The execution of the Phantom Zone criminals

[Marvel Man]

I wanted to discuss one of the most controversial Superman stories of all-time, given that we're now at the 35th anniversary of said story.

"The Supergirl Saga", which was John Byrne's last story arc of the post-Crisis reboot, started in September of 1988, and concluded the following month. During the storyline, Superman encounters a super-powered Lana Lang from the Pocket Universe, who wants his help in defeating three Kryptonian Criminals - General Zod, Zaora, and Quex-Ul - in her universe. The Kryptonians were set free from the Phantom Zone in earnest by the PU's Lex Luthor. The Kryptonians, who are much more powerful than Superman, destroy the PU Earth except for a small resistance in Smallville, which eventually falls during the course of the story. This leaves all life on the PU Earth wiped out, save Superman and Lana Lang (revealed to be a protoplasmic matrix created by PU Lex). Superman is able to defeat the Kryptonians by using gold Kryptonite found in the deceased PU Superboy's lab to depower them. Rather than take the depowered Kryptonians to his Earth to stand trial (risking his Earth should they ever regain their powers) or leave them on the decimated PU Earth, as well as to serve as the last representation of justice in the PU, Superman uses green Kryptonite to execute the Kryptonians. Superman returns to his universe with "Lana Lang" (who, after a series of events, becomes the post-Crisis Supergirl for a period), leaving her with the Kents. Superman departs to reflect on his actions.

Unquestionably, executing the Kryptonians was and has remained a controversial moment in Superman's history, even in light of it no longer being canon given the many subsequent reboots. Although it was implied that Superman killed in the Golden Age and he executed a demented Mister Mxyzptlk in Alan Moore's classic "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" that preceded Byrne's reboot, the sequence of the Kryptonians begging for their lives while Superman holds the Kryptonite and sheds a tear left a lasting impression on Superman fans.

It's unknown what Byrne's motivation or intent was regarding the story, as he has not given any interviews nor provided any statements on his website discussing the matter. The creative teams that took over following Byrne used the moment to develop Superman's code against killing, eventually having Superman come to the conclusion that he will always find a better way.

Anyhow, what are your thoughts on the controversial story 35 years later?

It's worth noting that "the nervous breakdown and the split personality was originally BYRNE's idea. Ordway suggested that he use Gangbuster (as Byrne was going to introduce a new hero and have that hero revealed to be Superman) but the nervous breakdown was all Byrne.

Stern and Ordway (and editor Mike Carlin, I presume) then took that one step further with the Exile storyline, but the first few months after Byrne left Superman, Stern and Ordway were still working with Byrne's basic plots. So while they got the benefit of APPEARING to distance themselves from Byrne's dramatic plot development, they were actually following it".

Source: Comic Book Legends Revealed #478

[kingaliencracker]

ZH itself didn't erase anything from Superman, just rearranged a few things. Jurgens made very direct references to the Supergirl Saga, even following up on it in Annual #10.

I understand that. But the Pocket Universe no longer existed for the Legion's history post-ZH is my point, which is the contradiction (in agreement with Jim Kelly). There was clearly some semblance of the Pocket Universe story that happened given that Superman still executed the Kryptonians and post-Crisis Supergirl still existed.

Byrne established that killing is not an option when it's simply not found necessary. Sleez wouldn't face the death penalty in the US, not even close. The PZ criminals definitely would and that was the basis of his role as judge, jury, and executioner. He saw it as the literal job and not as payback or something.

The "obvious threat" thing relies on the existence of a viable opportunity to threaten. If you kill all life on a planet, you take away that opportunity unless someone... brings you somewhere else.

But Jurgens did make the same point on how he'd have changed that story.

But the death penalty isn't a universally accepted means of punishment in across world. It's not even a universally accepted means of punishment across the United States. Additionally, if we're accepting that Superman was enforcing United States law in his carrying out of the execution, he certainly missed several critical due process steps along the way.

I am curious, how did Jurgens say he would have changed it?

If brought up I think that would be an example of the infamous Byrne Fix: how adamant and persistent he tends to be about enforcing his logic. It's really tough to argue on his behalf though because outside of that, his own understanding of his stories can contradict what we see as reasoning within it. I probably take away something completely different than what he'd say about the PZ criminals tbh.

Indeed. As I said earlier, I have not found any statements he has made in response to it. I'd be curious to see what his reasoning was, although I'm to understand again that he intended Superman to go through the experience to reaffirm his no-kill code. However, I'd also peg Byrne as someone who is a proponent of the death penalty. But that would be speculation on my part.

[kingaliencracker]

Personally, I love it in a bittersweet way. It's a deliberately very sad moment rather than one of triumph.

And lets not forget, it wasn't just that they swore to regain their powers and come to Superman's Earth (a real threat, as Superman himself has already been transported to their Earth), it was also that they'd utterly destroyed their Earth so would likely have just died slow, agonised deaths. To a degree, Superman was showing mercy.

Tie that in with their being the first Kryptonians Superman ever met so, acting as the last line of Kryptonian justice, he's extinguishing the final remnants of his home world. It holds a lot of weight for that version of Superman, who had never encountered anything close to that threat level, and is pretty tragic overall.

They also added more than enough whistles and bells to say they're reflections of reality that might have been rather than actual main universe people to give a little distance. There's a big difference between this and, say, the Max Lord killing.

I actually love seeing what three completely unrestrained Kryptionians could do if they wanted to destroy a planet. It's something you can't do on the main Earth (which leaves certain writers incapable of writing Superman foes with any real bite) so it's a stark reminder of how lucky we are Superman is a force for good.

I do think it adds an interesting layer to Superman to think that he will kill if he feels there is absolutely no other choice because the stakes for him a usually extreme (he regularly faces things that could destroy the planet), it removes a naivety from him, and yet he consistently finds ways not to do so. The same logic was applied to Doomsday (although a seemingly mindless beast is less morally questionable).

I like the idea that he can kill and at every chance chooses not to take that option. He decided that killing is abhorrent, and not just as an external concept, but because he was forced into such a situation and that he had no other choice is anathema to him.

He is a good man who believes anyone can be redeemed and made into a better person. For him to have to stop that journey for someone, or to find someone so utterly irredeemable he cannot see that path, should shock him to his core. That's how I see this.

The follow up stories examined him wrestling with his decision and that's where that choice really comes from going forward.

It's really not something that needs to come up often but at least it gives the character a basis for his stance rather than just believing killing is inherently wrong, which is a bit harder to reasonably justify when dealing with the abject slavery on Mongul's Hellish Warworld.

The no-kill rule comes from a specific cultural place and is largely a thing because it has always been a thing due to comics being marketed at kids for decades. I think it's fun to explore that with characters, and give them opinions about killing.

I do understand that long-time Superman fans maybe feel it's a story that didn't need to be told. Superman is Superman and Superman doesn't kill. But this was a new Superman being built from the ground up, so a story like this, in his relatively early years, is exactly where you can explore this kind of idea (even if they'd gone with the reverse outcome).

It's a hell of a lot better than New 52 Superman asking his scientific advisor if he is allowed to kill Doomsday (even though they'd fought before so presumably he had done it then and died himself or did he...? It's best not thought about).

Also, Exile is one of my favourite Superman stories and it all starts with the Supergirl Saga.

I didn't really get into the quality of the story because that generally gets overshadowed by the execution of the Kryptonians. As a story, it's pretty solid, if incredibly short. Exile was certainly amazing.

I don't disagree with much else of what you said, except that I still think Superman could have brought them to prime Earth. They posed no immediate threat, and there were options available on prime Earth that weren't available on Pocket Earth (by way of additional super heroes that didn't exist in the PU).

[kingaliencracker]

It's worth noting that "the nervous breakdown and the split personality was originally BYRNE's idea. Ordway suggested that he use Gangbuster (as Byrne was going to introduce a new hero and have that hero revealed to be Superman) but the nervous breakdown was all Byrne.

Stern and Ordway (and editor Mike Carlin, I presume) then took that one step further with the Exile storyline, but the first few months after Byrne left Superman, Stern and Ordway were still working with Byrne's basic plots. So while they got the benefit of APPEARING to distance themselves from Byrne's dramatic plot development, they were actually following it".

Source: Comic Book Legends Revealed #478

Thanks for sharing this! I had read it several years ago. I didn't doubt that Byrne's blueprint was followed to some degree following his abrupt departure from Superman.

[Kuwagaton]

But the death penalty isn't a universally accepted means of punishment in across world. It's not even a universally accepted means of punishment across the United States. Additionally, if we're accepting that Superman was enforcing United States law in his carrying out of the execution, he certainly missed several critical due process steps along the way.

I am curious, how did Jurgens say he would have changed it?

"It was hugely controversial and I think if the Internet had existed at that time, it would have been that times three," Jurgens told Comicosity. "I always thought that if Superman was going to be put in that position, that it had to be a more immediate threat. It didn't bother me so much, Superman killing the Kryptonians, as it was him being just a stone-cold executioner. If you think of that cover -- there's a green cover and I think it was Superman itself where he's actually wearing the hood like an executioner would wear. That was, to me, the problem. If you wanted to have Superman kill the Kryptonians, I think it had to be a situation where innocent life was in immediate peril and the only way to stop them from taking innocent life was to kill them. At that point, Superman makes the same decision, but he's much more Superman as part of that. And the funny thing is, everybody gets twisted in knots over of that scene in the movie -- yet that's what Superman did. When Superman kills Zod in the movie, it's because there are human beings there who are in immediate danger. The problem with the comic book was, I always thought, not that Superman did it as it was the way he did it, because he was judge, jury and executioner right there. And it was a police officer walking right up to an individual who had dropped his gun, dropped his knife, said 'I surrender,' waved the white flag...and still [blowing] his head off. That's basically what it was."

So I disagree with his analogy in that clearly, they weren't waving a white flag. Any pretense of surrender was just self preservation without an attempt to conceal the lack of remorse.

With the death penalty in some countries you have to expect it, and some countries just would never use it. I like to think we're collectively reasonable. The US would have been Superman's default legal system and his duties in representing it would be based on his best measure considering the situation. At the end of the day, they killed billions of people without remorse. As it was said in the comic it's just so far beyond our comprehension.

[kingaliencracker]

So I disagree with his analogy in that clearly, they weren't waving a white flag. Any pretense of surrender was just self preservation without an attempt to conceal the lack of remorse.

With the death penalty in some countries you have to expect it, and some countries just would never use it. I like to think we're collectively reasonable. The US would have been Superman's default legal system and his duties in representing it would be based on his best measure considering the situation. At the end of the day, they killed billions of people without remorse. As it was said in the comic it's just so far beyond our comprehension.

That's interesting from Jurgens, thanks for finding and sharing. Although I agree with him, it's an interesting position given that he had Superman in his story shatter a depowered Cyborg Superman to pieces.

Again, I myself don't want to get into the moral implications of capital punishment. I'm perfectly fine if others want to do that given the context of the conversation, but my focus is squarely on Superman's actions and whether they were justified. In any civilized court proceeding, you present evidence, witnesses, motive, etc.. This all gets presented to a judge and/or jury, who then deliberate and find you innocent or guilty based on what was presented. If you're guilty, you then go through another legal hearing to determine your punishment. If you're sentenced to death, in most states you receive an automatic appeal of that sentence. The United States and civilized world have been following this process for hundreds of years, trying those involved in war crimes and genocide in tribunals. Had Zod & Company been brought forward to a legal court, found guilty based on the evidence, and sentenced to death, then that's due process. Superman himself didn't even witness the Kryptonians commit the worst of their crimes, instead relying on what PU Lex Luthor told him. For him to believe that it was his duty to take on the role of the entire legal system on behalf of 5 billion human beings seems very authoritative to me.

Maybe that's what a poster was referencing earlier, in that Byrne placed Superman in a ridiculous situation just to come away saying, "boy, I don't ever want to do THAT again". I think we can agree that the only options available for Superman was to take the Kryptonians to his Earth, leave them on the decimated Earth, or execute them. I think we can also agree that following EXILE, Superman came to the conclusion that he should have brought them back to his Earth (given the other option available and the idea that this whole thing was setup to reinforce Superman's no-kill code). It just seems...dumb (for lack of a better word) that Superman of all people couldn't have come to that conclusion prior to pulling out the green Kryptonite, that he NEEDED to execute the Kryptonians just to realize his other viable option that didn't involve executing them was the way to go.

[Agent Z]

The execution of the powerless and stranded Phantom Zone criminals is the unnecessary, shock value death people accuse Diana killing Max Lord of being. That Diana faced so much backlash for it in-universe while Clark's killings barely get addressed is a perfect example of DC's double standard.

[Kuwagaton]

Maybe that's what a poster was referencing earlier, in that Byrne placed Superman in a ridiculous situation just to come away saying, "boy, I don't ever want to do THAT again". I think we can agree that the only options available for Superman was to take the Kryptonians to his Earth, leave them on the decimated Earth, or execute them. I think we can also agree that following EXILE, Superman came to the conclusion that he should have brought them back to his Earth (given the other option available and the idea that this whole thing was setup to reinforce Superman's no-kill code). It just seems...dumb (for lack of a better word) that Superman of all people couldn't have come to that conclusion prior to pulling out the green Kryptonite, that he NEEDED to execute the Kryptonians just to realize his other viable option that didn't involve executing them was the way to go.

This would make sense if his feelings were based on the belief that he made a mistake, rather than facing the harsh reality of having made the choice. That's an entirely different thing.

The execution of the powerless and stranded Phantom Zone criminals is the unnecessary, shock value death people accuse Diana killing Max Lord of being. That Diana faced so much backlash for it in-universe while Clark's killings barely get addressed is a perfect example of DC's double standard.

Didn't he execute them on a planet in a different universe where no one actually knew because the criminals had literally killed everyone there?

[Agent Z]

This would make sense if his feelings were based on the belief that he made a mistake, rather than facing the harsh reality of having made the choice. That's an entirely different thing.


Didn't he execute them on a planet in a different universe where no one actually knew because the criminals had literally killed everyone there?

Yeah and then he went and hypocritical called Diana a monster for killing Max to prevent him from doing to their Earth what those Kryptonians did to theirs. And unlike them, Max was still a threat when Diana killed him.

[Kuwagaton]

I mean, I wouldn't know about Max because I wasn't reading non Superman titles from DC at the time. I can see how a contrast is interesting since they're too different to be compared, but then I still can't hold a story from fifteen years later against this story, where by then pretty much everyone had moved away from explicit post Crisis canon anyway

[HsssH]

For all his stating that no one in his home universe would have jurisdiction, he had no problem appointing himself judge, jury and executioner.

I think that taking the burden on yourself is actually heroic. Someone will have to do it and nobody has "the jurisdiction" so why pass it on to someone else?

Besides, it is not like judge or jury were needed. Crimes were obvious and nobody denied them.

[Doctor Know]

For all his stating that no one in his home universe would have jurisdiction, he had no problem appointing himself judge, jury and executioner.

It's times like that when you have to remember that Superman, for all his posing, posturing and acceptance from the general public, is still a costumed vigilante.

Superman is not Captain America or even Captain Atom. He has sworn no oaths of allegiance, does not wear a uniform and has never laced up boots to follow marching orders. Like a good soldier.

As a self-appointed actor on the side of law and order. Superman is free to act as he sees fit. His moral code and sense of right and wrong being his guide in dealing out justice and judgements.


In-Universe: The Phantom Zone criminals are unrepentant mass murders on a planetary scale.

Out-Of-Universe: General Zod and his band of baddies are Hitler and Nazi stand-ins. The evil Übermensch.

The crux of the issue for the readers and the character is whether Superman was morally wrong for killing the PZ Criminals.

I'm on the side of Superman was morally right to terminate the threat the PZ criminals posed. It's not like Kryptonite depowerment has ever stopped Superman, Kara and Connor before. The PZ criminals already made good on their threat to kill 6 billion lives on Pocket Earth. Reverse engineering Luthor's tech to come to main DCU Earth is not out of the scope of possibility.


What Zod, Faora/Zaora and Quex-Ul did isn't comparable to what most other villains save for Brainiac, Darkseid, Mongul, Anti-Monitor, Thanos, Kang the Conqueror, Galactus, Beyonder powered Dr. Doom; are capable of.

If it was Superman judging Red Skull, his daughter Sinthea Shmidt, and Crossbones. Who are literal Nazis but never had powers beyond Superman himself. And Superman decided to execute them without trial. I would have reservations about it, but I wouldn't see the act as murder or an injustice.

It's a grim and solemn duty Superman had to carry out. The Last Son of Krypton, passing judgement on 3 of Krypton's most notorious criminals. It isolates him in a way none of us can imagine. But as a costumed vigilante. This is the life Superman chose. Not everyday will be as easy as cops and robbers.


-------------------------------------------------------
Musings about Zod:

If the letter V is for Vendetta. Then E should be "Expendable". Because that's what Zod is. The writers have no problem introducing Zod and then killing him off at the end of their story. Of the list below, you will note that 5 different Zods existed during the Post-Crisis continuity. Being an evil Superman isn't new. The Powers That Be have access to Ultraman (the Crime Syndicate), Bizarro, Cyborg Superman (Hank or Zor-El), Darkseid and evil versions of Clark to play with. With the exception of Bizarro (who dies frequently due to improper cloning techniques or cellular degradation), no other evil Superman character is treated as expendable as Zod is.

Superman II (1980) - Zod is depowered, thrown into a wall and down a bottomless cavern.

Superman vol 2 #22 (1988) - Pre-Crisis Zod is executed by Superman using Green Kryptonite. This after Zod killed the entire populace of a parallel Earth and boasted about doing it again.

Action Comics #776 (2001) - A Zod from Krypton's past (before it blows up) is killed by Jor-El, when he sticks a trident into Zod's power armor. Before Zod can deliver the killing blow to Superman.

Action Comics #805 (2003) - The Zod from 1988 possess a Russian soldier and gains power to take revenge on Superman for killing him. He dies flying into Superman at full speed. Right as his own psuedo Kryptonian powers are neutralized.

Superman vol 2 #215 (2005) - This General Zod of undefined origins; abducts 1 million Metropolis citizens and transports them into the Phantom Zone. In an attempt to lure Superman there. He dies by allowing himself to be sucked into a Phantom Zone singularity as the region of the zone he and Superman were in collapsed.

Action Comics #845 (2007) - Geoff Johns introduces the "real" General Zod of the post-Crisis on Infinite Earth's (1985) continuity. Ignoring all the ones before. This one is highly based on the Zod who appears in Superman II. As the story "Last Son" featured Richard Donner as a co-writer for the title. This Zod escaped the Zone 3 times, was imprisoned in the Zone 3 times, before Barry Flashpointed the universe in 2011.

Man of Steel (2013) - DCEU Zod was killed after his destroy all life on Earth plot was foiled.

New 52 Zod (2013) - Visually taking cues from MOS. This Zod would escape the Phantom Zone and basically menace the world. The writers don't seem to know what to do with him, except not put him back in the Phantom Zone. This Zod has fought Superman, Hal Jordan, Wonder Woman, and the Suicide Squad. He would later become a member of the Suicide Squad. Taking orders from Waller. How embarrassing.

Superman Earth One Vol 3 (2015) - Zod is killed by Alexa Luthor. Wife of Alexander Luthor. After he kills Lex and is about to kill Superman. He is depowered with a red sun gun by Lex and shot 4 times in the chest by Alexa with a revolver. Will the humiliation end?

Supergirl CW (2018) - Season 3 episode 12 "For the Good". Superman is stated to have killed his Zod in a past adventure.

Superman and Lois (2021) Season 1 episode 12 "Through The Valley of Death". The deceased Zod's consciousness possess Superman and is later destroyed by Superman. With John Henry's help.

Flash (2023) Zod finally wins one. But he succeeds in killing both baby Kal and adult Kara.

[kingaliencracker]

The execution of the powerless and stranded Phantom Zone criminals is the unnecessary, shock value death people accuse Diana killing Max Lord of being. That Diana faced so much backlash for it in-universe while Clark's killings barely get addressed is a perfect example of DC's double standard.

By Max's death, I'm not sure if the execution of the Kryptonians was still canon. Also, Superman's execution of the Kryptonians was only known by him and whomever he confided in thereafter. Diana's killing of Max was broadcast for the entire world to see.

Having said all of that, I agree with you 100% and believe Diana's killing of Max makes more sense and is more forgivable than Superman executing the Kryptonians.

[kingaliencracker]

This would make sense if his feelings were based on the belief that he made a mistake, rather than facing the harsh reality of having made the choice. That's an entirely different thing.

I think by the conclusion of Exile he acknowledges that he made a mistake in executing the Kryptonians. That was essentially the purpose of the story - that he would always find a better way.

[kingaliencracker]

I think that taking the burden on yourself is actually heroic. Someone will have to do it and nobody has "the jurisdiction" so why pass it on to someone else?

Besides, it is not like judge or jury were needed. Crimes were obvious and nobody denied them.

In most civilized court processes, a judge and a jury is a right. A confession in of itself is never enough to convict someone. Superman himself only witnessed a part of the Kryptonians' crimes. Everything else was relayed to him by PU Lex Luthor.

I also don't know if I'd call Superman's actions heroic. In Byrne's version, Superman was deputized to arrest individuals and enforce law. A law enforcement officer does not (or at least should not) have the right to execute people for committing crimes unless it's to protect innocent lives. That delves into authoritarian territory, which isn't what Superman is about (at least in my opinion).