Your DC-Only controversial opinions...

[mathew101281]

Which heroes should and shouldn't kill is completely dependent on the hero. I've always seen Batman as a character with a pathological aversion to killing. Wonder Woman on the other hand sees killing as a last resort. Aquaman being a king is often put into situations were is actions more then likely will cause death. Superman is an interesting case to me, in most cases his powers are versatile enough that he doesn't have to resort to lethal force, but some of his antagonist are so powerful, that their very exitance places everyone in danger.

[Atlanta96]

I'd like to see a superhero who's undeniably on the side of good, but is perfectly willing to use lethal force on occasion even though they don't slaughter every criminal they come across. I'm sure there's characters like this in comics, but I don't know of any modern stories in mainstream comics featuring someone with a strict no-killing policy debating someone who uses lethal force in moderation, but isn't the Punisher or anything.

Yes I know Wonder Woman has killed a couple villains, but it's so rare for her that it wasn't really a big issue for the other heroes. They got over that whole neck-snapping thing fairly quickly, it seemed like the general public was more shaken up by it than the rest of the hero community.

[CRaymond]

I'd like to see a superhero who's undeniably on the side of good, but is perfectly willing to use lethal force on occasion even though they don't slaughter every criminal they come across. I'm sure there's characters like this in comics, but I don't know of any modern stories in mainstream comics featuring someone with a strict no-killing policy debating someone who uses lethal force in moderation, but isn't the Punisher or anything.

I think this is perfect for a new Captain Atom book, or at least a Captain Atom angle.

He's a soldier, but now he's got godlike quantum powers, but very little creativity in their utilization.

DEVELOPING a more nuanced superheroic policy on lethal force and the "with great power..." adage AFTER having gained superpowers might be really powerful story.

[Caivu]

I'd like to see a superhero who's undeniably on the side of good, but is perfectly willing to use lethal force on occasion even though they don't slaughter every criminal they come across. I'm sure there's characters like this in comics, but I don't know of any modern stories in mainstream comics featuring someone with a strict no-killing policy debating someone who uses lethal force in moderation, but isn't the Punisher or anything.

Huntress...? Maybe?

[Atlanta96]

Huntress...? Maybe?

Current Helena has probably killed a few people, although I haven't seen her do it on panel. Pre-Flashpoint, she didn't kill in any of the Birds of Prey or Bat-books I've read, so I don't consider her a lethal character.

[GreenLanternRanger]

My controversial(?) opinion for today. Ragman needs more love. DC Should bring him back.

[batnbreakfast]

My controversial(?) opinion for today. Ragman needs more love. DC Should bring him back.

Have you read N52 Gotham by Midnight? Quite good tale with Rags and Spectre. As great as it is to have a Jewish superhero and while I like Rags look his powers are too weird for me. Not a fan. He'd be perfect for TV, though.

I like killer superheroes. Give me Frank Castle, Moon Knight, The Shadow, Lobster Johnson and warriors like Wonder Woman but at the same time Superman/Batman shouldn't be taken to those extremes (movies being exceptions, killing is OK for me in a different medium), they're too responsible for killing. Superman knows people look up to him and wants to set an example with his acts of heroism. Batman (often forgotten) is as much about no child becoming an orphan as he's obsessed with stopping crime in Gotham. Joker still being alive isn't a philosophical question, its basic comicbook mechanics, getting people to buy more of an ongoing.

[superduperman]

Smallville placing Metropolis in Kansas makes more sense than having it be on the coast. A major city named Metropolis doesn't make any sense on the coasts but in the mid-west where there aren't that many big cities, I can see something like that happening.

[byrd156]

Smallville placing Metropolis in Kansas makes more sense than having it be on the coast. A major city named Metropolis doesn't make any sense on the coasts but in the mid-west where there aren't that many big cities, I can see something like that happening.

I always liked to think that Metropolis was located in Illinois. Metropolis always felt like a east coast city built in the Midwest.

Is there a cannon map for all the city locations? I remember that there was one a while back.

[Ascended]

Which heroes should and shouldn't kill is completely dependent on the hero. I've always seen Batman as a character with a pathological aversion to killing. Wonder Woman on the other hand sees killing as a last resort. Aquaman being a king is often put into situations were is actions more then likely will cause death. Superman is an interesting case to me, in most cases his powers are versatile enough that he doesn't have to resort to lethal force, but some of his antagonist are so powerful, that their very exitance places everyone in danger.

Superman really is an interesting case when it comes to the "no kill" policy.

He's one of the few who still abide by it, for one. Batman, Flash, Spider-Man.....I honestly cant think of any other heroes who matter who refuse to kill when the situation demands it.

With Clark, in my own personal head canon, he doesnt want to kill. Not because he's aware of his own influence (some rabid dogs need to be put down after all) but because he's not a douchebag. And he has the powers, the intellect, and the resources to avoid using lethal force in virtually every situation imaginable.

I also think he understands the value of life. He sees it on a quantum level after all, and he knows that (for example), even though Lex is a complete bag of dicks, there are times when you want him around (Forever Evil, for example) and even if Lex himself is not responsible for saving lives, his technology could be. So for Clark there's an aspect of "playing the long game" too; killing Lex today might mean he never invents the technology Superman needs to save the world tomorrow. And there's always the chance that Lex might be redeemed. And I think that's a great mindset to explore, and while it sort of rubs me the wrong way to see Lex doing this hero thing with the League, if he did become a real hero? Thats all Superman, and that's pretty badass. I'd love to see people say "Oh, Lex Luthor? Yeah that guy used to be the world's greatest villain until Superman taught him to be better." What a message that could be.

As for those villains who are beyond redemption and beyond containment? I'd say Superman would absolutely take their lives. I mean, what good does it do to spare Darkseid's life when it almost certainly means countless beings across the multiverse being enslaved or killed? I dont think Clark puts his own moral purity above lives. But for these guys, is death even an option? I think Superman would absolutely kill someone like Darkseid or Brainiac....if he could. But these types of foes are so beyond us, I dont think its a viable option. You somehow manage to "kill" Darkseid, he just walks out of the underworld (after taking over) like it was some cheap hotel.

[Adekis]

Dude, Superman's views on killing fascinate me, not because he never kills, but because he outgrew never killing. I don't know where you guys are getting the whole "Superman never kills" thing, but that hasn't been true for a very long time.

In the Golden Age he'd kill crooks, soldiers, whatever, like it was nothing. As long as his victims were "bad guys" and he didn't do it in a gory way (which Siegel never would have written anyway) it was okay to kill. Totally morally unreflective, like stories of Thor hammering on giants in the Prose Edda, or Atomic Robo killing Nazis. It wasn't his m.o., but he'd do it without hesitating even though he never talked about it aloud or really thought about it. Honestly, I'd kind of prefer that to some of the navel-gazing we get these days.

Then in the Silver Age he was still totally morally unreflective but in a totally different way. Suddenly it didn't matter whether a crook had a gun to the President's head, killing was never allowed. He stuck with that "Code against Killing" through the Crisis, but there were a couple of really troubling exceptions. Superboy killed Bizarro, a clearly sapient being, and later didn't regret killing Luthor's protoplasm except inasmuch as it negatively impacted Lex's life. But in a world where the protoplasm didn't have Superboy around to kill it, it grew up to be Supergirl- undeniably a hero! Even though the books still maintained that she "wasn't really alive", she was obviously a thinking being with the ability to make decisions for herself! That's "alive" if ever the term needed to be defined in a world where Red Tornado exists, and Post-Crisis Superman himself argued that "cogito, ergo sum" ought to be the determining factor in deciding if something is alive against the Phantom Stranger early on his tenure in Action Comics.

My theory is that since he became Superboy when he was eight, like Bruce Wayne when his parents died, he obeyed, like Bruce, a child's sense of morality, and never outgrew it. Killing is always wrong, no matter what! That sounds like Batman. It also sounds like a child who hasn't really thought all the hypothetical scenarios through. By contrast, the Golden Age, post-Crisis and post-Flashpoint Supermen all first became Superman as grown men, and didn't adhere to a "Code Against Killing" nearly so rigidly. But back to pre-Crisis.

Sometimes his refusal to kill served him well, like in Miracle Monday when refusing to kill Kristen Wells (an innocent woman) was such a good choice that it gave him a wish! But sometimes he was too stubborn for his own good about it. In the end of Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow, Superman kills Mr. Myzptlk in a completely justified act! "His Supreme Hour" isn't labeled as such because Superman broke his moral code and betrayed everything he believed in! Killing Mxy was "His Supreme Hour" because he averted the horrible hellscape that an incomprehensible mind trying to fit humanity's view of "evil" would inevitably lead to! It wasn't a necessary evil that he punished himself for, he did the right thing. But he'd drilled his moral code into himself since childhood, so Superman had to forswear his powers forever. What a dumb decision!

What if he'd given up his powers and next week Mongul attacks and the Justice League can't beat him because they don't have Superman? Sure they'd have Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel, but they're not Superman! His decision was impulsive, reckless, childish and yes, selfish.

Now let's move on to the post-Crisis Superman. He kills Zod and his lieutenants, not out of immediate need as in Snyder's Man of Steel, but because he's scared their promises of vengeance will come to fruition despite their total lack of resources. He initially decides to just keep on keeping on, but after a schizophrenic break (actually caused by Brainiac, not guilt as he thought) he decides to leave Earth forever. As in Whatever Happened, this is a terrible idea for the very reason that Earth needs him! He stops mid-departure to help with the Invasion! crossover, proving my point completely, but then carries out his plans to live alone in deep space. Like an idiot. He meets the Cleric, fights Mongul, etc. and declares that he will never kill again before going home. Never kill. Just like pre-Crisis. But then he meets Doomsday and that plan never to kill goes out the window.

Some later comics have tried to claim that killing Doomsday is somehow okay because he dies doing it. Horse crap. Killing Doomsday was the right thing to do because it was the only timely way to neutralize a threat. He killed again later without dying. He killed Cyborg-Superman after returning from the dead (or meant to, which is the same thing), he killed another General Zod, he killed Imperiex by tossing him into the Big Bang! Killing was never Superman's first resort, but he'd do it if there was no other way to neutralize the threat.

Post-Flashpoint Superman may or may not have killed during the first encounter with Darkseid, but he scared me when he killed "Lexus Devourer of Life" in Action 23 only after discerning that he "wasn't really alive"! It scared me because I thought we'd left that juvenile crap behind in the Silver Age! There is no moral dilemma inherent in killing "Lexus, Devourer of Life"! Fortunately, he killed Doomsday in Doomed and I was satisfied that we had a hero who could do what was necessary once again.

TL;DR: My controversial opinion is that Superman should be willing to kill! Maybe even all the time like Atomic Robo, just to avoid navel-gazing, but definitely if there's no other way, with all of Superman's resources, to neutralize a threat. It should be fairly rare under those criteria, but when it's necessary, there must be NO HESITATION.

Batman, on the other hand, should never ever kill, and it should be treated as a psychological weakness.

[mathew101281]

1. Villains are what make a superhero book good. Heroes that don't have established rogue's galleries of their own either suck outright or cant's keep up a consistent level of good stories in the long term.
2. Heroes that are created in team books almost always make for bad solo heroes, partly because the same traits that make them good in a team dynamic become liabilities in a solo title. In short designing a team hero is intensely different from writing a solo hero.
3. Wonder Woman was practically directionless until Perez wrote her.
4. William Marston did a terrible job at building up the world around Wonder Woman.
5. Superheroes work better when they have a distinctive niche. Superman is really the only good general superhero type. All the others should be more focused. (Green Lantern cosmic stories. Wonder myth, Batman street level/pulp etc.)

[SiegePerilous02]

1. Villains are what make a superhero book good. Heroes that don't have established rogue's galleries of their own either suck outright or cant's keep up a consistent level of good stories in the long term.
2. Heroes that are created in team books almost always make for bad solo heroes, partly because the same traits that make them good in a team dynamic become liabilities in a solo title. In short designing a team hero is intensely different from writing a solo hero.
3. Wonder Woman was practically directionless until Perez wrote her.
4. William Marston did a terrible job at building up the world around Wonder Woman.
5. Superheroes work better when they have a distinctive niche. Superman is really the only good general superhero type. All the others should be more focused. (Green Lantern cosmic stories. Wonder myth, Batman street level/pulp etc.)

Nah, I'd say it was the post-Marston writers in the Silver Age that really screwed the pooch there. In comparison, a lot of the concepts, supporting cast and villains Marston created are the main things that have stuck around all these years, albeit inconsistently.

[Jim Kelly]

Maybe it's because I came into comics because of the 1966 BATMAN television series--which I both loved and hated--but I really don't like this focus on the villains. Especially the ones that dress up in weird outfits and do non-sensical things.

Yes it's fun, but it's boring if that's all the comic books are about. It helps to have a lot of different things going on in a comic book. A steady diet of any one thing exhausts the formula.

[phantom1592]

Maybe it's because I came into comics because of the 1966 BATMAN television series--which I both loved and hated--but I really don't like this focus on the villains. Especially the ones that dress up in weird outfits and do non-sensical things.

Yes it's fun, but it's boring if that's all the comic books are about. It helps to have a lot of different things going on in a comic book. A steady diet of any one thing exhausts the formula.

I prefer a strong focus on villains and their motives.... rather than just a constant stream of only heroes fighting each other....

/eyes marvel books for last decade...