Ethics And Morality In Superhero Stories

[Aerosteam]

Having the "No Kill Rule" or not doesn't really make a difference in the long run, you know comic books, just because a character is dead doesn't mean they'll stay dead. Even if they are 100% a corpse, nothing's stopping them from appearing in flashbacks/visions, case in point: the Arkham games.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Bruce Wayne/Batman is an exercise in moral and ethical contradiction. A man with nigh incalculable wealth wants to fight the rampant crime in his beloved city, but instead of using his funds and technological wizardries to aid and arm the lawful defenders of Gotham, he hordes all the goodies himself, puts on his bulletproof pajamas with the pointy ears and willingly becomes a criminal himself by employing torture, coercion, severe-if-nonlethal beatings and often, least of his misdeeds, destruction of personal property in the pursuit of? lawful justice?

Batman would make more sense if he embraced his vigilante nature, embraced the duality of his two personas, and went full-bore ?spirit of vengeance? as Batman, a Punisher-esque anti-hero. No mercy, save tomorrow by killing today. How many times does the Joker have to go free from incarceration before Batman realizes, after dangling him off a ledge for the 149 millionth time, that he could save everyone a lot of pain and misery by letting the fucker drop? Yeah, the medical examiner might have to work some overtime, but how much time and paperwork would he save the active police force if he stopped breaking arms and started breaking necks? Do you think the criminals of Gotham would try half their bullshit if they knew that old ?Bat-Brain? had gone ?Bat-Shit-Insane? and traded in all his stun rounds for armor-piercing RIP ammo, his batarangs for razor-sharp shuriken and his smoke bombs for noxious sarin nerve gas grenades? Sure, he?d eventually get caught and face numerous counts of murder in the highest degree imaginable, but hell, if Batman did his job in such the way as he?s more than capable, he?d essentially have the entire prison to himself!

 

[CaitSeith]

Maybe not wanting to kill the supervillains is a character flaw. A superhero without flaws is a boring superhero.

Maybe they just try to portrait superheros as the opposite of supervillains. How frequent is for supervillains to kill in cold blood, or being pushed to the villain side after killing someone in the heat of the moment?

But yeah. In practice is better for business to keep the supervillains alive so if they become popular, they can reappear without having to revive them or explain how they survived or faked their death everytime.

 

[Captain Marvelous_v1legacy]

Ah, that. The first thing I thought when Clayface died was, "Huh. I wonder when they're gonna to bring him back from the dead?". In the case of Batman and his rouges gallery, a lot of them are kind of mentally ill. Clayface, a villain in the middle of reform, was manipulated by a villain into giving in to his condition. He was a victim and Batwoman killed him. It isn't difficult to see why Batman and Cassandra, who were both heavily invested in Clayface's reform, were more than a little devastated to see a teammate in need of help get shot down. I get why she did it. I get why Bats didn't like it.

Also, I don't find killing to be a desirable trait in my heroes, baring some exceptions like Wolverine. It's just really off putting to know that these larger than life beings go around playing executioner. I don't really apply the same rules to heroes as I do to officers. Like Tim said, they're supposed to be better than that.

Actually few if any of Batman's rogues would be considered mentally ill. Most of them know the difference between right and wrong, they just don't care. Batman writers simply fail to have caught up with 21st century knowledge of mental illness, particularly how people with mental illness are more likely to the victims of mental illness rather than the perpetrators.

Yes Clayface was a victim. He was also a threat to innocent people that needed to be stopped by any means necessary. And shouldn't their anger lie with the person who undid all of Clayface's progress anyway?


"We need to be better than that" is a nice, if childishly simplistic, sentiment but ignores that a) no one has made any arguments for what else Kate should have done and b) superheroes commit a number of crimes when fighting villains. Exactly who does Tim think they are "better" than?

They are still going after the victim syndicate, but that doesn't mean they ignore the fact that Batwoman killed a friend in need. I can't help but feel like if it were some other villain, Deathstroke, Joker, Bane, that the only one who'd really care would be Bats. Cassandra is upset because she made a connection with Clayface. He was her friend and one of the first she ever made. Tim's just scared that he's locked on the path of becoming a murderous Batman. Batman would be upset no matter what. As it stands, Batwoman coldly gunned down an ally.

Kate should not have pulled the trigger. She should not have engaged in actions that go against what the symbol or the team represents. She should have at least tried to find another way. Killing Clayface was her Plan A. The only thing she could contribute to a team dedicated to operating without taking lives.

The city of Gotham is full of corruption. From the politicians to the cops, there's hardly anyone worth trusting. I've heard the argument that Bruce Wayne could help fund the GCPD and hand them the weapons they need to take down the villains, but what would actually happen is the villains would get their hands on the arsenal and suddenly even the common thugs are a lot more dangerous. Basically, they have to be better than that. Better than that corruption. Batman and his amazing friends are already operating outside of the law. I think it's reasonable for them to draw the line at killing. Preferably they'd also draw the line before torture.

And, while it may be childish, we're talking about men and women in tights fighting other men and women in tights, often of the brightly colored variety. Some call themselves heroes, others call themselves villains, and the jump around shouting one liners, gloating, and ranting about their evil plans. You can inject as much maturity as you want, it wont change the fact that he wears tights and dresses like a bat.

By the way, have you read Batman White Kight?

 

[Cicada 5]

They are still going after the victim syndicate, but that doesn't mean they ignore the fact that Batwoman killed a friend in need. I can't help but feel like if it were some other villain, Deathstroke, Joker, Bane, that the only one who'd really care would be Bats.

Which only shows the hypocrisy of this team. What they only car because it?s somebody they know? That doesn?t make them heroes it makes them nepotists.

Kate should not have pulled the trigger. She should not have engaged in actions that go against what the symbol or the team represents. She should have at least tried to find another way. Killing Clayface was her Plan A. The only thing she could contribute to a team dedicated to operating without taking lives.

I repeat, what other options did she have? How many would be dead while she?s trying to find another way? For all the moral indignation directed at her, it?s telling that none of them (or you for that matter) can offer another option.

The city of Gotham is full of corruption. From the politicians to the cops, there's hardly anyone worth trusting. I've heard the argument that Bruce Wayne could help fund the GCPD and hand them the weapons they need to take down the villains, but what would actually happen is the villains would get their hands on the arsenal and suddenly even the common thugs are a lot more dangerous. Basically, they have to be better than that. Better than that corruption. Batman and his amazing friends are already operating outside of the law. I think it's reasonable for them to draw the line at killing. Preferably they'd also draw the line before torture.

Or they could join the police force and fight the corruption from within. Maybe Bruce could also run for Mayor or become a DA. After all, if these guys are so damn noble, maybe they should try fighting the problems from within because running around in bulletproof PJs hasn?t solved jack.

And, while it may be childish, we're talking about men and women in tights fighting other men and women in tights, often of the brightly colored variety. Some call themselves heroes, others call themselves villains, and the jump around shouting one liners, gloating, and ranting about their evil plans. You can inject as much maturity as you want, it wont change the fact that he wears tights and dresses like a bat.

There?s limits to how much idiocy an audience should be forced to stomach from the characters.

By the way, have you read Batman White Kight?

No. How is it relevant to this conversation?

 

[Cicada 5]

So you're okay with these guys interfering in police investigations, contaminating evidence, assaulting and torturing people and generally taking the law into their own hands as long as they somehow avoid killing people?

Pretty sure I'm not okay with any of that stuff, butthen again if there is proof they prevented a larger problem without breaking at least basic understandings of human rights (like, say, torture) ... then it's reasonable. I'm not saying it's good. Just like I don't think it's good when police shoot a fugitive ... but it can be reasonable based on empirically understandable dimensions of the transgression... it's just that the criterion of it being within reasonable expression should be incredibly high.

I wiull note that the primary danger of vigilantism in my eyes isn't simply someone taking the law into their own hands. We often do that ourselves ... like when I co-ran a bar, my security would often escort someone out before any real damages were done. Pre-empting a worse situation from happening, even if there is shaky evidence it might of happened or not.

But let's say the situation where a vigilante justifies their actions not in terms ofthe information and options presented at the time, but rather in terms of; "Sure I beat up two guys, but I also saved 5 guys last weekend so it's fine."

Note, the key problem with power is always, always, the transgression of acceptability in the moment.

Even in utilitarianism, it's not about the tally at the end of the day ... it's about the situations that can be cleanly listed as disparate, and the individual actions as made to be humanly capable of being upstanding at every decision made. It is reasonable that a long winding series of misfortunate events might lead to someone driven to their wits end, becoming a symbol of otherwise unreasonable force and violence ...

It's not reasonable if the individual instances of that otherwise unreasonable force are unrelated to eachother. Because you're not testing the same thing.

Bad things happen in war. Friendly fire, collateral damage, misinformation leading to otherwise unreasonable force. When it becomes a moral consideration is when these instances are unrelated to the otherwise harrowing conditions of their emergence ... due to negligence, malice, or wilful depravity.

Not merely a tally of; "Well the world's better with me than without" ... which is no real measure of morality, only a measure of how fortunate the world is that it doesn't have someone like you placed into more greyer situations more often.

I honest to God have no idea what you're saying here.

 

[Myria]

Maybe they just try to portrait superheros as the opposite of supervillains.

A while back there was two parallel series called Irredeemable and Incorruptible [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/ComicBook/Irredeemable].

Irredeemable dealt with a Superman expy called The Plutonian who goes batshit crazy and, seemingly overnight, goes from being Earth's greatest hero to the cruelest mass murderer in history.

Incorruptible deals with Max Damage, one of the few super villains who can, and often has, go toe-to-toe with The Plutonian, witnessing The Plutonian wiping out an entire city -- a city Max himself was about to wipe out -- and it shocking him so much that he decides he has to become a "good guy" and try and protect the world as best he can. Only problem is he has no idea how to be a "good guy", he basically has no moral compass whatsoever, so he just does the exact opposite of whatever he would have done when he was a super villain.

Unsurprisingly, this often doesn't exactly have the intended effect.

While both series have their flaws, both are interesting takes on common super hero/super villain tropes.

 

[Cicada 5]

Maybe not wanting to kill the supervillains is a character flaw. A superhero without flaws is a boring superhero.

That would be a good idea but that isn't how it's presented most of the time. And the few times it is presented that way, the fans lose their minds.

Maybe they just try to portrait superheros as the opposite of supervillains. How frequent is for supervillains to kill in cold blood, or being pushed to the villain side after killing someone in the heat of the moment?

Because apparently there is no other instance when killing people can be justified. Wonder Woman and Huntress have been killing since the 80s and is still a hero

But yeah. In practice is better for business to keep the supervillains alive so if they become popular, they can reappear without having to revive them or explain how they survived or faked their death everytime.

This I don't have an issue with.It just would be nice if said villains also weren't more depraved than your average war criminal.

 

[Redryhno]

Or they could join the police force and fight the corruption from within. Maybe Bruce could also run for Mayor or become a DA. After all, if these guys are so damn noble, maybe they should try fighting the problems from within because running around in bulletproof PJs hasn?t solved jack.

Because the corruption is much more wide-spread than you're making it out to be. There are literally a handful of true blue cops left in Gotham that are willing to put themselves and their extended families at risk for the shit that goes on in the city, and most of them aren't exactly all there, whether that be physically or mentally simply because of how widespread it is. Gordon is where he is through dumbass luck and tenacity and depending on what version of the story we're using, got where he is because someone higher on the totem pole got a bit too big of a head and decided he could be a good replacement for whatever reason.

And Bruce for Mayor? The guy is known as a playboy living on daddy's money. You can try to say something like "President Trump" as a counter-arguement. But the difference is that for the most part, nobody really knows that he's actually pushed for shit like better living conditions and free clinics. Nobody really knows exactly how much philanthropy he's done. He's given the police arms that allow them to take down criminals with less lethality through I think Wayne Manufacturing(or whichever is the former-ish military contractor arm of the Wayne empire), but it's only done so much. To the vast majority of people, he's the guy that jumps into the kitchen of a restaurant and buys it after smashing plates around the place in some kind of ritual kale dance. Not to mention there's been numerous times where he's gotten more power than he currently has(as more than a batsuit and psuedo-businessman) and it legitimately terrifies him. Like, you have seen when he's been put into a position of power in the League beyond his normal "founding member" status? Things do not go well.

As for how much idiocy people shouldn't be willing to be put up with, I have yet to see a long-running work of fiction not run into the same problem. You're literally throwing a fit about pulp novel storytelling. Odds are constantly being upped and downed, villains constantly appearing and reappearing after asspulls, and basic motivations stay the same throughout it all. You cannot try to apply real-world logic to a world where they've learned how to create a stable and reliable space elevator with medical rubber, titanium, and balsa wood. You're supposed to take the basic reasoning and enjoy it, or see the commentary(whether it be social, critical, or what have you) and find some manner of applying it to your own views.

 

[TheFinish]

Batman doesn't kill.....because he doesn't kill. That's basically it. The meta explanaiton is obviously so they can keep the rogue's gallery (not that people dying in comics has ever meant they stay dead, of course, with a few notable exceptions).

The in-universe explanation is just that he can't. All his talk about it being the line he doesn't cross are really dumb when you actually tally up all the shit he's already done, from stalking, to breaking and entering, to assault, to torture, to crippling people.

Or, to put it in a funny way:

Spoiler

But mostly: It's just comic books, they mostly don't make sense anyway. Just enjoy the ride until the inevitable reboot and/or cancellation.

 

[Cicada 5]

Because the corruption is much more wide-spread than you're making it out to be. There are literally a handful of true blue cops left in Gotham that are willing to put themselves and their extended families at risk for the shit that goes on in the city, and most of them aren't exactly all there, whether that be physically or mentally simply because of how widespread it is. Gordon is where he is through dumbass luck and tenacity and depending on what version of the story we're using, got where he is because someone higher on the totem pole got a bit too big of a head and decided he could be a good replacement for whatever reason.

Like I said, what they?re doing now isn?t making any headway.

And Bruce for Mayor? The guy is known as a playboy living on daddy's money. You can try to say something like "President Trump" as a counter-arguement. But the difference is that for the most part, nobody really knows that he's actually pushed for shit like better living conditions and free clinics. Nobody really knows exactly how much philanthropy he's done. He's given the police arms that allow them to take down criminals with less lethality through I think Wayne Manufacturing(or whichever is the former-ish military contractor arm of the Wayne empire), but it's only done so much. To the vast majority of people, he's the guy that jumps into the kitchen of a restaurant and buys it after smashing plates around the place in some kind of ritual kale dance.

I don?t know. We?re talking about a billionaire who is shown to be mildly eccentric at worst. Not the p*ssy-grabbing cheeto in an unconvincing hair piece.

Not to mention there's been numerous times where he's gotten more power than he currently has(as more than a batsuit and psuedo-businessman) and it legitimately terrifies him. Like, you have seen when he's been put into a position of power in the League beyond his normal "founding member" status? Things do not go well.

Are those in main continuity or elseworlds?

As for how much idiocy people shouldn't be willing to be put up with, I have yet to see a long-running work of fiction not run into the same problem. You're literally throwing a fit about pulp novel storytelling. Odds are constantly being upped and downed, villains constantly appearing and reappearing after asspulls, and basic motivations stay the same throughout it all. You cannot try to apply real-world logic to a world where they've learned how to create a stable and reliable space elevator with medical rubber, titanium, and balsa wood. You're supposed to take the basic reasoning and enjoy it, or see the commentary(whether it be social, critical, or what have you) and find some manner of applying it to your own views.

The problem is that writers keep drawing attention to the unrealistic nature of their stories with plots like the one I mentioned in the opening post. It?s like a stage magician expecting people to enjoy the act when we can clearly see the wires. You can't just gou "don't take us seriously except now we want you to take us seriously". That's trying to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Redryhno]

The problem is that writers keep drawing attention to the unrealistic nature of their stories with plots like the one I mentioned in the opening post. It?s like a stage magician expecting people to enjoy the act when we can clearly see the wires. You can't just gou "don't take us seriously except now we want you to take us seriously". That's trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Guess you're not much of a Sci-Fi or Ancient Fantasy fan I suppose?

As for the rest, I don't know for certain, Elseworld's, Main continuity, past continuity, and Reboots have sorta made it impossible to know exactly what timeline anything is in.

 

[wizzy555]

Maybe not wanting to kill the supervillains is a character flaw. A superhero without flaws is a boring superhero.

I wouldn't call it a character flaw as such. I think you must remember that batman is kind of insane, he is traumatised. He strictly adheres to a sort of deontological morality as a self defence mechanism.

Also for other meta-reasons. Remember comics were/are associated with children's entertainment. They were expected, at some level to present lessons acceptable for children. Solving your problems by killing people has very poor optics even if justified by common sense utilitarianism.

 

[Tanis]

Batman: A Rich Dude Plays Dress Up And Then Beats The Poor AND Mentally Ill

Yeah...not really a great example of 'ethics' or 'morality'.

 

[immortalfrieza]

The idea of a "No Kill Rule" is absurd from both a moral and practical perspective and it exists for no good reason, merely to give the hero a false sense of nobility and to keep villains around so the writers don't have to keep making up more in anything it's ever been used in. This isn't to say that killing a criminal should be a Superhero's first, second, third, or even further resort for dealing with whatever criminal or supervillain they come across, but it should ALWAYS be on the table.

First, the practical reasons: It doesn't matter if you've got super martial arts training or sci-fi gadgetry or whatever killing someone especially a group is much easier and faster than bringing them in alive and killing their captors is much more likely to successfully save a hostage or whatever than not, sometimes it's all but impossible to pull it off any other way. Even some non-lethal means of subduing carry a not insignificant risk of possibly killing the target. This means that killing the bad guys is realistically much more likely to succeed than attempting to capture them. Sure, we may know the Superhero is always going to succeed at stopping the bad guys and saving everyone but the Superhero does not know this and thus should be expected to act to improve his chances. Batman may be more than skilled enough to take out a couple dozen of The Joker's thugs and the man himself non-lethally, but he's putting himself and anyone he might be there to save at much more risk by attempting to bring the foes in alive instead of just walking in there and shooting them all dead with an Uzi or something. This is especially true when the odds are against the Superhero, they should be doing whatever they can to tip the odds in their favor including killing.

Second, the moral reasons: Even the lowest joke D-list supervillain has dozens of murders and countless amounts of property damage among other crimes under their belt, and the number who are either successfully reformed or genuinely kept incarcerated permanently are so microscopically small it's not worth mentioning. It's one thing to abstain from killing some random mugger who it's simple to subdue and will very likely stay in prison for their term, it's quite another to keep capturing mass murderers like all supervillains are and keep throwing them in jail or the nuthouse over and over just to have them break out the next week and going back to committing crimes and murdering people. Killing the former simply shows that the "superhero" is not actually a superhero at all and is in fact a psychopath killing for their own pleasure rather than a real reason, killing the latter is just the only way to actually STOP these people. To just keep throwing supervillains in jail accomplishes nothing in any universe that they exist in, killing them is the only way to prevent further harm from occurring and is the only thing that will actually improve that universe. These Superheroes have the power (With Great Power Comes...) and the desire to be Superheroes, to protect, and by refusing to kill under any circumstances they are shirking their responsibilities. Refraining from killing is simply just selfish, it means the "Superhero" values their likely entirely self imposed moral code over the lives of the victims of these people. Putting an end to those who harm and kill others and can't be genuinely stopped any other way is far far more noble than refusing to kill them no matter what could ever be.

Lastly, "where does it end?" is often something people say when this is brought up. It ends when any sane person would say it ends, on a case by case basis for as long as the Superhero decides to be a Superhero. It's cliche to use him because The Joker is a perfect example, someone who will never ever stop killing people simply because he can and will never be contained for any real length of time. Killing The Joker is the sole way of stopping him from hurting anyone else and always will be for as long as he exists, but any storyline that has ever had anyone actually do this either has the Superhero doing this not be an actual Superhero at all and is actually just killing villains for kicks and because they think they can get away with killing people by targeting people like him, or the Superhero quickly switches gears from someone who values life and fights to protect it into a mass murdering nutjob themselves who very likely will go to killing anyone who tries to stop them and/or defy them in any way before even if every one of them is completely innocent, not to mention endless "if you kill him you will be just like him" storylines.

These storylines are designed to show the validity of the "No Kill Rule" by demonstrating what would happen if they broke it, but really it's entirely false because all it does is go for the most blatant extremes that only a "Superhero" who was completely out of their mind to begin with would do as a response to breaking such a rule, and that's if anyone would. Even if they were nuts enough to run around in a spandex costume beating up criminals and whatever a even slightly sane person would kill supervillains and other mass murdering lunatics like The Joker, have a good cry if they had to, then pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and continue running around in a spandex costume beating up criminals like nothing had happened at the end of the day, then do the same thing if they later encountered another. It also wouldn't "get easier" nor would it make that person anything like the supervillains they killed no matter how many they killed, and they'd be no more inclined to kill anyone much less the innocent in the future than they were before they ever killed a supervillain, at the most they'd be less likely to be distressed over the aftermath.

Sorry for the rant, I just wish Superheroes would actually be Superheroes and thus be willing to kill on a reasonable basis, just like anyone in real life who is charged with protecting the innocent would.

 

[wizzy555]

It also wouldn't "get easier" nor would it make that person anything like the supervillains they killed no matter how many they killed, and they'd be no more inclined to kill anyone much less the innocent in the future than they were before they ever killed a supervillain, at the most they'd be less likely to be distressed over the aftermath.

Why would you assume that? This flies in the face of plenty of historical examples. Just one, in my country, surveillance laws that were enacted to catch terrorists are being used to track down people who have noisy dogs.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Why would you assume that? This flies in the face of plenty of historical examples. Just one, in my country, surveillance laws that were enacted to catch terrorists are being used to track down people who have noisy dogs.

It's because to do otherwise shows a lack on morals and sanity on that person's part to begin with. The whole idea of "it gets easier" or it's similar concept "if you kill him you will be just like him" is just as absurd as the "No Kill Rule" if not more so, people don't work that way and it's very lazy writing to have it work like that in fiction. A person's morals don't suddenly change or even bend just because they are forced to make an exception to them in very obviously justified circumstances, their morals remain the same. Just like say a conscripted soldier or cop or whoever who genuinely never wanted to kill people ends up killing people for one reason or another in situations where it is well justified wouldn't because of that suddenly decide to go home and kill random innocent people in their neighborhood, whether for reasons that are only justified in their own heads at best or for the sheer sake of it at worst, and anything in between. Anyone who does either went insane (which is always cheap cop out lazy writing when it's used in any stories much less Superhero ones to explain anyone's actions) or they've always had homicidal tendencies and just didn't have the opportunity to indulge in it and now can't get enough. It's a frequently quoted thing but power doesn't corrupt, it just gives the dicks who always wanted to crush others under their heel whether they were consciously willing to admit it to others and even themselves or not but weren't able to before the ability to finally do so and throwing out one's morals in any context much less regarding murder is the same.

If in your country or any other any laws are being abused and taken advantage of to do other things the laws weren't supposedly created and amended them for the people who proposed, worked to pass those laws, and genuinely intended to enact those laws as stated stepped down willingly, forcefully, or a combination of both and someone corrupt took their place and started abusing it. Either that or the so called purpose of those laws was a secondary benefit at best and total lie at worst designed to get it through so the laws could be used as such, or lastly the ones who ended up being responsible for enacting those laws were corrupt thus abusing it and those who created those laws are oblivious to it or can't do anything about it.

 

[maninahat]

Superheroes, much like detective and cop stories, are inherently conservative in that they are about protecting an established order and stopping transgressors harm it. Superheroes often take it into fascistic territory by operating without oversight, accountability, and with tremendous power beyond that available to anyone else. Batman in particular is bad for this, as his power is essentially a product of his tremendous inherited wealth, and he beats down poor people and mentally ill people whilst still claiming the moral high ground.

It's weird seeing how a lot of the contradictions in Batman's philosophy is a product of the newer direction its taken. Batman used to cooperate fully with the police in broad daylight, essentially as a deputy. And he also had no problem killing the shit out of people, so the whole "everything is fine short of killing" hypocrisy didn't exist.

There are plenty of comics that have gotten wise to this inherent weakness: Ms. Marvel's enemies, for instance, often represent corrupt authority figures and people punching down at minorities. Meanwhile Judge Dread revels in the fact that its protagonist is a blatant fascist.

 

[Silvanus]

Superheroes, much like detective and cop stories, are inherently conservative in that they are about protecting an established order and stopping transgressors harm it. Superheroes often take it into fascistic territory by operating without oversight, accountability, and with tremendous power beyond that available to anyone else. Batman in particular is bad for this, as his power is essentially a product of his tremendous inherited wealth, and he beats down poor people and mentally ill people whilst still claiming the moral high ground.

Stopping murderous super-criminals makes superheroes about as "conservative" as the concept of a functional police force, which is essential for any civilised society.

And even then, this overlooks the many times superheroes have radically challenged the established order-- Green Arrow, Batman in Superman: Red Son, Ozymandias, quite a few of the X-Men.

 

[Cicada 5]

Superheroes, much like detective and cop stories, are inherently conservative in that they are about protecting an established order and stopping transgressors harm it. Superheroes often take it into fascistic territory by operating without oversight, accountability, and with tremendous power beyond that available to anyone else. Batman in particular is bad for this, as his power is essentially a product of his tremendous inherited wealth, and he beats down poor people and mentally ill people whilst still claiming the moral high ground.

Stopping murderous super-criminals makes superheroes about as "conservative" as the concept of a functional police force, which is essential for any civilised society.

And even then, this overlooks the many times superheroes have radically challenged the established order-- Green Arrow, Batman in Superman: Red Son, Ozymandias, quite a few of the X-Men.

Having a functional police force or at least having superheroes be part of it isn't conservative. However, depicting elected authorities as always incompetent and/or corrupt and having it so that society can only be saved by unelected individuals, many of whom are of questionable stability, is a more toxic viewpoint.

Green Arrow challenging the established order amounts to him calling everything fascist and everybody a Nazi without actually doing anything of value. Ozymandias was a terrorist whose plan was never needed for peace. Batman in Red Son is an elseworld. And the X-Men