That's really what you'd expect when you tell someone that you killed some genocidal mass murderers before they could come threaten them personally. There's no consensus, so I bring up courts in order to have an authority for appeal. One thing is certain: those individuals would receive capital punishment. Something not so certain but likely: with a halfway decent defense lawyer, Superman would have a pretty good chance.

Now if we do agree that Superman can possibly avoid conviction, who's your authority? Seems like it goes from "it's immoral" to "I think it's immoral." Sorry if that was already implied, but when you say end of story, I don't see it.

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

We are in the unique position of actually being able to read his thoughts, and yet we have no proof of when exactly he realized what he would do. We don't know whether or not experiencing the savagery of Quex-ul had an effect on his decision.

We know enough to determine that he planned to kill them when he went searching for the kryptonite. The Kryptonians had already committed the deeds for which Superman was punishing them.

And the secure location from which they couldn't escape was not a position in which they could stay. Not unless Lex brought them food and water for the rest of his life and by some miracle they never just decided to ambush him in the process.

Lex was dead.

Superman and Matrix were the only people left. Like Matrix, Superman could have taken them to his Universe and detained them there. Murdering them was not the only option present.

No one bothered to repower a dog? That... doesn't say much to me, tbh. I'm pretty sure the people who swore to get their powers back would try a little harder. Especially when the only person literally left in the world is the one person they could possibly torture into figuring it out.

It's further proof that the effects of gold kryptonite were indeed permanent as they had been stated to be. There is nothing to suggest that the effects of gold kryptonite in the pocket universe could be reversed, but there is evidence that the effects were permanent.

And yet he did. Who was even left to argue the decision? They wiped out all of society.

Which doesn't make murdering them justifiable when they no longer posed any danger.

"Someone else will take care of them" would have been a pretty lazy risk on Superman's part. Even if that were true, they'd kill a lot of people before the threat was assessed and dealt with.

No, they wouldn't have.

The DCU has plenty of places that can keep watch on them. Even simple solutions like keeping them constantly in the presence of gold kryptonite radiation would have ensured that even if there was a way for them to get their powers back, it wouldn't have been able to happen.

End of story is a phrase usually signifying that something is unanimous and beyond discussion. That's not what this is, is it? It's pretty hard to believe that people can't feel differently on this. I'm at least one person.

You can feel differently about it, but what the comic clearly shows Superman killing in revenge, not in self defense.

Remember when Jurgen's first issue of Rebirth Action came out, and we were in disagreement about whether Superman knew New 52 Lex was a criminal at all? With you taking the position that Superman knew Lex had a villainous past but didn't know if he had committed any crimes since getting out of prison, and I took the position that despite searching for proof of any wrongdoing on Lex's part that he didn't have any information that pointed at Lex having done anything wrong throughout his history? With Jurgens later stating Superman didn't actually have any proof at all and he was only operating on a hunch?

This is another one of those situations where you're giving Superman the benefit of the doubt when there's nothing to support it. That Superman is supposed to be a shining beacon of morality, does not mean writers will always carry through on it.

DC has put out several stories where he tells someone as if it's his deepest, darkest secret and the result is the person he tells not even feeling that bad about it. They bolster it with claims of defense because they feel it's worth justifying. That's really what you'd expect when you tell someone that you killed some genocidal mass murderers before they could come threaten them personally.

Because there's no way DC could have their biggest hero be someone that committed premeditated murder in revenge. They have to justify it if Superman is to continue as a hero in the DCU, and have the respect of the other heroes of the DCU. Stories like that usually turn out to be evil Superman stories, like Injustice.

The writers also mistake understandable for justifiable.

There's no consensus, so I bring up courts in order to have an authority for appeal. One thing is certain: those individuals would receive capital punishment. Something not so certain but likely: with a halfway decent defense lawyer, Superman would have a pretty good chance.

That a court system would approve of their murder does not make killing them justifiable.

Now if we do agree that Superman can possibly avoid conviction, who's your authority? Seems like it goes from "it's immoral" to "I think it's immoral." Sorry if that was already implied, but when you say end of story, I don't see it.

Not killing criminals when they are defenseless and demonstrably do not the pose the threat they did prior, is not a radical moral position. Not committing murder is not a radical moral position.

What you're saying is that in some situations, when criminals can not retaliate, it is justifiable to murder them in revenge and then claim self defense.

[PyroTwilight]

Thing is. Even in comics Gold Kryptonite being "permanent" goes back and forth.

Hell modern Gold kryptonite only lasts SECONDS. I know it'll be debated until the end of time but given all the options even Superman knows about it, especially back then it made sense in story. Or as much as it could.

I mean these folks LITERALLY killed all life on Earth. There's not EVEN ANOTHER PLANET in the Pocket Universe to go to. It was only Krypton and Earth. That's about as pure evil as one can be.

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

Thing is. Even in comics Gold Kryptonite being "permanent" goes back and forth.

Hell modern Gold kryptonite only lasts SECONDS. I know it'll be debated until the end of time but given all the options even Superman knows about it, especially back then it made sense in story. Or as much as it could.

The permanency is going to differ in different continuities, but there was nothing to suggest that it wasn't permanent in the Pocket Universe and even if it could be reversed, the criminals could have just been prevented from developing whatever cure that may have hypothetically existed.

I mean these folks LITERALLY killed all life on Earth. There's not EVEN ANOTHER PLANET in the Pocket Universe to go to. It was only Krypton and Earth. That's about as pure evil as one can be.

Being evil and committing evil, even on that scale doesn't mean it is justifiable to kill them when they were powerless. They had been defeated, what followed was a revenge killing.

And by DCU standards, it isn't even the most damage villains have done. Parallax wiped out the whole Universe.

[theoneandonly]

There is something to be considered that superman had them powerless and appointed himself as the judge to deal with them and I think ultimately it proved that he was willing to take hard decisions to protect the sanctity of life. it seems tad hypocritical to judge superman as a murderer for executing three war prisoners as the only person left on that world who could speak for the countless victims of the three criminals. The reprehensible indiscriminate slaughter demanded retribution and moreover there was no justification to bring three psychopathic murderers to other universe to be incarcerated only to risk their eventual escape once they may regain their powers. Its the sake situation peter finds himself time and again with the symbiotes who have slaughtered countless victims. Superman was wise to avoid running that risk and moreover in a time of war a ordinary citizen and individual is justified to take life which was supermans role here. the spectre seemed to take hypocrisy to new levels when he made the declaration that thou shalt not kill doesn't make exception for super powered kryptonians when it was part of his job description to ensure that perpetrators of such heinous deeds be punished.

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

The Phantom Zone killings was not a hard decision, he was not protecting life, he was enacting vengeance.

This constant framing of killing as a necessary hard decision people make is absurd and only aggrandizes the act of killing by the "good" guys. Usually writers come up with contrived scenarios as to why a hero will be forced to kill, but Superman #22 didn't even have that.

[Kuwagaton]

Superman and Matrix were the only people left. Like Matrix, Superman could have taken them to his Universe and detained them there. Murdering them was not the only option present.

Two things were stopping them from killing all life on the prime Earth: not being there, and not having powers. Taking one of two obstacles out of their way was a risk as they clearly stated their desire to kill his world.

It's further proof that the effects of gold kryptonite were indeed permanent as they had been stated to be. There is nothing to suggest that the effects of gold kryptonite in the pocket universe could be reversed, but there is evidence that the effects were permanent.

There is evidence that left untreated, gold K will cause indefinite loss of power.

Which doesn't make murdering them justifiable when they no longer posed any danger.

The danger was chiefly their powers, but not exclusively. As long as they were genocidal, they posed a threat. For all of the death superheroes prevent in the DC universe, if there are people willing to do harm then harm will be done. I can sort of understand if the point is that killing is bad even if it's justified, but to say it's unjustified in the event of the pocket universe criminals is a stretch. If there is any standard for capital punishment, they exceeded it.

You can feel differently about it, but what the comic clearly shows Superman killing in revenge, not in self defense.

Remember when Jurgen's first issue of Rebirth Action came out, and we were in disagreement about whether Superman knew New 52 Lex was a criminal at all? With you taking the position that Superman knew Lex had a villainous past but didn't know if he had committed any crimes since getting out of prison, and I took the position that despite searching for proof of any wrongdoing on Lex's part that he didn't have any information that pointed at Lex having done anything wrong throughout his history? With Jurgens later stating Superman didn't actually have any proof at all and he was only operating on a hunch?

This is another one of those situations where you're giving Superman the benefit of the doubt when there's nothing to support it. That Superman is supposed to be a shining beacon of morality, does not mean writers will always carry through on it.

I don't believe Superman is supposed to be a beacon of morality, I believe he is supposed to be a man who does his best. So it sounds like I was wrong there. Okay. Now in this discussion unrelated to that Rebirth story, are the comics that came later supporting my point or denying it? If Jurgens through his writing pointed out that I was wrong that time, where is it that Byrne does the same?

Because there's no way DC could have their biggest hero be someone that committed premeditated murder in revenge. They have to justify it if Superman is to continue as a hero in the DCU, and have the respect of the other heroes of the DCU. Stories like that usually turn out to be evil Superman stories, like Injustice.

Or revise events, which they're wont to do. They could have changed things with Zero Hour for example, but they didn't.

That a court system would approve of their murder does not make killing them justifiable.

And that just keeps the discussion stuck at "because I say so." A court would be the only authority to determine such a thing outside of opinion.

What you're saying is that in some situations, when criminals can not retaliate, it is justifiable to murder them in revenge and then claim self defense.

I'm saying that criminals who set an expectation of retaliation express a clear danger when you have a significant body of evidence to support the idea that they intend to make good on those threats. It's not say, telling a cop you'll kill him, it's killing an entire squad of cops in front of one cop, then beating him up and telling him you'll kill him when he gets off of you. You keep mentioning that they were depowered, so killing them doesn't seem as reasonable given the lack of means and opportunity, but the threats were clear enough to lead Superman to believe that if for any reason the gold K didn't quite work as planned, it would cost lives. Had they not been so clear in their intent to cause harm, it'd be a different story. Yes, he did bring them there before they said all that, but I'm pretty sure killing five billion people also counts as a threat to most people.