Should Superman kill?

[Ascended]

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

Then it should probably carry an impact on the characters.

Some heroes can kill and not lose any sleep over it. Clark isn't one of them. So while I totally support Clark using lethal force on the rare occasion he has to, I expect that to weigh on him because it's weighed on him every other time he's taken a life.

And really, this is just my personal approach to writing; you don't throw stuff away for no reason. It's needlessly limiting. If you write something that doesn't go anywhere or say anything, you're wasting time.

Do you recommend this one Ascended? Is it easy to pick up in trade?

.......yeeessss........

OW@W is a tough one. It's not actually that great a story. I mean, you're not going to marvel at it's clever execution or plot or characterization or anything. It's like a summer blockbuster movie; it's loud and big and a little dumb but its wild and crazy and fun; it's got some really big ideas and several really damn cool moments. So if you read it, go into it like you would go into a MCU movie; don't expect anything terribly intelligent, just expect a spectacle. If you do that, you'll probably enjoy it, but "For the Man Who Has Everything" this is not.

As for how hard it is to find in trade, I'm not sure. I know there was a big collection released not too awful long ago but I dunno how hard it is to find. I doubt it's a big seller though, so I'd bet somebody has a copy somewhere.

[Kuwagaton]

It's basically like the Superman creators were moved by ID4 starring Will Smith.

That question can be asked without Superman literally having to fight a guy he's already killed time and time again.

As I was saying, the fact is that he can't and the implication is that he won't kill Doomsday again. The trick to many Superman stories is how he thinks outside the box to solve problems, and some of his most prolific villains are the ones who can be dealt with in creative ways. Doomsday isn't that prolific anyway but it can be interesting to also see how Superman faces an escalating, eternal threat that adapts to his plans and how he refuses to kill again even when death doesn't stick.

[Ascended]

it can be interesting to also see how Superman faces an escalating, eternal threat that adapts to his plans and how he refuses to kill again even when death doesn't stick.

Which is another consideration, too. Many of Clark's villains can't really die anyway. Brainiac? You know he's got backups hidden and will just download himself into a new body of some kind. Doomsday? Literally comes back to life and can't be killed the same way twice (also, it's a virus; those are hard to kill). Darkseid? Best you can do is throw him in the Source Wall. Myx? Probably can't actually die at all, as we understand the concept. Zod and the other Kryptonians? We know that Kal's people are incredibly hard to perish, that even a few cells with solar energy left in them can kickstart regeneration. Cyborg Superman? Like Brainiac he'll just download into a new body. And so on and so forth.

So for a chunk of the rogues gallery, killing them simply isn't an option. Even if Clark were willing, he wouldn't be able.

[9th.]

I think so, pretty much in situations like MOS. Obviously he shouldn't be Kryptonian Punisher but I don't think it's stain on his character if he does.

[Agent Z]

I got into an argument with a guy on reddit on whether superhumans should kill or not a while back. I remember the response quite vividly. It's not a matter of whether superheroes should have the ability to permanently end lives, but rather a matter of whether superheroes should takes lives. Sounds weird, but it makes sense.

Let's take Superman for example. Let's say Superman depowers and vaporizes Zod until there is nothing left but a pile of ashes. Would this stop Zod's resurrection? Can you control where Zod comes back from the dead? For all we know, a blood sample could be used to clone Zod using some ancient technology from Krypton which can imprint consciousness, too. Zod could return, strike at any time, and Superman would have no leads.

If Zod was locked up, at least the investigation could commence from where his prison was.

It's less of a matter of life and more of a matter of pragmatism.

This argument has never been used in the comics though.

Plus, I'm not seeing how sending a guy to a prison he will eventually break out of is any more pragmatic. Not to mention the security staff and other prisoners that would be in danger from him.

[stargazer01]

Honestly the Doctor is a different beast I don't idolize him like some fans this was a man who when we first met him was going to kill an injured cave man because he didn't want to carry him and slow him and the companions down. So I think certain Doctors killing makes sense because it fits their personalities and who they are but I don't feel all Doctors should kill. Same thing with like guns I have no issue with certain Doctors using guns while some fans (Mostly New Who Fans) think that's unacceptable and out of character it isn't.

I feel if Superman kills than he's just a god passing judgment besides the moral slippy slope. I also think killing goes against who Clark is and if he is forced to do it it needs to truly be the last resort and haunt him going forward.

Well I don't see it so black and white. Like I said, depends how you like your Superman, like a fantasy/fairytale, or like a powerful alien coming to a more realistic Earth in which sometimes the answer is not easy to find. For me Superman is here to protect us and to do what it takes to keep us safe. Of course killing should never be his first option. He is not a killer, he loves life, but like Doomsday, sometimes you have to get your hands dirty so that the rest can live.

[Username taken]

Sending Doomsday into a star to kill him or what exactly?

I don't know ..just to be trapped there for as long as Supes finds out what to do with him

Sending villains to the Zone is a good cop out I guess, tho I'm sure some people would rather die than being there. If you were put in isolation for the rest of your life, would you choose it? It's like being dead alive, especially if you can never go outside. I'd rather die.

In the new Death of Superman movie, Diana told Clark to not hold back against Doomsday or he would kill them all. And Clark fought the monster and did what needed to be done. I don't know about you, but I still love him and admire him because he showed in many other ways he was still a nice and kind person to everyone. Killing or not killing, he's still Superman to me. It just depends on the execution. Did you like it when Superman broke a powerless Zod's hand in Superman 2? I think many enjoy that scene.. I can see why. It is cathartic. But I also find it cruel of Clark to abuse his power this way. He humiliated Zod after Zod humiliated him. That was revenge. After all, Clark is still human in his heart. Same with the beatdown of Rocky at the diner.

Oh, I had no problem with him crushing Zod's hand, that frankly was the least Zod deserved after all the murder and carnage that he brought with him. Also beating down that idiot at the diner was very good, that guy was a bully and needed a dose of his own medicine.

The whole Superman vs Doomsday thing just drives me crazy because Supes can engage D'Day in a number of ways without getting into an extended brawl with a being that's constantly evolving. I know the Phantom Zone isn't a dumpster but why not just dimension dump the D'Day and be done with it.

[stargazer01]

I don't know ..just to be trapped there for as long as Supes finds out what to do with him



Oh, I had no problem with him crushing Zod's hand, that frankly was the least Zod deserved after all the murder and carnage that he brought with him. Also beating down that idiot at the diner was very good, that guy was a bully and needed a dose of his own medicine.

The whole Superman vs Doomsday thing just drives me crazy because Supes can engage D'Day in a number of ways without getting into an extended brawl with a being that's constantly evolving. I know the Phantom Zone isn't a dumpster but why not just dimension dump the D'Day and be done with it.

weird that you seem totally fine with cruelty and vengeance for Superman/Clark. Sometimes the story doesn't go the way you want, so you have to work with what you have. And I often hear that fans love watching Superman not holding back in a fight. They want to see amazing fights not just to see Superman putting villains out too easily. People want to see a lot of action in superhero stories as well as heroism.

[Username taken]

weird that you seem totally find with cruelty and vengeance. Sometimes the story doesn't go the way want, so you have to work with what you have. And I often hear that fans love watching Superman not holding back in a fight. They want to see amazing fights not just to see Superman putting villains out too easily. People want to see a lot of action in superhero stories as well as heroism.

Superman isn't a perfect being and when it's all said and done, how do you really separate vengeance from justice in certain cases? In these instances, i look at it as justice.

I also love seeing engage in amazing fights but I don't really want to see all these fights end in someone's death.

[Kuwagaton]

Last time they fought he actually did just lure Doomsday to the fortress to use the phantom zone projector.

Which, frankly, was maybe worse than death in the sense of the old villains and the way it used to work, how they'd be phantoms instead of just stuck in some outback like they are now. It wasn't really something Superman would resort to so much as he'd put the escapees back in though.

[stargazer01]

Superman isn't a perfect being and when it's all said and done, how do you really separate vengeance from justice in certain cases? In these instances, i look at it as justice.

I also love seeing engage in amazing fights but I don't really want to see all these fights end in someone's death.

Nobody wants to see Superman killing all his enemies. At no point was anyone suggesting that. That would be terrible obviously. We are just saying that there is always an exception even for Superman.

And I think it's wrong when Superman seriously hurts a person who has no powers like Gen Zod or the guy at the diner. Sure it was kind of fun to see, but it is also morally wrong, IMO. Superman should know how to use his power and when. It's why I prefer the scene in Man of Steel when Clark also punished the harasser by destroying his truck. After all, Clark is not perfect.

[DochaDocha]

Thing about MOS: I know the writers' intent was that Superman had no choice, but if I had to overanalyze the scene and take into account how it was framed and shot, then I would say killing Zod was not clearly his only choice. Supes literally could've tried a lot of other things besides snapping the General's neck. Maybe most of them would be lethal, but I wouldn't say he had no other option, which leads me to the bigger point. If you argue that you can create scenarios where Superman has no choice but to kill the guy, you better make sure that there really are no other non-trivial choices or else you raise the question if Superman really had not choice but to kill, let alone if Superman should even consider the option.

Let me posit the following scenario: what if Superman killed a bad guy by accident?

[Agent Z]

Thing about MOS: I know the writers' intent was that Superman had no choice, but if I had to overanalyze the scene and take into account how it was framed and shot, then I would say killing Zod was not clearly his only choice. Supes literally could've tried a lot of other things besides snapping the General's neck.

Like what? He’d already tried talking him out of it and then trying to beat him into submission when that didn’t work. He doesn’t have access to Kryptonite, red sun cells, magic or anything that can subdue a Kryptonian non-lethally and the longer this fight drags out the more danger humans are in.

Let me posit the following scenario: what if Superman killed a bad guy by accident?

That would be something that needs to be dealt with and not simply glossed over. It is certainly a different case than a deliberate use of lethal force in self defense. Especially if the villain could be apprehended without lethal force.

[SiegePerilous02]

I don't think Clark had many other options and I don't think what he did was wrong.

But then ultimately doing NOTHING with it in the subsequent films means it ends up as a shallow waste of time. It does make me wonder why they even bothered doing it if it ended up as nothing more than shock value.

[DochaDocha]

Like what? He’d already tried talking him out of it and then trying to beat him into submission when that didn’t work. He doesn’t have access to Kryptonite, red sun cells, magic or anything that can subdue a Kryptonian non-lethally and the longer this fight drags out the more danger humans are in.

Like I mentioned prior, I'm overanalyzing, but breaking Zod's neck was not literally his only option there.

You say he tried to beat Zod into submission, but up until that point, Superman never had a clear upper hand. Two cage fighters try to beat the other guy down once the bell rings, but until one gets a position of advantage, or lands a KO blow, it's going to be a stalemate-ish struggle. At the time of the scene in question, Superman finally had gotten the clear advantage for the first time, and again to use the cage fight analogy, beating a guy into submission is a lot more likely when you have the advantageous position that Superman had. Instead of breaking the guy's neck, why not choke him out? Why not punch him in the back of the head? Why not tear off one of Zod's ears? Why not use the leverage he had to reposition Zod's face? Why not use his own heat vision on Zod (that'd probably be extreme punishment there, but he did elect to break the guy's neck, so...)? Etc. If you give Superman enough time to analyze a situation and make a choice, then in that fight scenario he's going to have more than one choice. Superman finally earned the advantage of putting Zod in a position in which he could hardly defend himself, meaning Superman had options on how to continue the offensive. Limited options? Sure, but more than one.

Anyway, I'm less questioning the direction of putting Superman into a no-choice-but-to-kill situation, I just think the scene was not constructed to be so airtight as to make the claim it was Superman's only viable choice. And again, yes, I'm overanalyzing the scene, but that's what we do as comic fans.