The execution of the Phantom Zone criminals

[kingaliencracker]

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?

[magha_regulus]

I absolutely hated this as a kid. I did like what came afterward, but this was just a series of bad choices. Superman should have never been put in that position. And don't get me started on the convoluted Matrix version of Supergirl.

[kingaliencracker]

I absolutely hated this as a kid. I did like what came afterward, but this was just a series of bad choices. Superman should have never been put in that position. And don't get me started on the convoluted Matrix version of Supergirl.

I don't mind Superman being put in no-win situations. But it certainly seemed like an odd choice given that Byrne went out of his way multiple times to establish Superman already had a no-kill code. And I'm not speaking out against capital punishment, but it seems to me the course of action for Superman would have been to bring the trio back to prime Earth and turn them over to the Guardians of the Universe. There were a lot of options for him on prime Earth that didn't exist in the Pocket Universe.

As far as Matrix Supergirl, I can't disagree with you but we did get an amazing Peter David run with the character.

[kingaliencracker]

I don't mind Superman being put in no-win situations. But it certainly seemed like an odd choice given that Byrne went out of his way multiple times to establish Superman already had a no-kill code. And I'm not speaking out against capital punishment, but it seems to me the course of action for Superman would have been to bring the trio back to prime Earth and turn them over to the Guardians of the Universe. There were a lot of options for him on prime Earth that didn't exist in the Pocket Universe.

As far as Matrix Supergirl, I can't disagree with you but we did get an amazing Peter David run with the character.

To correct this, I forgot the Guardians were off world at the time. But he could have turned them over to the Green Lantern Corps.

[Jim Kelly]

Given this was instituted to explain how "Superboy" was in the Legion of Super-Heroes and given that wasn't good enough for Mike Carlin who demanded that all reference to Superboy and Supergirl be dropped from the Five Year Later LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES and the timeline completely changed, I don't see how any of that story could still be in continuity less than two years after it happened.

None of it makes sense to me. It seems like Carlin cherry-picked what could be in continuity, even when it made no sense. Superboy couldn't be in continuity--not even the pocket universe one--but Matrix could. So much for the new universe making sense. Nobody should be mad at Superman for killing those Phantom Zone criminals because it never actually happened. And Clark had no reason to exile himself in outer space.

[Kuwagaton]

I happened across that beautiful MOS vol 4 hardcover today and also the beginning of the Seagle run by chance, where he was like, "I would never kill ever, son." The Supergirl Saga was excellent and the end really holds up.

Not an "I gotta kill you!" as we saw in the silver age King Superman story, but a moment where he takes his responsibility seriously. Being serious and responsible isn't about wish fulfillment although these traits can co-exist... being courageous, being a hero isn't just the fun stuff or the pleasant stuff. And so long as the example is maintained you have a code against killing that isn't naive. He'd revisit the idea of lethal measures constantly throughout about two decades and it never gets less coherent in referring to Superman #22.

[kingaliencracker]

Given this was instituted to explain how "Superboy" was in the Legion of Super-Heroes and given that wasn't good enough for Mike Carlin who demanded that all reference to Superboy and Supergirl be dropped from the Five Year Later LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES and the timeline completely changed, I don't see how any of that story could still be in continuity less than two years after it happened.

None of it makes sense to me. It seems like Carlin cherry-picked what could be in continuity, even when it made no sense. Superboy couldn't be in continuity--not even the pocket universe one--but Matrix could. So much for the new universe making sense. Nobody should be mad at Superman for killing those Phantom Zone criminals because it never actually happened. And Clark had no reason to exile himself in outer space.

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.

[kingaliencracker]

I happened across that beautiful MOS vol 4 hardcover today and also the beginning of the Seagle run by chance, where he was like, "I would never kill ever, son." The Supergirl Saga was excellent and the end really holds up.

Not an "I gotta kill you!" as we saw in the silver age King Superman story, but a moment where he takes his responsibility seriously. Being serious and responsible isn't about wish fulfillment although these traits can co-exist... being courageous, being a hero isn't just the fun stuff or the pleasant stuff. And so long as the example is maintained you have a code against killing that isn't naive. He'd revisit the idea of lethal measures constantly throughout about two decades and it never gets less coherent in referring to Superman #22.

Again, I'm not advocating for or against capital punishment. I have my belief on it, and I'm certainly open to others civilly sharing their opinions on it especially as it relates to this storyline.

I think the issue for me is whether it was Superman's responsibility to carry out the execution given the totality of the circumstances, and whether he needed to go through that act just to come up with his code of not killing.

The irony of Byrne is that he would argue that we shouldn't overthink these things because it's a fictional medium set in a world of rules that don't apply to the real world. He once said on his forum that people don't recognize Clark Kent is Superman "because they don't". Yet, during his run he made it a point to explain that Superman blurred his face in public so that people wouldn't get a good picture of him and potentially risk his secret identity. So for Byrne, it seems weird that he would need Superman to execute the Kryptonians, if he intended the act to serve as a reason why Superman decides he shouldn't kill.

[manwhohaseverything]

I am against executions by individuals or mobs within reason.But i will defend myself and anyone around me.That's generally been my leaning.So i don't have a problem with superman killing.Superman did kill people in golden age.It was generally in the realm of" if you shoot me all bets are of".

[Jim Kelly]

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 agree that the pocket universe was never a good fix and is best forgotten. But I'm sure you can see that the pocket universe no longer being canon and the execution of the Phantom Zoners from that universe still being canon is a contradiction in terms.

If they were going to throw out the pocket universe (or ignore it) then they should have found a different way to send Clark into exile and a different way to introduce a new Supergirl character. They were imaginative people--they didn't need to build on the pocket universe for more story lines.

It's hard for me to get mad at Superman killing the Phantom Zone characters when the whole tale is a house of cards. When fans got so hot under the collar about this killing, it didn't jibe with me, because they were getting mad at something that didn't hold up if you thought about it for ten seconds.

[Kuwagaton]

Then the PU became non-canon following Zero Hour

It was canon after ZH.

As for how ___ and ____ fit well, it was a weird solution that only worked so long as you didn't read conflicting stuff from other titles. Within Superman it made sense, I guess it's like Bronze age logic ironically.

Again, I'm not advocating for or against capital punishment. I have my belief on it, and I'm certainly open to others civilly sharing their opinions on it especially as it relates to this storyline.

I think the issue for me is whether it was Superman's responsibility to carry out the execution given the totality of the circumstances, and whether he needed to go through that act just to come up with his code of not killing.

The irony of Byrne is that he would argue that we shouldn't overthink these things because it's a fictional medium set in a world of rules that don't apply to the real world. He once said on his forum that people don't recognize Clark Kent is Superman "because they don't". Yet, during his run he made it a point to explain that Superman blurred his face in public so that people wouldn't get a good picture of him and potentially risk his secret identity. So for Byrne, it seems weird that he would need Superman to execute the Kryptonians, if he intended the act to serve as a reason why Superman decides he shouldn't kill.

It's a reason, but not the only reason. I mean it's totally fine to not kill whether or not it's based on experience, but arguably just a deeper stance if you've done it in a rather justified situation and come away affirming. He was in a situation where I suppose he could have found transportation and all that but it was fair to conclude they would take an instance to cause trouble after having their powers taken away. I mean it's not like they even cared about each other so sabotaging Superman while he worked on their behalf was pretty reasonable to suspect.

And Clark had no reason to exile himself in outer space.

Brainiac shook him up.

[kingaliencracker]

It was canon after ZH.

As for how ___ and ____ fit well, it was a weird solution that only worked so long as you didn't read conflicting stuff from other titles. Within Superman it made sense, I guess it's like Bronze age logic ironically.

My memory may be fuzzy and I'm by no means a Legion expert. But my understanding is that post-Zero Hour, the Legion rebooted completely to where it was firmly and officially established that Superboy/Superman had zero connection to their creation. That would seemingly render the PU non-canon, as far as the Legion is concerned at least.

It's a reason, but not the only reason. I mean it's totally fine to not kill whether or not it's based on experience, but arguably just a deeper stance if you've done it in a rather justified situation and come away affirming. He was in a situation where I suppose he could have found transportation and all that but it was fair to conclude they would take an instance to cause trouble after having their powers taken away. I mean it's not like they even cared about each other so sabotaging Superman while he worked on their behalf was pretty reasonable to suspect.

Again, Bryne established throughout his run that Superman was against killing. He stops others (like Barda) from killing and he makes it a point check the life signs of enemies before using his powers against them.

I don't think in life you need to go through an experience to know it's wrong. It would have been different had the Kryptonians still posed an obvious threat.

[Jon Clark]

Being a comic geek my first reaction was "if the Gold K took the powers then they shouldn't be vulnerable to Green K" since one of the Pre-Byrne rules had always been that Green K had no effect in any situation where a Kryptonian had no powers. And the Pocket-U was pretty much the Pre-Crisis world with the multi-hued kryptonite, flying dog, etc.

As for the story itself the problem was that Superman was essentially killing the Zoners for what they might do. He killed them because they might regain their powers. If you follow that logic then anyone might potentially gain Pre-Crissi level powers (technically Lar Gand/Mon-El still had them in the Legion meaning any Daxamite has them). I could see Superman killing them if they were actually regaining the powers right in front of him. But as written he has them at his mercy with no reason to assume they pose a threat.

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

[Kuwagaton]

My memory may be fuzzy and I'm by no means a Legion expert. But my understanding is that post-Zero Hour, the Legion rebooted completely to where it was firmly and officially established that Superboy/Superman had zero connection to their creation. That would seemingly render the PU non-canon, as far as the Legion is concerned at least.

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.

Again, Bryne established throughout his run that Superman was against killing. He stops others (like Barda) from killing and he makes it a point check the life signs of enemies before using his powers against them.

I don't think in life you need to go through an experience to know it's wrong. It would have been different had the Kryptonians still posed an obvious threat.

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.

Being a comic geek my first reaction was "if the Gold K took the powers then they shouldn't be vulnerable to Green K" since one of the Pre-Byrne rules had always been that Green K had no effect in any situation where a Kryptonian had no powers. And the Pocket-U was pretty much the Pre-Crisis world with the multi-hued kryptonite, flying dog, etc.

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.

[exile001]

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.