Superhero writers realize that they probably shouldn't have their heroes kill the bad guys because then they'd have to...

"I have no right to decide someone should die, but I'll make that choice if I have to," is the best way to go.

The "I will never ever kill anyone no matter what" approach you sometimes see in Batman is silly.

Then you've got the other end of the spectrum with characters like Wolverine, casually slaughtering people who pose no real threat to him.
A lot of Marvel properties in particular treat henchmen like they're Goombas and you're not supposed to think about it when they die. But the idea of characters with such high body counts being called heroes really bothers me.
It's not like they're soldiers, they're murderers, serial killers who happen to target bad guys. Slap a mask on Dexter and he could join the Avengers.

No kill rules make sense for situations where the villain can be apprehended without killing him and without putting anyone else in danger in the moment. No kill rules make sense for heroes not emotionally prepared to bear the burden of taking a life. A no kill rule makes sense for Batman because he doesn't need to be more crazy and he knows it.

The thing that fucks up no kill rules is heroes that aren't batman and don't have any problem with killing if it has to come to that throwing murderers in jails they know aren't secure enough to hold them, only for that villain to escape and kill more people. If the hero doesn't have a reasonable expectation that the apprehension is permanent and aren't willing to put in the time and effort to make it permanent, they should not have a fucking no kill rule simply because they can catch someone without killing them. You aren't stopping a villain. You're simply delaying them at that point.

Well it wasn’t just Superman doing away with the rule.
Also Injustice had its moments.

Attached: 98335FE9-0C36-44D8-AE97-904623EDBE7D.jpg (1795x1447, 279K)

I prefer no-kill policies, simply because it feels like you're taking away the innocence from the concept of a superhero (basically a children's cartoon character) when you have them murder somebody.
I do kind of roll my eyes at darker comics that have the Joker murder an orphanage or something and then the writer makes up some philosophical nonsense about why he doesn't get the death penalty when we all know marketability is the only thing keeping the character alive. The concept of a "no-kill" rule suits lighter mediums. I'm not against super heroes being darker/more mature, but with that must come more realistic storytelling I think. My favorite superheroes are Superman and the Punisher, and they're both on complete different sides of the spectrum.

>"I have no right to decide someone should die, but I'll make that choice if I have to," is the best way to go.
Three cheers for blatant hypocrisy.

BILLY IS FOR COURTNEY

>but it was a good example of what could happen if superheroes decided to do away with the no-killing rule
Superman wouldn't turn into a unrepentant child murderer just because he decides that people like the Joker should die, especially in comic book world where prisons might as well be a revolving door. Even in Injustice, which I think is a retarded view of Superman no matter how you look at it, they at least give him more reasons like Lois, his unborn child, and all of Metropolis dying, plus in the comics they seem to indicate that Clark was kind of clingy and terrified as a child after not-Krypto stole his blanket. Hell, even in Injustice 2, Eobard Thawne says that the timeline is super ultra fucked so it seems like there are more forces in play than just one event occurring.

Speaking of which where the fuck was Stargirl in Injustice?

Maybe, but Superman snapping a neck to stop the impending deaths of civilians bothers me less than him giving lethal radiation poisoning to three depowered prisoners.

Batman having a no kill-rule makes no sense and i don't care about the vast majority of stories that make a point of it, because most of them just end up turning Batman into a fucking parody that should have killed the Joker a long time ago, but doesn't for gay reasons.

It ties into the idea that supers aren't just rolemodels for the public, but to other supers and law enforcement agencies. If Superman starts pulling an ATF and shooting peoples' dogs, that tells actual beat cops it's okay to shoot the bad guys, since they've got Superman backing them.
Superman: Red Son is a less awful demonstrator of the kind of society where Supes becomes the executioner.

>If Superman starts pulling an ATF and shooting peoples' dogs, that tells actual beat cops it's okay to shoot the bad guys, since they've got Superman backing them.
That's so stupid it hurts. Superman's not Jesus Christ and even if Jesus started pulling weird shit people would start questioning his actions.

This is the thing that annoys me about INJUSTICE. Batman wouldn't care in the slightest that he killed the Joker and would only turn around once Superman pulled something truly retarded. Wonder Woman would be the first one to question Superman's state of mind and course of actions. The Flash and Green Lantern would have easily handle his ass if he stepped out of line and wouldn't simple cower under his gaze into compliance. Superman is not such a big hot-shot no matter how much DC wants to believe its the case.

I think it depends on the context of Superheros in the story. For Superman, having a no-kill rule makes a ton of sense. He's all about being a beacon of hope, and leading by example and all that good shit. There's also the whole BVS angle about the public reation to a being as powerful as Superman. In that instance Superman's place as a role-model in society becomes narratively importnat, as killing means he may lose the public trust he has worked so hard to earn.

Morally laudable to a degree, definitely discourage killing as the primary source of dispensing justice, but never leave it off the table in the case of saving yourself or others from harm. Like, I can understand if Batman beats the shit out of Joker and Joker is obviously too fucked up to keep going and he ties him up and leaves him for the cops, what I don't understand and think is fucking stupid is Batman acting like it's a fucking moral dilemma to use lethal force to save the lives of people immediately endangered by Joker's, or any of Gotham's nutbags, antics.

If you're going to be a hero, don't half-measure your efforts, it just makes you look like an irresponsible waffling cunt that cares more about their feelings than the lives of the people that they allege to protect.

Dude...
Batman wouldn't care is Superman killed the Joker?
What are you, high?

He wouldn't. Batman shouldn't care about the Joker. I remember an issue of Grant Morrison run where a dude dressed as Batman shot the Joker in the head, but ended up dying. Batman took the Joker's body, who was still alive somehow, and simple threw in the trash. Because he was that fucking tired of the Joker's existence.
Given the context in INJUSTICE Batman would see Superman's actions as justified and that would be that. Batman wouldn't blame Superman for such an action. Just as he doesn't blame Alfred from shot-gunning criminals.

>They'd have to come up with new bad guys
This is a major reason. I think you could make an argument for sparing human street level thugs, even one like the Joker; a superhero becoming judge, jury, and executioner leads them to a dark place. It is absurd when they try to apply this logic to otherworldly and irredeemable characters such as Darkseid or even Doomsday; in these situitions I think it becomes about not wanting to come up with new characters.

Attached: doomsday.png (434x639, 531K)

>superhero writers realize that they probably shouldn't have their heroes kill the bad guys because then they'd have to come up with new bad guys every time so they start to give heroes a no-kill rule
That's not the reason heroes don't kill. Batman and Superman only killed for the first 2 years of their existence and DC themselves stopped it because they just didn't want their heroes killing as a bad example to kids.

is that art from an actual dc comic?

this. can't sell shirts and lunchboxes with killers on them.

New Krypton story arc. Superman Restores Kandor to normal size and they become superpowered. Doomsday shows up, Kandorians (apparently) kill him and Superman and Supergirl are upset about it.

Yeah, Injustice really fucked up on the no-killing plot. Superman by the point of Injustice's main story killed thousands of people for petty reasons, was putting people in concentration camps, and was using torture to get what he wanted. Then there's the scene where the heroes who came from the unfucked world listen to Injustice Batman's plan to use a kryptonite cannon or something like that and they go "wtf if you kill him you're no better than he is". There's absolutely no nuance in the topic at all. Killing Super Hitler is apparently equally as bad as killing millions of innocent people.

Why the fuck is killing the one thing this slippery slope applies to for you fags? Any other punishment? Superman etc can dole it out to only those who deserve it, consistently, for any amount of time, but suddenly when it comes to killing it's either no killing at all or killing them all monster tyrant.
It's just shit writing to move product ffs.

Are you on some serious crack? Have you never seen merch that have villains with bodycounts in the trillions and upwards? Kids like this shit, what difference would it make if Captain America sliced the Red Skull in half or Batman snapped Joker's neck?

Attached: thanosbox.jpg (492x376, 52K)

>can't sell shirts and lunchboxes with killers on them

Attached: 42b717674ff44a0590f380bb64d1181d.jpg (609x360, 57K)

Has Captain America ever had a no kill rule. It was my understanding that since he was a soldier he understood that sometimes killing is necessary. He certainly kills a lot of bad guys in the first avenger movie

Why doesn’t Goku just rape Frieza?

I think he generally avoids killing, unless you're a nazi or some variety of fascist. In which case all bets are off.

>user they were creating new villains for every issue of The Amazing Spider-Man even with the no kill rule in place.

By the 60s, most superhero comics didn't set out to murder people as a solution to problems. Especially if your protagonist is a fucking teenager. There was a thing called the comics code in place.

Because they are friends!

Attached: Freeza happy.png (960x534, 584K)

I figured when he's acting as a soldier (like in WW2) he's willing to kill, but when acting as a superhero he tends to avoid it.

Yeah, but when you start killing people because of "well, jail is a revolving door" where do you draw the line? Do you also kill every bank robber that commits another robbery? How about financial crime? Jaywalking? Why does some crime get a pass despite repeat offenses but other doesn't? Why not just kill everyone who commits a crime, if you think murder is the one and only solution to preventing further crime by individuals? It's a path to fascism and authoritarian rule by superpowered individuals.

>kill a super villain that just murdered hundreds with his powers/super tech and wantend to kill more
>"why did you do that? where do you draw the line? Do you also kill every bank robber that commits another robbery?"

Attached: 14380685702.jpg (357x402, 14K)

Do you kill someone when they've killed dozens of people? How about when it's less than ten? Do you wait until they've had enough of a body count before you kill them? That implies you are okay with murder of innocents until it reaches an artificial red line.

The line is being a super villain with powers and/or a fuck huge amount of resources, you retard.

Why don't the states they live in execute the supervillains? The fact they don't makes less sense to me than the heroes not killing.

The Rogues are glorified bank robbers. So are most of Spider-man's normal villains. And plenty of people can get their hands on AIM tech if they've got the money. You're drawing arbitrary lines on the sand.

They can have their stupid no-kill rule just stop drawing so much fucking attention to it. You're a comic book writer, you're not a good writer, so stop trying to comment on good and evil when your opinion on the subject is pre-handed down to you from the corporate suits.
Just set up your heroes and their journey with their tragic set-pieces and the villains with theirs and keep your mouth shut about how none of this makes any sense.

Some have, they just usually end up being resurrected or escaping. Electro was once sent to the electric chair....guess what happened.

You are making false equivalence and pretending to be retarded.

It's good to have a no-kill policy.
But it's highly idealistic and the highest proof to me of the "This story is fantasy" shtick . Talk to any boxer, or sports medicine specialist. Even in combat where two people agree to not murder each other, it's incredibly easy to end up with permanent injuries and career-ending wounds and problems. If you factor in super-human strength or high level specialist fighting power like Batman's or Daredevils, againts some random robber with a knife, Batman and Daredevil should have killed tons of people by mistake.

At least the Daredevil tv series just has DD TRY to not kill, and even then, it happens.

Its just not practical to have a no-kill policy.Maybe a no 'murder' policy.

How is it false equivalence? Both Marvel and DC have plenty of criminals, both with powers and not, that have murdered people that still largely don't go on genocidal kill sprees and just commit theft and destruction. By your overall logic every single one of them ought to be killed only if they cross some made up, very vague line when it comes to their body count. Also, wtf does "resources" even mean when Tinkerer give any two-bit crook weaponry that allows them to fly, blow up walls, shoot laser beams, etc.

>Why does some crime get a pass despite repeat offenses but other doesn't?

Because it's murder. In normal society someone who murders and expresses intent to murder more are jailed forever and stay there forever. That doesn't mean law enforcement will suddenly start giving jaywalkers the same punishment. You don't kill murderers to prevent crimes in general, you kill them to prevent more murders that for all intents and purposes are inevitable if you throw them in jail and call it a day.

Imagine having your child murdered by Toyman, seeing Superman throw him in prison, having him escape and murder more children, and rinse and repeat. And if you confront Superman about not killing him, he shrugs and says "Welp, sorry, but you wouldn't want me to cross a line that leads to me killing jaywalkers." It's idiotic and this problem only exists because of the weird fantasy world that superhero comics take place in where supervillain serial killers can't be contained in jail, but if we take that at face value, killing murderers that will for sure kill again if left alive isn't some huge moral dilemma.

>end of broly movie
>frieza tries to kill everyone
>gogeta stops him
>they smile at each other frieza flies off saying he'll get his revenge later

Attached: i must dohohoho my planet needs me.gif (420x222, 3.28M)

>You don't kill murderers to prevent crimes in general, you kill them to prevent more murders that for all intents and purposes are inevitable if you throw them in jail and call it a day.

But how in the hell do you measure the risk of someone committing homicide again? Most people don't go "I'm going to keep murdering once I'm out!" That's why it's completely bullshit to go "oh just murder the people who will murder again!" You cannot kill people just on possible future risk.

>Most people don't go "I'm going to keep murdering once I'm out!"
People like the Joker do it. Stop forcing real life on super villains.

Batman doesn't kill because if he did he would be the same as the people he hunts.
That isn't a meme. If Batman started killing you would have a serial killer dressed as a bat stalking people in the night. He can't be a symbol of justice and a serial killer.

Why stop at the Joker then? Two Face and Penguin sure deserve it.

That's why it's a comic book problem. You can't apply real world logic to it, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about this in the first place because comic book supervillains don't exist and anyone that comes even close to what they pull off in fiction would be jailed or executed with no chance to do it again. Does Superman know for sure that Toyman will break out of jail and murder dozens of children before he gets locked up again? No, because Superman is a fictional character and the writers never intended for this aspect to even be part of the plot, and on the rare occasions that they do make it part of the plot (I think the old Death of Superman animation did this exact scenario with Toyman killing a child, getting locked up by Superman, breaking out immediately, and killing another child), it's basically glossed over with no real discussion or alternative on how to prevent more deaths.

He doesn't want to implicate the police. Sort of a 'plausible deniability' thing. HE decided to become a vigilante. It should not be their problem.

Spider-man kills people by accident all the time. You could argue what he did to The Burglar wasn't murder but it was definitely a kill.

Attached: Peter kills a guy with responsibility speech.jpg (1041x1600, 623K)

Or like when Tim Drake knocks a bunch of guys off a ledge with a tank shell

Two-Face sorta makes sense being spared, as, depending on the writer, Batman has good reason to want to see him redeemed and there is indication he can be.

Attached: Detective-Comics-Vol_-1-80-1943.jpg (1187x1076, 668K)

If you're applying comic logic to real life, then think about it this way. Say there's a evil pedophile prick that suddenly gets teleportation powers. He goes around teleporting all over the place to rape, torture, and murder children all over the country. His victims number in the thousands. Say the local police catches him while he's sleeping and put him in jail but he just teleports out and continues to rape and murder. Say this arresting business happens multiple times but because of some bizarre bureaucracy incompetence nobody with authority is ordering his execution or even a way to contain him better. I think most people would agree that if someone with the power to kill this guy arose (say a telepath who can track him by isolating his mind and also cause a fatal aneurysm), it's not a bad thing or even morally ambiguous that the guy should kill the pedophile rapist murderer at the soonest possible opportunity. But instead, the telepath uses his powers to subdue the villain and throw him in jail, and surprise, he teleports out and murders another child. People would be fucking pissed. Is this a realistic scenario? Of course not, in real life the authorities would have put a bullet in him with committee approval as soon as the officers caught him. But that's not how it operates in comics. I'm not saying that Superman behaves like the telepath in this example because obviously the writers don't write him as if it's a real world situation. But it does highlight the ridiculously of the no-kill-no-matter-what rule purely from an outsider's perspective when this is what supervillains do all the time in comics.

Generally speaking Cap is shown to respect the notion that there are different rules of engagement between being a soldier in an active battlefield, and being a law enforcement agent acting in his own country.

That said, he still throws AIM agents off of speeding trains into water, so the durability of comics-people definitely contributes to him keeping his body count down.

Attached: A bad day for the crimson cranium.jpg (700x1089, 704K)

It was for the best that she wasn't in Injustice.

If people wanted supers killing, then they'd pass a law allowing it. Simple as. By killing, supers are, per definition, betraying the people they're meant to be serving.

didn't that happen in kingdom come and end up being a huge mistake?

Not that user but more or less
>Joker comes to Metropolis before constantly murdering superheroes have support
>Superman stops him iirc but Joker makes bail or gets off
>Magog kills him before leaves Metropolis
>This gives 90s heroes support to supercede older ones
>New ones don't give a shit about collateral damage and have open, dangerous warfare in the streets
>An attack on Parasite by new heroes causes a nuclear blast that kills bystanders

Superman never has to fight a godlike rapist, no kill rule exists because the world is curated and can accomodate it. However, in the real world we rarely have to kill offenders as well, most people who get caught actually can just be arrested, so it's still an actual ethical quandary of "should we kill" and not just comic books being fantastical, even though they are. Fact is, killing people doesn't discourage shit unless you go full-blown murder-for-any-offense and make the populace live in fear and subjugation, so killing has to have a practical purpose ie it's the only possible way to prevent further egregious harm. The only reason we still execute people is because of the antiquated notion that murder can FEEL justified, making it so.

Attached: you are now in the power of stardust.png (960x600, 1.76M)

It's also worth noting that a lot of the time when it comes up, the villain's already pretty much done. I.e. they'd be killing a defenseless person who they managed to incapacitate already.
This is called an execution, not self-defense

I dunno. The way I see it, the "role model" superheroes like Superman do great in having a no kill rule. Their whole thing is that they're icons, meant to make people believe in a better world. They're there to make people think that no matter how bleak things look, there's always another way. If they end up having to resort to killing it just seems like it undermines that.

>so it's still an actual ethical quandary of "should we kill" and not just comic books being fantastical
>so killing has to have a practical purpose ie it's the only possible way to prevent further egregious harm
well yeah, if the question is "should heroes kill bad guys as judgment or vengeance" then most people would say no, but we're talking about the fact that recurring supervillains cannot be contained, not in an in-universe sense of "they have god powers that physically prevent them from being able to be imprisoned" but more in the "author wants to use them again so they'll always come back" sense. And even though it's not fair to accuse the fictional superhero of not understanding the meta reason behind it, the fact that Batman canonically has seen the Joker escape Arkham hundreds of times still makes it an issue, especially when the writers frequently draw attention to it with characters like Jason Todd pointing out that the Joker isn't going to stop murdering people until he's dead. In Batman's case, I think his personal reasoning is satisfactory in a narrative sense, but when you look at the bigger picture and the sheer number of bodies piled up by the Joker which could have been prevented, it doesn't work quite as well, especially with non-Batman characters who aren't likely to snap and go crazy after killing someone.
Yeah, but in the world of comics, killing a "defenseless" supervillain is a bit different than the situation in real life. You have a gun pointed at a villain who just got done butchering an innocent civilian. The villain surrenders and tells you to take him to jail. The villain has already escaped from jail 50 times and each time butchered an innocent civilian. For some reason, jail is the only option available if you don't want to kill him. Shooting the gun would technically be an execution but it's definitely not on the same level as a regular vigilante execution.

Letting supervillains escape again and again hardly seem moral. We let government take care of criminals because it's doing better jobs than us, but in cape world they can do fuck-all it seems.

But capes can only work in a very simplistic morality, anything slightly realistic would turn it into a grimdark deconstruction about petty tyrants beating people they don't like up.

The No-kill rule is really only based on the hero in question.
Superman doesn't kill because he is a nice guy and just isn't a murderer.
Aquaman is a ruler of a nation who defends his land through any means and has no qualms of ending a life of someone who harms his people; who's actions might justify the consequence of capital punishment.
The real deciding factor is the bad guy in question, whose action justifies capital punishment.
But the true deciding factor is the writer's stance. Superman in the golden age didn't kill directly but some bad people caught in court in his stories did end up on the electric chair.

Well, what about:
>"I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you."

that is not why, you fucking retard
vigilantism is baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad

>Shooting the gun would technically be an execution but it's definitely not on the same level as a regular vigilante execution
Technically no, but I doubt the legal system would ever see vigilante murder as a good thing. If anything, they should do the executions themselves, in a controlled environment, not out in the open where anyone can take a smartphone video and say
>vigilante shot captured, surrendering villain
Unless a law were passed permitting the above, which is unlikely

>electric chair
Ties into my own post here Capital punishment's the law's domain, no matter how imperfect the law is. If laws include murdering surrendered criminals, sure why not, I guess

>Superman is upset that literal mass murderer an irredeemable monster Doomsday is dead
I thought it would be something like Kryptonians are out of line and if they can kill Doomsday so easily, then they are a threat

Is Superman really sad fucking DOOMSDAY is dead?

>By your overall logic every single one of them ought to be killed only if they cross some made up, very vague line when it comes to their body count.
That very vague line being "more than zero". inb4 you start going 'but what if --' like that white kid who tries to justify yelling nigger

>Superman never has to fight a godlike rapist
You sure about that?

Attached: 4494567-9077765319-17690.jpg (600x450, 30K)

Subparman

>giving lethal radiation poisoning to three depowered prisoners

After they'd killed every single living thing on Pocket-Earth. Humans, animals, even all the plant life. Exterminated. Extinct. After Kid Miracleman and Black Noir, I can imagine just how horrific and grisly it was.

So, not bothered

>Punisher
>superhero

Doomsday can come back from death so it’s ok to kill him once in a while... just not too many times or else he gets harder to defeat each time he returns.

I dunno about a no-kill rule, but I recall a comic, in the 90s I think, where he was in a situation where he was too far away from some terrorists, didn't have his shield, so he grabbed a machine-gun and mowed em down. He was depicted as so messed-up by it that he hadda go full hermit/vision quest, r something like that.

Everybody deserves the chance at redemption/to repent for their sins.

Would like that to be shown in comics every once in a while instead of "NO THE READER'S LIKED THEM AS A VILLAIN SO THEY HAVE TO BE EVIL AGAIN!"

>tfw Sandman became a villain again because John Byrne wanted it

This shit reminds of an episode of the original justice league animated series I watched today.

Aside from the obvious "just talk" frustrating plot holes throughout the episode help me follow this string of logic. Share my frustration with me bros by following this string of logic:

>Dr. Fate and Aquaman want to sacrifice Solomon Grundy to stop a Cthulhu analogue from destroying the earth
>Solomon Grundy is a zombie, has no soul (main point in the episode) and is arguably already dead. Impossible of being redeemed and no point in it as his soul has "moved on"
>Justice League comes in, ruins the ceremony, killing is wrong, we won't let you kill notorious deadman grundy
>Plan changes to "Let's instead go kill the giant evil demon" with a Macguffin.
>This is somehow fine but killing soulless creature of pure will and madness in not
>In the process of taking the "pacifist route", possibly thousands of Atlantean warriors and sea creatures die as a result of the invasion of evil monsters from another dimension.
>In the end the death toll is the evil demon, lots of monsters, thousands of atlanteans, fuck ton of fish and Grundy vs. what would have been just Grundy (a corpse) in the first place
>It is still seen as a win and overall better judgement on the Justice League's part

One of the episodes in the Superman animated series dealt with him trying to get a criminal put away with the complication that he as Clark Kent was "killed" by him in an explosion so he has to both get the evidence and come up with a plausible reason as how Clark Kent survived exploding without revealing he's Superman.

It works, but the guy knowledge of his own deathtrap means he knows Clark's story is false which means the only plausible explaination is he's Superman which he figures out in the gas chamber just seconds before he's executed.

So even recently Superman knowingly put away a guy that would get killed as a result.

And Captain Neckbreaker says ...."Knowing is half the battle!!!"

>most people who get caught actually can just be arrested

Unless they're black; then they get shot.

How so you say Mxyzptlk, Yea Forums?

Mix-yiz-pit-olik

Attached: 1554273124549.jpg (540x335, 27K)

I always dug that panel.

>Superman in the golden age didn't kill directly

Up, up, and AWAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!

Attached: Superman001-29_zps06d1716d.jpg~original.jpg (720x621, 110K)

Vigilantism is illegal. So is murder.

Superman has no problem killing Doomsday because Doomsday is an animal. Superman eventually became fine with killing Darkseid.

Darkseid is a god and a rapist. Superman has fought things more despicable than a teleporting molester.

The same place as Wally West

Frank Miller showed us that Two Face can never be redeemed. Even completely fixing his face just makes him more evil.
He should be out down too for all his murders if Bats is going to kill Joker.

Injustice works on the caveat that Superman can trounce the rest of the league. Flash and GL aren't at their main universe power level there

Didn't the second Superman Batman movie have Clark refusing to kill an army of Doomsday clones until Batman detected they had no heartbeat, then Clark vaporized them all instantly after hundreds of Amazonian warriors had already been slaughtered?

The version STAS used

Bullshit. Daredevil got Fixer, Klaus Krueger, Karl Strugg and Masked Marauder killed during Lee's run. I mean, he didn't kill them, but their deaths were definitely used as solutions.

>Superman never has to fight a godlike rapist
Does Sleez not count?

Everything in Injustice is literally an excuse for different characters to fight. Its plot is absolutely retarded and should never be taken seriously by anyone.

To be fair, INJUSTICE is based on a lot of stupid memes DC itself have pushed over the years. We can complain about INJUSTICE all we want, but the fact is that its stupidity exists because DC has been generally stupid for decades now.

>Karl Strugg
Who? I've read #1-41 and don't recognise that one. He didn't directly kill any of those other three tho. Iirc Fixer had a heart attack and the other two both fell to their deaths, right?
But he did kill, or send into a time limbo, the Exterminator in #41.

The guy that bodyswitched with the Ox.
>But he did kill, or send into a time limbo, the Exterminator in #41.
He went on to become Death-Stalker.

Plus Marauder survived too, but he was considered dead for a long time.

>Grundy thinks he is going away now...

youtu.be/OFoPc52Kd8I

for the most part Superman can stop most baddies without killing them anyway.
Superman killing Mxy probably wouldn't upset him too much anyway.
(plus logically Supes would give up being Clark as punishment and not being superman)
Pre-Crisis Superman didn't have a real issue with non-humanoids getting killed anyway

Okay, so you kill the Joker.
Who's the next worst villain? Zsazs? So you kill Zsazs.
Who's the next worst villain? Killer Croc? So you kill Killer Croc.
And you can say it wouldn't happen like that, but it would. And eventually it's like, "Why doesn't Batman just kill every murderer? Okay, all the murderers are dead. Why doesn't Batman kill all the rapists? All the muggers?"

>Murder is not the hero's way chum!

Attached: 3E97966F00000578-0-image-a-81_1490387922331.jpg (636x382, 48K)

This is solved by not being so stupid edgy grimdark. If super villains don't have a bodycount a mile long then the heroes beating them and just sending them to jail works better.

Injustice was made to support a game where they had to fight each other. It's absolutely retarded and that's why it's so fun. Because it's cool comedy.

What kind of reasoning is this, a cop who shoots a rampaging nut who's going around stabbing people doesn't suddenly decide, "Well, since I killed this person, I better start killing the next worst criminal on the list".

Unless you're talking about Batman specifically and not any other hero with an absolute no-kill rule, since Batman admits that he refuses to kill to keep himself sane, not because he thinks it's morally reprehensible to end the Joker

Dick Tracy kills his bad guys almost every time, it's not hard to make some new guy.

While, yeah injustice is quite dumb in a fun way. I'll argue it handled well the slippery slope of a hero breaking the no kill rule and slowly becoming more unhinged justifying it for the greater good until he is sitting in a throne and killing his allies.

all life is sacred user

I mean, the only thing showing that descent is the comic tie-ins, and those are the most retarded and contrived set of circumstances imaginable. And even then, Superman's decision to go dictator is more of a result of him thinking that he (and Batman especially) could have prevented Metropolis's destruction and millions of deaths including of Lois and his unborn child if they had just dealt with the Joker permanently beforehand. So say Joker just keeled over and spontaneously combusted after setting off the nuke. Superman would probably still go down that path in the story because the damage to his psyche was the preventable deaths of Lois and everyone in Metropolis, not the act of killing itself.

And that would be an absolute fine story in and of itself, but the comics had to show why this Superman who killed out of grief and decided not to let this kind of tragedy happen again turns into the child-murdering genocidal prick shown in the games. And they completely failed at doing so.

Like a big turning point they present is when Apokolips invades with millions of parademons swarming in all over the world, Superman sees and hears people from everywhere getting butchered. He uses his super speed to basically stop time and have a conversation with the Flash over whether or not he should just solve this issue in a second, and Flash says "uhh I can't give you permission to kill, Clark" and Superman decides to "cross the line" and super speed kill every single parademon on earth in like one second. And everyone is cheering that they're alive and not parademon chowder while Batman is looking in horror while saying "oh my god Clark, what did you do"? What the actual fuck were they thinking when writing this shit?

Every injustice character exist in a limbo where they only exist until they are necessary for the plot.
The Titans didn't exist until the Annual when Superman send them into the phantom zone and some characters from the Justice Society exist but they never explain what where they doing while the world was upside down.

Just hang him lol

>Kandorians (apparently) kill him
more like they lynched him

STDs

Tracy is a cop, Wayne isn't.

Batman's actually makes the most sense since it's supposed to be an irrational character trait based in trauma.

>Hasn't read Miracleman
fuck off and do it. it's 16 issues. Make sure you get the original coloring.

I don't buy that Superman has a universal no kill rule. It's more for his human or otherwise squishy enemies. He'd try and kill someone like Darkseid or Zod because unlike fucking Luthor, they can actually fuck him up and then proceed to exterminate mankind.

Attached: 28-doomsday-1.nocrop.w710.h2147483647.2x.jpg (1388x1220, 815K)

I'm talking about the creative process of creating new villains.

Can somebody explain shit like Nightwing beating the Joker to death and Batman resuscitating him, or Red Hood threatening to shoot the Joker and Batman slicing his neck open before he gets the chance.

The Bat-Family since the 2000's have only existed to shit on Batman.

How many times can the people like the Joker get away with killing countless of people, and then only end up in the arkham asylum?
The Joker should have gotten on death row long ago. And so should a lot of the other villains.
But guess they don't have the death penalty in Arkham. (Except I recall one time someone escapes from death row. And another time someone was wrongfully put on death row, and they had to prove he was innocent... so they got it, but only when its importen to the plot)

because batman has tons of different writers who aren't allowed to kill off the joker because of executive mandate, so the reasons as to why batman allows him to live change wildly

>tfw Lex and Edward's separate redemption arcs didn't stick because STATUS QUO.

I think heroes should have a 3 strikes policy. Like, if you're a villain and after being captured twice previously you still decide to commit evil then you don't deserve to be a burden on the system or a possible danger to society. There has to be a point where everyone knows that incarceration won't work and "locking them away" just causes more problems in the future. Hell, if the hero is squeamish about killing them then just permanently paralyse them below the neck and have all their limbs removed. Sure it's edgy, but at least the hero would keep to their "no-killing" rule.

I mean, you have Barry taking a supervillain kid and removing all his motion so that he's a statue for eternity while completely aware of what's going on and no one seemed to have a problem with that. That's a million times worse than death or dismemberment yet nobody really had a problem with it. Granted, he escaped like a year later but still, the intent was there.

100% the latter. The world would be a better place with Lex Luthor or the Joker executed permanently during the pre-Crisis era, this is an objective fact.

>but-
Stop.
Look, the current Justice League arc revolves around the fact that Lex Luthor is about to do something that will ruin the whole multiverse.

Fuck the no-kill rule, when you make your villains omnicapable sociopaths with inferiority complexes you are way past the excuses for lethal force used by militaries and law enforcement.

To be fair, Miracleman is less about what could happen to Superman and more about what could happen to Billy Batson if the world was dedicated to gaslighting him into sociopathy

Yeah because Goku and Thanos sell so little merch

>the Daredevil tv series' no kill rule
I swear that shit verges into parody when in S3 Daredevil spends an entire season hyping himself up, IM REALLY GONNA KILL FISK THIS TIME, and then at the vital moment stops because Fisk's hilariously sociopathic art museum gf begs for him to

>Superan never has to fight a godlike rapist
Yeah leave it to those poor fucks in The Authority to have to deal with the renegade Doctor and his time travel molesting ways

Ah yes, the Stardust Approach of scaring villains straight

>Yeah, but when you start killing people because of "well, jail is a revolving door" where do you draw the line?
At murderers that cannot be contained by a prison. The problem with cape comics is the completely batshit lack of functioning prisons, not no kill rules.

Even if you couldn't enact legislation for the construction of super prisons, why the fuck isn't someone OP enough to do it on permanent prison guard duty?

Oh boy, this is the perfect opportunity to post this if anyone wants to debate the cost-benefit analysis of subsidising super-prison research

Attached: Good fucking luck.jpg (552x449, 100K)

>At murderers that cannot be contained by a prison
What if it's a legal technicality that gets him off? Or a really good defense? Are you gonna murder them because you're not satisfied with the system?

Shit didn't the Joker use to have an actual crack team of lawyers somehow?

The problem isn't the NO KILL rule the problem is that some villains have been elevated from thematic hoods to grave yard filling murder machines. If Joker didn't become so over the top EDGE we wouldn't have this problem to start with.

Attached: consider the following.jpg (600x600, 32K)

>why does murder receive a harsher sentence than jaywalking
The absolute STATE of newkillrulecucks

>Are you gonna murder them because you're not satisfied with the system?
Yes, at the first opportunity to do so within the law for reasons of defense of others after placing them under super surveillance. This isn't fucking difficult.

Zatanna has mastery of physics beyond 5 dimensions. You could literally stop that with some wards. Get fucked.

Okay see, I can actually half agree with this but.
As Sivana up there proves, even in the golden age there was a dangerous tendency in comics to pair shameless villainy with impossible feats.

Wow because NO VILLAIN has EVER dabbled with hte mystic arts amirite

Attached: MATH'd.jpg (620x958, 207K)

Expecting Zatanna to be a one-woman solution to the entire problem of supervillain imprisonment is a careless and ludicrous position to take when DC is full of magical villains, and we both know it. And before you say it, we both know she's the only reliably present and available magic user to the League other than Raven. The Spectre and Phantom Stranger do what they want, Deadman is just a ghost even if he's a really buff ghost because plot and Dr. Fate (Nabu) is currently trying to destroy the multiverse

>Wow because NO VILLAIN has EVER dabbled with hte mystic arts amirite
Wow cause blueberry is the same level as your everyday villain amirite?

Attached: srsly.png (331x249, 92K)

>Expecting Zatanna to be a one-woman solution to the entire problem of supervillain imprisonment is a careless and ludicrous position to take when DC is full of magical villains
Most villains aren't fucking magic and ignoring 99% of a problem because 1% might require an alternative solution is ludicrous. Fuck's sake, if they really wanted to they could just toss fuckers into the Source Wall.

Blueberry proves a simple point: There is a level of force brought to bear where the no kill rule goes out the fucking window, and Crisis on Infinite Earths proved it earlier with the Anti-Monitor.

Also again: Felix Faust, Eclipso, Enchantress, Mr. E (he tried to gouge out Tim Hunter's eyes at the end of the Books of Magic, he counts). How many magic villains do you expect Zatanna to flawlessly deal with pray tell?

>the Source Wall solution
I.
Huh.
You know what. You got me there. That is legitimitely an excellent solution given the JL can apparently afford interstellar spaceship fuel to the edge of existence and back.

There's also an issue of tone. Bad guys do bad shit but they don't tend to really dwell on the drama of it like they do now. Or at least not to the same extent. It's almost comical.

>I don't understand and think is fucking stupid is Batman acting like it's a fucking moral dilemma to use lethal force to save the lives of people immediately endangered by Joker
Because it's not about the Joker or protecting the innocent. It's about Batman. Red Hood story arc capsulates that perfectly. Batman admits that killing the Joker was what he always wanted to do, but would be too easy. Then he would find an excuse to kill Poison Ivy, because he already crossed the line, then Dent, the the Penguin and after that he is no better than the criminals he's fighting.
Because yes, Batman is a bit unginged, flawed and corruptable - and he knows it. That's why he overcompensates so much.
One of the very few things I like in Simone's Batgirl run was Barbara figuring out the third option: "I'm gonna kill the Joker, then I'm gonna turn myself in to the police, because this was never about me". Obviously, she doesn't kill him, he's saved by deus ex machina, but it was a nice moment.

It's kind of funny that we are unintentionally sort of coming full circle now that the hype for the new villain is that she's literally the Anti-Monitor's mom

Doesn't that just mean Batman personally is a flawed character and that the principle of lethal force itself isn't inherently unthinkable? I mean I'm pretty sure the GCPD has authorised lethal force a bunch of times

>>superhero writers realize that they probably shouldn't have their heroes kill the bad guys because then they'd have to come up with new bad guys every time so they start to give heroes a no-kill rule

This isn't true at all. It was literally FORCED on them by the Comics Code Authority,

I wonder how it feels to work in the Comics Code Authority on the day it relented and know with certainty every leading figure in the industry you regulate agrees your entire agency was a mistake?

It WOULD if they actually addressed it and had the character face and come to terms with the consequences of it all.

Sure, a lot of DC characters are much more lenient about lethal force when you think about it. Wonder Woman for instance doesn't give a fuck about bad guy casualties, Huntress, Question and Red Hood kill bad guys on a daily basis, even Batman Beyond won't go out of his way to save a villlain. I think even Superman had his moments when fighting a really nasty villain.
It's just people latched onto Batman and "why didn't he kill the Joker yet".

Honestly yeah, I think the strongest argument against the no-kill rule is that several JL members who otherwise have a fairly good record clearly disagree with it

>That is legitimitely an excellent solution given the JL can apparently afford interstellar spaceship fuel to the edge of existence and back.
Why the fuck doesn't the League have Bat Tubes?

Hell the League has BIG BARDA and MR MIRACLE a lot of the times, in theory they can just boom tube all the villains to one of the really weird dimensions. Okay, them being so underutilised was sort of excusable back when the New Gods were just silly alien costume people but if Morrison is gonna wank them into the intrusions of sapient platonic concepts it creates the plot hole the League has actually had insane imprisonment capacity for ages, but never asked Barda or Scott to use it for some goddamn reason.

Why WHY didn't they just ask Scott/Barda to dive-kick the Anti-Monitor/Necron in their true form?!

Also shit I just realised this might be why in Nu52 they made New Genesis unaffiliated rogue elements at best and part of Highfather's not!Anti-Life Equation crusade at worst: To avoid the question of the JL not using New God tech.

Well, it is an example of bad writing for superheroes. So I say it fits pretty well.

This is what happens when you learn the facts of life from The Facts Of Life.

Eeh, Injustice is a Justice Lords JLU episode that goes for way too long. Nobody wants to watch your heroes become assholes. It's nice as a one-shot idea, but after a while the story just gets dreary and pointless.

There's no heroes in the DBZ/S universe

Nah, it's just dumb. In an unreadable way.

It's has moments of shit and that it.

Go read non capeshit then brainlet.

>Anonymous vigilantes killing people without trial

Yeah thats called lynching .

We should not have superheroes lynching people.

the no-kill rule was set in the forties, retards

>no murder rule
that's what it is, what it's meant to be and how it usually goes
btw not all languages have different words for kill and murder... food for thought

>I think
you don't

>And the Injustice comics/game show just how fucked uo things get when people like Superman decide to kill
Except they don't. Superman already killed and nothing happened.

You're saying mass murderers like the Joker, Ra's al Ghul and Slade Wilson should just be free to walk around killing whoever they want?

Honestly, the batfamily regularly break the bones of low level threat when they could just subdue them. They don't kill left and right like Wolverine but they send a lot of people to the hospital.