When did Superman kill? And who did he kill?

[Jim Kelly]

For my blog, I recently read through the first 20 months of Superman stories in the comic books and the comic strips and I could not find a single case where I could say beyond the shadow of a doubt that Superman killed anyone by his own direct action and with intention. For sure, there are many scenes where you could guess that this henchman or that one probably bought the farm. But it's never shown on panel.

There's one daily where Superman throws a couple of sailors in the sea--a sure recipe for death as I know from my experience in the navy. But the ship those men were on gets blown up seconds later and only Superman manages to survive, just barely. So either way--if they hadn't been thrown in the sea or their shipmates had recovered them from the sea--those seamen would be dead anyhow. In fact, for all we know, Superman might have saved them, because maybe Aquaman came along and took those guys to safety and they were never caught in the blast from their ship.

I'm just saying, if you want to, there's always an out you can find for any deaths that Superman might have caused in those early adventures. Yet these are the ones where so many say that Superman was his most violent and most killing. Perhaps I have to read further ahead.

I know there was that time in the Byrne run when Superman killed the Phantom Zone criminals. What else?

[Myskin]

I'm just saying, if you want to, there's always an out you can find for any deaths that Superman might have caused in those early adventures

You said it right, if you want to. But you should keep in mind that, when the Golden Age comics were published, the no-killing rule wasn't as strict as it was considered afterwards. Basically, if Supes lets a car fall down a precipice and it's a GA adventure, you can be rather sure that the story implies that the guys in the car died even if they weren't explicitly shown while biting the dust. Occam's razor.

[manduck37]

Yeah, in Superman #22 (no the Nu52 version) he executes Zod and his minions. There is also when he kills Imperiex in Our Worlds at War. Superman also kills Doomsday at the end of The Death of Superman.

[Jim Kelly]

Did he kill Imperiex and Doomsday? I forget.

The problem with proving murder in any comics is you can never be sure because comics. I thought Doomsday made a return, which would mean the death didn't stick. Not sure about Imperiex, but given the character type, it seems like death can't stick to him either.

This is the thing with the early comics, too. The one villain that Superman clearly wants to kill is Ultra. But no matter how hard he tries, you can't kill Ultra. Even when you think he's dead--Siegel pulls off something like ACTION COMICS No. 20.

In the face of that, it's hard to know if any death counts. This gives great power to writers. With one story they can turn around the whole of continuity faster than Christopher Reeve flying around the Earth and reversing time. It was always possible for a new writer to come along and write a story that proved Superman didn't kill those Phantom Zone villains. Not so much a retcon--I'd say--because there've been stories that totally respected the sequence of events but introduced some twist that made you see the whole continuty from a different paradigm.

I think the reason I care about this to the extent that I do is all the fault of Michael L. Fleisher. I read his encyclopedias on Batman, Wonder Woman and Supeman when they first came out in the '70s. They were my source of knowledge for all those comics that I could not possibly afford as back issues. Yet Fleisher treats the whole history as happening on one Earth--no multiverse for our Mike. And this requires the reader to do a lot of mental gymnastics to envision how the disparate continuty can all fit together. But it can be done.

Edited Addendum: Oh yeah, one thing I wanted to mention is that I think most DC characters are culpable when they involve themselves in a retcon. Like with Crisis, Zero Hour etc. There they haven't just killed a few people, they've killed a whole reality, a whole universe. An exponential number of life forms. Yet they do this without a backward glance. In reality, they would be the worst criminals in all of creation.

[manduck37]

He did kill Imperiex and Doomsday, from what I can remember. Well, technically Superman and Doomsday killed each other. Though of all the deaths, I'm not sure that any of them stuck. Imperiex stuck, I believe. I don't recall any story where Imperiex came back into play. Imperiex turned up again after the Nu52 restarted the universe, I think. I'm not sure if he popped up before the reboot though. Eventually General Zod and Doomsday came back around. Though I guess it's ok, since Superman came back too. Death in comics is usually a pretty temporary thing. Unless you're Dazzler from the old X-Men comics. That one stuck.

[Ascended]

Let's see.....he threw Darkseid into the Source Wall. That's not "dead" exactly, but it's as close to death as something like Darkseid can likely get. He's not mortal, he's not even from our level of reality so I'd call that dead (while it lasted anyway, and it lasted longer than many other deaths).

Imperiex was a Galactus-style universal manifestation, intent on wiping anything that didnt belong in the universe out. Regretfully he was under the impression that just about everything didnt belong. Superman threw him and Brainiac 13 into the Big Bang. Imperiex realized in his final moments that the "wrongness" he felt was his own remnants left over from his destruction. I'd say that counts as "dead" for something like him. And we never heard from Brainiac 13 again so I'd say that was dead-dead.

What happened to H'el? Didnt he get wiped from history or something? Was it Clark who did that? If so, then I'd say preventing someone from existing in the first place could count.

He killed Doomsday, but Doomsday's whole thing is coming back from the dead. But dead is dead, at least until its not. He's done that at least twice (original Death of Superman and DOOMED) but Im not sure about Hunter/Prey or its sequel, or what happened after Our Worlds @ War when the government used Doomsday against Imperiex.

If you consider Parademons alive then Superman has killed scores of them, but for my money they're just meat puppets with virtually no independent thought in them at all; just Darkseid's will. We've seen that there are a few of them with more of a mind (Infinite Crisis era Secret Six) but they seem to be a rare occurrence and only pop up when Darkseid isn't around. Clark's also destroyed his fair share of demons and devils, but again, I think the rules for "dead" are different. But still, I suppose you could count them if you wanted to (though I wouldnt). Pretty sure he's also killed monsters, but then you have to decide if killing a giant sea creature (or vampire or whatever) is the same as killing a person, or more like putting a rabid animal down. I do know that one vampire died when it bit him and got a mouth full of solar energy, but I dont think Clark can be blamed for that.

Kenny Braverman was blown up by his own powers but it was Clark who goaded him into a fight without energy blasts. Clark never intended to kill him, but Clark's a pretty smart guy and I think you could argue that he knew what would happen to Kenny if he didnt allow himself to vent his energy build-up. I believe we had seen that the more adrenaline Kenny worked up the more power he generated. But that one's a hard argument and I dont think I'd really try to make it.

Then there's Zod and his Phantom Zone criminals of course. And while there might not be a lot of proof of lethal force in the early Golden Age stories, if you throw someone across a river the odds of surviving and then swimming to shore seem pretty low. So it might not be enough for a court of law (questionable, since people get convicted on less) but I'd argue that it's enough for friendly debate.

[Kuwagaton]

You said it right, if you want to. But you should keep in mind that, when the Golden Age comics were published, the no-killing rule wasn't as strict as it was considered afterwards. Basically, if Supes lets a car fall down a precipice and it's a GA adventure, you can be rather sure that the story implies that the guys in the car died even if they weren't explicitly shown while biting the dust. Occam's razor.

For what it's worth the deaths in Detective comics were comparatively explicit. At least, they were often on panel.

[Jim Kelly]

For what it's worth the deaths in Detective comics were comparatively explicit. At least, they were often on panel.

Those early pre-Robin stories in DETECTIVE are next on my reading list, for an upcoming blog. But I already remember the deaths that are in them and I think you can argue them as well. One I remember being the Monk's death--he's a vampire, so already dead. I don't think killing vampires should count. Another is the Hugo Strange story published in BATMAN No. 1, but it was supposed to be in an issue of DETECTIVE--in that one Batman machine guns a bunch of monsters from his Bat-Gyro. I'd argue those monster people are a lot like the vampires. A couple others are more like the early Superman deaths--where someone falls to their death but it's not really Batman or Superman's fault. It's the fault of the criminal for putting himself in such a position where he could die by misadventure.

Going back to the '60s when I was a kid, I always figured it was okay to take down robots and other artificial lifeforms because they weren't really alive. So that was the rule I used for Batman and Superman. They could kill robotic creatures and other creatures with no soul. But they couldn't kill animals. This was a kind of philosophical problem for me as a kid--when I was really small I liked to torture insects not thinking there was anything wrong in that, but then I started to think that all life was sacred. Yet even when we don't intend to, we must be killing thousands of insects every day, just by stepping on them unintentionally. So I always wondered how Superman dealt with his no-kill rule--where did he draw the line? Which creatures was it okay to kill and which not? I gather he couldn't kill dogs, cats or monkeys (given these were all Super-Pets with thought balloons), but could he kill birds, shellfish, snakes, ants or spiders?

[Rory]

Surely the intent is what matters. If Superman's intention to kill someone was to actually kill then he is a killer regardless of plot twists on how the person survived.
Didn't Superman rip Doomsday apart in Doomed?

[Kuwagaton]

Those early pre-Robin stories in DETECTIVE are next on my reading list, for an upcoming blog. But I already remember the deaths that are in them and I think you can argue them as well. One I remember being the Monk's death--he's a vampire, so already dead. I don't think killing vampires should count. Another is the Hugo Strange story published in BATMAN No. 1, but it was supposed to be in an issue of DETECTIVE--in that one Batman machine guns a bunch of monsters from his Bat-Gyro. I'd argue those monster people are a lot like the vampires. A couple others are more like the early Superman deaths--where someone falls to their death but it's not really Batman or Superman's fault. It's the fault of the criminal for putting himself in such a position where he could die by misadventure.

There's also breaking the guy's neck with a kick, crushing people under a statue, and (albeit reluctantly) firing on the thugs in the truck. It's all kinda misadventure in a way, isn't it? Since they establish themselves as threats and put themselves in a position to be stopped. I'd say throwing someone off a roof is killing them since powers or not, Superman seems to actively avoid an equivalent situation, but I'd agree that it's not an easy line to draw.

[Jim Kelly]

Surely the intent is what matters. If Superman's intention to kill someone was to actually kill then he is a killer regardless of plot twists on how the person survived.
Didn't Superman rip Doomsday apart in Doomed?

But you couldn't prove that in a court of law. People who intend to commit murder but don't succeed in the effort get a lesser sentence. Intent to commit murder isn't the same as murder.

It's also a good plot device for writers. They can take character X and have him so angered that he's going to finally murder his foe and he goes to great lengths to do so, but in the end it turns out that he never actually succeeded in killing his foe. And now the series can return to the status quo, because the hero never went over that self-imposed line.

Or they can have character X think that he killed. He gives up his costumed identity, goes off to live in a Zen monastery, leaves all his friends and family behind. Until Hal Jordan comes to find him and it turns out that character X (Green Arrow) never actually killed, there were extenuating circumstances that absolve him of his guilt.

I think you have to allow writers that. It lets them explore the consequence of killing, without actually taking the character into territory where he's no longer true to the ideals he respresents.

Superman almost went the same route as Oliver Queen, when he killed. He exiled himself to space--but the other shoe never dropped. No Deus ex Machina came along to point out well actually Superman you never killed for some extenuating circumstance. Such as the Phantom Zoners were never real, but simply apparitions created by the pocket universe--or some other comic book logic that would have got Superman off the hook.

It's one thing to tie one hand behind the writer's back. But tie both hands behind his back and the page remains empty. Writers need to have a free hand.

[Sacred Knight]

Kenny Braverman was blown up by his own powers but it was Clark who goaded him into a fight without energy blasts. Clark never intended to kill him, but Clark's a pretty smart guy and I think you could argue that he knew what would happen to Kenny if he didnt allow himself to vent his energy build-up. I believe we had seen that the more adrenaline Kenny worked up the more power he generated. But that one's a hard argument and I dont think I'd really try to make it.

I'm actually remembering Superman initiating the overload by his own hand. Unless memory fails, I thought the final part of the battle was Clark, in a defensive maneuver when Conduit is on the attack, shoves live wires into him, which is what starts his overload in the first place

[Venomous Mask]

I remember he killed exactly one xenomorph in Superman vs. Aliens, after spending almost the entire series trying not to.

[Johnny Thunders!]

(Whats your overall impression of the books? What are the highlight stories? Who's the real identity?)


I remember three deaths from those early issues, maybe not the run read here. In one, crook dies from gas inhalation, another crook is electrocuted, and in a third Superman throws back a death ray. Was that Ultra?

[Ascended]

I'm actually remembering Superman initiating the overload by his own hand. Unless memory fails, I thought the final part of the battle was Clark, in a defensive maneuver when Conduit is on the attack, shoves live wires into him, which is what starts his overload in the first place

That does seem familiar.....who is the big Conduit fan around here? Manduck? He'd know.

If you're right then I'd say that definitely counts. I'd say it was absolutely self-defense but it'd still count.