The execution of the Phantom Zone criminals

[Kuwagaton]

To me, this is what's frustrating about how the executions were painted after the fact. Byrne's intent with the story was to show Superman as the ultimate force for justice - he executed the Kryptonians not because they were dangerous, but because what they had done was so heinous and unequal to anything seen before, that executing them was the only logical sentence for Superman. Yes, Zod made some veiled threats about getting their powers back and coming to prime Earth. But again, there was zero evidence to suggest that this was possible, and even if it was, Superman still had the green Kryptonite from the Pocket Universe (not to mention other heroes to assist in prime Earth). If Byrne's intent was for Superman to eliminate some potential future threat Zod & company posed, then the gold Kryptonite never would have been an element to the story.

But DC later tried to twist the story into this whole "he didn't really have a choice" scenario because of the threat the Kryptonians posed, and that's simply not true. Superman had a few choices that didn't involve executing the Kryptonians, especially in light of the fact that they were depowered.

As far as the panel you shared, I get how things played out later. You yourself posted an interview with Jurgens where he said he was against the executions because there was no threat from Zod & company at that moment. Yet, he had Superman ramming his fist through a depowered Cyborg Superman and vibrating his arm at superspeed to shatter him to pieces. Kind of a "do as I say, not as I do" scenario for sure. All I'll say is that my interpretation of Exile was that Superman was completely regretful over the executions, and at the conclusion he was resolute to always find a better way.

Hank's bodies are not tied to his life force. Superman learned this way back when he first encountered Hank inside of the eradicator.

But, I agree on the other part. The idea of being a threat wouldn't be a reason for execution even if it does play into rationale. It's sort of a defense that tries to play it both ways even if I ultimately side with the action.

[witchboy]

My hunch is that Paul Levitz was keen on keeping the Legion's history tethered to Superboy/Superman, hence why we got the creation of the Pocket Universe in the first place. Once Levitz left, I don't think there was anyone advocating for that tether to remain.

But the Pocket Universe just created more issues than it solved, since it didn't explain Mon-El's or Supergirl's existence within the Legion. Then the PU became non-canon following Zero Hour, even though Superman's executing of the criminals remained canon up until probably the Futuresmiths storyline, but definitely ceased being canon following Infinite Crisis. Outside of Superboy-Prime punching a cosmic wall, I'm not sure how any of that makes sense.

Andromeda was created to take Supergirl's place in the Legion.

[Deacon Blues]

as preface, i haven't actually read the supergirl saga, so really i have no business contributing to the conversation at all.

that said, i don't think it's ever appropriate for superman to kill, even if the people he's killing have razed an entire planet. in fact, i think the premise of the whole thing is a little silly. byrne wrote a scenario in which it would look bad for superman NOT to have killed zod and company. it speaks to a poor-faith handling of superman's moral code. a takedown of silver age superman, who was invincible and cunning, and who vowed never to take a life. executing zod, zaora, and quex-ul doesn't further truth or justice-- the people they harmed are all dead by the end of the supergirl saga, and superman rendered them powerless using gold kryptonite-- instead, superman executing them amounts to revenge. how could superman decide that it's within his purview to execute criminals, and then go back to metropolis like nothing happened? how can superman renege on his no-kill rule, but continue to follow other self-imposed doctrines, like refusing to tell a lie?

alan moore says that superman couldn't. that if superman ever took a life, he'd have to give up being superman forever. elliot s! maggin says the same in miracle monday, going so far as to center superman's moral code around preserving life:

"On that hill, silently and solemnly, Superboy promised himself and who or whatever else might hear his thoughts that his life would be devoted to the preservation of life; that he would use his powers whenever possible to save and improve the conditions of life and of living things everywhere; that under no circumstances would he ever be responsible for the loss of a single conscious life; that failing in any of these affirmations he would renounce his powers forever. There could be no nobler mission for a superman."

but, of course, i still haven't read the comic in question. so you can pretty much take this whole thing with a golf ball sized grain of salt.

[Kuwagaton]

The thing about the Alan Moore story is that he does in fact take a life. And yes he renounces being Superman, except what does that even mean? His enemies are gone and his child has powers, but you can extrapolate the idea that as of "1997" people are just running into Superman problems in a world without Superman.

As for the silver age,

https://i.ibb.co/zV7C31B/KillC.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/PC697zd/KillerC.jpg

I was saying that some of the nuances post Supergirl Saga benefitted from playing the angle with shifting arguments, but the silver age tends to get the benefit of being so loose with narrative that it can enjoy its status in lieu of its contradictions.

[Deacon Blues]

The thing about the Alan Moore story is that he does in fact take a life. And yes he renounces being Superman, except what does that even mean? His enemies are gone and his child has powers, but you can extrapolate the idea that as of "1997" people are just running into Superman problems in a world without Superman.

yes, superman takes a life at the end of the story, but he recognizes it was the wrong thing to do. "Nobody has the right to kill." he says, "Not Mxyzptlk, not you, not Superman." he broke his oath, he must renounce his powers forever. you weren't sure what that meant, but moore makes it clear. superman exposes himself to gold-k, and becomes a man.

as for a world without superman still running into "Superman problems", jordan elliot would disagree. according to elliot, superman was "too wrapped up in himself. He thought the world couldn't get along without him." but the world was fine. there was a time before kal-el's rocketship came crashing down to earth.

As for the silver age,

https://i.ibb.co/zV7C31B/KillC.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/PC697zd/KillerC.jpg

superman doesn't kill anyone in this story. clark kent doesn't kill anyone, either. when superman reveals his heel turn was an act to prevent the world from panicking over an upcoming invasion from a planet of robots, kent shuts the lid over his chest, preventing the green-k from killing superman.

i still think superman killing is wrong, but maybe the bigger issue for me is the idea that superman could kill and go on being superman. miracle monday, elliot s! maggin's novel i quoted in my last post, is a great examination of superman's oath against killing. the conflict hinges on whether or not superman would kill one person to save the world. the thought never crosses his mind.

[Kuwagaton]

yes, superman takes a life at the end of the story, but he recognizes it was the wrong thing to do. "Nobody has the right to kill." he says, "Not Mxyzptlk, not you, not Superman." he broke his oath, he must renounce his powers forever. you weren't sure what that meant, but moore makes it clear. superman exposes himself to gold-k, and becomes a man.

as for a world without superman still running into "Superman problems", jordan elliot would disagree. according to elliot, superman was "too wrapped up in himself. He thought the world couldn't get along without him." but the world was fine. there was a time before kal-el's rocketship came crashing down to earth.

Superman was never obligated to use his powers so it's fine if he decides not to, especially after putting in so many years anyway and then coming to the reasoned conclusion that he is no longer fit for the job. But, to give up on making decisions entirely because of dissatisfaction with having made a tough decision is also kind of a cop out. He made the choice to kill because there was no other way he could conceive, not because he had a lapse in judgment or a desire. We weren't presented with any alternative solutions to Mxy.

The idea doesn't seem like he's decided against killing so much as "okay I'll do it but the cost is giving up Superman." Not really an oath if there's simply a condition for breaking it, and not having a Superman is a bigger cost for the world than not being Superman is for him considering that it was completely of his own volition in the first place.

superman doesn't kill anyone in this story. clark kent doesn't kill anyone, either. when superman reveals his heel turn was an act to prevent the world from panicking over an upcoming invasion from a planet of robots, kent shuts the lid over his chest, preventing the green-k from killing superman.

I can give Superman the benefit of another cop out, saying "ow hey I was just kidding" when he's beaten. It's presented as a ruse even if pretending to be evil is still pretty dubious. Clark's explicit solution is to kill Superman, however, and it's really not possible to say that he had any other intention heading into that conflict. If deciding to kill and getting talked down completely absolves him, not because he's lead to the conclusion that it's wrong but simply because the choice is made unnecessary, then it's a pretty convenient way out of addressing the issue of lethal force.

Also convenient to have his mini clone just decide to sacrifice without having to deal with the fact that he intended to send it on a suicide mission, and I suppose other examples of the character accepting the death of another living thing as a consequence of his choice making.

I still think superman killing is wrong, but maybe the bigger issue for me is the idea that superman could kill and go on being superman. miracle monday, elliot s! maggin's novel i quoted in my last post, is a great examination of superman's oath against killing. the conflict hinges on whether or not superman would kill one person to save the world. the thought never crosses his mind.

The thought crossed his mind in stories before Maggin was even born, honestly. We saw Moore write a story without an ongoing narrative, and we saw Maggin operate in loose continuity or no continuity, so while the answers are extremely relevant it's easy to see why they can be refuted. Could he still be Superman after making that choice? That was a question answered "yes" by dozens or hundreds of stories following Superman #22. Like, he's pulling some child out of a landslide and why would that child or the child's parents care one bit about the PZ criminals?

[Deacon Blues]

i need to sleep so i'll reply with two cop out answers and make my peace.

I can give Superman the benefit of another cop out, saying "ow hey I was just kidding" when he's beaten. It's presented as a ruse even if pretending to be evil is still pretty dubious. Clark's explicit solution is to kill Superman, however, and it's really not possible to say that he had any other intention heading into that conflict. If deciding to kill and getting talked down completely absolves him, not because he's lead to the conclusion that it's wrong but simply because the choice is made unnecessary, then it's a pretty convenient way out of addressing the issue of lethal force.

cop out answer one: admittedly, i think it's kind of a complicated thing. complicated and straight forward. it's weird. when clark opens the vault containing all that gold and green-k, he thinks to himself how he can open the vault because he still has superman's memories. as if superman truly is a separate person from clark. i think the story wants us to view them (like billy batson and captain marvel), so i'm willing to engage with it on those terms. if clark kent were a random, human person, then he isn't beholden to superman's moral code, and can try to take him out through green-k exposure.

another way of looking at is that superman's stance on killing is tied to his powers. here's a relevant panel from adventure comics 342. so, from superman's point of view, we can see how his stance might change if he were depowered.

i don't really agree with this, admittedly. it is a cop out answer, and i still don't think clark should be killing anybody. i'm just having some fun exploring this stilted, silver age morality.

The thought crossed his mind in stories before Maggin was even born, honestly. We saw Moore write a story without an ongoing narrative, and we saw Maggin operate in loose continuity or no continuity, so while the answers are extremely relevant it's easy to see why they can be refuted. Could he still be Superman after making that choice? That was a question answered "yes" by dozens or hundreds of stories following Superman #22.

here's my real cop out answer: not every superman story is a good superman story. there are probably plenty of superman stories where he kills, and it's presented as the right thing to do. for instance, you could use injustice or man of steel as instances of superman killing, and present those in a case for how he could continue to be superman after taking a life. but are those good superman stories?

the same can be said for a character like batman, whose no-kill-rule is integral to the character. there was a brief period where he carried around a gun and offed criminals. but people don't often try to apply that period to batman's entire history/character because the character changed and solidified into something else. the same happened to superman. he probably wouldn't pluck a fighter jet from the sky and smash it into the ground outside of his first decade.

ultimately, superman is a fictional character. the real reason that byrne had him keep going after those three kryptonians were executed is because dc wanted to keep putting out more superman issues. but that doesn't mean the story is good, and that doesn't mean it was right.

[Jon Clark]

Superman was never obligated to use his powers so it's fine if he decides not to, especially after putting in so many years anyway and then coming to the reasoned conclusion that he is no longer fit for the job. But, to give up on making decisions entirely because of dissatisfaction with having made a tough decision is also kind of a cop out. He made the choice to kill because there was no other way he could conceive, not because he had a lapse in judgment or a desire. We weren't presented with any alternative solutions to Mxy.

The way I remember the Silver/Bronze Age code against killing was that Superman believed that based on his power-level killing should never be an option. His giving up being Superman was based on his belief that if he couldn't solve a situation without resorting to lethal force then it was proof that he wasn't fit to wield Superman's powers. Can't think of exactly where i read that explanation but I'd guess it was a Maggin story- possibly one of the novels.

I know the Silver Age was full of stories where Superman wasn't that concerned about life (especially non organic non-humanoid life) but i read them the same as Batman-with-a-gun stories- lazy writers not looking for consistency of character.

It was Superman holding himself to a higher standard- which to me is what Superman is for.

[scary harpy]

My hunch is that Paul Levitz was keen on keeping the Legion's history tethered to Superboy/Superman, hence why we got the creation of the Pocket Universe in the first place. Once Levitz left, I don't think there was anyone advocating for that tether to remain.

But the Pocket Universe just created more issues than it solved, since it didn't explain Mon-El's or Supergirl's existence within the Legion. Then the PU became non-canon following Zero Hour, even though Superman's executing of the criminals remained canon up until probably the Futuresmiths storyline, but definitely ceased being canon following Infinite Crisis. Outside of Superboy-Prime punching a cosmic wall, I'm not sure how any of that makes sense.

I also want to stress that the Pocket Universe did not have any other super heroes to defend Earth. That's why the Kryptonians were able to decimate the planet unchallenged. On prime Earth, there were a plethora of super heroes that could have combated or neutralized the Kryptonians, if they somehow regained their powers (which again, there was no evidence to suggest that this was possible). We need to consider that when judging Superman's actions.

I may be the only one but I think the Pocket Universe had potential. All the silly silver age stories could have been make less goofy...then there would have been other heroes to defend Earth. If this is a pocket 'universe', then there should be many other planets! See The-Super-Men-(and-Women)-of-All-Planets

The whole planet did not have to die for the villains crimes to be heinous. That was unnecessary...and probably cheap shock value.

The problem with killing any character is the loss of story potential. Faora is a perfect example. Without powers, she is a psychopathic man-killer and a master martial artist! How many villainesses are as crazy as the Joker and dangerous as Lady Shiva? She is a quality villainess and should definitely have been saved.

I liked Matrix. She should have been Lana Lang, Superwoman; this might have been less offensive to Supergirl fans, I think. Like the PU, her potential was wasted.

So, I am also in the 'No, he should not have killed them' camp. Unfortunately, this was the Era when GrimDark was king and cool...so that's the story we get.

P.S. What about the other Phantom Zone Villains? Kru-El and others? More lost potential.

[Agent Z]

I may be the only one but I think the Pocket Universe had potential. All the silly silver age stories could have been make less goofy...then there would have been other heroes to defend Earth. If this is a pocket 'universe', then there should be many other planets! See The-Super-Men-(and-Women)-of-All-Planets

The whole planet did not have to die for the villains crimes to be heinous. That was unnecessary...and probably cheap shock value.

The problem with killing any character is the loss of story potential. Faora is a perfect example. Without powers, she is a psychopathic man-killer and a master martial artist! How many villainesses are as crazy as the Joker and dangerous as Lady Shiva? She is a quality villainess and should definitely have been saved.

I liked Matrix. She should have been Lana Lang, Superwoman; this might have been less offensive to Supergirl fans, I think. Like the PU, her potential was wasted.

So, I am also in the 'No, he should not have killed them' camp. Unfortunately, this was the Era when GrimDark was king and cool...so that's the story we get.

P.S. What about the other Phantom Zone Villains? Kru-El and others? More lost potential.

Losing story opportunities also means losing bad story opportunities. Superman has a pretty large rogues gallery and we got evil Kryptonians again eventually.

[Kuwagaton]

The whole planet did not have to die for the villains crimes to be heinous. That was unnecessary...and probably cheap shock value.

Shock value would generally be more along the lines of depiction. And maybe that sort of fits the execution although it wasn't really a graphic scene. The death of the planet both established a crime worthy of Kryptonians in a scenario only possible with alt reality and putting the solution as far beyond debate as possible, as well as establishing a reason that there could be no second opinion. So, heinous was the point y'know?

The problem with killing any character is the loss of story potential. Faora is a perfect example. Without powers, she is a psychopathic man-killer and a master martial artist! How many villainesses are as crazy as the Joker and dangerous as Lady Shiva? She is a quality villainess and should definitely have been saved.

The number of Faora stories from 1973-1986 and from 2008-2023 might well be less than two. If they wanted to use her, they really would have by now. I mean even lesser villains like Amalak and Terra Man get features.

So, I am also in the 'No, he should not have killed them' camp. Unfortunately, this was the Era when GrimDark was king and cool...so that's the story we get.

I guess it was a grimdark age, but Byrne was historically defiant of that. There's a good chance he'd had some She Hulk pages done before this comic even hit the printers for what that says about him as a creator. If anything he probably made light of stories and ideas that weren't so funny.

The Superman line also stood out for tone, with Doomsday being a brief exception. By the time it hit Exile, Superman was back to

[All Star Superman]

Thanks to the OP for starting this thread. It allows me to ask a question I've long had and hopefully get answers from folks who are incredibly knowledgeable, like Jim Kelly.

I don't recall where, (perhaps even on these boards) but I read that Byrne's motive for putting Superman and, by extension, the Superman titles, in this position was because of his anger over the merchandizing situation with DC. For those who don't know, one of the reasons Byrne left DC was because editorial refused to switch to his artistic interpretation in merch, sticking with either Swan or other pre-Byrne versions like Jose-Luis Garcia Lopez. While Byrne had no issue with these creators, he felt it was only logical and fair that Superman should look like he does in merchandizing as he did in the comics. I also imagine he felt entitled to the money he would have received as a result, which I tend to agree with; after all, it was his unique vision that DC had used to revamp Superman narratively and visually.

Whether this is true or not, I don't know. On one hand, it seems like a Byrne thing to do when he's bitter, but it also seems that he wouldn't have done this to his co-creators.

As for the story itself, I think Superman killing in any circumstances is unnecessary and totally at odds with the bulk of Superman's characterization in and out of comics for the majority of his existence. This story was particularly idiotic, in that there is absolutely no way the depowered criminals could have gotten there powers back. Even if they had somehow managed to do this, they couldn't have left the dead Earth or Pocket Universe, both of which would have served as a kind of Phantom Zone for them. Superman's decision was completely out of character and this story taints what I feel is otherwise one of the greatest comic book runs of all time.

As for the Exile story and other stories that touched on these events, they were fine but ultimately unneeded. I think Jurgens (if he'd been allowed) should have used Zero Hour to retcon this story so that Superman brings the PZ criminals to the GL Corps and, once reestablished, exile them to the PZ.

As for Superman "learning killing is wrong by killing," this is an incredibly stupid notion that flies in the face of basic ethics and human behavior, not to mention the fact that Byrne has strongly established Superman's respect for all life several times prior to this story.

[Zero Hunter]

Superboy Prime has attacked Earth numerous times, and has been thwarted each time by the combined might of the super heroes. I have no reason to think this would have been different in 1988-era DCU.

Also remember that even if the Kryptonians had gained their powers back - and again, there was ZERO evidence to suggest this was possible - Superman still had the green Kryptonite to use against them.
.

The big difference is the times Sb Prime fought he was not actiively trying to kill everyone in sight. Most of the Titans he killed he did on accident. When he got serious against he Green Lanterns he was a monster. Now the PZ criminals are smarter and deadlier than SB Prime and much more vicious.

[kingaliencracker]

Thanks to the OP for starting this thread. It allows me to ask a question I've long had and hopefully get answers from folks who are incredibly knowledgeable, like Jim Kelly.

I don't recall where, (perhaps even on these boards) but I read that Byrne's motive for putting Superman and, by extension, the Superman titles, in this position was because of his anger over the merchandizing situation with DC. For those who don't know, one of the reasons Byrne left DC was because editorial refused to switch to his artistic interpretation in merch, sticking with either Swan or other pre-Byrne versions like Jose-Luis Garcia Lopez. While Byrne had no issue with these creators, he felt it was only logical and fair that Superman should look like he does in merchandizing as he did in the comics. I also imagine he felt entitled to the money he would have received as a result, which I tend to agree with; after all, it was his unique vision that DC had used to revamp Superman narratively and visually.

Whether this is true or not, I don't know. On one hand, it seems like a Byrne thing to do when he's bitter, but it also seems that he wouldn't have done this to his co-creators.

As for the story itself, I think Superman killing in any circumstances is unnecessary and totally at odds with the bulk of Superman's characterization in and out of comics for the majority of his existence. This story was particularly idiotic, in that there is absolutely no way the depowered criminals could have gotten there powers back. Even if they had somehow managed to do this, they couldn't have left the dead Earth or Pocket Universe, both of which would have served as a kind of Phantom Zone for them. Superman's decision was completely out of character and this story taints what I feel is otherwise one of the greatest comic book runs of all time.

As for the Exile story and other stories that touched on these events, they were fine but ultimately unneeded. I think Jurgens (if he'd been allowed) should have used Zero Hour to retcon this story so that Superman brings the PZ criminals to the GL Corps and, once reestablished, exile them to the PZ.

As for Superman "learning killing is wrong by killing," this is an incredibly stupid notion that flies in the face of basic ethics and human behavior, not to mention the fact that Byrne has strongly established Superman's respect for all life several times prior to this story.

You are correct in what Byrne has stated is the reason why he left the titles. He's also blamed editorial interference in his vision for Superman, which is why when he agreed to return to DC for Wonder Woman, he did so only if they agreed to no interference.

However, I don't believe he wrote the executions as a big "FU" to DC. He left Superman somewhat abruptly, and his outlines for the plans post-executions were used to some degree by Ordway and Stern when they took over full time. And if if there was any interpretation by DC that the story as written was some kind of bitter outburst, they simply could have chosen not to publish it.

But I do agree that the idea Superman would have to experience the executions just to know killing is wrong is asinine, especially since Byrne went out of his way to establish Superman already had a code against killing. I really don't know what the point of the story was.

[marhawkman]

You are correct in what Byrne has stated is the reason why he left the titles. He's also blamed editorial interference in his vision for Superman, which is why when he agreed to return to DC for Wonder Woman, he did so only if they agreed to no interference.

However, I don't believe he wrote the executions as a big "FU" to DC. He left Superman somewhat abruptly, and his outlines for the plans post-executions were used to some degree by Ordway and Stern when they took over full time. And if if there was any interpretation by DC that the story as written was some kind of bitter outburst, they simply could have chosen not to publish it.

But I do agree that the idea Superman would have to experience the executions just to know killing is wrong is asinine, especially since Byrne went out of his way to establish Superman already had a code against killing. I really don't know what the point of the story was.

Yeah really. you don't need to know what having your arm cut off feels like to know it's not something you should do.