A minor spin off from the bravest hero thread but name some heroes who actually killed a known ( at least minor ) Marvel hero or villain.

Someone mentioned that Wolverine has killed many nameless flunkies- so i'm talking about heroes who have killed a character who would at least merit a Marvel Universe Handbook entry. -

Cap once "killed" Baron Blood by chopping his head off- of course he was undead.

Ironman mortally wounded the Black knight II - death by falling damage
Ironman also crushed Count Nefaria- it was an oops moment.

Hawkeye killed ( accidently ) the villain Egghead

Xavier killed the physical body ( on purpose ) of Amahl Farouk

NOTE: some deaths might not have been permenent- mention them if you want.

Hmm...where to begin...lately there's been a lot...Especially in space...

Nova killed Annhilus...
Drax killed Thanos (finally, and for good I'm thinking...)

if we're going Earth heroes, Sentry recently flew Carnage into space and ripped him in half...Kinda harsh...
Punisher killed Stilt man... (sorry, I had to...)

G.A.W. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A minor spin off from the bravest hero thread but
> name some heroes who actually killed a known ( at
> least minor ) Marvel hero or villain.
>
> Someone mentioned that Wolverine has killed many
> nameless flunkies- so i'm talking about heroes who
> have killed a character who would at least merit a
> Marvel Universe Handbook entry. -
>
> Cap once "killed" Baron Blood by chopping his head
> off- of course he was undead.
>
> Ironman mortally wounded the Black knight II -
> death by falling damage
> Ironman also crushed Count Nefaria- it was an oops
> moment.
>
> Hawkeye killed ( accidently ) the villain Egghead
>
> Xavier killed the physical body ( on purpose ) of
> Amahl Farouk
>
> NOTE: some deaths might not have been permenent-
> mention them if you want.


Iron Man killed a villain (unknown dude) in the one shot where he got his extremis armor.

Reed Richards was willing to kill Annihilus (and himself) to keep him from reaching Earth.

Namor will kill on occaison.

The point being is that almost every hero will kill someone, whether they want to or not. The question as to whether or not they are justified depends on the circumstance. Often time a hero will kill only to save an innocent life or his own. Sometimes in rare cases a non vigilante hero will be pushed to the extreme.

Iron Man's sentient armour killed Whiplash, and his jet boots inadvenrtantly caused Gremilin's/Titanium Man's armour to combust thus killing him, Baron Zemo apparently fell to his death when fighting Cap, but then, quite a few villains have inadvertently died during scuffles with heroes, and thats probably not what you're looking for.

Ummm ...

Colossus killed Proteus. Justifiable.

Colossus killed Riptide. Justifiable.

Vindicator killed Sasquatch when Tanaraq took him over. Justifiable.

Daredevil scared the Fixer so bad he had a heart attack and died. Do know either way.

Wolverine cut Sabretooth's head off. Justifiable.

Bishop saw to it that Fitzroy was cut in half. do know either way.

The X-Men killed many a Brood infected human and mutant, to say nothing of destroying their homeworld. I want it to be justifiable, but am not sure that it is.

While it was quickly retconned as part of the storyarc Captain America killed the Red Skull when he was acting as a living Cosmic Cube and seeking to steal the knowledge and power contained within Galactus' worldship. Then some time travel events led to him undoing that but he certainly killed a high profile villain.

While I don't think you have to be a hero to kill I think a true hero has to be willing to kill if the stakes high enough. If the only way to stop the universe say from blowing up is to kill someone isn't sacrificing your morals worth the price? I'd even go so far as to say that to kill a true villian to save a true innocent a true hero would sacrifice his consience. If Batman truly cared about those who are close to him he'd have killed the Joker by now. You could argue he cares more about his sense of self than he does the Jokers victims. Not saying the arguement would fly but you could make it.

Is it truly heroic to let an innocent die to save yourself (in a moral sense anyway)?

Cops kill people in the name of protecting the innocent and the greater good. While i feel superheroes are held [and hold themselves by and large] to a higher standard than typical law enforcement, once in a while some sick SOB needs to die. I think it is less justified when a hero lets a known murderer and psychopath off the hook, only for them to kill again later on down the road. I mean, when is Spider-Man gonna look himself in the mirror and acknowledge that if he finished off the Green Goblin years ago, there'd be a lot more people alive right now.

Powersurge Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Colossus killed Proteus. Justifiable. (agreed, Moira's life was at stake)
>
> Colossus killed Riptide. Justifiable. (hmm, I don't disagree with is actions, but this was more of an act of anger/vengence then justifiable homicide.)
>
> Vindicator killed Sasquatch when Tanaraq took him
> over. Justifiable. (Snowbird killed Tanaraq, by ripping his heart out.)


Thor killed the Midgard Serpent as well as the Marauder; Blockbuster.

Cable didn't seem to mind killing, nor Shatterstar, no specific examples though.

Phoenix II (Rachel Summers) was certainly willing to kill Selene, The Black Queen until she was stopped by Wolverine.

Forge certainly killed during his time as a soldier, a willingness that continued when he destroyed the Reaver Skullbuster.

Doctor Strange invoked the Montesi Formula destroying all Vampires in existence.

that's all I can think of right now

consumate Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Powersurge Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Colossus killed Riptide. Justifiable. (hmm, I
> don't disagree with is actions, but this was more
> of an act of anger/vengence then justifiable
> homicide.)
>

Considering that Riptide had recently enegaged in the wholesale massacre of Morlocks, and was in the process of mowing down even more mutants, Colossus' actions were about justifiable as could be.

>
> > Vindicator killed Sasquatch when Tanaraq took
> him
> > over. Justifiable. (Snowbird killed Tanaraq, by
> ripping his heart out.)
>

Aaaah........... yeah, I couldn't remember which of them it was. Snowbird seemed more likely, but for some reason I have a picture of Vindicator in my head blasting a hole in Sasq.'s chest from behind.

Since when is it Spider-man's responsibility to go around deciding what villains should or shouldn't die? He's not a part of law-enforcement and certainly isn't given a license to kill. He captures and turns in the criminals to the police, the people authorized to incarcerate criminals and see them tried for their crimes. He has nothing to feel guilty about if the legal system fails to due its duty and execute such a criminal as the Goblin for his murderous actions. Just as it isn't Batman's duty or right to execute the Joker or anyone else in his Rogue's Gallery, only to stop them and turn them over to the authorities.

In the heat of the moment with a life or lives on the line to stop someone he knows to be a killer and will kill immediately is entirely different than making the cold determination that 'this guy I choose to kill'. In the Elseworlds 'Another Nail' we see Batman end up mentally shattered after killing Joker after he brutally murdered Robin and Batgirl before his eyes (eyes he couldn't close because Joker had the means to keep them open). For someone like Captain America with his background doing it because he has no other choice is one thing he's an ex-soldier and has had to kill during wartime but someone like Spider-man the idea of killing by choice is totally outside his moral fiber (well before OMD at least).

Well, Spidey isn't given a licence to do anything in terms of law enforcement and has chosen to sit apart from the entire legal process. He won't even offer testimony in court (which would require him to identify himself), which would make his citizen's arrest virtually useless in many cases. I don't think a note signed, "courtesy of your friendly neighbourhood Spider-man" is going to stand up in court.

So, presumably it is not Spider-Man's high regard for the law and due process that his heroism is based on. It is based soley on his own subjective morality and conscience, along with the guiding mantra "with great power comes great responsiblity".

I'm not saying that Spidey has NO regard for the law, but he will regularly operate outside of the letter of the law in order to uphold it's spirit, ie. upholding and maintaining the common good. So, really, why wouldn't Spider-Man consdier killing the Green Goblin? Green Goblin has killed before, and has proven over and over that he will kill again. Spider-Man has handed him over to the authorities, and he has walked or escaped time and time again. The letter of the law has proven useless, and the spirit of the law is in peril. How is it that a man of conscience, who believes that with great power comes great responsiblity NOT do what he must?

I'm not saying Petey should plan it out, track him down and kill him. He won't need to if the Goblin follows the same pattern of pathology that he always does.. The Goblin will furnish him with YET ANOTHER oppurtunity in which lives are in immenent peril. And sure, Spidey could KO him. He's done it before afterall. But guess what? He HAS done it before and it DOESN'T work. The Goblin only comes back, and people get hurt, and Spidey has to live his life around punching the Green Goblin out over and over and over, thus allowing him to hurt people over and over again. And for what? A legal process that he otherwise wants no part of.

The night Spidey's Uncle Ben died, Pete's chief sin was that of inaction. He stood by and did nothing and allowed a criminal to escape, a criminal that went on to murder his uncle. It doesn't matter why Pete didn't act. He might well have been scared rather than vindicative, but the lessons the same. With great power comes great responsibility.

Listen up. Stan and Jack created the Marvel U with some themes... those themes have -always- pervaded the titles in that universe and they always will. The theme of "responsibility" in Spider-Man according to Marvel does not match your definition, Powersurge. So while you may believe with all your heart and soul that Spider-Man's responsibility is to kill Carnage or the Green Goblin, Marvel disagrees... and Marvel's opinion is the only one that really counts in the end in terms of what stories get made, right? No matter how dark Spidey got, no matter how much he threatened the Kingpin, he never actually killed him. You know why? Because -killing is not a part of Spider-Man's theme-. End of story.

Granted, killing isn't part of Spider-Man's makeup, but does that mean he's not responsible, at least in some way, for the people who have died at the hands of Venom, Carnage, Kingpin, Green Goblin, Tombstone, and countless other adversaries who had the wealth, influence, or both to skate past legal ramifications of their crimes? if Spider-Man were a cop, FBI agent, or other law enforcement official, those foes would be dead.


Punstarr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Listen up. Stan and Jack created the Marvel U
> with some themes... those themes have -always-
> pervaded the titles in that universe and they
> always will. The theme of "responsibility" in
> Spider-Man according to Marvel does not match your
> definition, Powersurge. So while you may believe
> with all your heart and soul that Spider-Man's
> responsibility is to kill Carnage or the Green
> Goblin, Marvel disagrees... and Marvel's opinion
> is the only one that really counts in the end in
> terms of what stories get made, right? No matter
> how dark Spidey got, no matter how much he
> threatened the Kingpin, he never actually killed
> him. You know why? Because -killing is not a
> part of Spider-Man's theme-. End of story.

Punstarr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Listen up.
>

Sure thing, boss.

> Stan and Jack created the Marvel U
> with some themes... those themes have -always-
> pervaded the titles in that universe and they
> always will. The theme of "responsibility" in
> Spider-Man according to Marvel does not match your
> definition, Powersurge.

So then, the theme of responsibility in Spider-Man isn't to take action where necessary because one has the power to do so and because doing so may save lives?

> No matter
> how dark Spidey got, no matter how much he
> threatened the Kingpin, he never actually killed
> him. You know why? Because -killing is not a
> part of Spider-Man's theme-. End of story.

You'r right that it is Marvel's character and Marvel's story, and for all that superhero comicbooks portray vigilantism, they have never encouraged killing..... save where the hero was marginalized or portrayed as a bit of a headcase themselves, eg. Punisher, Wolverine.

Thats all fine and dandy, and obvious.

Of course, it is also a lame defense for Spidey's inaction. Marvel knows this, as they themselves posited the question long before we ever began discussing it here. And as lame of a defense as it is, it is still the best defense one can muster.

There really is no good reason for Spidey to not kill these villlains, other then reasons that have nothing to do with the story or the character.

The morality of killing of a villain is a philosophical question and not a hard absolute. This has been covered many times in J.M. DeMatteis' run on Spectacular and is hit squarely on the head in the Batman/Spider-Man crossover. What might be right for one character isn't correct for another.

Peter believes that it is wrong to kill. That is correct for his character. If a reader doesn't agree with Peter's decision, it doesn't change the fact that Peter thinks it's wrong.

TAG

Powersurge Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So then, the theme of responsibility in Spider-Man
> isn't to take action where necessary because one
> has the power to do so and because doing so may
> save lives?

That's just it. It isn't his responsibility. It's the responsibility of the law enforcement and judicial officials to make sure a proper punishment is given to villains. It's not Spidey's fault that the stories are written the way they are with mass murdering villains getting slapped on the wrist and thrown in jail rather than being executed like they'd likely be in real life. If it worked that way however, all the worst villains in Spidey's rogues gallery would be gone with no chance for return. That makes for less story possibilities and would likely upset fans, since fans like those villains. If it's anyone's job to kill those villains, realistically it's the government's.


> You'r right that it is Marvel's character and
> Marvel's story, and for all that superhero
> comicbooks portray vigilantism, they have never
> encouraged killing..... save where the hero was
> marginalized or portrayed as a bit of a headcase
> themselves, eg. Punisher, Wolverine.
>
> Thats all fine and dandy, and obvious.
>
> Of course, it is also a lame defense for Spidey's
> inaction. Marvel knows this, as they themselves
> posited the question long before we ever began
> discussing it here. And as lame of a defense as it
> is, it is still the best defense one can muster.
>
> There really is no good reason for Spidey to not
> kill these villlains, other then reasons that have
> nothing to do with the story or the character.

I disagree. See above to see why.

But he's not an FBI agent, police officer, etc. That's the distinction. And even if he were, those officials you speak of are -supposed- to bring in the bad guys alive so that they can stand trial. Police officers are rarely given orders to shoot to kill and generally only do so in self defense.

The real question is why hasn't the Punisher killed the Kingpin? Surely he's had the opportunity to do so on numerous occasions.

I fully agree with you Punstar regarding the real world, story-telling, business reasons as to why Spidey doesn't kill. Comicbooks have shy'd against heroes killing from a very early point. It's probably a good thing that they do for the most part, i nterms of demonstrating the value of human life even in a fantasy setting.

Within the context of that fantasy though, those reasons don't apply and have no value.

As for Spidey's responsiblity, lets go over it again if necessary. You're right, it is the official responsiblity of recognized law enforcement officials to uphold the law, fight crime, and defend the peace. No one has the responsilbity to be a vigilante. Yet even though it is not Spidey's formal/legal obligation to fight crime, as a vigilante he has clearly chosen to make it his moral obligation, his moral responsibility to do just that... except when it comes to this one particular. And even though his reluctance to take decisive action in this regarding dooms him to repeating the same old scenario over and over again with the murderous felon.

In fact, if Spidey were reduced to only doing those things which he is formally responosible for, then we would have a comic about a tax-paying citizen, working and paying taxes, and rarely if ever fighting crime in any kind of direct manner. Fighting crime is afterall, the responsibility of recognized law enforcement officials. It is not Spider-Man's responsibility. Spidey's responsibility, like any private citizens, is to obey the law. Engaging in vigilantism does not demonstrate obedience to the law.

So, the question remains, why doesn't Spidey kill the Green Goblin? He is willing to shoulder the responsiblity of having the lives of lawabiding citizens in his hands. Why not the life of a murderer? Because that murderers life is worth more than his victims? Because Parker lacks the moral courage to do what he knows must be done in this instance to keep people safe?

He is letting the criminal walk due to a technically. No better, no worse than the law itself.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/29/2008 03:10PM by Powersurge.

Because if Spidey were to kill the Green Goblin, he'd be no better than him. That's as simply put as I can think of. Those that the Goblin kills are not Spider-Man's fault, and the SHIELD Commander who insinuated that they were was being a hypocrite, since she hinted that he should kill the Goblin, yet would be tripping over herself to bring Spider-Man to justice as a murderer at that point.

Punstarr Wrote:
Listen up. Stan and Jack created the Marvel U with some themes... those themes have -always- pervaded the titles in that universe and they always will. The theme of "responsibility" in Spider-Man according to Marvel does not match your definition, Powersurge. So while you may believe with all your heart and soul that Spider-Man's responsibility is to kill Carnage or the Green Goblin, Marvel disagrees... and Marvel's opinion is the only one that really counts in the end in terms of what stories get made, right? No matter how dark Spidey got, no matter how much he threatened the Kingpin, he never actually killed him. You know why? Because -killing is not a part of Spider-Man's theme-. End of story.
> him. You know why? Because -killing is not a
> part of Spider-Man's theme-. End of story.

That is some of the most blantant meta-game thinking I have ever read. Cause the GM/Writers said so. Good call, can I game with you ASAP please? "You should have known it was just a Doom Bot and acted accordingly cause thats what all the writers do." I was trying to start a conversation on what they did and what they as if they were real people and the consequences as real as they are IRL, not get into a "because sales would drop/the writers want it that way" type of debate.


Powersurge wrote:
So, the question remains, why doesn't Spidey kill the Green Goblin? He is willing to shoulder the responsiblity of having the lives of lawabiding citizens in his hands. Why not the life of a murderer? Because that murderers life is worth more than his victims? Because Parker lacks the moral courage to do what he knows must be done in this instance to keep people safe?

One could make the arguement that its because Spiderman and others like Batman hold their own conscience in higher regard than those they seek to protect. They would be willing to lay their mortality on the line to save an innocent but not their morality. Does this make them heroes or selfish?




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/29/2008 04:33PM by Warlock.

Warlock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That is some of the most blantant meta-game
> thinking I have ever read. Cause the GM/Writers
> said so. Good call, can I game with you ASAP
> please?

Ok, first of all, knock it off. I have not attacked you, so there's no call whatsoever to attack me. None.

> "You should have known it was just a Doom
> Bot and acted accordingly cause thats what all the
> writers do." I was trying to start a conversation
> on what they did and what they as if they were
> real people and the consequences as real as they
> are IRL, not get into a "because sales would
> drop/the writers want it that way" type of
> debate.

Second, I wanted to make it clear to people exactly why Spider-Man will never kill in the comics. Some people may have needed that reality made clear. That may have not been the intention of your thread, but it was a point that I felt needed to be made. For my views as to the "realism" of the situation as to your original intention for this thread, see this response of mine. [www.classicmarvel.com] I made my views known well within the parameters of your thread.

Punstarr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because if Spidey were to kill the Green Goblin,
> he'd be no better than him. That's as simply put
> as I can think of.

Well, that is a response. Spidey might indeed feel that way himself. But it is of course completely bunk... a lame excuse, a cope out.

By this same logic most of our superheroes, who regularly play fast and lose with the law, are no better than petty criminals, with crimes ranging from trespassing, breaking and entering, invasion of privacy, resisting arrest/fleeing a crime scene, destruction of public and private property, assualt and battery, kidnapping, etc.

We tend to accept that their intentions make make their vigilante activities acceptable. They seem to think the same.

If Spider-Man were to kill the Green Goblin he would continue to be better than the Green Goblin regardless of overinflated and otherwise misguided notions of the value of human life, because unlike the Goblin, Spider-Man is not a homicidal maniac, who has killed, who shows no remorse over having killed, and who in all likely hood is going to kill again.

How can you possibly believe that there is no difference when the difference is so crystal clear? When he is not held to the same standard regardingf lesser crimes? When more than the value of the Goblin's life is in question? When the valuable lives of other people are also at stake, and placed up as the stakes each and every time Spidey allows the pattern to repeat itself.

I don't have a big problem really with Spidey not killing, as his reluctance to take efective action doesn't in any way impact me or those I love. If I were a citizen of Marvel Manhattan on the otherhand, I would at this point be thinking that Spidey cares more about enjoying another rumble with the bad guys than he does about being a true hero and protecting us Manhattaners from forces we would be hard pressed to defend ourselves against. In fact, considering how often these repeat villains engage in revenge plots that end up placing US citizens in danger, I might even be nominating that charmer, good ol' Triple J, for Chief of Police or Mayor or something.

Punstarr:
Ok, first of all, knock it off. I have not attacked you, so there's no call whatsoever to attack me. None.

Ok first of all, knock off giving orders. I don't know who you think you are but your my word is law BS is getting old fast. The first post I quoted started with "Listen up" and finished with "End of story". When you start coming off like that imo you deserve any and all respones you get.

Second I never attacked you I attacked your reasoning, or more accurately your lack thereof of any reasoning other than "the writers said so". The premise of the entire conversation is that these are not simply characters in a book being controled by the whims of authors and creators, but what their motivations are when compared to real life circumstances and the logic involved in them reaching the decision to let others die so they can keep to their moral code. If you don't want to partake in the discussion as is then don't, it is certainly your right to do so. If you do then please come up with something a little more to the point than "like they are totally not real and therefore are not in control of their actions anwyay". Anyone smart enough to click their way in here is assumed to be smart enough to understand this and so it doesn't really need to be said does it?


Powersurge:
I don't have a big problem really with Spidey not killing, as his reluctance to take efective action doesn't in any way impact me or those I love. If I were a citizen of Marvel Manhattan on the otherhand, I would at this point be thinking that Spidey cares more about enjoying another rumble with the bad guys than he does about being a true hero and protecting us Manhattaners from forces we would be hard pressed to defend ourselves against. In fact, considering how often these repeat villains engage in revenge plots that end up placing US citizens in danger, I might even be nominating that charmer, good ol' Triple J, for Chief of Police or Mayor or something.

I see it as more of a selfish endeavour on the part of heroes. Their sense of self and keeping to thier ideals means more to them than lives they are trying to protect. Like I said they are willing to pit their mortal lives on the line no problem and yet won't put their moral lives in the same position. Spiderman and Batman staying true to who they are means more to them than their loved ones. To me thats just selfish and a true hero would destroy themselves in any sense of the word if it meant protecting innocent lives.

Warlock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Punstarr:
> Ok, first of all, knock it off. I have not
> attacked you, so there's no call whatsoever to
> attack me. None.
>
> Ok first of all, knock off giving orders. I don't
> know who you think you are but your my word is law
> BS is getting old fast. The first post I quoted
> started with "Listen up" and finished with "End of
> story". When you start coming off like that imo
> you deserve any and all respones you get.

No. I'm serious. No one deserves to be spoken to the way you spoke to me. So knock. it. off.

>
> Second I never attacked you I attacked your
> reasoning, or more accurately your lack thereof of
> any reasoning other than "the writers said so".

Bullshit. You attacked me with your lovely sarcasm and it wasn't appreciated. And if you cared to read my entire response to you (which I can only assume you didn't), you'd see that I also contributed my reasoning from a realistic vantage point, just like you wanted. You chose to ignore that entire part. Way to go.

I'm done dealing with you. I've never had a problem with you before Warlock, so why are you suddenly acting like an asshat?

Gentlemen,

While I've got no problem with people arguing their points, or standing up for themselves, I'll not stand for profanity since these debates function perfectly fine without it. Take any drama, or personal issues you have with other members to Private Message, and keep the threads on topic.

Thank you.

I dunno about all of this in these Threads ????


Does any one here still think that ‘Super’ Heroes in modern (or even Ancient) literature are meant to inspire the People who read it……. ????

And to a slight degree help shape a person’s Morality and maybe even Human Nature to a slight degree….. ????



It’s probably why Cap’n America, Bat-Man, Spider-Man, and Super-Man tend to be the most popular Characters…. Because Parents both young and old would rather have their Children ‘Pretend’ to be those Characters rather than Punisher or Slade or even Wolverine….


I dunno… Maybe I’m just being stupid or something…. All I know is this…


If a person ‘Pretends’ to be a ‘Ninja’ for a long enough time….. That person becomes a ‘Ninja’

If a person ‘Pretends’ to be a ‘Racer’ for a long enough time….. That person becomes a ‘Racer’

If a person ‘Pretends’ to be a ‘Warrior’ for a long enough time….. That person becomes a ‘Warrior’

If a person ‘Pretends’ to be a ‘Spy’ for a long enough time….. That person becomes a ‘Spy’

If a person ‘Pretends’ to be a ‘Soldier’ for a long enough time….. That person becomes a ‘Soldier’

If a person ‘Pretends’ to be a ‘Porn-Star’ for a long enough time….. That person becomes a ‘Porn-Star’

If a person ‘Pretends’ to be a ‘Cop’ for a long enough time….. That person becomes a ‘Cop’

If a person ‘Pretends’ to be a ‘Hooker’ for a long enough time….. That person becomes a ‘Hooker’

If a person ‘Pretends’ to be a ‘Nazi’ for a long enough time….. That person becomes a ‘Nazi’

If a person ‘Pretends’ to be a ‘Killer’ for a long enough time….. That person becomes a ‘Killer’

If a person ‘Pretends’ to be a ‘Demon’ for a long enough time….. That person becomes a ‘Demon’

If a person ‘Pretends’ to be ‘Psychotic’ for a long enough time….. That person becomes ‘Psychotic’

If a person Pretends long enough and has the Courage to act upon the Fantasy…. The Fantasy becomes Reality…..


Maybe this is why Humans are called ‘Children of God’ regardless of the God they hold in righteousness….

OR

Maybe I’m just an Old Fart who’s brains are just over cooked….

Heroes (in the majority) dont kill for two real reasons. One, their personal moral code (obviously), two because the ONLY reason these vigilantes are tolerated (and yes almost all heroes are vigilantes) is because they do not kill. As has been pointed out, unlike police they are not licensed to do so, but the public seem to understand and appreciate that the heroes can do things for society that the normal human agencies cannot. And so that is the balancing act, that is why even though he should (and probably wants) to kill the Joker, Batman never will. The day he crosses that line he knows Gordon will regretfully come gunning for him.

On an interesting side note there is a rare exception to the Batman intending to kill someone and following through on it. In a story arc called The Twelve Nights of the Beast, the KGBeast is introduced for the first time. He is ruthless, deadly and every bit Batman's match. Batman fully realized what an unstoppable killing machine this guy is. In the climax, Batman has him cornered in a chamber in a sewer. Instead of taking him in, Batman slowly closes the door to the room and lock the KGBeast in. When asked about the beast by a govenrment agent also involved in the case, Batman says simply that no one needs to worry about him again. The agent understands his meaning and nods in agreement.

Of course the KGBeast came back, I dont know how mind you. Presumably Batman didgo back for him at some point. Also its sad to note that the KGBeast's first story was so incredible but every story since has shown him as a punk that speaks broken english that everyone beats up instead of the master spy and assassin that was first introduced.

Powersurge Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Punstarr Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Because if Spidey were to kill the Green
> Goblin,
> > he'd be no better than him. That's as simply
> put
> > as I can think of.
>
> Well, that is a response. Spidey might indeed feel
> that way himself. But it is of course completely
> bunk... a lame excuse, a cope out.

That of course is completely wrong. That a man (in this case Spider-man) has a line he won't cross that you apparently would doesn't make any of it a cop out or lame excuse in the slightest. Killing takes one to a dark place in the soul and for someone with a conscience who's seen the loss of a loved-one to violent crime to willingly kill another makes him as bad as the man that killed his uncle so he will not become that man.

> By this same logic most of our superheroes, who
> regularly play fast and lose with the law, are no
> better than petty criminals, with crimes ranging
> from trespassing, breaking and entering, invasion
> of privacy, resisting arrest/fleeing a crime
> scene, destruction of public and private property,
> assualt and battery, kidnapping, etc.

They're not petty criminals in the slightest even though they indeed are guilty of such behavior and technically criminals. I think the biggest mistake that ends up being made is the assumption that the law is always right and/or perfect. It's not, that's why they get changed and reworked over time but they can never perfectly encompass things because they can never be written to cover every possibility. Heroes exist to balance things when the Law fails because of its inflexibility to do the right thing and because they come in all varieties many were brought up to believe killing to be wrong and therefore refuse to do so.

> We tend to accept that their intentions make make
> their vigilante activities acceptable. They seem
> to think the same.
>
> If Spider-Man were to kill the Green Goblin he
> would continue to be better than the Green Goblin
> regardless of overinflated and otherwise misguided
> notions of the value of human life, because unlike
> the Goblin, Spider-Man is not a homicidal maniac,
> who has killed, who shows no remorse over having
> killed, and who in all likely hood is going to
> kill again.

Right, and how long after killing the Goblin, then Carnage, and Tombstone, and so on does it go on before he IS just another homicidal maniac or serial killer who just happens to have his target profile being people deemed criminals?

> How can you possibly believe that there is no
> difference when the difference is so crystal
> clear? When he is not held to the same standard
> regardingf lesser crimes? When more than the value
> of the Goblin's life is in question? When the
> valuable lives of other people are also at stake,
> and placed up as the stakes each and every time
> Spidey allows the pattern to repeat itself.
>
> I don't have a big problem really with Spidey not
> killing, as his reluctance to take efective action
> doesn't in any way impact me or those I love. If I
> were a citizen of Marvel Manhattan on the
> otherhand, I would at this point be thinking that
> Spidey cares more about enjoying another rumble
> with the bad guys than he does about being a true
> hero and protecting us Manhattaners from forces we
> would be hard pressed to defend ourselves against.
> In fact, considering how often these repeat
> villains engage in revenge plots that end up
> placing US citizens in danger, I might even be
> nominating that charmer, good ol' Triple J, for
> Chief of Police or Mayor or something.

That is just so wrong I have trouble finding words to say how wrong it is. Choosing to have a code of conduct and not committing murder is NOT being reluctant to take effective action (and since when is not killing someone failure to take effective action?). Because he won't kill someone he can't be considered a 'true hero' (which I shudder at the idea of people who think you have to be a killer to be a 'true hero'), in spite of the countless lives he's saved and protected over the years? The idea he just loves a good fight and is just some thug because a 'real' hero goes around killing people is absurd. He'd love to quit, to give it up (as we saw during some of the best writing for him ever during Civil War and curse quesada for wiping that all away in his selfishness) but his sense of responsibility draws him back to risk death at the hands of those killers without any thanks or compensation because he's a HERO who puts himself in harm's way so others may live.

Tankerace I think that's just perfectly concise and to the point for why we have heroes, (super or otherwise), that they're to inspire us to better ways and in the context of this thread to aspire to not thinking killing is the solution to a problem with an evil person.

Warlock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Punstarr:
> Ok, first of all, knock it off. I have not
> attacked you, so there's no call whatsoever to
> attack me. None.
>
> Ok first of all, knock off giving orders. I don't
> know who you think you are but your my word is law
> BS is getting old fast. The first post I quoted
> started with "Listen up" and finished with "End of
> story". When you start coming off like that imo
> you deserve any and all respones you get.
>
> Second I never attacked you I attacked your
> reasoning, or more accurately your lack thereof of
> any reasoning other than "the writers said so".
> The premise of the entire conversation is that
> these are not simply characters in a book being
> controled by the whims of authors and creators,
> but what their motivations are when compared to
> real life circumstances and the logic involved in
> them reaching the decision to let others die so
> they can keep to their moral code. If you don't
> want to partake in the discussion as is then
> don't, it is certainly your right to do so. If you
> do then please come up with something a little
> more to the point than "like they are totally not
> real and therefore are not in control of their
> actions anwyay". Anyone smart enough to click
> their way in here is assumed to be smart enough to
> understand this and so it doesn't really need to
> be said does it?
>
>
> Powersurge:
> I don't have a big problem really with Spidey not
> killing, as his reluctance to take efective action
> doesn't in any way impact me or those I love. If I
> were a citizen of Marvel Manhattan on the
> otherhand, I would at this point be thinking that
> Spidey cares more about enjoying another rumble
> with the bad guys than he does about being a true
> hero and protecting us Manhattaners from forces we
> would be hard pressed to defend ourselves against.
> In fact, considering how often these repeat
> villains engage in revenge plots that end up
> placing US citizens in danger, I might even be
> nominating that charmer, good ol' Triple J, for
> Chief of Police or Mayor or something.
>
> I see it as more of a selfish endeavour on the
> part of heroes. Their sense of self and keeping to
> thier ideals means more to them than lives they
> are trying to protect. Like I said they are
> willing to pit their mortal lives on the line no
> problem and yet won't put their moral lives in the
> same position. Spiderman and Batman staying true
> to who they are means more to them than their
> loved ones. To me thats just selfish and a true
> hero would destroy themselves in any sense of the
> word if it meant protecting innocent lives.

The only difference between a hero and a villain is that sense of self and those ideals. The idea that staying true to themselves and remaining moral beings is selfish is ridiculous. There is nothing heroic about someone who has no morals and will do anything and everything to achieve a goal. That's the Dr. Dooms and Tony Starks of the world who'll let the ends justify the means and if it means a few innocent die along the way it's acceptable as long as they pull off some kind of 'good' as they define it.