Should Batman (or any superhero, for that matter) kill?

[JackDaw]

I don't think that Moore was making a statement on superheroes in general, but sort of closing the door on the "innocent" Superman of the silver age. Keep in mind, Moore is the guy who had Mircale Man snap the neck of Kid Mircale Man and then kill his enemy Dr Gurgunza in a pretty graphic way.

Yes.

That was one reason why I said “Moore gave one answer….”, rather than “Alan Moore gave the answer…”.

It was (I think) the right answer for Silver Age Superman, but not necessarily for other heroes.

[JackDaw]

As I plodded into town remembered one of the earlyish themes in the Marc Andreyko Manhunter run…effectively Kate decided to hit the streets and battle some villain to the death (I’d have to have a deep mind dive to remember which one, and too lazy today to google it.)

At the time thought this might develop into an interesting theme…could a good woman really take that fateful decision and not pay a grievous price? As it happened, that issue was never really developed.

[Iron Maiden]

Moore was wrong.

I think his opinion has more weight than yours. Superman lives with the possibility that even unwittingly he's powerful enough to kill by accident.

[Iron Maiden]

It's right there in the scans themselves.

Superman: He bragged about it, he said he'd do it again! He was threatening everyone we loved--

Wonder Woman: And a lobotomy was your solution?

Superman: That wasn't the intention! But we couldn't lock him up, we couldn't take the chance he'd get free again.

(note that it's Superman worried about Light getting free, not Diana)

Superman: What was I supposed to do, Diana? Take in half of the League? It was wrong, but there wasn't another option.

Wonder Woman: Yes, there was. You should have killed him.

Superman: That's not an option, it never an option--

Wonder Woman: Why? Because you think it's immoral? More immoral than destroying his mind, than murdering his identity?

Also, I don't think you're using the word "metaphorically" in the correct context here.

Thanks but I can read the captions just fine. There is no need to type them in.

I meant that as to point out that people say things metaphorically but don't really mean it. You can say to someone " I could just kill the idiot that backed into my car " and not mean it. Not being a DC fan I don't know how she has evolved over the years. I'm surprised she would advocate killing. Few true heroes do in mainstream comics. Marvel has a MAX imprint which is mostly the domain of the Punisher comics and he can get away with that there'

The context I need is what exactly was the crime committed that she felt could be only punished by death. Also keep in mind that the almost all First World countries have abolished the death penalty. Where does Wonder Woman the right to be judge, jury and executioner?

Again, Diana offers this solution in response to Clark's claim that lobotomizing Light was the only way to stop him. Killing in self-defense or defense of your loved ones is a recognized right. And while there would be some coloring outside the lines if the League killed light because they thought it was the only way to stop him, it was less evil than lobotomizing him and mindwiping Batman when he tried to stop it.

The context I need is what exactly was the crime committed that she felt could be only punished by death. Also keep in mind that almost all First World countries have abolished the death penalty. Where does Wonder Woman the right to be judge, jury and executioner?

[ed2962]

Thanks but I can read the captions just fine. There is no need to type them in.

I meant that as to point out that people say things metaphorically but don't really mean it. You can say to someone " I could just kill the idiot that backed into my car " and not mean it. Not being a DC fan I don't know how she has evolved over the years. I'm surprised she would advocate killing. Few true heroes do in mainstream comics. Marvel has a MAX imprint which is mostly the domain of the Punisher comics and he can get away with that there'

The context I need is what exactly was the crime committed that she felt could be only punished by death. Also keep in mind that almost all First World countries have abolished the death penalty. Where does Wonder Woman the right to be judge, jury and executioner?

It depends on what comic she's in. Some writers lean into ambassador of peace aspect of the character and others lean into warrior aspect.

[ed2962]

Batman hates guns!

[Agent Z]

I think his opinion has more weight than yours. Superman lives with the possibility that even unwittingly he's powerful enough to kill by accident.

Seeing as how I've read stories in which Superman and other superheroes killed and didn't become villains, I think I'll stick to my opinion.

[Agent Z]

Thanks but I can read the captions just fine. There is no need to type them in.

I meant that as to point out that people say things metaphorically but don't really mean it. You can say to someone " I could just kill the idiot that backed into my car " and not mean it.

Again, you're not using that word correctly. Diana is offering this idea as an alternative to mindwiping someone. There is nothing metaphorical about this exchange and I don't know why you keep saying that.

The context I need is what exactly was the crime committed that she felt could be only punished by death.

In the case of Dr. Light, he had raped one person and was threatening to do it again. In the case of Ruin, he was threatening Superman's loved ones.

Also keep in mind that the almost all First World countries have abolished the death penalty. Where does Wonder Woman the right to be judge, jury and executioner?

The same place superheroes get the right to play cop and Batman gets the right to torture people like he's Jack Bauer.

Superhero fans really ought to be careful about throwing real life laws around when arguing against killing given every law superheroes break just by being superheroes. It's telling that killing villains is criticized no matter the context, but stuff like torture, privacy violation and child endangerment are more strongly defended or ignored.

[Iron Maiden]

It depends on what comic she's in. Some writers lean into ambassador of peace aspect of the character and others lean into warrior aspect.

I guess that's why I am surprised to read her so vehemently advocating killing someone when apparently from the sample given between her and Superman the person had not committed a crime that a court of law would consider punishable by death. Even then, as I mentioned many states don't have the death penalty these days because it there had been enough cases where a person was executed and later found not to be the guilty party. In any case, Wonder Woman doesn't have any authority to make the decision.

[Iron Maiden]

Seeing as how I've read stories in which Superman and other superheroes killed and didn't become villains, I think I'll stick to my opinion.

And Alan Moore is not wrong because he is stating his opinion as a writer and is disagreeing with the writers who have shown Superman killing. See how that works?

[TheRay]

Another thing to consider here is the characters relationship with the police department. It’s easier to argue in favor of the police looking the other way if the hero isn’t leaving bodies in their wake, justified or not.

[ed2962]

I guess that's why I am surprised to read her so vehemently advocating killing someone when apparently from the sample given between her and Superman the person had not committed a crime that a court of law would consider punishable by death. Even then, as I mentioned many states don't have the death penalty these days because it there had been enough cases where a person was executed and later found not to be the guilty party. In any case, Wonder Woman doesn't have any authority to make the decision.

Just throwing it out there...I can't remember the exact timeline because it was a while ago and I didn't read the whole thing, but I'm sure the previous scans were around the time or right before DC's "Inifnite Crisis" event. The lead up involved a storyline where Superman was mind controlled by Maxwell Lord. In order to undo the mind control, Wonder Woman broke Lord's neck. This was caught on camera and shown to the world. In story, this led to a falling out between the heroes and I think the League breaking up.

Now, of course there's probably a dozen ways they could have deus ex machina their way out of it, but I think there was a purposeful attempt to show the consequences of such action rather than just kill the bad guy and problem solved. I can't remember who wrote that particular chapter, it might have been Greg Rucka or Geoff Johns.

[Agent Z]

Just throwing it out there...I can't remember the exact timeline because it was a while ago and I didn't read the whole thing, but I'm sure the previous scans were around the time or right before DC's "Inifnite Crisis" event. The lead up involved a storyline where Superman was mind controlled by Maxwell Lord. In order to undo the mind control, Wonder Woman broke Lord's neck. This was caught on camera and shown to the world. In story, this led to a falling out between the heroes and I think the League breaking up.

Now, of course there's probably a dozen ways they could have deus ex machina their way out of it, but I think there was a purposeful attempt to show the consequences of such action rather than just kill the bad guy and problem solved. I can't remember who wrote that particular chapter, it might have been Greg Rucka or Geoff Johns.

Rucka wrote the story about Diana killing Max, under editorial orders from what I heard. In the main WW book, he depicted it as a difficult but not necessary decision but acknowledged the fall out. Diana's trial was covered in the Manhunter series under a different writer. It should be noted that the main reason Diana killing Max was so controversial in-universe was due to Brother Eye editing the video to remove most of the context. Johns handled it the worst of all by treating Diana killing Max as completely wrong while ignoring why she actually did it.

The main point of the Trinity's arcs in Infinite Crisis was that each of them had committed a sin that was unbecoming of them. Superman had the cover up of the League's mindwipes, Wonder Woman had the killing of Max Lord and Batman had the creation of Brother Eye. This being DC, there was a notable bias in how this was handled; Superman covering up the mindwipes was ignored in IC and Batman creating Brother Eye was mostly forgotten about after IC. Wonder Woman was the only one who dealt with any long term consequences even though her sin was arguably justified.

[Iron Maiden]

Again, you're not using that word correctly. Diana is offering this idea as an alternative to mindwiping someone. There is nothing metaphorical about this exchange and I don't know why you keep saying that.

*sigh* I say that because I am emphasizing that she is stating this in no uncertain terms and isn't joking around. I did not expect that from her. Then again I am not a DC fan. Most of my exposure to her is from the old Linda Carter TV show and the recent movie.

In the case of Dr. Light, he had raped one person and was threatening to do it again. In the case of Ruin, he was threatening Superman's loved ones.

Once again, these are crimes where they have no jurisdiction to administer punishment. They do not get to hold trials and pass judgement. If the offender got killed while committing the crime that would be different...a case of self defense if Wonder Woman were the victim and kills someone immediately after said crime. But if some length of time has passed then it's different. If an adult kills someone that sexually in the past then this person would still have to face trial in a court of law. They would probably get a reduced sentence or acquitted depending on the jury, etc. Superman's was a bit different since there was only the threat of crime. The crime had not been committed and there was only a threat of harm. So he was in the right for not killing at least.

The same place superheroes get the right to play cop and Batman gets the right to torture people like he's Jack Bauer.

No one has the right to torture. That just sounds pretty warped. Heroes do act as vigilantes even though in the RW all sorts of problems can result. Look at the case where 3 white men were recently convicted of pursuing a black man they suspected of a crime. they were convicted of committing murder.

Superhero fans really ought to be careful about throwing real life laws around when arguing against killing given every law superheroes break just by being superheroes. It's telling that killing villains is criticized no matter the context, but stuff like torture, privacy violation and child endangerment are more strongly defended or ignored.

Many readers and more importantly many writers have different moral views on these issues so you have to expect some disagreement with your POV. And what do those that disagree have to "be careful" about? Their views are just as valid as yours.

That later statement isn't true. If a villain gets killed in the midst of their attack, etc. then this would fall under the self defense scenario. Where have you seen any one criticizing that?

[TheRay]

At the end of the day, it's more interesting to have a no kill policy rather than just shooting the bad guy in the head and being done with it.