The Superman Family Message Board >> View Post
·
Post By
Phae

In Reply To
Zeroun

Subj: Re: Superman 658 questions [SPOILERS]
Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 11:38:53 am EST
Reply Subj: Re: Superman 658 questions [SPOILERS]
Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 09:43:19 am EST

Previous Post

> During this possible future story arc Supe had 2 chances to kill Khyber.
> the first time he refused it led to the near destruction of the planet.
> The second time he held back he got himself killed. Is there a point that even Supes should drop his never kill policy ? I seem to get the impersion that no crime(mass murder caused by Khyber)is great enough for Supes to cross his line. If he had killed Khyber in their final fight he would have been around to help and possibly save the surviors of earth. He seemed almost selfish to me in that he's willing to follow his moral standards
> even if others(the Earth) die.

Sacrificing your convictions in order to do what YOU feel is right is exactly what a villain does. See, the issue over killing villains was addressed in a Batman story during the Crisis. Jason Todd had a gun to the Joker's head and was demanding that Batman kill the Joker for what he did to him (Jason). Furthermore, he demands to know why Batman never did in the first place. Because it would be too hard for him to do, Jason postulated. Batman responded something along the lines of, "Killing isn't hard. Killings easy. It was never because it was hard, Jason, it was because it would mean that we fall prey to the very thing we fight. When we use their rules to beat them, it's nothing more than to petty crooks getting back at eachother."

Now arguable their may actually be times when it's necessary. But that would be putting up unreal situations that no one may ever face. You may argue, "Hey! That guy's runnin' after my mom and he's gonna kill her! And I have a gun!" You may think that it would be allright to kill him in this instance in order to protect your mom, heck you may even get away with it, but wouldn't it have been just as efficient to shoot him in the leg or the arm? Not killing him, just putting him out of commission? This is the problem with people today, they're always searching for the quickest, easiest, most efficient solution, rather than working hard to make the right decision.


> > During this possible future story arc Supe had 2 chances to kill Khyber.
> > the first time he refused it led to the near destruction of the planet.
> > The second time he held back he got himself killed. Is there a point that even Supes should drop his never kill policy ? I seem to get the impersion that no crime(mass murder caused by Khyber)is great enough for Supes to cross his line. If he had killed Khyber in their final fight he would have been around to help and possibly save the surviors of earth. He seemed almost selfish to me in that he's willing to follow his moral standards
> > even if others(the Earth) die.
>
> Sacrificing your convictions in order to do what YOU feel is right is exactly what a villain does. See, the issue over killing villains was addressed in a Batman story during the Crisis. Jason Todd had a gun to the Joker's head and was demanding that Batman kill the Joker for what he did to him (Jason). Furthermore, he demands to know why Batman never did in the first place. Because it would be too hard for him to do, Jason postulated. Batman responded something along the lines of, "Killing isn't hard. Killings easy. It was never because it was hard, Jason, it was because it would mean that we fall prey to the very thing we fight. When we use their rules to beat them, it's nothing more than to petty crooks getting back at eachother."
>
> Now arguable their may actually be times when it's necessary. But that would be putting up unreal situations that no one may ever face. You may argue, "Hey! That guy's runnin' after my mom and he's gonna kill her! And I have a gun!" You may think that it would be allright to kill him in this instance in order to protect your mom, heck you may even get away with it, but wouldn't it have been just as efficient to shoot him in the leg or the arm? Not killing him, just putting him out of commission? This is the problem with people today, they're always searching for the quickest, easiest, most efficient solution, rather than working hard to make the right decision.

I agree in principle with everything you said. I'm not for killing anyone when you have another choice. But in your mom killing analogy
you saying there are 2 choices killing or disabling.But in Superman 658
Supes 2 choices were to kill or be killed. He chose to let Khyber kill him and let himself and everyone counting on him down. It would be like in the analogy you used if the guy decided to drop the gun and let the bad guy kill his mom because his no killing policy is more important than crossing his moral line. Plus the situation you use is a split second almost reflexive situation, so there would be no time to think about it and "work hard to make the right decsion". But in the comic book universe where heroes have exhibit great skill even under duress
I generally agree with what you said.


Posted with Netscape Navigator 7.1 on Windows XP
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software