Superman V.S The Elite

[TrueMetis]

Why is a comparison being made to Superman and the MCU on the basis of killing? Superman's no kill rule except for a handful of extreme cases is an iconic thing. Superman doesn't kill and Batman doesn't kill are cultural touchstones. I've never heard anyone ever say Captain America doesn't kill, or Ironman doesn't kill. People complain that superman kills but don't when Captain America kills because they're different people who hold themselves to different standards and as such are held to different standards.

Also the MCU shows us from the very beginning that action movie kill rules apply. Man of Steel tries to have it both ways by having him Superman kill someone in an unnecessarily brutal fashion, then pretend this was one of the dramatic "had no choice" killings by having him cry out.

[TheStarWarsTrek]

Damn, I made a really long post (continuing one I started but failed to submit this morning) and it got deleted. I'll try to speed write from memory and summarize I guess.

@DragonBallFan I wouldn't necessarily agree that super villains mean "normal humans need super heroes to run the world". Earth shattering meteors or alien/demon invasions are also things that normal humans can't really handle, dosn't mean a Super Dictatorship is the answer. And I still agree with the overall message of the movie. But yes, I do agree that comics being different from real life affects things. The Boston Bombers injured hundreds and killed 3. The surviving one is either getting the death penalty, or is never getting out of prison. The Joker has killed many more people. So it is a bit ridiculous that, even with out the death penalty, *no one* can stop him. Heck Batman could just sneak into Arkham every 6 months and break all his limbs. But then there'd be no more Joker stories in the comics. Sometimes the medium affects the stories in weird ways.

You mentioned an alternate universe where the no killing rule was chucked and it became a paradise. Gee, it's almost like different writers have different opinions on the no killing rule or something. And if we're going to play the alternate world card, there's also an alternate world were Communist Superman creates a controlled paradise, and a world where Batman is a swashbuckling pirate. Alternate worlds are weeeeeeird.

Yes there will always be assholes or pyschopaths who hurt or kill for no reason in the world, but that dosn't change what Chuck said about how eliminating desperation will help improve things. If a pill was invented tommorow that cured world hunger, I don't think anyone would say "Well, hate crimes still exist, so it dosn't count".

You mentioned that there was no answer to the "Your government does it all the time" point. First, I think it has to do with Superman deciding he's not above the law, and that he knows there are bad men in power. Second, if it was the US invading Bialyia with giant scorpions I think he'd do the same thing he did in the movie, stopping the violence. Third, Superman may try to set a good example but he knows others aren't bullet proof, just like Batman isn't gunna steal Gordon's gun and force him to take martial arts classes.

You've listed a lot of examples, in comics or animation, of heroes with codes against killing breaking their code. (Again, different writers have different opinions). But usually those were cases where the hero was fighting someone of equivalent power, or they had literally no other choice. And even then it was controversial (just like how when cops use lethal force, there's supposed to be an investigation to see if it was justified). What's really unheroic though, is when a "hero" kills someone at their mercy, or someone who they easily could have over powered without killing. That's the issue with the Elite.

You talked about the MCU. Part if it ties into what I said above about fair fights. Batman and Superman hold themselves to a high standard and a moral code, and are usually powerful or skilled enough to take down foes without needing to kill them. MCU (as a general rule, there are exceptions) has heroes with lower power levels and who are more flawed. And there's still limits. Iron Man can be a wreck, Cap is a soldier and Thor is a warrior, but it would be out of character and wrong if Spiderman just up and punched a street thug into red paste.

[iwfan53]

the Punisher is usually portrayed as barely not a villain who kills for pleasure regardless of that not being my idea of the character. I want a character in favor of killing that is in all other aspects, as heroic as the regular DC cast of characters and not written to fall off the slippery slope just to make his side wrong. or at least, have the story end with no definitive answer, neither side of the argument is presented as completely right or wronb.

and about my Elena of Avalor comparison, Avalor does have a form of due process and an early episode, Elena argued with her council in favor of giving a seemingly mindless monster a chance to help resolve the current conflict peacefully. but Suriki was a different situation, she was killed without a second thought. and besides, Avaloran society in general is more like societies from the 19th century with magical trappings, not Middle Earth.

and TV Tropes said Suriki's death was a case of Some Anvils Need to Be Dropped. as in it was a good thing to teach young audiences that sometimes (SOMETIMES) deadly force is necessary to protect yourself and/or others.

Here is the issue, if you have a character who is in favor of killing and gets along with everyone else, and can kill supervillains without going crazy, then that character is going to inevitably kill off allt he really evil supervillains (Joker is like the the platonic ideal here) who in a sane world would have either been sentenced to death, beaten to death by others inmates, killed by cops, or otherwise disposed of in some way be it societally sanctioned or not.

But in a comic series we need those characters around because if we kill off all our villains then how are we going to tell interesting stories.

There just aren't any real life examples like the Joker for people who have repeatedly escaped from jail to rack up huge kill counts because we're actually pretty good at keeping people in prison and serial killers in real life tend to be less evil masterminds and more idiots with poor impulse control.

Superheroes should inspire us to be better than we are, and having them kill criminals in a nation (the US) that still suffers from a justice system that is still painfully more interested in using prison to punish inmates than to reform them isn't helpful.

Damn, I made a really long post (continuing one I started but failed to submit this morning) and it got deleted. I'll try to speed write from memory and summarize I guess.

@DragonBallFan I wouldn't necessarily agree that super villains mean "normal humans need super heroes to run the world". Earth shattering meteors or alien/demon invasions are also things that normal humans can't really handle, dosn't mean a Super Dictatorship is the answer. And I still agree with the overall message of the movie. But yes, I do agree that comics being different from real life affects things. The Boston Bombers injured hundreds and killed 3. The surviving one is either getting the death penalty, or is never getting out of prison. The Joker has killed many more people. So it is a bit ridiculous that, even with out the death penalty, *no one* can stop him. Heck Batman could just sneak into Arkham every 6 months and break all his limbs. But then there'd be no more Joker stories in the comics. Sometimes the medium affects the stories in weird ways.

You mentioned an alternate universe where the no killing rule was chucked and it became a paradise. Gee, it's almost like different writers have different opinions on the no killing rule or something. And if we're going to play the alternate world card, there's also an alternate world were Communist Superman creates a controlled paradise, and a world where Batman is a swashbuckling pirate. Alternate worlds are weeeeeeird.

Yes there will always be assholes or pyschopaths who hurt or kill for no reason in the world, but that dosn't change what Chuck said about how eliminating desperation will help improve things. If a pill was invented tommorow that cured world hunger, I don't think anyone would say "Well, hate crimes still exist, so it dosn't count".

You mentioned that there was no answer to the "Your government does it all the time" point. First, I think it has to do with Superman deciding he's not above the law, and that he knows there are bad men in power. Second, if it was the US invading Bialyia with giant scorpions I think he'd do the same thing he did in the movie, stopping the violence. Third, Superman may try to set a good example but he knows others aren't bullet proof, just like Batman isn't gunna steal Gordon's gun and force him to take martial arts classes.

You've listed a lot of examples, in comics or animation, of heroes with codes against killing breaking their code. (Again, different writers have different opinions). But usually those were cases where the hero was fighting someone of equivalent power, or they had literally no other choice. And even then it was controversial (just like how when cops use lethal force, there's supposed to be an investigation to see if it was justified). What's really unheroic though, is when a "hero" kills someone at their mercy, or someone who they easily could have over powered without killing. That's the issue with the Elite.

You talked about the MCU. Part if it ties into what I said above about fair fights. Batman and Superman hold themselves to a high standard and a moral code, and are usually powerful or skilled enough to take down foes without needing to kill them. MCU (as a general rule, there are exceptions) has heroes with lower power levels and who are more flawed. And there's still limits. Iron Man can be a wreck, Cap is a soldier and Thor is a warrior, but it would be out of character and wrong if Spiderman just up and punched a street thug into red paste.

What you said, thank you.

As if to prove that last particular point it is worth pointing out that in Homecoming Spider-Man digs through a burning wreck in order to drag out a man who had been trying to kill him roughly five minutes ago (and dropped an entire building on him roughly thirty minutes ago) to make sure that he can survive to be arrested by the police, so the MCU is at times capable of having its heroes show Batman level dedication to saving the villains when the situation (and the villain) calls for it.

[M.A.C.O.]

Why is a comparison being made to Superman and the MCU on the basis of killing? Superman's no kill rule except for a handful of extreme cases is an iconic thing. Superman doesn't kill and Batman doesn't kill are cultural touchstones. I've never heard anyone ever say Captain America doesn't kill, or Ironman doesn't kill. People complain that superman kills but don't when Captain America kills because they're different people who hold themselves to different standards and as such are held to different standards.

Also the MCU shows us from the very beginning that action movie kill rules apply. Man of Steel tries to have it both ways by having him Superman kill someone in an unnecessarily brutal fashion, then pretend this was one of the dramatic "had no choice" killings by having him cry out.

The comparison is being made between Superman and the MCU, because nearly every single Avenger and or Guardian of the Galaxy (sans Doctor Strange and Spider-Man) have committed homicides or have body counts.

Iron Man - IM1-IM3, Avengers 1-4
Captain America - Cap 1-2, Avengers 1 and 3. My suggestion rewatch the boat scene from Cap 2.
Thor - Thor 1-3, Avengers 4
Black Widow - Past life as assassin, Cap 2, Avengers 3
Hulk - Banner's early rampages kill people, Incredible Hulk, Age of Ultron, combatants in the arena
Hawkye - SHIELD assassin, Avengers 4 as Ronin
Scarlet Witch - Age of Ultron and Captain America 3
War Machine - Iron Man 2
Falcon - Confirmed kills in Iraq, Captain America 2-3
Vision - Age of Ultron
GOTG - GOTG 1 and 2. More about 2 later.
Ant-Man - Ant-Man 1
Black Panther - BP1
Captain Marvel - CM and Avengers 4

For this list, I did not include the cannon fodder armies the Avengers frequently fight. I also didn't include Bucky. Look at all the examples and count them, and it is not a pretty picture.

Superman killed general Zod. A space Hitler, who tried to kill billions of lives on Earth, killed thousands in his one day war, tried to incinerate a family before Superman stopped him. The Avengers ganged up and killed Thanos at the beginning of Avengers 4. Another space Hitler, who succeeded in killing billions, was seriously injured when the Avengers attacked, disarmed (literally) and beheaded by Thor. And no one thought more about it than the man on the moon.

The MCU heroes literally get a free pass on nearly all their confirmed kills. Compare Superman killing Zod, to Iron Man killing this Extremis soldier in IM3. IM3 was release the same summer as MOS.


youtu.be/dUKoATiRld0

Or this scene from GOTG 2. Which myself and several of my friends found very distressing. Yondu strolling through his ship, murdering every member of his crew for mutiny.


youtu.be/RXbFP2V_zSA

Iron Man kills someone and delivers a quip. Yondu's murder spree set to "Come a Little Bit Closer". You know, for kids! Totally not "grimdark DC" *growl*.


Also, the Marvel Universe had a no kill rule for it's major heroes up to and around the time Bendis took over the Avengers titles in 2004. With Avengers Dissassembled. The Ultimate line that started in 2001 had killing from the word go. Granted the main heroes had killed sparingly before, but most were later retconned or flat out ignored by future writers.


TL;DR
There is a double standard of how character actions are treated and discussed by audiences and pop culture. And I don't think it's just a framing issue. Can you imagine, if after Supes broke Zod's neck,he quipped "walk away from that you son of a bitch"? People would lose their shit more than they already have. Two sets of rules. One for Superman and one for everyone else. See: all the Batman homicides (Burton, Schumacher, Nolan, Snyder), Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Green Arrow (CW), The Legends of Tomorrow (CW), Supergirl (CW)

[Dragon Ball Fan]

the Punisher is usually portrayed as barely not a villain who kills for pleasure regardless of that not being my idea of the character. I want a character in favor of killing that is in all other aspects, as heroic as the regular DC cast of characters and not written to fall off the slippery slope just to make his side wrong. or at least, have the story end with no definitive answer, neither side of the argument is presented as completely right or wronb.

and about my Elena of Avalor comparison, Avalor does have a form of due process and an early episode, Elena argued with her council in favor of giving a seemingly mindless monster a chance to help resolve the current conflict peacefully. but Suriki was a different situation, she was killed without a second thought. and besides, Avaloran society in general is more like societies from the 19th century with magical trappings, not Middle Earth.

and TV Tropes said Suriki's death was a case of Some Anvils Need to Be Dropped. as in it was a good thing to teach young audiences that sometimes (SOMETIMES) deadly force is necessary to protect yourself and/or others.

Here is the issue, if you have a character who is in favor of killing and gets along with everyone else, and can kill supervillains without going crazy, then that character is going to inevitably kill off allt he really evil supervillains (Joker is like the the platonic ideal here) who in a sane world would have either been sentenced to death, beaten to death by others inmates, killed by cops, or otherwise disposed of in some way be it societally sanctioned or not.

But in a comic series we need those characters around because if we kill off all our villains then how are we going to tell interesting stories.

There just aren't any real life examples like the Joker for people who have repeatedly escaped from jail to rack up huge kill counts because we're actually pretty good at keeping people in prison and serial killers in real life tend to be less evil masterminds and more idiots with poor impulse control.

Superheroes should inspire us to be better than we are, and having them kill criminals in a nation (the US) that still suffers from a justice system that is still painfully more interested in using prison to punish inmates than to reform them isn't helpful.

Damn, I made a really long post (continuing one I started but failed to submit this morning) and it got deleted. I'll try to speed write from memory and summarize I guess.

@DragonBallFan I wouldn't necessarily agree that super villains mean "normal humans need super heroes to run the world". Earth shattering meteors or alien/demon invasions are also things that normal humans can't really handle, dosn't mean a Super Dictatorship is the answer. And I still agree with the overall message of the movie. But yes, I do agree that comics being different from real life affects things. The Boston Bombers injured hundreds and killed 3. The surviving one is either getting the death penalty, or is never getting out of prison. The Joker has killed many more people. So it is a bit ridiculous that, even with out the death penalty, *no one* can stop him. Heck Batman could just sneak into Arkham every 6 months and break all his limbs. But then there'd be no more Joker stories in the comics. Sometimes the medium affects the stories in weird ways.

You mentioned an alternate universe where the no killing rule was chucked and it became a paradise. Gee, it's almost like different writers have different opinions on the no killing rule or something. And if we're going to play the alternate world card, there's also an alternate world were Communist Superman creates a controlled paradise, and a world where Batman is a swashbuckling pirate. Alternate worlds are weeeeeeird.

Yes there will always be assholes or pyschopaths who hurt or kill for no reason in the world, but that dosn't change what Chuck said about how eliminating desperation will help improve things. If a pill was invented tommorow that cured world hunger, I don't think anyone would say "Well, hate crimes still exist, so it dosn't count".

You mentioned that there was no answer to the "Your government does it all the time" point. First, I think it has to do with Superman deciding he's not above the law, and that he knows there are bad men in power. Second, if it was the US invading Bialyia with giant scorpions I think he'd do the same thing he did in the movie, stopping the violence. Third, Superman may try to set a good example but he knows others aren't bullet proof, just like Batman isn't gunna steal Gordon's gun and force him to take martial arts classes.

You've listed a lot of examples, in comics or animation, of heroes with codes against killing breaking their code. (Again, different writers have different opinions). But usually those were cases where the hero was fighting someone of equivalent power, or they had literally no other choice. And even then it was controversial (just like how when cops use lethal force, there's supposed to be an investigation to see if it was justified). What's really unheroic though, is when a "hero" kills someone at their mercy, or someone who they easily could have over powered without killing. That's the issue with the Elite.

You talked about the MCU. Part if it ties into what I said above about fair fights. Batman and Superman hold themselves to a high standard and a moral code, and are usually powerful or skilled enough to take down foes without needing to kill them. MCU (as a general rule, there are exceptions) has heroes with lower power levels and who are more flawed. And there's still limits. Iron Man can be a wreck, Cap is a soldier and Thor is a warrior, but it would be out of character and wrong if Spiderman just up and punched a street thug into red paste.

What you said, thank you.

As if to prove that last particular point it is worth pointing out that in Homecoming Spider-Man digs through a burning wreck in order to drag out a man who had been trying to kill him roughly five minutes ago (and dropped an entire building on him roughly thirty minutes ago) to make sure that he can survive to be arrested by the police, so the MCU is at times capable of having its heroes show Batman level dedication to saving the villains when the situation (and the villain) calls for it.

the problem is I am looking at this purely from a Watsonian point of view, completely divorced from real life.

when did Batman or Superman say they realize they can't hold everyone else to the same moral standards as themselves? from what I see, they do try to hold everyone else to their incredibly high standards, like in the cartoon, kicking Huntress out of the Justice League even after she decided not to kill her intended target just because she wanted to do so at first.

and from a Watsonian point of view, why did that alternate Earth I brought up turn into a Utopia because of killing villains when others like the Injustice Universe turn out so bad? and for context, the universe I'm talking about is the first version of Earth-51 in the Post-Crisis Multiverse, yes it came from Countdown but the backstory of this universe made perfect sense to me. Basically, on Earth-51, after the Joker killed Jason Todd, Batman killed him in this timeline and then decided to kill all the supervillains, though, realistically, one of the other heroes must have helped him and with the supervillains out of the way, the other superheroes could focus on solving all the real world problems comics have going in the background. Sure, like I said, there would still by psychopaths that kill for no reason even without hunger and poverty but Batman would just kill those. but Batman-51 never went crazy with the killing and spilled it over into killing innocents or became a dictator like Injustice Superman.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

If you're part of Batman's team, you don't kill by extension of his own rule upon himself and it's his team that's an extension of his own personal operation.

If you're on the JL, then you follow the rules of the council. Since JL has like 50+ heroes on it, they need a constitution to abide by in which everyone follows the rules they set forth. It's more for order.

Also, Wonder Woman is a hero, but she's Amazonian and is acquainted with demigods. It's a different subtext especially considering they are a warrior tribe. I've never heard of Aquaman having some staunch rule.

[Dragon Ball Fan]

I oppose Capital Punishment on principal, so saying it's Gotham's fault for not executing The Joker bugs me a bit. I reject the nothing that the state has any more of a right to kill someone like that then Batman does, if you think they should be allowed to there is no reason to not let Batman in my view.

There is a big difference between:

1. Arresting, trying, convicting, then executing a prisoner after multiple appeals.
2. Killing a perpetrator in the heat of the moment in order to protect another's life
3. Killing a perpetrator who has surrendered.

Whether you support or oppose capital punishment, there are still clear lines between all three scenarios (though, as in the real world, #2 tends to have a lot of ambiguity in practice). I can easily imagine scenarios where Batman is forced to make a choice between using lethal (or potentially lethal) force to stop someone, and still have it be in character. It is much harder (but not impossible) to create that same scenario for Superman simply due to his power set; he inevitably has options that Batman doesn't.

When we are arguing about whether a superhero should kill a villain, we are generally talking about #3. Superman might have been justified in killing Atomic Skull while they were fighting (following real-world lethal force statutes), but not after he had been defeated.

The bigger moral dilemma would be this: what if they had legalized executing supervillains who met a certain threshold. In that scenario, does Superman have an obligation to turn him over to the state, knowing he will be executed? What if the villain is nigh invulnerable, and the only person who could conceivably kill him is Superman? What if the state is incapable of either killing the villain, or holding him prisoner; Superman then offers to hold him prisoner in the fortress of solitude. If the villain then escapes and kills someone, is Superman then morally responsible for refusing to kill as demanded by the state, in a situation where guilt is absolute?

Those are far more interesting questions to me than the idea that Superman is expected to kill someone so that society doesn't have to sully its own hands.

no, I'm pretty sure people are usually talking about scenario 1 or 2. I think even the people in favor of killing would not approve of a surrendered villain being killed.

[Dragon Ball Fan]

Give me the superman clip that you're talking about and I'll give you my comments.

here's the clip. Superman is undeniably planning to personally kill Darksied, maybe not out of revenge but to know for sure he won't come back and Batman only objected because Supes would have died too when the asteroid blew up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmTg7ROPssc

[TrueMetis]

Why is a comparison being made to Superman and the MCU on the basis of killing? Superman's no kill rule except for a handful of extreme cases is an iconic thing. Superman doesn't kill and Batman doesn't kill are cultural touchstones. I've never heard anyone ever say Captain America doesn't kill, or Ironman doesn't kill. People complain that superman kills but don't when Captain America kills because they're different people who hold themselves to different standards and as such are held to different standards.

Also the MCU shows us from the very beginning that action movie kill rules apply. Man of Steel tries to have it both ways by having him Superman kill someone in an unnecessarily brutal fashion, then pretend this was one of the dramatic "had no choice" killings by having him cry out.

The comparison is being made between Superman and the MCU, because nearly every single Avenger and or Guardian of the Galaxy (sans Doctor Strange and Spider-Man) have committed homicides or have body counts.

Iron Man - IM1-IM3, Avengers 1-4
Captain America - Cap 1-2, Avengers 1 and 3. My suggestion rewatch the boat scene from Cap 2.
Thor - Thor 1-3, Avengers 4
Black Widow - Past life as assassin, Cap 2, Avengers 3
Hulk - Banner's early rampages kill people, Incredible Hulk, Age of Ultron, combatants in the arena
Hawkye - SHIELD assassin, Avengers 4 as Ronin
Scarlet Witch - Age of Ultron and Captain America 3
War Machine - Iron Man 2
Falcon - Confirmed kills in Iraq, Captain America 2-3
Vision - Age of Ultron
GOTG - GOTG 1 and 2. More about 2 later.
Ant-Man - Ant-Man 1
Black Panther - BP1
Captain Marvel - CM and Avengers 4

For this list, I did not include the cannon fodder armies the Avengers frequently fight. I also didn't include Bucky. Look at all the examples and count them, and it is not a pretty picture.

So? Once again, there is no "no kill" rule in the MCU. None of the guys you listed here have "doesn't kill" as one of the cornerstones of their identity. Like holy shit, why would I hold Superman to the same standard as a bunch of soldiers, warrior kings, arms dealers, mercenary's, thieves, and a rage monster?

Superman killed general Zod. A space Hitler, who tried to kill billions of lives on Earth, killed thousands in his one day war, tried to incinerate a family before Superman stopped him. The Avengers ganged up and killed Thanos at the beginning of Avengers 4. Another space Hitler, who succeeded in killing billions, was seriously injured when the Avengers attacked, disarmed (literally) and beheaded by Thor. And no one thought more about it than the man on the moon.

The MCU heroes literally get a free pass on nearly all their confirmed kills. Compare Superman killing Zod, to Iron Man killing this Extremis soldier in IM3. IM3 was release the same summer as MOS.

Or this scene from GOTG 2. Which myself and several of my friends found very distressing. Yondu strolling through his ship, murdering every member of his crew for mutiny.

Iron Man kills someone and delivers a quip. Yondu's murder spree set to "Come a Little Bit Closer". You know, for kids! Totally not "grimdark DC" *growl*.

Oh shit, you mean the space pirate who trafficked children and the arms dealer are held to different standards than the guy who literally symbolizes everything that's supposed to be good about humanity? Say it ain't so.

Also, the Marvel Universe had a no kill rule for it's major heroes up to and around the time Bendis took over the Avengers titles in 2004. With Avengers Dissassembled. The Ultimate line that started in 2001 had killing from the word go. Granted the main heroes had killed sparingly before, but most were later retconned or flat out ignored by future writers.

Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. I don't know nor care about that and it doesn't apply to the MCU.

TL;DR
There is a double standard of how character actions are treated and discussed by audiences and pop culture. And I don't think it's just a framing issue. Can you imagine, if after Supes broke Zod's neck,he quipped "walk away from that you son of a bitch"? People would lose their shit more than they already have. Two sets of rules. One for Superman and one for everyone else. See: all the Batman homicides (Burton, Schumacher, Nolan, Snyder), Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Green Arrow (CW), The Legends of Tomorrow (CW), Supergirl (CW)

I don't think you understand the math on what a double standard is. It's not just holding different people to different standards. IE It's not a double standard that I hold police and soldiers to a different standard than civilians.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Alright which one of yous is the one upset that like Superman doesn't kill but Punisher does, and there's like a double standard or something?