After reading Uncanny issue 7 this week, A couple panels stood out to me
Capture.jpg
Capture2.jpg
Capture3.jpg
Armor breaks out "the once you kill someone it is something you never come back from it" line. I am a comic book reader so I have seen this position taken before but don't people think it is time we put this as default thinking for superheroes to bed. I don't mind Armor not want to kill Nate she has a legit reason and selfish reason for not wanting to do it but the ultra-moral treatment of killing when talking about dealing with a mass murdering mutant who is clearly willing to kill more people feels wrong. If Armor was saying the more reasonable imo "we don't kill if it is absolutely necessary" and "it is the very last resort" and proceed to protect Nate the same way (because him dying in world where he has no powers and she has chance to convince him he is wrong still) I get it but instead she goes into the early comic code era superhero stuff. I actually became a fan of Pixie because presented the reasonable argument " I don't want to kill him but if he gets back to 616 he is going to have back his God-like powers and kill again, This the best chance to stop him." She didn't say want to become Punisher or even Wolverine kill every bad guy, She understood this unique situation where a lot of people die if he goes back.
Which bring us I guess to the questions
1. Do the X-men still have a default stance on killing? What is your preferred stance on killing for the X-men?
2. Did you think the more escapist superhero stance of not killing period fits the X-men who have had murder robots kill 16 million of them or death cloud threatening their survival?
3. What characters for the X-men if any do you think are in the no-kill period group? What characters if any do you think are in the I only kill if it is last resort group? What characters if any do you think is in the Wolverine "we put you down first group"?
4. Pixie and Rockslide is killing Nate Grey murder?