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

Miroluck

New member
Jun 5, 2013
80
0
0
JimB said:
Abomination said:
I don't know about you, but I believe that two lives are more valuable than one life.
I don't. Human life is not a math equation, and even if it was, permit me to point out that by killing that guy, there are no longer two dead bodies. There are now three.
Three instead of two hundred and three is not so bad.

JimB said:
Abomination said:
The whole facility is corrupt as hell, it's a situation where the inmates run the asylum either directly or indirectly. Killing them would solve all problems.
So would hiring new staff.
That would be just as corrupt as the old one.

JimB said:
Abomination said:
The victim makes a bad choice? By zigging instead of zagging? The killer intentionally tries to kill someone.
And the victim intentionally chose to live the kind of life that left him unprepared to survive an attack,
I'm confused. By saying "intentionally", are you implying that:
1) villain in that hypothetical situation have killed someone who is "only" another criminal,
2) or what are you saying is that slaughtered person was at fault for his own death despite not doing anything immoral?
so why is he more innocent under your paradigm than the villain?
Because he wasn't doing anything illegal? (If he was then disregard that).

JimB said:
Abomination said:
This is also about saving lives, not ending them.
No, it isn't. You're sitting here arguing that killing is cool.
It is "cool" if person that was killed is a murderer himself.

JimB said:
Abomination said:
The victims are not creating the situation where death occurs.
It takes two to dance.
Should everyone who was mugged be on trial along with their mugger?

JimB said:
And the victim intentionally chose to live the kind of life that left him unprepared to survive an attack, so why is he more innocent under your paradigm than the villain?
JimB said:
No, it isn't. You're sitting here arguing that killing is cool.
JimB said:
It takes two to dance.
Only a sperglord would fail to see any difference between "villain/criminal is murdering taxpayers left and right", and "hero kills a criminal/villain".
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
Miroluck said:
That would be just as corrupt as the old one.
The only reason an all-new staff at Arkham would be "just as corrupt" as the old one is because the plot demands it be, in which case there's no point killing anyone either, because the plot will demand the villains come back to life too. It also demands that the characters know they're fictional beings in a comic book universe, which wasn't funny when She-Hulk did it and would probably be less so when Batman does it.

Miroluck said:
I'm confused. By saying "intentionally", are you implying that:
Abominable is saying a person's choices make him deserving of death and make it okay to kill that person. I am saying if that logic applies to villains, then it applies to victims too, because if someone who puts himself in a position to be murdered by Superman or Batman "just had it coming" because of the life they live, then so do the victims of Lex Luthor or the Joker, because those victims could have lived warriors' lives so they would be able to defend themselves, but they chose instead to focus on other areas that left them weak. They are as responsible for those choices as Lex Luthor or the Joker are for their choices to go out killing people.

Miroluck said:
It is "cool" if person that was killed is a murderer himself.
And now Superman and/or Batman are murderers, so killing them is cool, and whoever kills them is now cool to be killed, and over a long enough period of time everyone has killed someone and is therefore cool to be killed.

Miroluck said:
Only a sperglord would fail to see any difference between "villain/criminal is murdering taxpayers left and right," and "hero kills a criminal/villain."
Spare me the name-calling, will you? If people have a right to live, then that right applies to all people, even the ones you don't like, and killing is only justified in defense of another when there's no other option. For most superheroes, there's always another option because they have magical fucking powers.
 

Norithics

New member
Jul 4, 2013
387
0
0
OP, you are missing a couple of points here.

- Kill-or-be-killed is what gangsters do. It's what every human being who kills another one feels. Everyone believes they're justified, and everyone is human and fallible, therefore flawed. That's not what a beacon of superior morality does, it's what a desperate criminal does.

- You will aggro the shit out of law enforcement if you just start up and killing people. Even people who deserve it! The best that can be said about you at this point is that you are a serial killer with a slightly more convenient profile. When you run out of victims, everybody's not just going to assume you'll stop, because you're obviously already crazy.
 

ninjaRiv

New member
Aug 25, 2010
986
0
0
Batman stated that, if he killed the Joker, he wouldn't be able to stop killing and the line would be blurred.

But most heroes don't kill, because they have morals. They're supposed to be the best of the good guys, so why would they kill? That's for the likes of Frank Castle. bUT THINK ABOUT IT; COULD YOU KILL JUST LIKE THAT? really? Heroes believe in rehabilitation (Bruce Wayne is known for investing in Arkham Asylum to try and make the patients better). The fact that the villains escape and kill so often is because writers don't want to do anything different. They reuse the same old villains. But, as I said, some heroes do kill. Frank Castle and, to a point, Deadpool kill all the time.
 

Miroluck

New member
Jun 5, 2013
80
0
0
Norithics said:
OP, you are missing a couple of points here.

- You will aggro the shit out of law enforcement if you just start up and killing people. Even people who deserve it!
Not necessarilly. Many policemen feel differently about "real" victims of murder and criminals murdered in the course of criminal activity.
Still, killing a lot of them would probably turn more than a few heads, yes.
 

Miroluck

New member
Jun 5, 2013
80
0
0
JimB said:
Miroluck said:
I'm confused. By saying "intentionally", are you implying that:
Abominable is saying a person's choices make him deserving of death and make it okay to kill that person. I am saying if that logic applies to villains, then it applies to victims too,

snip
No, it really doesn't.

JimB said:
Miroluck said:
It is "cool" if person that was killed is a murderer himself.
And now Superman and/or Batman are murderers, so killing them is cool, and whoever kills them is now cool to be killed, and over a long enough period of time everyone has killed someone and is therefore cool to be killed.

snip
Superman and Batman doesn't count, because they have murdered (IF they would do that) to save lives.

JimB said:
Miroluck said:
Only a sperglord would fail to see any difference between "villain/criminal is murdering taxpayers left and right," and "hero kills a criminal/villain."
Spare me the name-calling, will you?
It was not a name calling. It's just that inability to grasp societal or moral norms is often a sign of that disease.
If people have a right to live, then that right applies to all people, even the ones you don't like,
It's not that I don't like them, it's that those villains have done some horrible things (that's why they're called "villains"), and they are going to commit even more deeds that will be even more horrible.
and killing is only justified in defense of another when there's no other option.
I argue that killing a murderer that will commit more murders IS self-defense. Self-defense of society against a person who is killing members of that society.

ravenshrike said:
JimB said:
Abomination said:
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?
Given the Joker kill/driven to insanity counts in the comics, it's more like Strike 20, go to jail, strike 56, die.
Add one or two zeros and it will sound about right.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
Miroluck said:
No, it really doesn't.
You will forgive me if I find this less than compelling.

Miroluck said:
Superman and Batman don't count, because they have murdered (if they would do that) to save lives.
Superman and Batman do not need to murder to save lives. Superman can catch every bullet and block every knife, and Batman can pull out whatever ridiculous plot-device murder-repellent-bat-spray he was saving in his bat-utility belt for just such an occasion. The only reason for them to kill is for fear of what the villain might do after capture, and that is not defense. Even if events unfold to prove those fears founded, that's no excuse, because hindsight cannot be retroactively applied as precognition.

Miroluck said:
It was not a name calling.
Crap.

Miroluck said:
I argue that killing a murderer who will commit more murders is self-defense.
And if you kill him while he has a gun on someone and you don't have any superpowers to make nonlethal tactics valid, then I won't have any complaint. Killing someone who's already beaten is not okay.
 

Miroluck

New member
Jun 5, 2013
80
0
0
JimB said:
Miroluck said:
No, it really doesn't.
You will forgive me if I find this less than compelling.
You will forgive for thinking that you're a bit pompous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHeXraHQ4X8

Since links are apparently tools of the devil (they are often left untouched), I'll have to quote some stuff.

"When you've got witnesses, when you've got a guy that apparently so ******-up that he didn't realise that taking a guy's head off and eating parts of him was wrong, why don't you just put the ****er down? We do it with dogs all the time: a pitbull decides a baby would make a delicious snack, eats it and a dog gets put down."


Really, if anyone can't or do not want to see that killing villains in comics would be
a) totally justifed
b) practical
there's not much I can do.

Because this discussion will go in the same direction that discussions about death penalty usually go, i.e. nowhere.
 

shatnuh

New member
Feb 19, 2013
21
0
0
In the words of Salvor Hardin, "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."

Superman has always been "Top Dog" in the DC universe. He is the Gold standard for what your Hero should be: virtuous, humble, and overall, caring. Superman understands that tyranny is born of oppression, and that alone humanizes each and every enemy he faces. Superman also understands that his powers could lead him to such a tyrannical position, one in which the citizens of Earth live in fear of their greatest protector. His solution to these possible issues? No killing. Because why go that route if you can successfully remove the threat without murder?

And almost more importantly, as pure and sterling as Superman can be, he is also a man. While we may give him all the pedestal he needs to be judge, jury and executioner, HE remains a conflicted man with an immense moral conviction. He knows, additionally, that every other Hero in the DCU looks up to him in one way or another. Whether they aspire to be him, or begrudgingly respect him, they all wish to embody most of his ideals. Think about that. That's a lot of responsibility for one man, to be the idol/example of all the good-aligned superheroes. And if Superman were let himself slip, and tear a man in half like Black Adam during The first 52, what's to stop others from following suit? When the man who embodies hope in all of its essence decides that hope is moot, all you have a is a planet full of Judge Dredd's with superpowers.
 

kypsilon

New member
May 16, 2010
384
0
0
If you want to know what happens when the heroes run around and actually start killing villains, I'd suggest you read Kingdom Come by Mark Waid and Alex Ross.

That being said it seems that you're saying "Why doesn't he just KILL the guy?". Why don't cops just kill the guy? Why doesn't the military just carpet bomb the middle east? Why do we have a justice system? Why do we send people to prison when we could just kill them all and be done with it?

We're trying to be civilized here, and super heroes are heroes because despite all their super powers and the ability to wipe people off the map with a thought, they choose to believe in a greater idea of civilization. If everyone who wears a mask and fights crime becomes a judge, jury and executioner, then the world becomes a very scary place. People are going to have vastly different opinions on what is and isn't justice.

The "One Rule" as you put it isn't bullshit, not really. It's very high-minded and not terribly reflective of our current society but that's why it's a comic book. It's escapism.
 

Norithics

New member
Jul 4, 2013
387
0
0
Miroluck said:
Not necessarilly. Many policemen feel differently about "real" victims of murder and criminals murdered in the course of criminal activity.
Still, killing a lot of them would probably turn more than a few heads, yes.
Except it doesn't really matter what 'many policemen' feel. It only matters what the person in charge feels, and that is 100% of the time going to be "Yeah, no, crazy masked killers with a heart of gold aren't permissible in my district."
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
Miroluck said:
You will forgive for thinking that you're a bit pompous.
Given that in both the threads we're talking to each other you have long since stopped talking about the actual topic and have descended into nothing but impugning my character, sure, you're forgiven, to the degree that I can muster the energy to respect your opinion of me enough to care about it.
 

General Vagueness

New member
Feb 24, 2009
677
0
0
The villains don't really keep getting out because of any in-universe flaw, generally speaking, it's all to serve either the action or the plot, and people like recurring characters. It's not bad writing because it's stupid, it's bad writing because it's pandering. As for Superman and other characters not taking the fight to somewhere less likely to have collateral damage, I think that is either stupidity or just trying to keep things interesting (i.e. serving the action).
 

Benpasko

New member
Jul 3, 2011
498
0
0
TheCommanders said:
Ideals are worthless to the dead.
This statement offends me. The point of ideals is something greater than yourself, something worth dying for. All that you have at the end of the day is your ideals, and if you'll betray them because "I had to" then what kind of hero are you? What happens next time you 'have to'? What seperates heroes from thugs is their ethics, and if you divorce that from them, what do they become? I highly recommend reading The Punisher War Journal: Jigsaw. It talks about this in the context of a hero that isn't afraid to kill.
 

Soundwave

New member
Sep 2, 2012
301
0
0
Well, I'm glad the OP and people that support his argument don't have superpowers. That's not a personal attack, just the idea that someone who is apparently willing (at least hypothetically) to commit murder "to prevent future killings" shouldn't have an easy time of it.

You guys (again, not an attack) are trying to apply logic to a fantastic situation. Superman and Batman comics have been printing for the better part of the last century. Sure, the Joker has never been rehabilitated, but that doesn't mean that he "can't" or that Batman shouldn't try to help him. There are claims that "Killer Croc" has no redeeming qualities as a human being (but neither do regular crocodiles, but does that give you a right to kill them? Even if they eat your dog?). Superman is supposed to spare lives because he represents an idealized form of small town american christian values. Now, I'm no christian, but even I know there is supposed to be a lot of weight to the "turn the other cheek" argument to that worldview (emphasis on the supposed).

Incredible Hulk fans were livid when they read the Ultimate Avenger's line of comics because it made mention of the huge quantities of innocents slaughtered during the Hulk's rampages because it made him impossible to empathize with.

It's fine to evaluate the ethical ins and outs of superhero fiction, but arguing that a character's core values are dumb seems more like it just isn't your fantasy and that you should stick to things like the The Punisher or Watchmen.

Ultimately, I'd say that anime, specifically Trigun and Avatar: The Last Airbender are much better at exploring these themes than DC Comics, which, like has been mentioned before, suffer from external rules applied to them by the comics code.
 
Apr 5, 2008
3,736
0
0
Comic book stories don't happen in the real world, and real world solutions don't work in comic books. They're fantasy tales, no different than Hollywood films, novels and TV. In the case of Superman, all of his abilities and weaknesses are plot devices for the story being told. Endanger the character here, have him form a relationship there, he feels an emotion somewhere else and saves the day at the end of it.

Further, I think the reader's age and the materials maturity levell play a part in how believable they are. The old Filmation He-Man cartoons had a hero that was the most powerful man in the universe, but he also never hurt a person, ever. He could destroy robots and machines but other than that, his strength and speed were only ever used to turn people around with their tails between their legs. Killing and hurting others isn't appropriate to be teaching the target audience, particularly if the character being portrayed is a role model to whom children should aspire.

Superman is supposed to be an immutable force for good who only hurts the villains, and even then, never kills them because good children don't hurt each other.

Nintendo exist in a similar way to comic books in this one regard. Neither grow up. I loved Nintendo as a kid and a teen, but as I grew up, Nintendo stayed the same and are still the same two decades on. Comic books, like sit coms/TV Dramas also don't change....as Fry explained in an early Futurama episode (displaying his expertise in watching TV) at the end of every episode things always go back to the way they were. There might be the odd shake up, but generally each episode/comic book story arc takes place separately from the rest (occasionaly continuity, but rarely). Smallville, House MD, even Futurama, comics, nothing ever changes. It was this realisation that prompted me to stop reading comics. I realised Rogue would never be able to control her powers and that her and Gambit would never be together. So fuck Marvel. (Still a fanboy, just not a reader anymore).

That's why people tend to like Anti-Heroes more. The scope for their characters, adventures and what have you are more varied and interesting. Why is Wolverine one of the most popular comic heroes? Because he's anarchy, he's chaos, he doesn't give a shit, he's not a good person and though he does bad things, his heart is in the right place. Superman as an example is frikkin boring. Clark Kent is the interesting part of that story.
 

TheCommanders

ohmygodimonfire
Nov 30, 2011
589
0
0
Benpasko said:
TheCommanders said:
Ideals are worthless to the dead.
This statement offends me. The point of ideals is something greater than yourself, something worth dying for. All that you have at the end of the day is your ideals, and if you'll betray them because "I had to" then what kind of hero are you? What happens next time you 'have to'? What seperates heroes from thugs is their ethics, and if you divorce that from them, what do they become? I highly recommend reading The Punisher War Journal: Jigsaw. It talks about this in the context of a hero that isn't afraid to kill.
Do you really see no difference at all between someone who kills because it's fun, or for money, or revenge, and someone who kills exclusively when it will directly prevent more deaths? Because if not, I would question the ethics you subscribe to. People seem to be getting the impression that what I'm saying is Heroes should be free to kill Villains willy nilly, when my actual point is that leaving killing off the table as an option - full stop - is selfish and detrimental to their ability to do their job.

Oh by the way, that's a good comic, and I have read it (at least the first volume, I'm a little fuzzy on the second) :D

EDIT: Just remembered the second half of your point that I wanted to respond to. Sticking to your ideals? Great. Getting someone else killed (usually lots of people) because of your ideals? Not so great. Basically, you're allowing them to die, which kind of tarnishes your record anyway from where I'm sitting

EDIT #2: Remembered something else. I didn't say dying for an ideal is pointless, I said ideals are worthless to the dead. And they are; they only help the living. And if your ideal is in the way of someone else living, I'd say that's a problem.
 

TheCommanders

ohmygodimonfire
Nov 30, 2011
589
0
0
Colin Murray said:
Well, I'm glad the OP and people that support his argument don't have superpowers. That's not a personal attack, just the idea that someone who is apparently willing (at least hypothetically) to commit murder "to prevent future killings" shouldn't have an easy time of it.

You guys (again, not an attack) are trying to apply logic to a fantastic situation. Superman and Batman comics have been printing for the better part of the last century. Sure, the Joker has never been rehabilitated, but that doesn't mean that he "can't" or that Batman shouldn't try to help him. There are claims that "Killer Croc" has no redeeming qualities as a human being (but neither do regular crocodiles, but does that give you a right to kill them? Even if they eat your dog?). Superman is supposed to spare lives because he represents an idealized form of small town american christian values. Now, I'm no christian, but even I know there is supposed to be a lot of weight to the "turn the other cheek" argument to that worldview (emphasis on the supposed).

Incredible Hulk fans were livid when they read the Ultimate Avenger's line of comics because it made mention of the huge quantities of innocents slaughtered during the Hulk's rampages because it made him impossible to empathize with.

It's fine to evaluate the ethical ins and outs of superhero fiction, but arguing that a character's core values are dumb seems more like it just isn't your fantasy and that you should stick to things like the The Punisher or Watchmen.

Ultimately, I'd say that anime, specifically Trigun and Avatar: The Last Airbender are much better at exploring these themes than DC Comics, which, like has been mentioned before, suffer from external rules applied to them by the comics code.
Well I can't speak for the others who agree with me, but I personally am a sociopath (not a psychopath, big difference). That being said, I understand ethics and morals and view them as an interesting thought experiment. They're clearly necessary for a civilized society to function, but a lot of them seem rather arbitrary, which is part of the point I brought up in the thread.

In regard to your points, first of all we do put down animals that attack humans or their pets (usually) so that seems like a bad analogy. Since a lot of these villains aren't technically human, if you're going that route their legal status and rights are questionable anyways, so I wouldn't pursue that line of thinking as a defense.

As to the other issues, I find it interesting (as I mentioned in one of my other responses) that no one bats an eye at superheroes doing anything other than raping the bad guys (special mention goes out to the mooks, who apparently garner no sympathy in the eyes of the audience, despite their pitiable status as punch-clock villains), and if you think I'm joking: torture, theft, assault, intimidation, breaking and entering, stalking, (not to mention that being a vigilante is practically a felony in and of itself) the list goes on and on. And all those could easily apply to superman, supposedly the most morally upright hero ever. But killing someone, even if it does more good than any of the other questionable things these heroes do, is just not an option. Because it would make them feel bad. Or hurt their image. That doesn't seem like a good reason to me. And as I've said time and time again, if you don't want to kill, that's fine if you can find another option that works, but despite their flawed methodology they stoically refuse to change anything. That's where I have a problem.

EDIT: I keep remembering things I wanted to say after I post... derp. Anyway, I knew going into this thread that a lot of people where going to dismiss the idea by virtue of it being applied to fiction, and a notoriously fantastical version of fiction at that. But that's kind of missing the point. It's a thought exercise. We examine a hypothetical situation to find parallels to real world dilemmas. And while, for example, we don't really have superheros or supervillains in reality, there are plenty of issues affected by the thought of "What is worth killing someone" so I think it's relevant.