The Stock Superhero "One Rule", and why it's bullshit.

[Gatx]

I don't know why everybody's making such a fuss over Superman killing Zod. Didn't he do the same in Superman II? Hell, even Lois Lane killed one of the bad guys in that movie.

I've actually never seen Superman II so I can't say for sure why it's okay there, but in the Man of Steel that scene is supposed to be a dramatic turning point for the character because it's a violation of the "One Rule." The problem is that the rule is never established for that particular version of Superman so the drama and shock they're going for is undeserved and feels empty. That's what it is for me anyway.

 

[Abomination]

If he meets a villain for a second time and that villain has killed someone again, then it's a "fool me twice" scenario. It shows the villain should have been given a dirt nap the first time around.

Except you're not killing the villain in defense of anyone then. You're killing him out of fear of what he might do, or out of guilt at what you failed to do. Self-defense only applies when the other guy's knife is drawn or his gun is cocked, and when you aren't capable of moving faster than the bullet ever could to catch it in your hands without suffering ill effect. Killing the bad guy in anything less than those circumstances isn't self-defense; it's execution, and even if we ignore the moral arguments against execution, Superman is a private individual given no power or authority by any government to execute citizens. If someone like him decides he has the right to decide who gets to die, then no one on the planet is safe from him and every government in the world would treat him as a threat to be destroyed by any means necessary because he would be a threat deserving of that status.

They got it the first time when they were given the chance to mend their ways.

If they go out and do the same damn thing again despite knowing exactly who is out to stop them... they deserve obliteration.

Rather it would be better if the authorities had the death penalty to apply to villians, then Superman's code of "don't kill anyone" would be good in the long run.

 

[JimB]

They got it the first time when they were given the chance to mend their ways.

What did who get?

If they go out and do the same damn thing again despite knowing exactly who is out to stop them...they deserve obliteration.

Because they're too stupid to live, right? Well, why doesn't that logic extend to the killer's victims? They were too stupid to get away when the killer attacked, so why aren't they so stupid they deserve obliteration?

It would be better if the authorities had the death penalty to apply to villains; then Superman's code of "don't kill anyone" would be good in the long run.

As Yahtzee himself pointed out just this week, the death penalty puts criminals into a situation where being captured equals death and the smartest thing they can do is kill everyone who could possibly speak against them or convict them at trial, because anything less puts the killer's own life on the line.

 

[Abomination]

They got it the first time when they were given the chance to mend their ways.

What did who get?

Villian got his first and only strike. Surely you can see how a revolving door policy is nothing but destructive.

If they go out and do the same damn thing again despite knowing exactly who is out to stop them...they deserve obliteration.

Because they're too stupid to live, right? Well, why doesn't that logic extend to the killer's victims? They were too stupid to get away when the killer attacked, so why aren't they so stupid they deserve obliteration?[/quote]Because they're not intentionally going out of their way to put themselves in a situation where someone will be required to assess the cost:risk of keeping them alive?

It would be better if the authorities had the death penalty to apply to villains; then Superman's code of "don't kill anyone" would be good in the long run.

As Yahtzee himself pointed out just this week, the death penalty puts criminals into a situation where being captured equals death and the smartest thing they can do is kill everyone who could possibly speak against them or convict them at trial, because anything less puts the killer's own life on the line.

You mean like they're already doing? Most of the villians seem to be doing what they can KNOWING that the worst thing that can happen is they'll be captured rather than killed. It turns into a game with people's deaths as the high score and a few months in prison as the quarter for a continue.

 

[sXeth]

I'd sum up why its nonsense mostly in the two bits of why its even applied.

#1 - The Comics Code utterly forbid killing way back in the day when a great many of the superheroes were made.
#2 - In the more modern era, its mostly applied as a handwavey band-aid solution to let you make "gritty" anti-heroes and still have them be "heroes" in conventional morality. Its an odd bit of logic too, since if you took a soldier or a cop for example in the modern real world, who ran around doing Batman-style brutal beat downs and interrogations on guys, they'd be up for war crimes trials, whereas they're much less villainized for self-defense killing.

 

[JimB]

The villain got his first and only strike.

I feel like there's a contradiction in philosophy in this sentence. Life is precious, so if you kill someone we'll kill you because your life isn't precious enough to save?

Surely you can see how a revolving door policy is nothing but destructive.

I have guesses as to what you're talking about, but you're going to have to spell it out for me if you want me to actually be able to respond.

Because they're not intentionally going out of their way to put themselves in a situation where someone will be required to assess the cost: risk of keeping them alive?

They still behave badly when put into that situation, though.

You mean like they're already doing?

Uh, what are you talking about? It's been a long time since I've heard of any real-life criminal murdering every witness and jury member aligned against him, and it's been almost as long since I've heard of a supervillain being put on trial with the death penalty on the table and then killing all the witnesses and jurors, so who is already doing these things?

Most of the villains seem to be doing what they can knowing that the worst thing that can happen is they'll be captured rather than killed. It turns into a game with people's deaths as the high score and a few months in prison as the quarter for a continue.

As someone who has not read "most" comic books, I really can't say how many villains are behaving in that manner. I kind of doubt you can either, honestly, because that's a really big claim.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

I think they've actually done a decent job of justifying it with Batman in recent years. In Nolan's trilogy of films he saw firsthand what he could become with the League of Shadows: little better (at his first introduction to the League's embraced of execution) than a hitman with a - supposedly - noble cause. The idea of becoming this naturally became even more abhorrent when it was revealed that the League was perfectly content to end all the innocent lives in a city if it meant ridding the world of the corruption that same city held. A variant also pops up in Under the Red Hood where his refusal to kill the Joker is actually a major plot point, to the point that he actually gets into an argument about it during the film's climax. What's ultimately revealed in that scene is that it's not a sense of morality that prevents him from killing the Joker (which he really wants to do), but fear of what he'd become if he allowed himself to do that. (Again, climactic scene, so there are naturally some spoilers associated with it)


You see something similar in the Justice League animated series with the central heroes due to their encounter with the "Justice Lords" from an alternate universe, but Superman in particular stands out due to his fear of becoming the Justice Lord Superman becoming a prominent character trait.

Maybe it's just me, but I find it works out when viewed as a humanizing trait rather than a moral or expedient one.

This sounds good, until you run into one slight problem...

Jails are not effective in comics. For most super villains, the prison is a place to relax, to nurse your wounds, before walking out and causing more mayhem. The system is broken beyond belief, particularly in Gotham. The Joker is not insane, at least, not most of the time. Sure, he has all kinds of mental issues, but fails the fundamental condition for legal insanity, knowing the difference between right and wrong yet acting in a way that is wrong.

The Joker sometimes does not appear the difference between right and wrong, knows that his actions are illegal, yet does them anyway. Having fun doing it does not constitute insanity. Nor does fascination with plants, liking Alice in wonderland, or being part crocodile. This fact was pointed out in the VERY first comic the Joker appeared in. In the real world, the Joker would be given the death penalty for even a fraction of the crimes committed. Yet, the system keeps declaring him insane instead of bringing out the electric chair.

I will paraphrase a quote by SF Debris (because I can't remember the quote word per word) that seems to apply.

"He will continue to kill people. He cannot be reasoned with, he will not listen to force, you cannot physically restrain him. The only logical solution is to kill him."

Let the Joker live, and others will die. The law will only slow the mad clown down. The Joker cannot be stopped, will never stop. Batman's only real choice is to kill him.

The Justice Lord incident was a very particular case. Lex Luther had essentially broken Superman and the Justice League. He had killed the Flash, was about to plunge the world into nuclear war, had managed to get the public to ignore all his past crimes, and was elected President of the United States. Lex Luther took Superman, and showed that humanity is NOT fundamentally good. Democracy had failed, humanity had failed. The Justice League felt pressured to sort out the mess Lex left the world in, so tried to force it to be better. Now, if Superman had killed Lex years earlier, when all the guy was the evil owner of a company, you really think Superman would of become a dictator?

Before you even start, yes I am aware of the Superman: TAS episode where he went evil after Lois died, but we were never given full details of the rise to power and Lex Luther could of easily been manipulating the Man of Steel.

 

[Asita]

This sounds good, until you run into one slight problem...

Jails are not effective in comics. For most super villains, the prison is a place to relax, to nurse your wounds, before walking out and causing more mayhem. The system is broken beyond belief, particularly in Gotham. The Joker is not insane, at least, not most of the time. Sure, he has all kinds of mental issues, but fails the fundamental condition for legal insanity, knowing the difference between right and wrong yet acting in a way that is wrong.

I repeat: Humanizing trait, more grounded in a fear of becoming the very thing you oppose than logic. A fear that the first time is always the hardest, and that if you do it once, it becomes easier to do it again and will eventually become your M.O. Put a different way, we could say that Batman's afraid of becoming Deathstroke and Superman's afraid of becoming Zod and that fear keeps them from killing their foes despite it being perhaps the most practical solution.

 

[Abomination]

The villain got his first and only strike.

I feel like there's a contradiction in philosophy in this sentence. Life is precious, so if you kill someone we'll kill you because your life isn't precious enough to save?

Strike 1: go to jail. Strike 2: go to grave.

Surely you can see how a revolving door policy is nothing but destructive.

I have guesses as to what you're talking about, but you're going to have to spell it out for me if you want me to actually be able to respond.

An example would be Arkham's revolving door policy. Villain kills some people, gets captured and goes in... gets released "somehow", kills more people, back to Arkham. Repeat.

Because they're not intentionally going out of their way to put themselves in a situation where someone will be required to assess the cost: risk of keeping them alive?

They still behave badly when put into that situation, though.

Behave badly by getting killed? You're confusing villain with victim here somehow and I can't possibly see how you don't know the difference between someone who intentionally goes out of their way to kill people and a victim of that very intention.

You mean like they're already doing?

Uh, what are you talking about? It's been a long time since I've heard of any real-life criminal murdering every witness and jury member aligned against him, and it's been almost as long since I've heard of a supervillain being put on trial with the death penalty on the table and then killing all the witnesses and jurors, so who is already doing these things?

I figured we were talking about villains and repeat offenders. The first step should always involve a method of attempting to change a convict into a productive and law-abiding member of society. But should that fail, they are somehow released from prison and then go on to do the exact same crime again... might as well put a bullet in their head.

Most of the villains seem to be doing what they can knowing that the worst thing that can happen is they'll be captured rather than killed. It turns into a game with people's deaths as the high score and a few months in prison as the quarter for a continue.

As someone who has not read "most" comic books, I really can't say how many villains are behaving in that manner. I kind of doubt you can either, honestly, because that's a really big claim.

The Joker highlights this frequently, actually. He enjoys tormenting Batman with it. Lex Luthor is another example of a villian who knows Superman won't kill him.

 

[pyrosaw]

You're in luck my friend, because there IS a character who kills villians! His names the Punisher, and he's as bland and boring as any Superman comic! In truth, this is a DC problem. Actually, it's much more of a Golden Age. You have to remember, both Superman and Batman were made during the Golden Age of comics, where comics were made solely for children, and you can't have the Man of Steel frying Lex Luther's brain in childrens books. Superman and Batman are 40's children characters who are trying to be gritty and deep and it's actually very funny. I couldn't actually take the Nolan Trilogy seriously or Man of Steel. Neither of them are very compelling anymore to me.

 

[JimB]

Strike 1: go to jail. Strike 2: go to grave.

Why? If life is so cheap you can throw it away after only two strikes, then what about human life is worth killing to protect?

An example would be Arkham's revolving door policy. Villain kills some people, gets captured and goes in...gets released "somehow," kills more people, back to Arkham. Repeat.

I don't know how many inmates at Arkham are ever released. It seems like to me most of them escape. That's not a problem in Arkham's policy, nor with the legal system; it's a problem with security and administration.

Behave badly by getting killed? You're confusing villain with victim here somehow and I can't possibly see how you don't know the difference between someone who intentionally goes out of their way to kill people and a victim of that very intention.

The victim makes bad choices that end in death. So does the killer, in your proposed system of jurisprudence.

The first step should always involve a method of attempting to change a convict into a productive and law-abiding member of society.

The entire purpose of government is to protect the rights of its citizens. It can infringe upon our privileges, like the privilege of freedom, but if it infringes on our rights, like the right to not be killed, then it is monstrous and must be struck down, because it's taking from us disproportionate to what we're giving it.

The Joker highlights this frequently, actually. He enjoys tormenting Batman with it. Lex Luthor is another example of a villian who knows Superman won't kill him.

That's two. You said "most," so, if there were only three villains, that would be a compelling case, but as it stands I'm gonna just go ahead and call shenanigans on that.

 

[TheCommanders]

DC wouldn't, DC's policy is that Superheroes are symbols for the common people of aspire to. Symbols should be prefect and incorruptible.

They are not just a super-police force, stopping criminals and supervillian's is only part of their job. They also need to be role models to guide society toward greatness.

Nobody is more of an example of this than Superman, he is what they call a Paragon Hero. He is a prefect and incorruptible example of how the human race should all think and behave, the ideal we should all aspire too. And killing is not something an perfect human should do.

Of course you can argue that perfect people don't work in an imperfect world, like Batman's refusal to kill allowing the Joker to continuously do more and more evil things every time he escapes again. But then you have to think what is the point in stopping the Joker if nobody's trying to make perfect world? If the world is always going to to be imperfect and subsequently always spawn more supervillian's no matter how many you kill then why bother?

What is the point in stopping Joker? How about all the people who he then can't kill? I think that would be a huge plus. The reasons heroes in the DC universe are so ludicrously outnumbered by villains is that none of them ever go away (with a few exceptions). They emerge at a relatively steady rate, but as none of them are ever stopped permanently (and as I've pointed out, killing is only one of several ways to do this) their numbers just keep growing.

In regard to the Paragon point, I think Shepard (from Mass Effect) is a much better Paragon than Superman. He's still an inspiring example, but he's practical enough to realize when his only option is to kill, or allow a greater atrocity to be committed. He pursues all other avenues of possibility first, and only kills as a last resort, but he doesn't refuse to do the right thing just because his image might suffer. That would be an ultimately selfish attitude. Plus, people have trouble identifying with someone as "perfect" as Superman, which makes it harder to justify him as a role model. A more human figure (and I'm not talking about their powers) who demonstrates flaws but still acts more admirably than the vast majority of humanity, that's who the masses will flock behind and try to emulate.

 

[TheCommanders]

But seriously... something is very wrong with the prisons in these universes. Funding might not be the problem, but something clearly is.

Well yeah, but by that logic there's no point killing the villains because they get better anyway. This is a comic book world, remember?

I just don't see why the reaction to the no killing rule is "stupid superheroes" rather than "stupid legal system."

The reason it also becomes "stupid superheroes" is that they are aware of the problem, but do nothing about it. They continously use the same solution to deal with villains they defeat knowing full well (unless they are completely delusional) that it won't work. If they aren't going to kill people ever, then it's up to them to find a better solution, which they never even attempt.

"No point in killing the villains because they get better anyway." I can't even begin to see where you got that from me saying that the prison system is terrible. In the comic book world, a very tiny percentage of the villains have heel face turns, the others are remorseless and unrepentant at all time, and never change. I don't even understand what your argument here is.

 

[ultrachicken]

This is a moot point because nothing, not imprisonment and certainly not death, can stop the supervillains in comicbooks. Even if Supes just up and murdered Lex Luthor, it would only be a matter of time before he got resurrected somehow, as tends to happen in the comic book universe.