Superman Through the Ages! Forum

okay, two separate issues here. Which first, killing or politics...

Politics then. Firstly, what's his big problem? Sure, sometimes it's subjective and stuff. But in the comics, he carries this to EXTREMES sometimes. Take the Trade Paperback Peace on Earth... he meets a dictator who he KNOWS steals from the people, oppresses them ,and is perfectly willing to open fire on them, just so Superman will hand over all the food to him.
What's Superman do? Melt's the troops guns. Then when the guy points out he has more guns which he will use to shoot the civilians later, what does Supes do?
He flies off like a pansy. Seriously, this is probably the most extreme case where he wimped out. I mean, come on, depose the guy already! Sure, there are many situations which are so complicated, it's best for the Man of Steel to sit back and just await it resolving itself, but surely this wasn't one of them?
The worst part is, said dictator is so cock sure of himself, he tells his troops to open fire on the civilians in plain view of Supes, then acts all "so, what you gonna do about it, huh? Nothin, that's what! hahaha!"
Some clown should just walk in the bank with a gun and declare it the Independant nation of GunRuleia. Then Supes will just fly off again cause he don't take political inteference.


As for the killing bit... It's more of a personal code rather than actually worth much morally. Sorta like a personal challenge, ya know? I mean, he refuses to kill Mongul originally. Later on, Mongul kills millions in Coast City.  Superman refuses to kill Imperiex. Entire planets are destroyed. Superman refuses to kill Villian X, who later escapes and kills another couple of million.
Superman... your bloody personal honor code is costing billions of lives here. I know waking up every morning thinking "another fine day has gone by, and I haven't killed anyone, EVER. I ROCK!" is cool and all, but sooner or later, some kids are gonna come up to you and say, mr. superman, i heard that you could have stopped mongul years ago, but you didn't, and now my parents and family and teachers and friends and... everyone, they're all dead! wah!!!
Then whatcha gonna do, boy?

His logic is along the lines of someone  who spots a man eating tiger and says, "No, it would be a terrible thing to kill such a magnificent animal, or to even place it in captivity, such would break it's spirit!" HELLO! I think normal hunting is cruelty to animals, and perhaps killing a crop destroying animal is a bit overboard, but we're talking threat to innocent human lives here!

Face it, Supes, sometimes we just have to make choices. The life of ONE mass murderer, or the lives of millions of innocent happy care free people. I assure you, when a SWAT sniper pulls the trigger to stop a terrorist about to trigger a bomb which will kill everyone in the building, he doesn't do it because he doesn't value human lives. And I REALLY think that no one would prefer him to be thinking to himself about how he shouldn't kill, and just get on with the job.

In your poll, one of the choices is missing:

"No."

Like the war  that seems to be around the corner I can not easily answer the question "Should Superman Kill?"  A war with Iraq is more than about ending the threat of Sadaam Husseen, it is more than just another front in the war on terrorism and it is more than to free the people of Iraq.  The effects of a war will linger for years and we could be facing the same questions 10 years from now if the process isn't handled properly.

This is the same situation I have over the question Should Superman Kill?  The easy answer is no however as we have learned in the war on Terrorism there are no easy answers.  Terrorists are like bullies sometimes the best thing to do is to knock a bully on their butt and bloody their nose.  Next time the bully will think twice.  Terrorists must be dealt with force not kid gloves otherwise we will continue to see more bombings, killings and senseless violence.  Should Superman kill to prove a point?   No but should the circumstances warrent it - I would actually say maybe and going back to the Supergirl Saga of years past - Superman did kill three ruthless murderers because what punishment could serve to balance out their crime?  None.

I perfer Superman not to kill but to find other means but there are times you have to bloody that bully's nose.

Should Superman kill?

Never.

Yes, times may get bad and things may sometimes seem ugly.  But there's always a better way.

Never. Never. Never.

I'm going to have to join the others here and write in a "NO" vote.

I think Superman's reasoning, at least with Earthly foes, is that he's got an unfair advantage against everybody else alive. Just as it's not okay for him to compete in sports against mere mortals, it's also not okay for him to use his mighty powers to kill beings so much more fragile than he.  He sees it as an abuse of power, really.  For you or me, it may be kill or be killed, for him it's not an even contest.

All this talk recently about the UN has revealed the new shape of the world: we're no longer looking so much at a group of superpowers, but rather one hyperpower with the potential to do whatever it wants.  Thanfully America (at least rank and file Americans) have never been comfortable with the idea of trying to rule the world, but lets face it, if certain other nations had as much power as we do, they'd have crushed us under their boots long ago.

Like America, Superman is in the position of being more powerful than anyone around him.  And also like our nation, he faces some hard questions: on the one hand, how can you despise the cruelty of foreign governments but not lift a hand to stop them?  On the other hand, once you remove one foreign leader by force, where do you stop?  And in trying to rid the world of what you see as bullies, at some point don't you just become the biggest bully of all, trying to remake the world in your image?  

Sometimes the greatest test of power is knowing when to use it and when not to.  It's a delicate balancing act for Superman, and for the nation.  Sure Supes may have a hard time answering the kid who says "why didn't you kill Mongul before he wiped out my planet?", but at the end of the day Superman has to live with himself.  Only he can decide where he will draw the line.  And frankly, killing a villain to prevent the possibility of a future crime is, for him, crossing the line.

Going back to one of your examples, yes the SWAT shooter does the right thing in killing the would-be bomber.  But he does it because there's no way to get close enough to the guy and disarm him before he pushes the plunger.  I'd like to believe most SWAT team members are good people willing to do a job not everyone would.  Yes, they pull the trigger, but at the end of the day, I'm betting they are troubled at having taken anyone's life.

The point is they do it because they have no other options.  Superman has vowed to himself that he will always find an option (and with all his powers, he usually can).  In this case, he can remove the bomb from the terrorist at super-speed before that button gets pushed.  I'm willing to bet any SWAT sharp-shooter, if given an option like that, would take it before shooting someone in the head.

Oops. Right, I can't believe I forgot to add the never kill option on the poll. Anyone know how to edit the blasted thing?

Anyhow, back to discussion. Yeah, I have to agree on the SWAT example, putting Superman there instead. Actually, my view was, yeah, you should always try to find some other way. However, still on the SWAT issue, from what i hear, it's sometimes possible for them to shoot the guns out of their hands. However, this is so risky that, for the sake of the hostages, they go for headshots instead. And, yes, I am pretty sure even hardened snipers sometimes have sleepless nights, and need reassurance they did the right thing.
My question obviously isn't whether he should kill non-threats when there are obviously other better solutions for him. I mean like, if he's powerless from kryptonite, but there's a gun right next to him, should he shoot someone? Or, say, against enemies that have even more power than he does?

In mongul's case, we were dealing with someone who killed every day of his life. And who enjoyed it. And showed no remorse after being defeated, in fact more driven to slaughter than ever. Still... I guess there is SOME truth in the "future possible crimes" thing, but...

nightwing, you say America has no interest in ruling the world? heh heh... patriotic, aren't you? The truth is, America is too smart to want to actually conquer the world and have to be responsible for everything... no. America uses it's Economic and military power to get it's way, and get richer. Check out foreign trade policies sometime... America is an economic bully on an international scale. Military power, America makes the most fuss when smaller nations, even non-hostile ones, start researching new weaponry, or even old weaponry, like nuclear and poison gas and bio weapons. But you can bet your tax dollars are being spent on lots of the above, America just don't allow smaller nations to do it. So...

As for the wiping out of planets and living with himself, that's my point exactly. To Superman, it's not about the result of his actions, it's his own peace of mind. If he had killed Mongul with his bare hands, he would have the memories plague him for the rest of his life. As it is, he more or less has forgotten the fact that mongul killing millions had anything to do with him. Or ignores the connection on purpose. "See, it has nothing to do with Superme, I'm still pure!"

On the other hand, I have to disagree with lastkryptonianhere. I don't like the idea of killing used as a punishment. I see it more as a regretable action, but one that will prevent worse things in the future. I don't think Superman chose death by kryptonite because they deserved it, it was more because they pointed out to him that they WOULD somehow find a way to escape whatever jail or thing he put them in, and would destroy everything. Simply put, he didn't kill out of revenge or emotion or whatever, he killed cause he had NO CHOICE. This is what I'm trying to point out here. No matter how powerful you are, sometimes there's not that many options open to you.

As for terrorism... hmm, personally, I don't think killing terrorists is much of a deterrent in some cases. I mean, they're suicide bombers, they plan to go out in gory painful deaths. I really don't think that lethal injections are worse, but what do I know, I'm not a terrorist. Now, torturing them, that might inflict more than what they're willing to deal with, but I have to say that I REALLY don't approve of torture for any reason.

As for "bloodying the bullies nose"... hmmm... I don't think killing is EVER comparable to bloodying someone's nose, and shouldn't be the way to "teach someone a lesson". BUT, on the merits of JUST bloodying someone's nose... sometimes, yeah, just punching the school bully in the nose is more effective than all the "counselling" or "making friends" you can manage. Though if it works, the two latter solutions are far superior, of course. Unless making friends just means you get two bullies instead of one...

hmm, yeah, so someone tell me how to modify this forum, 'kay? Thanks.

Superman did not kill the 3 criminals in the Supergirl saga because it wass the only punishment to fit the crime. He did so because he believed Zod's rant that they WOULD find a way to regain their powers and then find a way into Superman's universe and start the killing again.

Superman's code against killing can, and has, been stated relatively simply: There is ALWAYS an alternative to killing for one with the power of Superman. My temptation is to vote no based on that. Hoiwever some good poinst have been made as to on whose hands the blood is really on if Superman fails to kill a Mongul & he goes on to slaughter others. I have no easy answer. I guess that Superman should try harder to ensure that killers like Mongul are put away in a place where they can never escape. I would imagine that if Superman was real that he would do just that. However in the fictional world characters like Mongul, the Joker,. etc are just too good to not be brought back.

The Pre-Crisis Superman was so powerful that he didn't need to kill anyone for any reason. He was also much smarter (a million times over) than the current Superman and sloved many problems without even throwing a single punch.

Notice the word usually. But, yeah, as people point out, Superman has a lot of options open to him. Though, lately, Supes seems to limit himself to hitting things for the most part. And not very effectively or economically, since he's probably 100 times stronger than Mongul or Mongal, and has a handful with them anyhow. (Supes had comparable strength even without a decent source of solar energy, and couldn't fly!) And nonetheless ends up tearing up the city to defeat them. Even Krypto comatised Mongul in one bite...
The 3 evil kryptonians raised a valid point though, that his enemies ALWAYS seem to come back and cause more chaos... no matter how brilliant his solution to deal with them. Though in the picture, I was wondering if he was killing them with Kryptonite, or just fooling them and actually using the Green Lantern Battery on them... :}


Oh, and it seems that I can't change the poll now that people have actually voted on it. AND I found out what went wrong with the options... you have to "add the option" for the last option too, it doesn't auto include it. Weird. That means you could have a poll with no options? Anyhow, I originally had a option saying, "Never, ever, even lives are endangered!" I was in fact thinking of making it like, "not even if he lost his powers, a world depended on him, and there was no other choice!", but that was too biased, even for me...

I like it!  I cast my vote for that last one.  These are exactly the kinds of stories I enjoy reading, and Weisinger would have him find a clever surprise solution even if we didn't think there was any way out.

Maybe we should start a new poll?

Am I patriotic?  I like to think so, in the best possible sense.  I'm very glad I live in a country where people of many races, religions and outlooks live together, for the most part, in peace.  That is NOT something you could have said about Afghanistan under the Taliban, in Iraq if you're unlucky enough to be a Kurd, or even in France if you're a Muslim living in the slums with no representation in the government.

I think the word "patriotism" has unfortunately become interchangeable with "jingoism" for too many people.  I do not believe in "my country right or wrong" and I'm certainly not proud of all the policies of administrations past and present with regards to international and internal affairs.  But the fact that I can write that and not worry about the secret police knocking down my door is wonderful, and exceedingly rare.  I may not agree with the anti-war protesters in the streets right now, but by gum I respect their right to protest, and with all the heated rhetoric flying around right now we should all stop and give thanks that we can even have such debates without fear of retribution from the government.

To other matters: whether America is a "bully" depends on how you define "America."  I like to think of America as the citizenry, not the government.  The worst I would accuse most Americans of -- and believe me, it's bad enough! -- is being uninformed and too often indifferent to what their government is doing.  I like to think a majority of people in this country, regardless of their differences on assorted "hot button" issues, are united in their commitment to democratic principles, and in their desire to "live and let live" as a matter of foreign policy.  Unfortunately they are also, as you say, pretty materialistic...and as a result, willing to turn a blind eye to whatever the government does abroad, as long as it keeps that money coming in.



Interestingly, John Byrne (of all people) dealt with this kind of issue in a Fantastic Four storyline.  Galactus attacks the Earth for the umpeenth time and ends up near death.  Reed Richards nurses him back to health and is later put on trial by assorted races from all over the Universe...in their eyes, he has become an accessory to genocide.  Watching him explain himself was fascinating.  This to me was the kind of story Byrne should have been writing for Superman.





I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here.  I can't accept that Superman is responsible for another being's crimes just because he refuses to commit one himself.  Let's not forget here that Superman enjoys no official standing as a law officer.  He is certainly not "licensed to kill."  The SWAT team may have legal clearance to use deadly force, but as citizens, you and I and Superman do not, however right we may think our cause.  (Okay, we may be exonerated for using deadly force if we or those around us are in immediate danger.  But we can't kill someone because he's threatening someone down the street or across town, and certainly not because he "looks like a troublemaker" to us).  Superman has made the personal decision not to kill even to save his own life, and he has no right to kill on any other grounds.  And as we have seen in every incarnation of the character, Superman does not consider himself above the law just because he's more powerful than the mortals who made them.  I imagine he would have a hard time appointing himself judge, jury and executioner on no authority but his own.  As well he should.




It should be remembered that as Byrne constructed the story, Superman would have killed these guys just by leaving them behind.  Through their own actions they had destroyed all life on the alternate Earth, and even ripped away the atmosphere.  If Supes had simply left, they would likely have starved to death long before they could have figured out a way to restore their powers (something that was patently impossible anyway, under the rules of Gold Kryptonite).  Pulling out the lethal Green K was about as "necessary" as shooting a drowning man.




Well, if they're planning to die anyway then let's make sure they do it alone, and not with 3000 other people who had no intention of doing so.  No, I don't think killing them is a "deterrent" in the sense that other terrorists will suddenly think, "Hey, wait a minute, I could get killed doing this!"  But when you've got a mad dog loose do you waste time threatening it with a beating, or do you just shoot it?  The best we can hope for is to show terrorists that we will not take their crap lying down.  For too many years we let them get away with things like the '93 WTC bombing, attacks on US and foreign embassies, and on our servicemen abroad, with only token reponses from us.  We need to let them know that they've woken a sleeping lion, and that every bomb they set off will be answered by 100 from us.

Does that contradict how I said Superman should behave?  Yep. But then I aint' Superman.  :wink:

I've added a "Never" option to the poll.

Time to get out the vote :-)

:s:

8)
I'll reply just for the FUN of it.

[ quote="nightwing"]I'm going to have to join the others here and write in a "NO" vote.

All this talk recently about the UN has revealed the new shape of the world: we're no longer looking so much at a group of superpowers, but rather one hyperpower with the potential to do whatever it wants.  Thanfully America (at least rank and file Americans) have never been comfortable with the idea of trying to rule the world, but lets face it, if certain other nations had as much power as we do, they'd have crushed us under their boots long ago. [/quote]

sorry but the whole world isn't as pessimistic as this, you view america as someone who's responsoble enough to not topple others, what makes you think other countries can't do the same (which is what they're probably doing right now).



Read JLA: New World Order, this issue was discussed with the hyperclan..
Humanity must climb it's own path. and they should catch them if they fall. you're talking about a paranoia about every "stopping a bully" will always come to fascism.. not necessarilly, interfering to save lives in a proper manner is different it different than reshaping the world for peace by violent measns.. get the difference between the two

More "USA = The World" syndrome.



I agree with this though.. I think you should ask the pre-crisis superman about this one who has commited more murders than his post-crisis self.



Agreed. with supes there has always got to be another way.

If anyone asks my opinion on whether he should kill ... NO!

Yup and all those smarters and powers brought his sales down in the early eighties *which you'd probably just pick up your daily fix of batches of Cary bates and Maggin excuses as last resort "prove you you're wrongsies".

Superman should never kill.  For a varity of reasons.
1)what suddely makes him god?  If his code is shattered nothing really keeps him back.
2)prcedent.  Today it is Mongol.  Tmorrow Brainiac, then Toyman, Prankster, Galactic Golem, then luthor, then Donnovan, parasite, Solomon Grundy, see where this is going.
3)many villians have turned good.

as for politics.  Politics is plain stupid period even in the real world.

"Should superman kill? Should he intefere in politics?"

Hello,

Superman does kill.  BUT, I think you meant should Superman deliberately kill?  Then, the answer is no.  

For the politics part, they have tried a little in the past to have Superman go there but it never worked too good.  Superman stops the war (in which he brings in Hitler and Stalline to court).  The biggest problem with that is that the world events just won't follow with comics  :lol: ...

Superman should never take another life.  He is an icon. If Superman starts killing, other heroes may follow. That's why I couldn't bare the post-crisis Supergirl saga.  Superman is supposed to rise above that form of punishment. In my mind, after he executed the trio, Superman's character was irreversibly smudged.

Let's examine the other DC icon- Batman. He's dark, gritty, and to boot some serious psychological problems. Post-Crisis Batman has never killed an adversary. He's thought about and came close but never committed the act. He separates himself from other heroes.What happened to Superman?



The politics angle bugs me. I read the Authority politics take and honestly, I couldn't tell who were the heroes or villians. The gray area was predominant. In fact, the Authority were the villians of their own book. Same goes for the Suicide Squad.  

If Superman tackled certain regimes, it obviously would counteract some agenda even by our own country. Look at the current DC president Lex Luthor. Possibly, the greatest criminal mastermind on the planet and he's the President. What's holding Superman from rushing the White House? Who says he won't?

Superman not killing is like saying a man shouldn't beat a woman.  Now, of course you can't beat a woman BUT - what if this girl just killed your whole family, you come in the house and she's there with the knife?  So,  Superman not killing anyone is a case of saying never say never.  Maybe, just maybe if the sittuation doesn't permit anyother viable solution, Superman just might be cornered into doing so.  The main theme that must be preserved is that Superman doesn't voluntarily kill.  
That's just me though.

Superman should only kill IN THE HEAT OF BATTLE. However, he should not execute anyone. Murder is premeditated.

I like comics because they are not exactly like the real world, i.e. filled with grey areas and necessary evils, etc.  Its also cool that this site is pretty free from heated political discussions...

Therefore, Superman should not kill...

So called "realism" I think defeats the point of a superhero comic in the first place. and companies wonder why kids are flocking to anime. Say whatever you like about the stuff, but the stories are fantasy, romantic, emotional, adventure, and action packed. They're filling the void left by superhero comics who decided to drop their future readership in favor of doing DKR and Watchmen as many times as possible. I don't really go to a Superman comic or cartoon so that I can be told how to feel about 9/11 or have Superman or Batman deal with Law&Order style crime drama.

However, it *can* be intresting as an *exception* to the rule. I adore Alex Ross's Peace on Earth but I sure as hell don't want every Superman story to be that.

I also think modern comicbook writers tend to view cynicism, nihilism, excessive gore, the 'ripped from todays headlines' posterting, and ugly imagry as "realism".

Yes, the comics are not like the "real world" but there has to be at least some sort of rule to make it work.  I think the goal of the comic (like one of Superman) is to be shown the world as it "might be" if he was real.  I'm sure the authors don't write the story and purposely add elements to convince us it isn't real.  For example a car without gas won't funtion.  IF it does, there will be an element that can explain it through Superman's reality.  If this wasn't, then, it might not work for the reader to sort of "travel" with the story.

Should Superman kill? This is an interesting poll (I was gonna answer the "Superman vs. Thor" thread, but that's been done to death).

It's been clearly stated in the original MAN OF STEEL miniseries that Superman was officially made a special deputy of the Metropolis Police Department by the mayor of Metropolis himself. Superman serves to remind us of the higher ideals that we should all strive for in our lives, but he is an officer of the law nonetheless. Superman did indeed kill the original General Zod, Zaora and Quex-Ul, but he did so as the last representative of law and order on a dead planet. And it was Superman's duty as that last representative of law and order to pass sentence on a crime so monstrous as to defy description: the murder of Superboy's "pocket universe" Earth (not just its dominant species, but all life, down to the last insect and blade of grass). And what's worse, the culprits clearly stated that they would find a way to regain their powers and commit this same unspeakable crime again on Superman's adopted homeworld, rendering it as lifeless as Superboy's Earth. Superman did the only thing he could: he performed his duty and executed three mass-murderers as punishment for their crimes.

Should Superman kill? I grieves me to say this, but yes. Superman should kill ... but only as a last resort, only if all other options have been explored and exhausted. In the case of the Phantom Zone Villains, Superman had no other option open to him but to execute them.

I disagree!  The PZ villians had lost their powers.  Yes, they swore they'd regain them, but so what.  Villians always swear such things!  What Superman did was an execution, AND HE SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE THAT!  Superman also killed Doomsday, but I had no problem with that.  SM was in the heat of battle with the brute, and he was injured and weakening fast.  There was only one way to stop him, and SM did it.

You certainly have a right to express your opinion, and I respect that. However, I think what you're failing to see is the fact that the incident involving the Phantom Zone villains was an extreme case. And Superman was, no matter how you slice it, the last living representative of law and order on Superboy's "pocket universe" Earth. That means there was no one else to refer to, or to defer to. Superman was backed into a corner and had to act alone because there was literally nobody else to back him up or to advise him. We're taking about the murder of an entire planet's biosphere (people, animals, plants, insects, sea life, the whole ball of wax). Zod and his two flunkies rendered an entire planet completely lifeless without any thought of remorse whatsoever. How could Superman, as a law enforcement officer, allow these three to live given the scope of their crime (their power level is pretty much irrelivent in this case)? The case of Superman killing Doomsday was much the same as the case of the Phantom Zone villains when one looks at it. In both cases, Superman had no choice but to do what he did. Doomsday represented a threat to life and limb of such magnetude that he had to be stopped ... by any means necessary. The case of the Phantom Zone villains is identical (it doesn't matter if they were on a murderous rampage at the time or not). The deed had already been done. The mass-murder of Superboy's adopted home had already been committed. And I say again, Superman had absolutely no other recourse than to execute his duty as the last representative of the law on that world.

Tri, I must respectfully and humbly disagree with your assessment.

 Superman embodies ideals about human potential and moral character that we all seek to emulate in our lives. Once upon a time I read the story you refer to and could definitely see your point. But now I believe that Superman could've found a way. He could've dumped the three super-criminals on a world with a red sun, he could've simply dumped them on some isolated planet. He could have, but he chose to kill. To commit the one act that he should never have chosen. I hate Byrne for what he did in that issue, it's the only comic I've ever done violence upon (I shredded it). Superman is about preserving life, upholding the good. If he kills, he becomes no better than those idiot goons in the Authority. Now the magnitude, the enormity of the crime committed was staggering, I'll admit. But does sinking to their level, and killing three beings that had permanently lost their powers (and the last I checked, gold K's power strippage was permanent, save in the Generations Elseworlds) really any kind of justice? He should have carted them off to jail, or if you prefer a more realistic punishment, left them on that desolate husk to fend for themselves. But should he himself have comitted the act of killing? No.

 Now mind you, when Superman first burst onto the scene in the late '30s he was a two-fisted social activist who wasn't shy about roughing up or even letting an enemy meet his end. But that was a reflection of a time when people wanted that kind of swift justice. But as the character grew the justice he represented became less of what we wanted, but what we ourselves hoped we could administer. We want to be fair and compassionate, and things like the death penalty aren't compassion, they aren't true justice. If we sink to the level of our enemy, we become him.

 My point is that Superman should always find a way. If you ask me, Byrne knew his tenure on the title was up and decided to perform one last grand showboating stunt to make Superman edgy. But Superman is not Wolverine. Superman doesn't kill. He's better than that.

 -Def.