Should Superman kill?

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

I think he should have killed but it's not something he should consistently. The amount of times should be less than one human hand.

[JackDaw]

Why does question come up repeatedly in relation to Superman...and rarely in relation to other heroes?

If you look at powerset...classic villains..general upbringing, life experiences, etc...Superman is maybe last guy that should need to kill. Contrast him with Batman..for example..whose villains are far more routinely killers than Superman.

People routinely argue Batman would have a horror of guns because he saw his parents die. Equally easy to argue Superman whose entire world died...and who was then raised by devout Christians ( “thou shall not kill”) would have a profound horror of killing. And that would be a terrific source of strength, but also...in some circumstances..a weakness.

For me, this is one area that should differentiate Superman from practically all other heroes.

Isn’t there room...even in today’s comics...for one guy with a unique moral code? Or does every hero have to come off the same production line?

[Superlad93]

Why not? They do it all the time as long as it isn’t the main lead and the supporting cast that are popular.

Villains tend to sell everything in a way that supporting cast, no matter how popular, do not.

It’s never been presented as any other way since he had that code. When the question of lethal force comes up in a Superman story, that’s what it will be like.

I thought the stories around them were bull headed in approach, and the way Superman actually made his rebuttal was weak. A far more compelling story was the legion of superheroes story where Clark is actually in defense of other people with far less options killing when needed, but he himself doesn't go there. Still easily one of the most mature, clear, and even tempered takes on the idea.

You seem to be under the impression that those of us who don’t care for the no killing rule, want him to kill all the time and consider no other option.

I'm not, but most of the time it would make sense given who he fights and what they can do to everyone else around them. Logically speaking he's killing even "small", for him, villains because they're things like living nukes who seem to hate everyone. The question of "will he go too far?" is replaced with a far less compelling "wait, why didn't he go all the way that time?" This is then compounded when you logically build that villain he let live up as more of a threat than last time. Now if he doesn't kill them it's borderline stupid since he's been shown willing to go for it pretty comfortable before when the need is there. And you will run into more of those situations more often than not because other writers will want to use a specific villain, but they're logically on the chopping block. Eventually Superman is just as ineffective as before when it comes to putting big villains away for good because he seems to be only able to kill new or minor foes. (Watch that back, Atomic Skull!)

With the alternative you at the very least get the wide birth of ways to solve the issue plus the catharsis of watching a he hero stick to their guns and say FU to the villain while humbling them by saving them. It's impractical and spits in the face of realism. I 100% agree, but Batman's eternal dance with the Joke is one of the most beloved and analyzed aspects of hero fiction, Captain America: Winder Solder's uncompromising Steve Rogers shot him up so far in popularity that he rivals MCU Iron Man, and, maybe the best example of all, Watchmen's Rorschach is the books most popular character and arguably his most famous line is "never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise." The idea behind Rorschach in particular was to show how ridiculous, inflexible, and draconian costumed heroes are when placed in the context of realism. Moore assumed everyone would really dislike the character because of the big FU to heroes he was on top of being a big ol' sh!t of a person, but to Moore's surprise, when faced with a world of impotent, overweight Night Owls, and disaffected blue gods, most readers and viewers latched onto the character with the same lager than life way of thinking that comics are made up of. Sure he murdered, was a racist, and had none of the looks, but he kept that uncompromising and simplistic cowboy way of thinking that nails in his coffin as any sort of real and effective hero, but allows him to tickled that comic book hero portion of our collective brains just right.

So, yes, again, it's really, really dumb in the real world, but that's fine. As a collective we're pretty okay with dumb. We're more interested in the hero proving the villain wrong in that moment than the long term implications it might have on the fictional world of pretend people. Plus, we'd also like to see that villain again. Welcome to serialized comics. Take your shoes off at the door.

No one is asking for Super Punisher.

Never did I say you or anyone else was. You're projecting, and that's not really fair to the conversation you're trying to have with me right now.

Nor does he have to introspect every time he kills someone because why the hell should he be?

If there is no introspection, internal conflict, and it's literally removing a character from the table, it comes off as something that's yielding far less gain than it's worth.

[Superlad93]

Contrast him with Batman..for example..whose villains are far more routinely killers than Superman.

And it's, like, comically impractically for Batman on top of the impracticality that is his very being, but no one really cares. Those five people who wanna do the whole adjust glasses, raise finger thing and says "um, but actually..." and spout off about how much sense it doesn't make are missing the point and the billions of dollars of Batman and his impracticality. Yes, bat shaped throwing stars or boomerangs are dumb as rocks, but they're cool. Yes, having Batman punch into a stone wall, flip over onto said wall, and crack his broken back into place is super impossible, but, f@%k you, it's awesome.

And obviously letting the Joker go anywhere but to a lethal injection chamber, and training 9 year old boys to be tiny solders are among the most irresponsible and ridiculous things I've ever heard of, but, as a collective, we have come to the conclusion that the personal journey and personal victory of the hero we're following and invested in is far higher on the priority list than the realistic ripple effect of these choices. It is one of the single greatest acknowledgements of a character's conceptual and story strength in modern story telling, imo. And I for one would love to afford Superman the same level of conceptual and story strength.

[SiegePerilous02]

He should be willing to cross that line if he needs to, and be well aware that he shouldn't hold everyone up to the same standards because very few individuals have the power he has. But he should also try his hardest to avoid it. 9 times out 10 he should find that alternative solution. With his abilities, stories constantly making it so he can't find another way around it sound really unappealing and reeks of a lack of imagination on the part of the writers.

Yeah, it's not realistic. But I don't know why anybody would be signing on for complete realism in the first place here.

[Vordan]

And it's, like, comically impractically for Batman on top of the impracticality that is his very being, but no one really cares. Those five people who wanna do the whole adjust glasses, raise finger thing and says "um, but actually..." and spout off about how much sense it doesn't make are missing the point and the billions of dollars of Batman and his impracticality. Yes, bat shaped throwing stars or boomerangs are dumb as rocks, but they're cool. Yes, having Batman punch into a stone wall, flip over onto said wall, and crack his broken back into place is super impossible, but, f@%k you, it's awesome.

And obviously letting the Joker go anywhere but to a lethal injection chamber, and training 9 year old boys to be tiny solders are among the most irresponsible and ridiculous things I've ever heard of, but, as a collective, we have come to the conclusion that the personal journey and personal victory of the hero we're following and invested in is far higher on the priority list than the realistic ripple effect of these choices. It is one of the single greatest acknowledgements of a character's conceptual and story strength in modern story telling, imo. And I for one would love to afford Superman the same level of conceptual and story strength.

“No nonsense solutions don’t hold up in a world of flying men and talking gorillas”. Superheroes aren’t realistic anymore than Star Wars, or Lord of the Rings is realistic. They’re just meant to entertain, sometimes yes they tell morals, but that’s not the primary reason for their existence. Trying to make things “realistic” is just a waste of time.

Why does question come up repeatedly in relation to Superman...and rarely in relation to other heroes?

If you look at powerset...classic villains..general upbringing, life experiences, etc...Superman is maybe last guy that should need to kill. Contrast him with Batman..for example..whose villains are far more routinely killers than Superman.

People routinely argue Batman would have a horror of guns because he saw his parents die. Equally easy to argue Superman whose entire world died...and who was then raised by devout Christians ( “thou shall not kill”) would have a profound horror of killing. And that would be a terrific source of strength, but also...in some circumstances..a weakness.

For me, this is one area that should differentiate Superman from practically all other heroes.

Isn’t there room...even in today’s comics...for one guy with a unique moral code? Or does every hero have to come off the same production line?

It doesn’t come up as much with Marvel because they’ve basically thrown out most of the classic Superman tropes in recent years. Barely anyone outside Spider-Man has a secret identity or a no-kill rule. A lot of Marvel heroes work directly for the government in one way or another. But Batman gets hit with the “why doesn’t he kill?” as bad or worse than Supes honestly.

[Agent Z]

Villains tend to sell everything in a way that supporting cast, no matter how popular, do not.

Aside from maybe Lex Luthor, how many Superman villains are sellers?

I thought the stories around them were bull headed in approach, and the way Superman actually made his rebuttal was weak. A far more compelling story was the legion of superheroes story where Clark is actually in defense of other people with far less options killing when needed, but he himself doesn't go there. Still easily one of the most mature, clear, and even tempered takes on the idea.

True. However, notice that’s more a Legion story than a Superman one.

I'm not, but most of the time it would make sense given who he fights and what they can do to everyone else around them. Logically speaking he's killing even "small", for him, villains because they're things like living nukes who seem to hate everyone. The question of "will he go too far?" is replaced with a far less compelling "wait, why didn't he go all the way that time?" This is then compounded when you logically build that villain he let live up as more of a threat than last time. Now if he doesn't kill them it's borderline stupid since he's been shown willing to go for it pretty comfortable before when the need is there. And you will run into more of those situations more often than not because other writers will want to use a specific villain, but they're logically on the chopping block. Eventually Superman is just as ineffective as before when it comes to putting big villains away for good because he seems to be only able to kill new or minor foes. (Watch that back, Atomic Skull!)

All of this can be solved by not having him fighting living nukes who hate everyone all the time. It’s called proportionate response.
It really feels like you’re making this out to be way more complicated than it should be.

With the alternative you at the very least get the wide birth of ways to solve the issue plus the catharsis of watching a he hero stick to their guns and say FU to the villain while humbling them by saving them. It's impractical and spits in the face of realism. I 100% agree, but Batman's eternal dance with the Joke is one of the most beloved and analyzed aspects of hero fiction, Captain America: Winder Solder's uncompromising Steve Rogers shot him up so far in popularity that he rivals MCU Iron Man, and, maybe the best example of all, Watchmen's Rorschach is the books most popular character and arguably his most famous line is "never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise." The idea behind Rorschach in particular was to show how ridiculous, inflexible, and draconian costumed heroes are when placed in the context of realism. Moore assumed everyone would really dislike the character because of the big FU to heroes he was on top of being a big ol' sh!t of a person, but to Moore's surprise, when faced with a world of impotent, overweight Night Owls, and disaffected blue gods, most readers and viewers latched onto the character with the same lager than life way of thinking that comics are made up of. Sure he murdered, was a racist, and had none of the looks, but he kept that uncompromising and simplistic cowboy way of thinking that nails in his coffin as any sort of real and effective hero, but allows him to tickled that comic book hero portion of our collective brains just right.

That it makes other characters popular is hardly a convincing reason since Superman continues to struggle with popularity even when he sticks to this nonsensical code. And in Rorschach’s case, the type of people who latch onto him tend to be pretty freaking toxic and miss the point of the character.
You’re assuming only one type of character can be popular in one way.

So, yes, again, it's really, really dumb in the real world, but that's fine. As a collective we're pretty okay with dumb. We're more interested in the hero proving the villain wrong in that moment than the long term implications it might have on the fictional world of pretend people. Plus, we'd also like to see that villain again. Welcome to serialized comics. Take your shoes off at the door.

Who do you need to convince? The audience or the writers who keep bringing this stuff up in the stories they write? Do you think we'd be having this conversation if writers didn't feel the need to make entire stories about this dumb rule?

Never did I say you or anyone else was. You're projecting, and that's not really fair to the conversation you're trying to have with me right now.

I apologize.

If there is no introspection, internal conflict, and it's literally removing a character from the table, it comes off as something that's yielding far less gain than it's worth.

If the character in question had nothing valuable to add narratively, then there is plenty to gain from removing them.
Like, to be serious, what is there to be gained from keeping the likes of Atomic Skull around? He’s never amounted to anything other than being a joke at best, living proof as to how stupid the no killing rule is at worst.

[Agent Z]

“No nonsense solutions don’t hold up in a world of flying men and talking gorillas”. Superheroes aren’t realistic anymore than Star Wars, or Lord of the Rings is realistic. They’re just meant to entertain, sometimes yes they tell morals, but that’s not the primary reason for their existence. Trying to make things “realistic” is just a waste of time.

It doesn’t come up as much with Marvel because they’ve basically thrown out most of the classic Superman tropes in recent years. Barely anyone outside Spider-Man has a secret identity or a no-kill rule. A lot of Marvel heroes work directly for the government in one way or another. But Batman gets hit with the “why doesn’t he kill?” as bad or worse than Supes honestly.

A) The no killing rule is repeatedly used in moralizing stories.

B) One of the reasons why it is criticized is because it can lead to stories that are not entertaining.

[Agent Z]

Why does question come up repeatedly in relation to Superman...and rarely in relation to other heroes?

If you look at powerset...classic villains..general upbringing, life experiences, etc...Superman is maybe last guy that should need to kill. Contrast him with Batman..for example..whose villains are far more routinely killers than Superman.

People routinely argue Batman would have a horror of guns because he saw his parents die. Equally easy to argue Superman whose entire world died...and who was then raised by devout Christians ( “thou shall not kill”) would have a profound horror of killing. And that would be a terrific source of strength, but also...in some circumstances..a weakness.

For me, this is one area that should differentiate Superman from practically all other heroes.

Isn’t there room...even in today’s comics...for one guy with a unique moral code? Or does every hero have to come off the same production line?

Because other heroes don't bring it up nearly as often.

Take the Flash for example. The vast majority of his villains are common thieves and tend to have a rule against killing. The closest thing he's got to a Zod or Joker like character is the Reverse Flash who is virtually impossible to kill, even if the Flash decided to do it.


Superman isn't the only one with this moral code. He's just one of the two whom the writers keep bringing it up with again and again to the point of obnoxiousness.

[Ascended]

If the character in question had nothing valuable to add narratively, then there is plenty to gain from removing them.
Like, to be serious, what is there to be gained from keeping the likes of Atomic Skull around? He’s never amounted to anything other than being a joke at best, living proof as to how stupid the no killing rule is at worst.

I dont wanna step in on ya'll's conversation but I don't think this is right.

Atomic Skull might have never amounted to anything.....but neither did Kite-Man. Yet I bet if you said "Hell yeah!" on this board (or at least the Bat board), almost every one of us would recognize the catch phrase. All it takes is a writer with a idea, and a Z-list villain can become worthwhile (or at least interesting enough to keep around). In fact, a whole lot of the big name villains we enjoy now didn't start out as big name foes; they got there because a writer had a great idea and then other writers followed up on it. Atomic Skull (or whoever) might not matter now, but tomorrow? That can always be different.

And if a villain really has no value to the narrative, his/her death probably won't add much either. Just to stick with the Atomic Skull, if he died.....does that really affect anyone? Is anyone who matters in the Super-verse going to do more than shrug at the news of his death? Death is a totally viable narrative tool, but it's got to be used to impact the other characters in the story (or finish the tale, anyway). And since most of these Z-listers have damn few emotional ties to the Super-cast, their deaths aren't going to have any real impact. Unless you're doing a story where Lois kills him or something and the characters have to deal with the fallout of the death. But that's a story you can't tell very often, so you're not exactly cleaning house or gaining a whole lot long term.

[Agent Z]

I dont wanna step in on ya'll's conversation but I don't think this is right.

Atomic Skull might have never amounted to anything.....but neither did Kite-Man. Yet I bet if you said "Hell yeah!" on this board (or at least the Bat board), almost every one of us would recognize the catch phrase. All it takes is a writer with a idea, and a Z-list villain can become worthwhile (or at least interesting enough to keep around). In fact, a whole lot of the big name villains we enjoy now didn't start out as big name foes; they got there because a writer had a great idea and then other writers followed up on it. Atomic Skull (or whoever) might not matter now, but tomorrow? That can always be different.

And if a villain really has no value to the narrative, his/her death probably won't add much either. Just to stick with the Atomic Skull, if he died.....does that really affect anyone? Is anyone who matters in the Super-verse going to do more than shrug at the news of his death? Death is a totally viable narrative tool, but it's got to be used to impact the other characters in the story (or finish the tale, anyway). And since most of these Z-listers have damn few emotional ties to the Super-cast, their deaths aren't going to have any real impact. Unless you're doing a story where Lois kills him or something and the characters have to deal with the fallout of the death. But that's a story you can't tell very often, so you're not exactly cleaning house or gaining a whole lot long term.

Not every death has to impact the characters though. It's perfectly fine for a villain to be killed off with no one caring. Happens all the time in other fiction, even ongoing ones. Hell, it's happened within Superman.

[Ascended]

Not every death has to impact the characters though. It's perfectly fine for a villain to be killed off with no one caring. Happens all the time in other fiction, even ongoing ones. Hell, it's happened within Superman.

Sure, but it still always serves a purpose. At least when done properly. Obviously it's been done for no real reason.....but I don't think that counts as "good" writing.

It can be used to build up a different villain. Maybe the Atomic Skull has set up shop as the kingpin of Suicide Slum (not a great place to put a walking nuke, I know, its just an example). And you have a different villain show up, kill the Skull, and take over the Slum as the first stage of a larger plan for Metropolis. In that case the Skull played "red shirt" to prove how dangerous the other guy is.

It can set the tone for the story. If a new arc opens up with news of the Skull's death trending on twitter, it tells the reader that this story probably isn't going to be one of the fun, light hearted ones, and the Skull's death might not be the last.

The death itself can be of little value but set off bigger ripple effects. We see that all the time in mysteries, right?

I dunno, I feel like killing a character for no reason is basically the same thing as cooking a meal and then throwing it away without eating it. Maybe you just threw a Hot Pocket into the microwave for a couple minutes and the meal isn't that great, but you're still throwing out food needlessly. If a character's death isn't going to have an impact on the narrative, then there's no point to it, and nothing to gain. Hell, if there's no gain from the death then you're actually losing something; the potential story gains to be had if/when a writer does come along with an idea for the villain. If someone had killed off Kite-Man, then King wouldn't have been able to use him and make him interesting (I mean, King could've brought him back but that's a lot of extra work just to do the War of Jokes & Riddles).

[Agent Z]

Sure, but it still always serves a purpose. At least when done properly. Obviously it's been done for no real reason.....but I don't think that counts as "good" writing.

It can be used to build up a different villain. Maybe the Atomic Skull has set up shop as the kingpin of Suicide Slum (not a great place to put a walking nuke, I know, its just an example). And you have a different villain show up, kill the Skull, and take over the Slum as the first stage of a larger plan for Metropolis. In that case the Skull played "red shirt" to prove how dangerous the other guy is.

It can set the tone for the story. If a new arc opens up with news of the Skull's death trending on twitter, it tells the reader that this story probably isn't going to be one of the fun, light hearted ones, and the Skull's death might not be the last.

The death itself can be of little value but set off bigger ripple effects. We see that all the time in mysteries, right?

I dunno, I feel like killing a character for no reason is basically the same thing as cooking a meal and then throwing it away without eating it. Maybe you just threw a Hot Pocket into the microwave for a couple minutes and the meal isn't that great, but you're still throwing out food needlessly. If a character's death isn't going to have an impact on the narrative, then there's no point to it, and nothing to gain. Hell, if there's no gain from the death then you're actually losing something; the potential story gains to be had if/when a writer does come along with an idea for the villain. If someone had killed off Kite-Man, then King wouldn't have been able to use him and make him interesting (I mean, King could've brought him back but that's a lot of extra work just to do the War of Jokes & Riddles).

What if the reason is simply, "this villain cannot be stopped any other way"?

Again, villains die all the time in fiction with zero commentary and the stories are never considered poorer for it. I'm not against the idea of it having an impact on the character but I don't agree with the idea that it always should. Especially if the villain in question is an utter bastard whom no one in-niverse would miss.

And yeah, killing off a villain means they can't be used in stories anymore. But the question also needs to be asked if that particular villain in necessary for the story.

[Superlad93]

Aside from maybe Lex Luthor, how many Superman villains are sellers?

That's generally speaking for all heroes. But in Superman's case, he does have at least like 5 foes that are both on the living nuke side and are fairly well known.

True. However, notice that’s more a Legion story than a Superman one.

I'm failing to see how that changes anything. It was still easily one of the most mature, clear, and even tempered takes on the idea, and it used Superman's code as a focal point. In fact that Legion's code was based off sort of adhering to Superman's code without the context, so it all still very much applies.

All of this can be solved by not having him fighting living nukes who hate everyone all the time. It’s called proportionate response.
It really feels like you’re making this out to be way more complicated than it should be.

I'm not. I'm applying what quite a few people enjoy seeing in their Superman media: threats on level. Scaling them down and thus giving him more options because of the gap in ability seems clunky when compared to the alternative where he could fight all the living nukes he wanted and fight much lover level foes pretty much whenever without issue. Like, would the only Superman villains left be these small scale guys and Lex?

That it makes other characters popular is hardly a convincing reason since Superman continues to struggle with popularity even when he sticks to this nonsensical code. And in Rorschach’s case, the type of people who latch onto him tend to be pretty freaking toxic and miss the point of the character.
You’re assuming only one type of character can be popular in one way.

Okay, so, I'm not gonna speak on the caliber of person that decides to like a character because that in and of itself is a pretty messed up and needlessly judgmental thing to do. So, yeah, sitting that dance out, thanks. But in the case of what makes Batman and Cap popular in this instance, it's kind of applicable to Superman because of the nature of the conversation we're having. The idea that their uncompromising rigidness in adhering to a moral standard is something closely followed and praised.

Again, as a collective, we have come to the conclusion that the personal journey and personal victory of the hero we're following and invested in is far higher on the priority list than the realistic ripple effect of the impractical choices they make in their heightened world. We like the game of rock, paper, scissors being played by the hero and villain.

Who do you need to convince? The audience or the writers who keep bringing this stuff up in the stories they write? Do you think we'd be having this conversation if writers didn't feel the need to make entire stories about this dumb rule?

I actually think that's the issue: making whole stories devoted to it almost annually. What they need to do is actually make it into window dressing. It's a foregone conclusion like flying. And if the itch ever arises where a writer just has to really talk about, then dance around it and attack it from another point aside from Superman's moral high ground. That's what the Legion story did, and it did it beautifully.

I apologize.

No worries.

If the character in question had nothing valuable to add narratively, then there is plenty to gain from removing them.

Huh? Then just don't write them, dude. I don't think we need to just expunge the very idea of the villain. That's not adding anything to the story other than giving Superman target practice.

Like, to be serious, what is there to be gained from keeping the likes of Atomic Skull around? He’s never amounted to anything other than being a joke at best, living proof as to how stupid the no killing rule is at worst.

Okay...but, they're currently not writing him as a foe anymore. He's working with the cops right now, and he apparently had a great run in the Superwoman comic. The problem is actually solved. He's no longer taking up space as a foe, but he's also not killing people. This probably wasn't the best example you could've come up with to make your point to be fair, but my point before this stands. Like, Conduit is just not in publication anymore.

[Agent Z]

That's generally speaking for all heroes. But in Superman's case, he does have at least like 5 foes that are both on the living nuke side and are fairly well known.

Well know, yes. Big sellers, is a different story. Only one that would fit that description is Luthor.

I'm failing to see how that changes anything. It was still easily one of the most mature, clear, and even tempered takes on the idea, and it used Superman's code as a focal point. In fact that Legion's code was based off sort of adhering to Superman's code without the context, so it all still very much applies.

It changes it in that Superman is not the main focus of this story which greatly affects how this rule is treated. Kingdom Come and 775 were Superman stories and we see how that affects how the code is viewed. By contrast, Sacrifice was a Wonder Woman story that simply featured Superman and the code was allowed to be shown as flawed.

I'm not. I'm applying what quite a few people enjoy seeing in their Superman media: threats on level. Scaling them down and thus giving him more options because of the gap in ability seems clunky when compared to the alternative where he could fight all the living nukes he wanted and fight much lover level foes pretty much whenever without issue. Like, would the only Superman villains left be these small scale guys and Lex?

Lex and the small scale guys are also well written why not? It isn’t like every nuke villain is well liked. Doomsday is an example of a villain that never should have been used past his debut story.

Okay, so, I'm not gonna speak on the caliber of person that decides to like a character because that in and of itself is a pretty messed up and needlessly judgmental thing to do. So, yeah, sitting that dance out, thanks. But in the case of what makes Batman and Cap popular in this instance, it's kind of applicable to Superman because of the nature of the conversation we're having. The idea that their uncompromising rigidness in adhering to a moral standard is something closely followed and praised.

Yeah, not by everyone. There’s been plenty of criticism of it being followed and praise for when it isn’t followed (Red Sun, Injustice, even Man of Steel to an extent).

I actually think that's the issue: making whole stories devoted to it almost annually. What they need to do is actually make it into window dressing. It's a foregone conclusion like flying. And if the itch ever arises where a writer just has to really talk about, then dance around it and attack it from another point aside from Superman's moral high ground. That's what the Legion story did, and it did it beautifully.

This can work, I’ll admit. Not likely to be the case given how Superman writers are.

Huh? Then just don't write them, dude. I don't think we need to just expunge the very idea of the villain. That's not adding anything to the story other than giving Superman target practice.

Okay...but, they're currently not writing him as a foe anymore. He's working with the cops right now, and he apparently had a great run in the Superwoman comic. The problem is actually solved. He's no longer taking up space as a foe, but he's also not killing people. This probably wasn't the best example you could've come up with to make your point to be fair, but my point before this stands. Like, Conduit is just not in publication anymore.

I only used Atomic Skull because you initially brought him up. Besides, you really think this current depiction will last?