Are comic book heroes more willing to kill?

[avatarxprime]

Ugh, Avengers Arcade was already terrible and that just makes it all the worse. It's clear the "killer" was a victim and acted in response to obvious (there's videotape evidence of it for crying out loud!) trauma. That entire case is just asking for a plea bargain like you said. Heck, given the prior catatonia and then reaction you'd have the makings of claiming temporary insanity for a defense. Killing Arcade in that situation and the systematic and clearly premeditated actions of Arcade throughout the storyline earlier and not comparable.

This discussion kind of reminds me of how stupid it is in many comics/cartoons will depict supervillains being kept in jail while wearing their costume. You'd think that a major part of holding them would be to strip them of their villainous identity. Of course, these same mediums frequently depict the guards as not only incompetent, but also mocking said clothed supervillains.

Speaking of which, even if someone was declared insane, isn't there something better than continually throwing them in the same asylum they escaped from numerous time in the past? You'd think that someone as untreatable as the Joker would have been thoroughly searched, prevented form having visitors, and locked in solitary forever - not even being put in a room w/ bars or a window.

There was one Justice League or Justice League unlimited episode where they visited an alternate earth where Superman just decided to lobotomize the repeat offender villains using his heat ray... if killing them is out, then this seems like a good alternative.

Agreed that jailing in comics is often depicted as being a rather haphazard (at best) and criminally negligent (at worst) in most instances. However, the forced lobotomy would likely run afoul of the 8th Amendmentexcept in particularly unusual circumstances.

[Gaidin]

I'm not sure what the 8th Amendment has to do with anything except for the supers that specifically work for the government as that typically has to do with punishments sentenced by the government, and can't do anything to stop a vigilante or someone not working for a government. If you want to do something about that charge them with a crime.

[avatarxprime]

I took it as biostem suggesting the lobotomy as an alternative form of punishment to killing someone, in that the death penalty is off the table, given the prior statement about incarceration, so it would seem to be this is concerning supervillains that have already been captured and are being dealt with by the law, hence the 8th Amendment would apply. If that's not how biostem meant it then I agree, the 8th Amendment does nothing to stop a vigilante acting outside the law from lobotomizing someone, although it does not leave them open to being charged by law enforcement.

[Simon_Jester]

Once the heroes have captured them, the question is, why does the law not end the threat permanently? You'd think that the people of Gotham would be going "dammit, DEATH PENALTY!" every time the Joker commits a crime, and you'd think that by now they'd have pressured the state government to allow it, because this guy has a body count in the triple or quadruple digits.

Oh you'd think so but the DC Universe is apparently Bizarro-world when it comes to that sort of thing:

Yes, and in the context of such a world, the heroes themselves can hardly be criticized for holding themselves to the same standard the public does.

Granted the public is being idiotic, but the heroes' jobs would become completely impossible without a reasonable level of public support and cooperation. If the public wants deadly, dangerous, horribly insane evil madmen to be sent to jail and repeatedly escape to cause more crimes... well, that's hardly Batman or Superman's fault.

The heroes, being private citizens who are by nature incapable of administering due process, have every reason to be restrained about willfully killing other people. The law can afford to take its time and ensure that justice is done... so if anyone should be killing the Joker, it should be the courts.

Private in the sense of their true identities but their roles in the world are quite public. They have a greater responsibility than helping cats out of trees or foiling bank robberies. When it comes to the importance of this task, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual. How many more need to die before a line gets drawn?

So it is better, then, to have random unaccountable anonymous people who just decide that so-and-so "needs killing?" Because that's way more responsible than any semblance of due process of law. Right.

Are the general public in comic books supposed to be that incapable of taking care of themselves, that when an evildoer who "should die" is deposited on their doorstep, hogtied, they cannot try him and punish him for his crimes?

And what's with all of the fixation on the Joker in this thread? There are far worse threats than him in that setting that unambiguously warrant a lethal response. A few competent (meaning not hobbled by the plot) SWAT teams could handle him. No pointless trial required.

The reason the Joker is identified is because:
1) Batman is one of the highest profile 'no-kill' heroes, and the Joker is his archnemesis.
2) The Joker is consistently presented as irredeemably evil. We could reasonably hope that a lot of villains might reform, which helps justify not summarily executing them. But him? Not so much.
3) The Joker has repeatedly been caught by Batman, and on multiple occasions handed over to the law and sentenced to a psychiatric institution for the criminally insane, and yet keeps breaking free to cause more destruction and death.

So within his own setting, he's like... super-Ted Bundy or something, there is absolutely zero question of him being anything other than a thoroughly evil, destructive, insane man. The prison system has shown minimal ability to keep him contained. In real life he'd be literally the poster boy for the death penalty, in the sense that there would be posters with his face on him saying "seriously, kill this bastard." He can't possibly be getting out of his crimes by the insanity defense anymore, because he's been repeatedly told by the law that killing is illegal and so on.

And yet for some reason the people of the state in which Gotham is found don't just strap him to a gurney and poison him to death they way that, say, Texas would.

I'm not going to presume to know why. I certainly don't agree with the decision. But there are very real, negative consequences if we say "OK, then let us put the decision of whether or not to kill the Joker into the hands of a random unaccountable guy dressed up as a bat." Or, for that matter, any other 'superheroic' individual in the DC Universe.

That does set a tricky precedent.

What it comes down to is that superheroes' "thou shalt not kill" codes make a lot more sense in the context of their own setting than society seemingly honoring the same code.

Even if the setting can be really fucking stupid about it as shown in the scans_daily example? If that's the "moral" way then call me "immoral."

Yes, and the idea of a superpowered you flitting around with anonymity and no accountability and killing people because they "need killing" and society won't "do what's right" just fills me with delight.

Granted, in some cases it'd take someone with the powers of a Superman to actually carry out the sentence of execution on planet-threatening villains.

And that's been one of my points in this thread. More than a few of these repeat-offenders are impervious to conventional means and superheroes are the only ones in a position to stop them. C'mon, is lethal injection or the electric chair even a possibility with someone like Darkseid? I'd love to see them try.

In which case, assuming they can be imprisoned at all (and usually they can), the logical thing to do is to hold onto them while finding some means of killing them. Lethal injection and the electric chair aren't the only means by which a person may be sentenced to death. The courts can impose a death sentence without specifying the means by which it will be carried out.

So assuming it's possible to even restrain these people, they could still be charged with "crimes against humanity" and executed.

But even so, if society is not willing to put such people to death as part of the due process of law, why should we be surprised if random vigilantes object to doing so on general principles?

It's not surprise so much as contempt in my case. Contempt for their inflexibility and their unwillingness to do what needs to be done. When you're dealing with a tumor you don't remove it from one part of your body and place it in another. You excise it completely. It's not moral to let that fester and metastasize.

Why am I having so much trouble trusting your surgical skills?

Firstly, I could care less about what a broken system that allows maniacs to roam free considers to be legal or illegal. It's hardly flawless or beyond criticism.

Therefore, you yourself consider your own opinion to be above the law.

If powerful people act on that attitude in a 'superheroic' setting, it is likely that they will start committing very questionable acts. The very idea of superheroism* is based on the idea of private individuals who act as vigilantes to enforce social norms. That's why they're out on the streets fighting criminals, rather than being out on the streets trying to overthrow governments and establish a 'benevolent' super-dictatorship.

*(Unless we turn it into some kind of cosmic-police story like the Green Lantern Corps)

If you decide that your judgment about who should live and who should die trumps the social norms, then you've basically assumed dictatorial power... in which case it's entirely possible that you're going to end up cast as the villain in this round.

Secondly, they're vigilantes - what they do falls outside of the law regardless. I'm arguing for how things should be not how they are. You can cite all of the laws and legal precedents you wish but it will not change the fact that I believe that certain heroes have been far, far too lenient (to an appalling degree) with certain individuals who deserve to die. So no, clinging to the law will not get you far with me.

Yeah, but it might well get them far with the courts, which might matter since they themselves don't want to get hauled into jail for killing the wrong person.

While it's true that comic book heroes often do things that would be illegal even for a vigilante acting in good faith, most of them have strong incentives to stay on the good side of the law. So a show of good faith goes a long way- like, y'know, not arbitrarily deciding to act as judge, jury, and executioner.

For the ones that don't, well, at that point you're basically saying you are above the law because you're Superman and no one can hurt you. In which case, yeah, that sort of action again tends to lead in villainous directions.

The very fact that you use that scans_daily link to support your argument instead of viciously ripping into the blithering idiots showcased within says it all. These pathetic fools are staging an Occupy-style protest for a sub-human who would gleefully butcher them all. If they believed that Batman had killed the Joker then they should have pinned a medal to his chest not opposed him.

Now see, I don't actually disagree- but the point remains that even if you think those people are stupid, you don't have to live with them. Batman does. If he lives in a world where killing brutal, irredeemable criminals is that strongly opposed by the public... maybe he should be giving them what they want, rather than deciding he is above their laws just because he considers them stupid.

Maybe people will learn from the mistake if the lesson is repeated enough.

And why the hell are you putting the words "bad guy" in quotation marks? These people are pretty unambiguously evil. Are you really so dispassionate that you can't recognise that fact?

Which people? It's not that we can't easily identify brutal, vile recidivists in the DC and Marvel continuities. But where do we draw the line? Does a private citizen start killing people in revenge for acts that happened long ago even if no similar acts have happened since? Or only while they're in the middle of a new atrocity? In which case you could use your same argument to criticize them for putting innocents at risk, when this brutal criminal is obviously going to try again reflexively.

How do they formulate this decision that X is an evil man who should die? Is there an algorithm? Do they check how many 'likes' and 'dislikes' he has on Facebook? Is listening to the voices in your head an acceptable solution?

Oh, but it is a war. There's often this misconception that superheroes are merely glorified "aid workers" or "emergency personnel" but that's incorrect. They're not firefighters or EMTs. The scope and scale of their powers proves that to be an oversimplification. They can do so much more than be "good Samaritans making citizens arrests writ large." They're soldiers on the front-line of a perpetual conflict.

That's, like, your opinion...

Batman considers what he does to be a "war on crime." He may prosecute that war in an inefficient manner but his terminology is correct. Following that line of thought, the Justice League is undoubtedly an army. One could argue that with the technologies and resources at their disposal that they are an N.G.O. superpower. So what do you do with an unaffiliated army? You put them under the command of an international governmental body (some new branch of the United Nations devised for this context) and put them to work. Give them the proper training but put them to work. There should be no further debate on that score.

What are you going to do for an encore, call for something like the Registration Act from the Marvel setting?

I mean, by your own logic, 'unaligned' superhumans are 'enemy soldiers' who should be killed or imprisoned or forced to join the New Superworld Order.

Except in comic book worlds, societies have access to super tech themselves with which they can deal with most superpowered threats (once they've been subdued), heck pre-nu52 Metropolis had Science Police that used super tech to deal with supervillains, why more polities didn't develop similar organizations to deal with badies is unknown, the issue really seems to be that the people in these worlds just don't care enough. Now out of universe it's the fact that they want the "real world" + supers rather than a realistic world with supers.

It's interesting that you sidestepped the Darkseid/similarly-powered individuals issue entirely (because it would invalidate your point). But thanks for reinforcing just how poorly constructed these settings are, nonetheless.

Uh, no, he didn't sidestep it, and it doesn't invalidate anything he said. You're full of shit and self-righteousness, a potent mix if ever there was one.

See, the point is: suppose you've captured Superman's evil twin. He's invulnerable, immensely strong. Assume that somehow you've managed to imprison him, because otherwise this conversation is moot. Sentence him to death.

Finding a way to kill him is a challenge, but not an insurmountable one. Superman faces threats that can kill him on a regular basis- not every day, but often enough. You may have to call in a favor with another superbeing, contact aliens on another planet, whatever, but means exist to make these things happen.

[avatarxprime]

Back on the topic of the Joker, here's an interesting story for you all to digest regarding his powers of charisma and Teflon nature. In Death in the Family, after brutally killing Jason Todd (don't worry, he gets better) Joker manages to secure diplomatic immunity for himself, along with some kind of forgiveness for his past crimes, from Iran (IIRC, I don't feel like digging out the comic to verify the specific country) and goes on to use his new access to attempt to kill everyone in the UN building with Joker gas. He is foiled by an in disguise Superman who inhales and disposes of the gas. For all of these new crimes he suffers no real consequence, in story lines taking place after this event he is not treated as an international terrorist and there is seemingly no reaction from the international community.

Given that in nu52 (or honestly all version of Batman from after this happened) this particular story line is canon (the death of Jason Todd), that means in all version of comicbook Joker the man managed to convince a nation to make him a state representative and get diplomatic immunity handed to him (which needs to come from the accepting nation, in this case the US) even though he is an acknowledged mass murderer!

[mr friendly guy]

What bugs me is the strict way the no kill rule is enforced to the point where self defence is ruled out.

I mean if the Punisher and the Joker were in the same universe, and this universe had similar self defence rules to ours, then here is what could theoretically happen. The Punisher stalks the Joker and ignores police warnings to stay away and let the cops handle it. Provokes a confrontation, but initially doesn't use lethal force. When the Joker starts using lethal force, the Punisher can then kill the Joker and claim self defence and be acquitted. Sure he could have rigged the confrontation such that legally it gave him the excuse he wanted, but at the end of the day if the law is all that matters, then he has the law on his side. No doubt the law in DC universe is even more bullshit than in the Marvel universe as the Punisher was at one stage sentenced to death for his killings (which weren't in self defence but part of his war on crime).

I can understand "letting the courts decide," but not even defending yourself with lethal force is stupid. Unless its a villain of the week then its ok to kill them. If its a long standing mass murderer, no can do.

Edit - what is interesting is IMO it seems heroes are more willing to kill now. This means we can have a few directions they take, ranging from the kill in self defence part, to outright taking the law into their own hand, which leads to interesting conflicts and stories.

[Adrian McNair]

Since it seems that I'm being dogpiled (isn't there a rule against this sort of thing or is that just limited to News and Politics) I've decided to take this argument to the PM system. Regardless of how correct the two of you think you are, bombarding me with more points than I have the time or inclination to resolve does not suddenly ensure that you've won. So we're going to take this slowly and resolve the bullshit (particularly Simon's ridiculous presumptions about me. Thanks for prejudging someone you've never met by the way). You can expect my replies soon.

[Simon_Jester]

Adrian, the only 'assumptions' I'm making about you are that you're self-righteous and full of shit, and frankly those are both things I deduced from your posts, at least on this issue. Not things I 'assumed' about you in advance.

I didn't prejudge you. I postjudged you.

Anyway, most of my post CAN be compacted into a few shorter points if you have a problem with the full thing.

1) Like it or not, superhumans who want to keep their role as society's defenders need to accept society's basic normative rules about how to deal with their enemies. Otherwise they risk being harassed by the law, despised by the public, and forced to make questionable compromises to stay in operation.

2) Indeed, this is exactly the road many supervillains go down. They start thinking they know better than society what really ought to be done, so they are entitled to make decisions society disapproves of. The next thing they know, they've got superheroes pounding on their doors trying to arrest them for something they obviously did for the greater good of science/revenge/racial justice/whatever.

3) As a corollary to (1) and (2) I don't trust you (or a hypothetical superhero) to be able to decide who lives and who dies. While we can all think of SOME person or persons we think "need killing," we're never realistically going to agree on which ones if it's just a decision we make on the spur of the moment.

4) Therefore, if we're going to deem it acceptable to kill people for being very bad, then we need that to be reflected in the lawbooks, not just in the private opinions of random people who happen to have the power to do it. Moreover...

5) YOU, personally, have adopted this "this is war" attitude that you are using to justify and fuel your own position. The problem is, not everyone thinks of it that way. A lot of the comic readers don't and a lot of the comic book characters don't either. And there would be consequences to accepting your "this is war" model, consequences you haven't fully realized, like the probable fate of unaligned superhumans in a world where there's a militant organization that wields superhuman powers to routinely, summarily kill anyone 'bad enough' who uses them for purposes that organization opposes.

Or, for that matter, the probable fate of perfectly ordinary people under the authority and the eye of a group that seem tailor-made to degenerate into super-fascism.

[Havok]

I'm still having trouble digesting the OP's assertion that Captain America would have any qualms about killing the soldiers of an invading army bent on conquering and enslaving the human race.

Fucking hello.

[Adrian McNair]

*SNIP*

Since I've ripped your points to pieces in that PM I sent you but which you unfortunately failed to respond to (it must be your ego which demands we keep things going here), you've got me curious about several things. I've already elaborated my position. You are diametrically opposed to that position. Neither of us will ever shift positions. Now, we could argue this ad infinitum but what would that accomplish? It would be futile. I'm certain that you have better things to do. So my questions are this:

1) What's your position on this whole issue?
2) How would you conduct yourself if you were superhero in the Marvel or DC universe? Would you ever kill?
3) What would you do if you were the President of the United States (where most of the metahuman action usually is) in either universe?

[Simon_Jester]

Two posts, one to address this very logical observation on Havok's part, and one to address Adrian's chemical imbalance.

I'm still having trouble digesting the OP's assertion that Captain America would have any qualms about killing the soldiers of an invading army bent on conquering and enslaving the human race.

Fucking hello.

I know, right? I mean, seriously, if I had to rate Marvel superheroes by willingness to kill members of an invading alien army, at the top of my list would be the Hulk: giant green ragemonster will kill anyone, let alone alien invaders. Right below him would be Iron Man, who routinely flies around in a suit armed with deadly weapons. Or Thor, who's a warrior from a warrior culture.

Bottom of the list would probably be the Fantastic Four, or Spiderman or (some of) the X-Men or something: people whose outlook is more or less civilian and whose powers allow them to act nonlethally.

Cap would be somewhere in the middle. Sure, it's well within his power set to fight people without killing them, but as you imply, he's a soldier.

I know he's supposed to be the moral compass of the Avengers' universe, but I think they've derailed the character from his own background many times to keep him in that role.

[Simon_Jester]

Aaaand now for the loopy stuff.

In THIS post I am not addressing your PM, because I would like to take some more time to look it over and respond. Also because you said things in there which you might regret when your head cools. I would like to give you a chance to recover your dignity by keeping the conversation on a more levelheaded plane.

*SNIP*

Since I've ripped your points to pieces in that PM I sent you but which you unfortunately failed to respond to (it must be your ego which demands we keep things going here)...

Adrian, I checked the times. Your PM arrived at 2:30 in the morning where I live. I typed my summary post around, oh, 2:00 a.m. I didn't get round to hitting 'Submit' until 3:15 or so. As it happened, I had a number of other things on my mind at the time, which is why I didn't stop to go "wait, is it possible Adrian sent me a PM on this very subject in the past 45 minutes," and just hit 'Submit' on my previously typed post.

I then pretty much went straight to sleep, because it was three o' clock in the morning, rather than writing one of my usual large replies to your PM. Which to be perfectly frank I did not even notice... because it was three o'clock in the morning and I was tired. My wife was even more tired; I hope you can forgive me for not staying up an hour or so after she went to bed over this.

But apparently, in the mind of Adrian, this kind of action might signify ego and/or cowardice on my part. I guess I'm going to stay egotistical and cowardly, because it sure strikes me as better than the alternative...

This sort of thing is why I try not to get too wound up about the exact timing of other people's posts and replies to me. It can make one look very obnoxious and/or hysterical.

...You've got me curious about several things. I've already elaborated my position. You are diametrically opposed to that position. Neither of us will ever shift positions. Now, we could argue this ad infinitum but what would that accomplish? It would be futile. I'm certain that you have better things to do...

This implies a very interesting attitude on your part. See, your basic position is that superheroes should kill various nasty supervillains. Over the course of your posts here, you have developed this idea from 'superheroes should kill supervillains' into 'superheroes should join UN-organized teams that kill supervillains.'

Meanwhile, I have been pointing out that there are a number of reasons for superheroes to NOT kill supervillains, among them:
-That they are mostly private citizens who have no legal standing to do so.
-That they rely on the support of a public that seems very, very, very anti-death-penalty.
-That many of them may be mindful of the risk that they might start killing the wrong people.
-That some of them may be mindful of the risk that they might start allowing innocents to die for a perceived 'greater good.'
-That both these risks are problems, because the people taking the risk might be wrong and might kill people for nothing... and that one way to help insure against the risk is to adopt a strict policy of no killing, or at least a strong policy of no killing that is seldom if ever broken.

Now see, I'm not married to this position, but I felt like pointing all these things out at various times. But somehow in your mind, that translates as "we can never convince each other and are diametrically opposed."

I think that most of this polarization is in your brain, not mine. On the one hand, to you there is this massive, righteous crusade against supervillains who MUST BE KILLED KILL KILL! And to you, apparently there is no chance of persuading you that your views are excessive, or altering them in any significant way, because you yourself say that you (and me) can never convince each other and are diametrically opposed.

You see me as somehow being the embodiment of the "pacifist run" mindset in which no killing is ever acceptable. Which is an amusing farce if you, say, look at my past posts on the death penalty. But no, you have become convinced that I (and you) can never convince each other and are diametrically opposed.

Where's all this black-and-white thinking coming from, anyway? It seems awfully limited.

So my questions are this:

1) What's your position on this whole issue?
2) How would you conduct yourself if you were superhero in the Marvel or DC universe? Would you ever kill?
3) What would you do if you were the President of the United States (where most of the metahuman action usually is) in either universe?

1) I believe I have adequately outlined the core of my position, in both my previous post to you, and in this post.

2) I do not know; it would depend heavily on who I was fighting, and where, and what they had done, and how much of a threat they posed to me personally. Imagine the differences resulting from being a member of the Green Lantern Corps, versus being the Incredible Hulk, versus being Superman, versus being Professor X.

All those characters have different kinds of powers and options at their disposal, different levels of control over the situations they find themselves in, and different levels of support structure available to ensure their enemies don't come back to threaten them or the public again.

Professor X arguably would never really need to kill except in bizarre circumstances. The Hulk probably can't avoid killing because he lacks the self-control.

The Green Lantern Corps is a law enforcement organization, with a widely recognized mandate and a wide variety of nonlethal ways to restrain enemies, both temporarily and permanently. By contrast, Superman is a lone vigilante who may lack the means to do so.

3) Were I elected president, I would direct the Department of Justice to prosecute supervillains to the full extent permitted by the law, should I find them arrested under federal jurisdiction. Prosecutors would be told to use their own discretion in seeking the death penalty, but not to shrink from seeking it in cases of villains who have a track record of heinous offense. A list of federal crimes potentially punishable by death is listed here. Examples are numerous and basically every high-profile supervillain has committed crimes on this list. Most of them have done so many times.

If a security response involving superhumans were required to address national security concerns, I would seek to assemble two organizations in parallel.

One would be a superhuman law enforcement organization, probably working with the FBI, whose mandate would be to police 'super-crime' within American borders. They would not necessarily be called on to go after people like the Joker (who's a job for a good SWAT team) or Lex Luthor (who's a job for someone who's good at enforcing racketeering and corporate crime laws). But they would come in very handy when the Atomic Skull is trying to burn down the White House or whatever.

They would operate under the same guidelines for use of lethal force that the FBI do.

The other organization would be a superhuman military organization, whose job is specifically to fight foreign invasions and armies, particularly ones that have superhuman capabilities. They'd be responding to hordes of mutants from Atlantis, demons from Hell, aliens from Andromeda, anything that doesn't come from American soil and/or doesn't take place on American soil.

They would operate under the same rules of engagement that the military does, but pursuant to the spirit of the Posse Comitatus Act would not be entitled to act as law enforcement on American soil except in times of national emergency.

I would not tolerate a UN organization of super-killers deciding to execute American citizens on American soil for crimes committed against other American citizens... which would seem to be within the remit of your desired international super-teams. On the other hand, I would happily encourage my national superhuman military organization to work with international teams to repel invasions and resist aggression by superhuman or paranormal forces.

[I would also in the same spirit be ending things like drone strike programs, which present many of the same moral difficulties]

[Sidewinder]

I'm still having trouble digesting the OP's assertion that Captain America would have any qualms about killing the soldiers of an invading army bent on conquering and enslaving the human race.

Fucking hello. :lol:

Then you're fortunate to have MISSED the 'Captain America' comics published in the late 90s and early 00s- particularly those John Ney Rieber wrote, which emphasize that Captain America is NOT a killer, to the point of parody!

I mean, seriously, if I had to rate Marvel superheroes by willingness to kill members of an invading alien army, <snip> Cap would be somewhere in the middle. Sure, it's well within his power set to fight people without killing them, but as you imply, he's a soldier.

I know he's supposed to be the moral compass of the Avengers' universe, but I think they've derailed the character from his own background many times to keep him in that role.

One of my major complaints against Marvel and DC Comics, is the fact they consistently fail to find a credible "middle road" between a supervillain's "Kill 'em all, let Satan sort 'em out!"- something even the Punisher succumbs to, in Garth Ennis' hack writing- and "lawful stupid." The success of "extreme" heroes, such as Jean-Paul Valley (Azrael/Batman) and Ultimate Captain America, are a reaction against the "lawful stupid" pigeonhole that comic book publishers keep shoving their heroes into.

[mr friendly guy]

I'm still having trouble digesting the OP's assertion that Captain America would have any qualms about killing the soldiers of an invading army bent on conquering and enslaving the human race.

Fucking hello.

Then you're fortunate to have MISSED the 'Captain America' comics published in the late 90s and early 00s- particularly those John Ney Rieber wrote, which emphasize that Captain America is NOT a killer, to the point of parody!

Ok, it seems its that time for more scans. Taken from Avengers volume 1 #345


The Shi'ar intrude into our solar system with their stargates which destabilize our sun due to technobabble blah blah. The AVengers investigate and rescue a group of scientists who got caught up in the solar flare only to attacked unprovoked by the Shi'ar because they could be potential witnesses to the movement of the Shi'ar fleet. The Captain initially refuses to surrender, and Sersi threatens to kill them. Now the following is Captain America's hilarious response when he found out.



That's right. He berates them for threatening to kill enemy soldiers who initially refused to surrender after intruding on Earth space, destabilising our sun and attacking an Avengers rescue team unprovoked. This was of course the 90s. I suspect Cap is willing to overlook this now, hence why I asked are heroes these days more willing to kill.

[Adrian McNair]

Aaaand now for the loopy stuff.

In THIS post I am not addressing your PM, because I would like to take some more time to look it over and respond. Also because you said things in there which you might regret when your head cools. I would like to give you a chance to recover your dignity by keeping the conversation on a more levelheaded plane.

*SNIP THE REST*

I regret precisely nothing that I wrote in that PM and I would appreciate if you'd actually respond to it (at a more convenient time for you than 2 AM in the fucking morning. Seriously, why would prioritise time on this board over sleep? Seriously? I didn't ask you to burden yourself in that way) since I'd prefer to engage with you on a one on one basis rather than dragging things out in this thread. I was quite calm when I wrote it. It's clear that there are some serious misconceptions that need to be cleared up (your false assessment of my mental state for instance).

[Tsyroc]

The Shi'ar intrude into our solar system with their stargates which destabilize our sun due to technobabble blah blah. The AVengers investigate and rescue a group of scientists who got caught up in the solar flare only to attacked unprovoked by the Shi'ar because they could be potential witnesses to the movement of the Shi'ar fleet. The Captain initially refuses to surrender, and Sersi threatens to kill them. Now the following is Captain America's hilarious response when he found out.


That's right. He berates them for threatening to kill enemy soldiers who initially refused to surrender after intruding on Earth space, destabilising our sun and attacking an Avengers rescue team unprovoked. This was of course the 90s. I suspect Cap is willing to overlook this now, hence why I asked are heroes these days more willing to kill.

It's even more hilarious if you start thinking about the people he's yelling at. Hercules, Sersi, Gilgamesh, the Black Widow, the Black Knight, and Mockingbird have all certainly killed people in the past. Some of them a great deal of people, but now that the entire planet is possibly under threat he doesn't even like the idea of threatening to kill someone in order to stop that threat. WTF?

After Iron Man convinced Cap to let Wolverine into the New Avengers I think he quickly became much more realistic about killing. At least when it comes to ninjas and Skrulls.

[avatarxprime]

I haven't read the issue, but from that sequence as posted I think Captain America would have preferred them just straight up subduing them (without the death threat) same as they always do with bad guys. Their past history of conflicts certainly backs up his view that they can always just beat back the baddies and stop them without having to kill them (or even make the threat). I think his big issue was that they immediately went from surrender to die and he doesn't want the Avengers thinking that way, using lethal force, regardless of the situation, should be the last option after every other one has been exhausted.