Are comic book heroes more willing to kill?

[mr friendly guy]

One of the staples of Super hero comics is that for the most part the heroes do not kill. There are exceptions, like the Punisher. However there was a storyline where he was executed for murder (although he had faked his death etc). However for the most part any time the heroes went to kill there was usually a fall out.

Take for example Avengers vol 1 #347. At the end of the mega crossover Operation Galactic Storm we find that the Kree Supreme intelligence orchestrated the war between the Kree and the Shi'ar. This war no doubt kill a lot on both sides before the Shi'ar ended it by creating the Nega Bom which killed like 99% of the Kree population. * The Supreme Intelligence was quite happy with this arrangement because the survivors would be mutated and will evolve eventually into Super Kree. According to his reckoning anyway. The Supreme Intelligence was either totally bad or ridiculously far sighted and immoral to boot.

A group of Avengers led by Iron Man including Thor (Eric Masterson version), Sersi, Vision, Black Knight, Hercules and Wonder Man went and apparently executed the Supreme Intelligence. Opposing them was Captain America who gave some moralising speech blah blah blah. At the end of the day the Avengers were split with Cap leaving it.

Now as a teenager reading that comic I felt it was powerful. It showcased the different moral perspectives between the Avengers. Fast forward to the modern day and what do we have.

Well we have

1. Ms Marvel kills lots of super Skrulls in the Secret Invasion. I don't think anyone gives a shit any more. Not even Captain America who should.
2. Superman decapitates Metallo in the cartoon Justice League Doom. Granted at this stage he is more robot than man, so we stick with the "lets not kill living things" rule but still...
3. It turns out Nick Fury has been killing lots of earthly threats behind the scenes. Oh and he engages in torture as well. But he didn't do in on American soil Earth, so its ok. I am not kidding. That was his argument on why the Geneva Convention doesn't apply.

Now I don't have a problem with say Batman killing the Joker, nor do I have a problem with Ms Marvel killing Skrulls invading Earth. Although I might add if a Super hero keeps on killing the villains, they will very soon run out of a Rogues gallery. I do think its an interesting observation that comic book heroes are now going down a darker route, which might be reflective of what is now acceptable in American society (the prevalence of torture porn in fiction reflecting America's oh so awesome pressured interrogation).

Is this a newer trend with Super heroes? In which case how would writers explain in universe why certain recurring villains just get imprisoned but won't get killed, while villains of the week (like the Skrulls) gets iced.

* the Kree destruction would eventually be retcon so they are back into existence.

[Ahriman238]

If by 'new' you mean since the late 80s-early 90s, sure.

The thing is, there are lots of people who cleave to the idea that comics books are still basically for kids and lots of people who demand they and their genre be taken seriously, which to writers means dark and serious stories.

Which is how we end up with 'darker and edgier' interpretations of beloved characters coughManofSteelcough or new and dark characters. The Punisher was a ways ahead of the trend, but say, Deathlok, Solo, Venom, V, Cable and how many others?

[mr friendly guy]

Its not so much that super heroes have killed, its that its becoming more accepted "in universe" for them to do so. The problem with this isn't so much that "OMG you killed the villain, you are a bad bad man," its that you will run out of a enemies if you applied the kill them rule consistently, or people would ask why does namely bad alien invader gets killed but mass murdering psychopaths are just stuck in Arkham. I am interested in how people would try and explain that away "in universe".

[Iroscato]

If I may speak as a relative outside observer (barely read comics, but am an avid CBM watcher), the idea of comic book heroes occasionally killing, whether through accident, or as a result of exhausting all other options, doesn't bother me too much. I think one of the critical factors for me personally is whether they go out of their way to do it or not. Take the ending of Batman Begins, for example. Essentially, Batman does kill Rha's Al Ghul, by deciding not to save him. Throughout the last act, he tried desperately to reason with him, asking for more time to save Gotham through his own methods, and when he realised the only way he was going to stop was by dying...he let it happen. He was justified in that act IMO, because at that moment his other options were more or less exhausted. He never intended to kill him from the off.

The more recent Man of Steel also makes sense to me. In the short-term, Zod was going to murder a family, in the long-term he was going to annihilate humanity. Kal-el killed him, stopped a madman, saved the entire planet, and was deeply traumatised by what he had done. It was through this act of murder that may perhaps lead to him vowing to never kill again. Or maybe in the next movie he'll just rip out Lex Luthor's spine and beat him to death with it, it remains to be seen. But again, we see a similar process of Kal pleading with Zod to stop his plans, before resolving to stop him, and then in the heat of the moment being forced to kill him.

In any case, from what I understand of the early days of Batman and Superman, they killed with fairly alarming regularity, and it was during the 'Golden Age' that they calmed down a bit and used other methods to stop their enemies. Nowadays the trend is being reversed, and heroes are moving back to more dark territory, at least occasionally. If I've got this wrong, by all means correct me, I'm just musing on my limited comic book knowledge.

[Rogue 9]

What I want to know is why Captain America should have a problem with killing actual alien invaders in the process of invading. At the end of the day he's supposedly a soldier, after all; he didn't go through a World War without killing any Nazis.

[mr friendly guy]

What I want to know is why Captain America should have a problem with killing actual alien invaders in the process of invading. At the end of the day he's supposedly a soldier, after all; he didn't go through a World War without killing any Nazis.

1. Because he had a problem killing a mass murderer (the Supreme Intelligence) who caused the death of trillions of sentient, and who blatantly admitted to doing so. Cap even tried to talk Iron Man and like minded Avengers out of it. Heck Scarlet Witch blatantly said we do not kill no matter the provocation.

2. Now its commonly accepted that Cap's perspective changed when he was thawed out from his WWII personae because of <death of Bucky, insert whatever reason you want here> to match the Silver Age norms at the time. So bringing up Colden Age Cap's actions and viewpoints isn't really relevant to Silver age and modern age Captain America.

[mr friendly guy]

Ok if people aren't getting it, I bring you this scene from one of my favourite Avenger's issues which I still have the comic copy as well as a pdf one.



This is what I mean by Cap not willing to kill and the argument between the two groups of Avengers to this day remains powerful and why this is one of my favourite moments in Avengers lore.

But then these days the Avengers are willing to have Ex Nihilo and Abyss on their team even though those two just tried to genocide the Earth and kind of likely killed people with their attack (its not clear from the image), and Cap goes "cool."

[Borgholio]

Yeah, we're The Avengers! We don't do stuff like this...

What...the...fuck?

[mr friendly guy]

Yeah, we're The Avengers! We don't do stuff like this...

What...the...fuck?

This type of moralising was common when I started reading comics again in the 90s. Moreover I still feel its prevalent in DC comics for the most part, with some exceptions. Like the GL corps are now allowed to kill since the war with the Sinestro Corps.

It sort of ingrained into me the "superheroes don't kill" meme, which seems to have gradually gone out the window.

[Tsyroc]

When the Avengers restarted after they had been disbanded for awhile Tony Stark had to talk Captain America into letting Wolverine in because he felt they needed a guy who had an easier time killing because Tony felt that they might have prevented some of their recent problems if they hadn't been so resistant to killing. Cap even called Wolverine a murderer, but he was in and it wasn't too long before the whole group was taking on a whole bunch of ninjas.

When they created the Mighty Avengers after the super hero registration act, they brought in Ares as a combo Thor/Wolverine. So at some point they decided that The Avengers needed someone who is just that much more violent. Although, it seems really odd that an Asgardian storm god and an American super soldier would have issues with killing when necessary. Heck, with the way Thor tosses that hammer around you'd think that he would have to work really hard not to accidentally kill someone.

[Adrian McNair]

The traditional superhero stance against killing or, more specifically, being against killing in any situation (even that of self-defence) has always rung hollow to me. Out of universe it's always been nothing more than a transparent ploy to maintain sales (there can't be any thrilling superheroics if all of their enemies are dead, after all). In-universe it's just too inflexible and lacks nuance. For me, the first and foremost duty of a superhero should be the protection of the innocent not of all life. It's an important distinction that many of the mainstream superheroes miss. They hold the perpetrator and the victim in the same regard. That somehow the unrepentant, superpowered serial killer/rapist is in the same league as the law-abiding citizen. Unlike them I do not believe that all life is precious. If an incredibly powerful superhuman psychopath with a known track record of mass-murder is rampaging through a city and it's a choice between the bad guy and the innocents in his or her path then there should no dilemma as to what should be done. You put the maniac down and you pick the innocents every time. This isn't the real world where the guilt of criminals is up for debate and things are more ambiguous. Many of the supervillains that the heroes face are irredeemable monsters. And yet they keep locking them up in useless holding facilities that only hold them for so long. Rehabilitation usually isn't a possibility so via this approach they're allowing these degenerates to effectively get away with murder repeatedly.

Now, I'm not saying that superheroes should jump off the deep end and kill every criminal out there. If they're merely dealing with an ordinary gang or miscreant then by all means incapacitate them. But if the threat becomes sufficiently severe then lethal force should definitely not be off the table. You can only be so moral before your principles start to become a liability and do more harm than good.

Man of Steel might have its issues (I, for the record, enjoyed it for the most part) but the killing of Zod was not of them. This version of Superman acted in the interests of the greater good and it was a refreshing change. Unfortunately this will be undone in the sequels where Superman will refuse to end the threat in the most efficient manner (they've gone on the record as saying that this film is where Superman develops his trademark anti-killing sentiment). The mob of hardcore DC-purists baying for the scalps of Snyder and Goyer might disagree but I've never found their herd-like arguments to be convincing (especially the ones who laughably refer to the act as a "murder" even though "suicide by cop" would be more appropriate). The fact that they don't have a single convincing non-lethal solution for dealing with Zod just reinforces it.

I also read that Avengers storyline, mr friendly guy (If I'd been there I would have sided with Iron Man, by the way). Was any explanation given as to how the Kree Empire was able to rebound from that? Was it just one big, continuity-defying retcon? I'd imagine that having the vast majority of their population wiped out would bring their status as a galactic power to a screeching halt. Yet in the Annihilation, Annihilation: Conquest, War of Kings/Realm of Kings and Thanos Imperative events the Kree Empire somehow still exists.

[mr friendly guy]

I also read that Avengers storyline, mr friendly guy (If I'd been there I would have sided with Iron Man, by the way). Was any explanation given as to how the Kree Empire was able to rebound from that? Was it just one big, continuity-defying retcon? I'd imagine that having the vast majority of their population wiped out would bring their status as a galactic power to a screeching halt. Yet in the Annihilation, Annihilation: Conquest, War of Kings/Realm of Kings and Thanos Imperative events the Kree Empire somehow still exists.

I would have sided with Iron Man as well.

The Kree rebounding thing. Well according to wikipedia Captain Marvel (Genis) rebooted the universe (issue not cited) and the Kree reappeared. Yeah I know.

[Broomstick]

In any case, from what I understand of the early days of Batman and Superman, they killed with fairly alarming regularity, and it was during the 'Golden Age' that they calmed down a bit and used other methods to stop their enemies. Nowadays the trend is being reversed, and heroes are moving back to more dark territory, at least occasionally. If I've got this wrong, by all means correct me, I'm just musing on my limited comic book knowledge.

As someone who actually was very heavily into comic books (including a brief stint working in the industry) I'd say your assessment is accurate.

What I want to know is why Captain America should have a problem with killing actual alien invaders in the process of invading. At the end of the day he's supposedly a soldier, after all; he didn't go through a World War without killing any Nazis.

It's not like soldiers like to kill. In open warfare you have to kill people but even then it's not unusual for people to, for instance, shoot over the head of the enemy rather than at him because some peoples' prohibition against killing is that strong.

It's entirely plausible that Cap doesn't like killing even if he is capable of it and has done so and would prefer to find an alternative.

I'd like to point out that during the Silver Age comic books were seen much as video/computer games were until recently (and arguably still are) – something used by geeky boys and contributing to the delinquency and violence in society. Thus you had the Comics Code Authority which was the reason so many comics adopted the “no kill” policy. When for several decades, you simply couldn't get your stories distributed unless you adhered to the CCA it shouldn't be a wonder that heroes never seemed to kill the monsters. Now you've had several generations growing up with the heroes not killing and the generation(s) that remember the time before that are largely gone.

Marvel abandoned the CCA in the early 00's. The CCA became defunct in 2011. It's no coincidence we're seen more violence/killing in the comics and the movies based on them since then.

[Tsyroc]

I also read that Avengers storyline, mr friendly guy (If I'd been there I would have sided with Iron Man, by the way). Was any explanation given as to how the Kree Empire was able to rebound from that? Was it just one big, continuity-defying retcon? I'd imagine that having the vast majority of their population wiped out would bring their status as a galactic power to a screeching halt. Yet in the Annihilation, Annihilation: Conquest, War of Kings/Realm of Kings and Thanos Imperative events the Kree Empire somehow still exists.

I would have sided with Iron Man as well.

The Kree rebounding thing. Well according to wikipedia Captain Marvel (Genis) rebooted the universe (issue not cited) and the Kree reappeared. Yeah I know.

After the Kree-Shiar war what was left of the Kree Empire was absorbed into the Shiar Empire and for awhile Deathbird ruled on Kree-Lar as Lilandra's viceroy. I know there were some issues of the Avengers where Kree survivors were out for vengeance and/or restoring the Supreme Intelligence. That must have happened to some extent because I think the Kree were back to tooling around in their old style military uniforms before Captain Marvel (Genis-Vel) rebooted the universe but I could be wrong on that. They've never been as powerful as they were before the war with the Shiar but I don't remember how they ended up back on their own and not under the supervision of the Shiar.

Didn't Ronan end up in charge of most of the Kree after either Annihilation or Annihilation: Conquest?

Along those lines, how does the Nova Corps keep coming back. Xandar has been destroyed three times and somehow the Nova Corps keeps on going. At the beginning of Annihilation it was sort of a WTF? moment that there was a Nova Corps with made up of many species and some how Richard Rider was the punk ass rookie. He had been Nova Prime during Xandar's previous war with the Skrulls, and then essentially the only member of the corps left for a couple of significant periods, but somehow the corp was back and firmly established without him having any role in it happening.

[Tsyroc]

The traditional superhero stance against killing or, more specifically, being against killing in any situation (even that of self-defence) has always rung hollow to me. Out of universe it's always been nothing more than a transparent ploy to maintain sales (there can't be any thrilling superheroics if all of their enemies are dead, after all). In-universe it's just too inflexible and lacks nuance. For me, the first and foremost duty of a superhero should be the protection of the innocent not of all life. It's an important distinction that many of the mainstream superheroes miss. They hold the perpetrator and the victim in the same regard. That somehow the unrepentant, superpowered serial killer/rapist is in the same league as the law-abiding citizen. Unlike them I do not believe that all life is precious. If an incredibly powerful superhuman psychopath with a known track record of mass-murder is rampaging through a city and it's a choice between the bad guy and the innocents in his or her path then there should no dilemma as to what should be done. You put the maniac down and you pick the innocents every time. This isn't the real world where the guilt of criminals is up for debate and things are more ambiguous. Many of the supervillains that the heroes face are irredeemable monsters. And yet they keep locking them up in useless holding facilities that only hold them for so long. Rehabilitation usually isn't a possibility so via this approach they're allowing these degenerates to effectively get away with murder repeatedly.

Now, I'm not saying that superheroes should jump off the deep end and kill every criminal out there. If they're merely dealing with an ordinary gang or miscreant then by all means incapacitate them. But if the threat becomes sufficiently severe then lethal force should definitely not be off the table. You can only be so moral before your principles start to become a liability and do more harm than good.

Man of Steel might have its issues (I, for the record, enjoyed it for the most part) but the killing of Zod was not of them. This version of Superman acted in the interests of the greater good and it was a refreshing change. Unfortunately this will be undone in the sequels where Superman will refuse to end the threat in the most efficient manner (they've gone on the record as saying that this film is where Superman develops his trademark anti-killing sentiment). The mob of hardcore DC-purists baying for the scalps of Snyder and Goyer might disagree but I've never found their herd-like arguments to be convincing (especially the ones who laughably refer to the act as a "murder" even though "suicide by cop" would be more appropriate). The fact that they don't have a single convincing non-lethal solution for dealing with Zod just reinforces it.

During the John Byrne reboot Superman killed Zod and two other Kryptonians from a reality where they were much more powerful than he was. After he did that, that was when he made his vow to never take a life. Batman even calls him on it in one of their earlier meetings. I think that is a fair point for the movies to start off on. Bitching about him killing someone who was going to destroy the Earth is idiotic. I thought the film was a good "realistic" way to introduce Superman and still keep variations on the mythology. I thought it fit well with what they'd been doing with Batman.

I do like a Superman who goes out of his way to not kill anyone. I think it could become too easy for someone with his power to kill someone and I like that he often has to use some ingenuity in coming up with a way to win without killing someone, even with all of his powers.

As for Batman. I think he has to be absolute in his no kill rule or he will just lose it completely and end up killing way to many people (think Punisher near his worst). A lot of his motivation seems to be based in anger over the death of his parents and if he gives in and starts killing I think he would have a tough time stopping, and he doesn't want to do that because he remembers what it was like to lose his parents and he doesn't want to cause that kind of pain in anyone else.

Over in Marvel. I think they tend to give Wolverine too much of a pass in the kind of carnage he inflicts a lot of the time.

[Broomstick]

Originally Wolverine was a minor and deliberately ambiguous character, but the issue of his killing or not killing had been there since at least X-Men #96 (which is where I jumped on board). Despite the moral, issues, though, he became enormously popular, to the point Marvel started poking fun at his popularity. If I recall correctly, some other hero's cover had Wolverine on it, and that Wolverine was stating that he wasn't in the book at all, he was just on the cover to increase sales (and it did!).

So... the public voted with their dollars for a violent, deadly, ethically grey character.

At the end of the day comic books (and their movies, "action figures" and all the rest) are a business. If they don't make money the magic doesn't happen. The public might complain about the violence and bloodshed but they're buying it so more of what's selling is what will be made.

[Elheru Aran]

Yeah, Wolverine has pretty much always been a Cusinart on legs. Most all the other heroes, though, if you think about what their powers are and the effects of those powers, they should be causing widespread havoc and devastation with pretty much even slight skirmishes. Take Cyclops' optic blasts-- they can devastate a whole neighborhood with ease (though generally he has to pull off the mask to do that). We are talking about people who, should they choose to let loose, are essentially walking weapons of mass destruction.

What the wonder is, is that they kill FAR less people than they COULD. Even with a no-kill code, collateral damage would be ridiculous.

It's understandable with lower-tier heroes like Captain America, who when it comes down to it is basically just a ridiculously buff dude with mad HtH skills. Not much collateral damage there (unless he flies a Helicarrier into the Triskelion or something; hope that building was thoroughly evacuated). Power dudes like the Hulk, Thor, Superman, Sentry, etc, though... some serious mass-destruction potential there. In such a context you have to question how practical and honest their whole "we don't kill anybody" ethic would be.

[Broomstick]

The world is probably better off with those guys ethically restrained than not.

[Elheru Aran]

The world is probably better off with those guys ethically restrained than not.

Absolutely; that's not the issue. The problem is more that if they took their restraint more seriously, they might reconsider super-hero'ing, or conduct it in a very different fashion in order to prevent collateral damage.

For someone like Captain America that's easy enough. He just has to be careful not to hit people too hard. But Superman could destroy New York in seconds if he wasn't paying attention, and half the time the city (whatever one he's in) gets big chunks taken out of it during the fight anyway. Unless he's super-speeding all the civilians out of the way-- and he hasn't had that kind of speed since the Silver Age-- you can guarantee there are people getting killed there. They just don't appear on-screen because that's not how comics work, but in Man of Steel there's a fairly clear scene where they break up a skyscraper and it falls on a bunch of people.

I will grant that this is probably something that most comic writers and reader simply don't think about. They're more focused on the battles between superhero/villain, and the more buildings someone gets punched through, the better. There has been some influences to the contrary-- Warren Ellis for one-- but in general it's a non-issue.

If it was, super-teams might be very different. You'd see more lower-tier heroes being used on the front lines, speedsters especially (Flash could be extremely useful for removing civilians from the war zone). The heavy hitters would be reserved for the especially powerful villains, but otherwise would do more "good for the world" type stuff. Plowing ten fields at once, building dams, etc, with their super-powers.

I wonder if there are any comics like that, actually...

[Vejut]

As for good of the world type stuff, the aforementioned Warren Ellis does have some of that in his Authority stuff, but not so much IIRC the tiering of hero response.

[Vendetta]

If it was, super-teams might be very different. You'd see more lower-tier heroes being used on the front lines, speedsters especially (Flash could be extremely useful for removing civilians from the war zone). The heavy hitters would be reserved for the especially powerful villains, but otherwise would do more "good for the world" type stuff. Plowing ten fields at once, building dams, etc, with their super-powers.

That's kind of what Cyclops started doing with the Phoenix Force in A vs X, started building a better world, providing power and clean water to everyone, that sort of thing.

Of course, this meant he was evil and had to be stopped and so the Avengers kept fighting him and the others (To be fair, the rest of the Phoenix Five were two professional assholes, a man possessed by the god of blowing shit up and a woman abducted as a child and raised in hell, but they were basically following Cyclops' lead on the "make the world a better place" thing).

[Borgholio]

Sorry, never read that series. How did wanting to provide electricity and water to everybody make him evil? Or was it the methods he used to do it?

[Simon_Jester]

It occurs to me that, if you are a superhero, one of the motives for the "no-kill code" is that it stops you from sliding down the slippery slope of justifying more and more collateral damage.

In the case of someone like Batman, that 'collateral damage' takes the form of him turning into a Rorschach-like figure who routinely beats, tortures, or kills people without good justification for doing so.

In the case of someone like Superman it's even worse- because Superman's power to cause collateral damage is almost unlimited. As long as he's trying to limit it, things don't become transcendently horrible. But if Superman convinces himself that it's okay to kill a thousand people to stop a threat that would otherwise kill ten thousand... over the long haul Superman would rack up one hell of a bodycount. The awareness of just how much damage he could do to innocent people if he ever stopped caring probably contributes greatly to Superman's absolutist ethical code.

See the famous DCAU "World of Cardboard" speech for reference... and the image of Superman punching Darkseid through numerous large buildings right after that is just the beginning of how much damage he could do if he ever did stop trying to keep from accidentally breaking the carboard around him.

[Adrian McNair]

It occurs to me that, if you are a superhero, one of the motives for the "no-kill code" is that it stops you from sliding down the slippery slope of justifying more and more collateral damage.

I think as with all things it depends on the context (power-levels, the scale of the threat, etc). Collateral damage is going to occur regardless of whether or not we're dealing with someone who uses lethal methods. It's not as though any supervillains involved are going to hold back. A superhero/heroine should do their utmost to move the battle away from populated areas, thereby ensuring that collateral damage isn't a factor. Of course that isn't always going to be a possibility (such as Man of Steel's climactic battle where Superman tried to shift the battle into space but Zod was having none of it), though they should strive to avoid it.

What bothers me the most is that there just isn't any middle-ground when it comes to traditional superheroes dealing with their peers on the issue of killing. Heroes who are forced to take lives whether it's due to self-defence or for the greater good are often portrayed as having crossed the point of no return and are demonised for it, no matter how justified the act might be. There should be some degree of latitude. It's not an all or nothing, end of the world proposition.

[Vendetta]

Sorry, never read that series. How did wanting to provide electricity and water to everybody make him evil? Or was it the methods he used to do it?

Stupid writing (Bendis) and editorially mandated conflict, that's how it made him evil.