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

[ed2962]

Speaking of Bendis though, one example of heroes killing that was all kinds of wrong was his Age of Ultron. I read the first two issues and then read the last one in the store. The premise is Ultron and his robots kill a number of heroes and take over the country. The remaining heroes think maybe we can go back in time and tell Hank Pym not to build Ultron in the first place. Wolverine says that won't work because he'll just do it anyway and the only solution is that they kill Hank. For some god unknown reason the other heroes agree to this?! Logan and SUE RICHARDS of all people go back in time to what's probably around the time of Avengers #56. Hank is in Goliath mode so he's actually able to fight off Wolverine until Logan turns to Sue and says something like, "Think of your children!" Sue then helps Logan kill Hank. I was just like WTF???

[Iron Maiden]

Speaking of Bendis though, one example of heroes killing that was all kinds of wrong was his Age of Ultron. I read the first two issues and then read the last one in the store. The premise is Ultron and his robots kill a number of heroes and take over the country. The remaining heroes think maybe we can go back in time and tell Hank Pym not to build Ultron in the first place. Wolverine says that won't work because he'll just do it anyway and the only solution is that they kill Hank. For some god unknown reason the other heroes agree to this?! Logan and SUE RICHARDS of all people go back in time to what's probably around the time of Avengers #56. Hank is in Goliath mode so he's actually able to fight off Wolverine until Logan turns to Sue and says something like, "Think of your children!" Sue then helps Logan kill Hank. I was just like WTF???

Wow....I must not have read that one. I'm going to have to look that one up on Marvel Unlimited. I can't see Sue going along with that. You know this goes along with something I was discussing in the Doom appreciation thread. I happen to post about an old story by PAD in his X-Factor run featuring a future version of Doom where he's pretty old and mostly senile. He does have flashes of lucidity and explains how his time travel tech works....






Now if Doom is correct, them traveling back in time and committing that murder would only create any divergent timeline and they wouldn't be solving anything if they don't use use Doomlock tech in their time travel method. I will check that issue out and see how did they travel to the past.

[ed2962]

Wow....I must not have read that one. I'm going to have to look that one up on Marvel Unlimited. I can't see Sue going along with that. You know this goes along with something I was discussing in the Doom appreciation thread. I happen to post about an old story by PAD in his X-Factor run featuring a future version of Doom where he's pretty old and mostly senile. He does have flashes of lucidity and explains how his time travel tech works....






Now if Doom is correct, them traveling back in time and committing that murder would only create any divergent timeline and they wouldn't be solving anything if they don't use use Doomlock tech in their time travel method. I will check that issue out and see how did they travel to the past.

Yeah, so of course after killing Hank, things go even worse. So, Spoilers for a comic that came out like 8 or 9 years ago, but...spoilers:

The heroes go back in time again. They tell Hank what happens and he says something like, "Oh! Well, I'll stop working on my robot, then." They say, "No that will mess up our time continuum. So, build Ultron but implant flaws and we'll erase your memory of such so that our timeline will still exist."

end of spoilers...which of course they should have done from the start.

There's also some dumb stuff where a guy has to kill another version of himself to protect the timeline, but that body is still somewhere it shouldn't be so...

[Iron Maiden]

Yeah, so of course after killing Hank, things go even worse. So, Spoilers for a comic that came out like 8 or 9 years ago, but...spoilers:

The heroes go back in time again. They tell Hank what happens and he says something like, "Oh! Well, I'll stop working on my robot, then." They say, "No that will mess up our time continuum. So, build Ultron but implant flaws and we'll erase your memory of such so that our timeline will still exist."

end of spoilers...which of course they should have done from the start.

There's also some dumb stuff where a guy has to kill another version of himself to protect the timeline, but that body is still somewhere it shouldn't be so...

Bendis was always hit or miss for me. IMO he took on too much with the Avengers but I did like his Dark Avengers comic. I also recall he had an annoying habit of throwing in the Hood as a big time villain and IMO it just didn't work.

[Adam Allen]

I'm just not into a character who is supposed to be a hero that crosses the line by using torture. Makes me wonder about someone who thinks those kind of methods are OK.

There's been RW cases of police departments using questionable methods. Case in point: the convicted former police commander Jon Burge in Chicago. Burge was eventually convicted and removed from the police force. One of the officers under his command provided information on how suspects were coerced into confessions. Federal prosecutors stated that the Burge's "Midnight Crew" used methods of torture including beating, suffocation, burning, and electrical shock to the genitals, among other methods.

I really feel like the bolded is what is overlooked too often in the calculation of if a hero should kill. I mean, we have to keep in mind these are inevitably fictional stories, of course you can write a character or characters into a situation where the only resolution for their central conflict requires killing. And stories like that have their utility -- exploring moral grays, depicting the impacts on surrounding folks or on the characters who killed, etc -- but I feel like, those stories aside, I definitely wouldn't say like the epitome of heroism is when a character resorts to killing for whatever reason. It may be necessary in context for whatever reason, but it's not like the soul of heroism.

I mean, yeah -- you can have characters with super powers and/or colorful costumes kill people. Obviously, you can write that, and the killing can be blatant and unrepentant or reluctant and only practical or whatever ... but, that depiction probably won't be of what I think a hero should do or be. Because if we're going "should" -- then yeah, a hero should find a better way.

[Username taken]

I feel like the bolded is what is overlooked too often in the calculation of if a hero should kill. I mean, we have to keep in mind these are inevitably fictional stories, of course, you can write a character or characters into a situation where the only resolution for their central conflict requires killing. And stories like that have their utility -- exploring moral grays, depicting the impacts on surrounding folks or on the characters who killed, etc -- but I feel like, those stories aside, I definitely wouldn't say like the epitome of heroism is when a character resorts to killing for whatever reason. It may be necessary for context for whatever reason, but it's not like the soul of heroism.

I mean, yeah -- you can have characters with super powers and/or colorful costumes kill people. Obviously, you can write that, and the killing can be blatant and unrepentant or reluctant and only practical or whatever ... but, that depiction probably won't be of what I think a hero should do or be. Because if we're going "should" -- then yeah, a hero should find a better way.

Exactly. Especially the bolded.

I don't want to completely derail the thread but "violent vigilantism" has a very ugly history particularly in the US. A lot of American superheroes were created not too long after "violent vigilantism" was a thing and in real life, a lot of this was directed at BIPOC people. And for context, in the US, a lot of states actually do allow forms of vigilantism. Yes, you can take to the streets and "fight crime", that's why people like George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse are free today despite the former murdering a child and the latter killing protesters in "self-defense". This was what emboldens psychos like Ahmad Arbery's killers and has created a long list of murderers that are acting for the "greater good".

This is where I 100% agree with Iron Maiden's assertion, no one and I mean no one has the right to be judge, jury, and executioner. Obviously, there are circumstances where killing a villain could be justified (if the Joker was real and a Batman stopped him by using lethal force, I don't think anyone would be outraged). However, cases like that should be the exception and not the rule. And I also agree with Iron Maiden that the US and most developed countries have passed laws against the death penalty, so superheroes shouldn't really even talk like they have the right to kill anyone, they simply don't and if they do, they should be put away because they are now criminals because they are breaking the law.

And characters as powerful as Superman can almost always find another way, so they really never need to kill anyone.

[Agent Z]

Exactly. Especially the bolded.

I don't want to completely derail the thread but "violent vigilantism" has a very ugly history particularly in the US. A lot of American superheroes were created not too long after "violent vigilantism" was a thing and in real life, a lot of this was directed at BIPOC people. And for context, in the US, a lot of states actually do allow forms of vigilantism. Yes, you can take to the streets and "fight crime", that's why people like George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse are free today despite the former murdering a child and the latter killing protesters in "self-defense". This was what emboldens psychos like Ahmad Arbery's killers and has created a long list of murderers that are acting for the "greater good".

This is where I 100% agree with Iron Maiden's assertion, no one and I mean no one has the right to be judge, jury, and executioner. Obviously, there are circumstances where killing a villain could be justified (if the Joker was real and a Batman stopped him by using lethal force, I don't think anyone would be outraged). However, cases like that should be the exception and not the rule. And I also agree with Iron Maiden that the US and most developed countries have passed laws against the death penalty, so superheroes shouldn't really even talk like they have the right to kill anyone, they simply don't and if they do, they should be put away because they are now criminals because they are breaking the law.

And characters as powerful as Superman can almost always find another way, so they really never need to kill anyone.

I agree with the issue of violent vigilantism, but as I've said, my problem is that people only look at the killing and not anything else that they do. Realistically, a guy running around beating people up in a costume with no accountability would immediately draw backlash before the thought of him possibly killing someone came up.

There are situations where a no-killing rule does make sense (the Brave and the Bold cartoon is one) but the status quo of villains racking up triple-digit body counts or higher isn't one of them.

[Iron Maiden]

I agree with the issue of violent vigilantism, but as I've said, my problem is that people only look at the killing and not anything else that they do. Realistically, a guy running around beating people up in a costume with no accountability would immediately draw backlash before the thought of him possibly killing someone came up.

There are situations where a no-killing rule does make sense (the Brave and the Bold cartoon is one) but the status quo of villains racking up triple-digit body counts or higher isn't one of them.

At this point the Joker is too big of a cash cow for DC now that it seems to rely so heavily on Batman and characters in his circle of allies and villains for them to stop telling stories with him creating all kinds of mayhem. Probably the most famous Batman/Joker story is the Killing Joke. It is one of the few DC tpbs I have along with Watchmen because I was curious as to what all the discussion was about.

Interestingly enough, as the years go on Alan Moore does not look back fondly on Killing Joke

I’ve never really liked my story in The Killing Joke. I think it put far too much melodramatic weight upon a character that was never designed to carry it. It was too nasty, it was too physically violent. There were some good things about it, but in terms of my writing, it’s not one of me favorite pieces. If, as I said, god forbid, I was ever writing a character like Batman again, I’d probably be setting it squarely in the kind of “smiley uncle period where Dick Sprang was drawing it, and where you had Ace the Bat-Hound and Bat-Mite, and the zebra Batman—when it was sillier. Because then, it was brimming with imagination and playful ideas. I don’t think that the world needs that many brooding psychopathic avengers. I don’t know that we need any. It was a disappointment to me, how Watchmen was absorbed into the mainstream. It had originally been meant as an indication of what people could do that was new. I’d originally thought that with works like Watchmen and Marvelman, I’d be able to say, “Look, this is what you can do with these stale old concepts. You can turn them on their heads. You can really wake them up. Don’t be so limited in your thinking. Use your imagination.” And, I was naively hoping that there’d be a rush of fresh and original work by people coming up with their own. But, as I said, it was meant to be something that would liberate comics. Instead, it became this massive stumbling block that comics can’t even really seem to get around to this day. They’ve lost a lot of their original innocence, and they can’t get that back. And, they’re stuck, it seems, in this kind of depressive ghetto of grimness and psychosis. I’m not too proud of being the author of that regrettable trend.

Once again, I don't read anything DC. I spend too much on Marvel as it is. But I imagine nothing much has changed with the Joker and he still literally gets away with murder because it means $$$ for DC

[Iron Maiden]

I really feel like the bolded is what is overlooked too often in the calculation of if a hero should kill. I mean, we have to keep in mind these are inevitably fictional stories, of course you can write a character or characters into a situation where the only resolution for their central conflict requires killing. And stories like that have their utility -- exploring moral grays, depicting the impacts on surrounding folks or on the characters who killed, etc -- but I feel like, those stories aside, I definitely wouldn't say like the epitome of heroism is when a character resorts to killing for whatever reason. It may be necessary in context for whatever reason, but it's not like the soul of heroism.

I mean, yeah -- you can have characters with super powers and/or colorful costumes kill people. Obviously, you can write that, and the killing can be blatant and unrepentant or reluctant and only practical or whatever ... but, that depiction probably won't be of what I think a hero should do or be. Because if we're going "should" -- then yeah, a hero should find a better way.

I wish this forum had a like button but you put it better than I have tried to do.

[Scott Taylor]

Wow I wholeheartedly agree with Alan Moore. I've never really liked the Killing Joke either, even though it is so iconic in some segments. Too nasty is one of his comments - personally I would say that about a lot of Moore's comic works. Just shock value stuff.

The more upbeat, Dick Sprang style Batman he is talking about, by the way, was largely done by Grant Morrison.

[TheRay]

Even if it wasn't a moral issue and they did take this out, they could just start easily writing in reasons why they can't actually the guy. The whole thing would end up like an Inspector Gadget episode.