|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2022 6:02:08 GMT -5
I’ve been reading early issues of West Coast Avengers. Spoilers ahead, but Mockingbird lets a character die (justifiably) in one story. It seems to have hit her hard, but if you know the story, she simply let an immoral character die by inaction. Why is that so bad? I’m not sure I’d hold out my hand and save a terrorist if he was falling off a cliff.
This makes me think about the lack of nuance pertaining to superheroes taking lives, specifically the seemingly binary choice of “it’s justifiable” or “it’s not justifiable” (with seemingly nothing in between). When it comes to characters who don’t routinely take lives, it seems they either point blank refuse to take a life - even when justifiable - or, if they do, they spend an age fretting over it. Again, in West Coast Avengers, there was discussion, by Tigra, about whether certain opponents should be killed, but all we get from the Avengers is, “We don’t kill.”
What, never? Even when justified?
In real life, the likes of the armed forces and police forces have to use lethal force. If I was a soldier or police officer, I would not wake up with a desire to kill anyone, but in all honesty, if the sniper atop a building is shooting at some civilians, I’m not gonna lose sleep if I have to take him out with lethal force. I’m not gonna fret about it. If lethal force prevents that sniper taking out 5 or 6 civilians, so be it.
I don’t lose sleep when the armed forces take out terrorists. I’m proud that people like my grandfather fought the Nazis in WWII.
I don’t feel I’m making my point particularly well. I just want more nuance. It seems to be about extremes with nothing in between. We either get Scenario A (“I will not kill, and I will not even let a character die by inaction”) or Scenario B (“I took out an enemy combatant/terrorist, and now I can’t look in the mirror”). Where’s something in between, with a little more nuance?
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Aug 19, 2022 6:11:19 GMT -5
You're not going to find nuance on this matter in super-hero comic books from the 20th century from the Big 2
Nor will you find Batman mourning the deaths of hundreds of people killed by The Joker each time he escaped prison because he refused to finally end the serial killer's life. (Well, he did mourn Robin's death for a while, but that was really the readers calling in that telephone number to off the Boy Wonder)
|
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Aug 19, 2022 8:58:36 GMT -5
I think that maybe super-people need to be held to stricter standards than us normal folk. While Hawkeye and Mockingbird are just highly skilled normal humans, most Avengers (or any other team) have actual special powers, or advanced technology. So it's not a bad policy to have.
I do not think that Bobbi Morse, a former SHIELD agent, would fret about taking out a terrorist in action, but refusing to help someone when it was well within her abilities to do so could cause problems. I'm not saying that I don't understand her feelings at the time, just that I could see her feeling conflicted once the heat of the moment has passed.
(It's been a really long time since I read that series, but I assume this is regarding Night Rider.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2022 9:00:37 GMT -5
Yes, it’s Night Rider. She was stuck in the 19th century, Night Rider had kidnapped her and been devious, and she simply let inaction lead to his fall from the cliff, so I don’t see why she would feel bad about that.
It just feels like certain comic writers try too hard to ram home the points I’ve raised.
|
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Aug 19, 2022 10:03:14 GMT -5
I don't know, kidnapping and being devious doesn't seem to warrant the death penalty to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2022 10:05:40 GMT -5
I don't know, kidnapping and being devious doesn't seem to warrant the death penalty to me. No, it doesn’t - had she killed him. But she simply let him fall of a cliff. Having been kidnapped, and had her mind manipulated, while being stuck in the 19th century, I don’t blame her inaction. I would condemn the character had she shot him in cold blood or something. |
|
|
|
Post by Graphic Autist on Aug 19, 2022 10:20:32 GMT -5
If I recall correctly, didn't Night Rider rape her? Or at least I'm remembering it was implied. Or, I've read too many grim and gritty books since then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2022 10:23:27 GMT -5
If I recall correctly, didn't Night Rider rape her? Or at least I'm remembering it was implied. Or, I've read too many grim and gritty books since then. Not sure it was presented definitively (others may have a different view), but I believe one could bet money that it was implied. |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Aug 19, 2022 12:23:59 GMT -5
A couple of points:
1) Superheroes (usually) are not part of law enforcement or the military or organizations that have state permission to make life or death decisions. They are private citizens who have decided to be vigilante without even a specific preparation. A policeman or a soldier knows very well what the rules of engagement are and when one is justified in taking a life. The only preparation for a superhero is usually to simply decide what his costume will be and then he goes looking for the criminals without even reading the Cliff Notes on Legitimate Defense.
2) About Joker (and other criminals) and Death Penalty. Superhero comics are set in a different world than ours. In our world, serial killers do not routinely break out of prisons, and insanity is used in a tiny and irrelevant fraction of cases. So here, in our world, one can be an opponent of the Death Penalty.
I am personally against the death penalty, but I don't think even the most ardent supporter of it would use "We must kill criminals because otherwise they would risk escaping and killing again" as a motivation. Because it would be like saying that the whole judicial system has failed and capital punishment is used as an emergency solution. But in the DC universe it is mathematically sure that the Joker and Zsasz will escape from Arkam to make another massacre. Even the most fervent opponent of the death penalty would find it difficult to support his positions. The only sensible one would be: "It is useless to condemn them to death because sooner or later they will return. We might as well lock them up because at least we know where they are". The authors have created a world where a criminal will always win, and it is really ridiculous and that makes it impossible to have any discussion of an ethical and / or moral nature.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2022 12:30:00 GMT -5
A couple of points: 1) Superheroes (usually) are not part of law enforcement or the military or organizations that have state permission to make life or death decisions. They are private citizens who have decided to be vigilante without even a specific preparation. A policeman or a soldier knows very well what the rules of engagement are and when one is justified in taking a life. The only preparation for a superhero is usually to simply decide what his costume will be and then he goes looking for the criminals without even reading the Cliff Notes on Legitimate Defense." I agree and disagree. For the vigilantes without official sanction, I agree. But for state-sponsored/state-sanctioned superheroes, I disagree. It’d be hard to justify Human Torch taking a life as he’s not law enforcement (although would anyone condemn him for taking out a sniper?). But Batman is officially endorsed by the GCPD, and the Avengers, while probably quasi-autonomous, have some backing, so wouldn’t they have some protection if they had to kill a bad guy? I’m certainly not advocating constant killing, just asking questions, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Aug 19, 2022 12:53:07 GMT -5
A policeman or a soldier knows very well what the rules of engagement are and when one is justified in taking a life. This honestly made me laugh out loud. |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Aug 19, 2022 12:55:21 GMT -5
In comics, of course, characters often return from death anyway.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2022 12:58:53 GMT -5
In comics, of course, characters often return from death anyway. True. Which means that, really, my post is meaningless.  |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Aug 19, 2022 13:27:10 GMT -5
A policeman or a soldier knows very well what the rules of engagement are and when one is justified in taking a life. This honestly made me laugh out loud. They know them, they simply choose to ignore them. And really, this is more an American thing. In other countries police isn't so keen to shoot anything that moves. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2022 13:55:16 GMT -5
In comics, of course, characters often return from death anyway. Which is a big headache for the life insurance actuaries. And you could be serving out a murder sentence, but the victim gets better. I don't think you should be able to appeal based on your victim resurrecting. |
|
