>killing your enemies is bad
>especially because he have and used punishments that are WORSE than death
What did Superman mean by this?
>killing your enemies is bad. >especially because he have and used punishments that are WORSE than death
>killing your enemies is bad
>especially because he have and used punishments that are WORSE than death
What did Superman mean by this?
When he was a kid in Smallville, Clark Kent used to read Fletcher Hanks comics.
Superman, symbol of truth, justice, and the American way:
>We've had to design truly horrific tortures worse than death to deter criminals because many of the insane monsters we deal with on a regular basis don't even fear death.
Me, a rational human being:
>You've been deliberately cruel and inhumane treatments that are by your own description worse than death on people, presumably extralegally?
Superman, Man of Steel:
>Yes, of course. We have to.
Me, once again a rational human being:
>And these horrific tortures deter the monsters with which you deal? Cow them into complacency?
Superman, Man of Tomorrow:
>Well...no.
Me, still a rational human being:
>And they're final like death should be? As in inescapable? These monsters aren't constantly coming back from these horrific tortures and further ballooning their body counts?
Kal-El, Last Son of Krypton:
>No...
Me, the only rational person in the fricking room:
>And they never come with any inadvertent powerups or drive the victims to violent insanity or revenge crusades that get innocent people killed?
Clark Kent, reporter for the Daily Planet
>No.
>death
>final
>in dc
Lol. As if every supervillain that gets killed doesnt come back in a year at most.
>ought
Also there's literally nothing stopping you from imprisoning the body.
In fact that should be arguably be easier. We do that anyway. Graveyards are just prisons to prevent skeleton escapes.
Not like a time travler cant just pull them from the moment before theyre dead, or if their bodies cannot be teleported by gigascience/magic. Or they get demon powers.
Really i just find it funny as shit that the whole "killing them keeps them down" keeps being brought up when every time that happens it gets undone.
By this logic why bother fighting crime when everything good you ever accomplish will inevitably be undone by an evil time traveler?
It is pointless, but heroes's main goals are to try and minimize the damage since regular people dont come back.
Also mostly saying that there's really no difference between sending a villain to jail and killing them within a universe where death is so meaningless to supers.
And the time travel one is just an example. Ressurections are beyond common in the setting.
Put simply either something can be done, in which case the most effective thing should be done, or nothing can be done, in which case nothing should be done.
>heroes's main goals are to try and minimize the damage
Trying to capture a criminal alive is not the best way to minimize damage. A maximum penetration minimum footprint strike on the villain ASAP is the best way to minimize damage.
There's a fricking reason SWAT teams don't use batarangs. And this is setting aside Superman defending fricking fates worse than death after capture over just killing motherfrickers and tossing them in a lead lined box under 6 feet of concrete.
Also your time travel bullshit would presumably get people out of the exact torture Superman's defending, so it's not even a defense of his fricking position. You're trying to say there's no right answer so both me and him are equally wrong, but one doesn't fricking imply the other.
Superman's bullshit is objectively the stupidest way to do things. It doesn't slow frickers down. It's mutually exclusive with better options. It's morally reprehensible. It's tyrannical. And it often makes the situation worse.
And killing would be no-more effective than putting someone in prison, that's my argument.
The best way to minimize damage is to rescue people in the way first.
Im not defending his position, im just saying "kill the villains" attitudes in superhero settings are abusrd. Morrison here just wrote it really brain-dead wise for a justification.
>And killing would be no-more effective than putting someone in prison
Your argument is fricking stupid and wrong. You can put a dead body in prison. It's called a fricking grave. I've literally already said that in this thread.
>The best way to minimize damage is to rescue people in the way first.
If you have hyper competence and can rescue civilians faster than a villain can endanger them? Sure. If a madman's running through a...let's say a fairground gunning people down left and right, you down stop to fricking treat every half-dead civilian though. He's gonna create bullet holes faster than you can plug them. You catch up as quickly as possible and put the fricker down. Permanently.
He isn't argue that their methods are better because they are worse than death, he's arguing that even as a practical, no nonsense solution, execution doesn't work in the DC universe. Killing isn't just morally bad, it doesn't just speak of the lack of restraint of the supposed superheroes, it is also ineffective.
>He isn't argue that their methods are better because they are worse than death
>as an alternative to some of the super-punishments we've had to devise over the years, execution's a walk in the park
If they aren't better cause they're worse than death, why are they worse than death?
>it is also ineffective
Depends on what you're fricking using it for. As a deterrent for other criminals? Sure. As a deterrent for that criminal? Not everyone comes back. There are non-super criminals and not all supers come back. And, to reiterate. Killing someone isn't exclusive with dumping them in whatever hole you were going to dump them in anyway. Makes them cheaper and easier to watch too.
No fricked up superpunishment that's ever been inflicted on a supercriminal has ever caused another to retire. A few have caused heroes to retire though, in disgust. Superman's point about his bullshit being more effective than killing is itself bullshit.
If you kill The Joker you BECOME The Joker.
I hope I never kill Superman, then, cause he's an ass-hat.
Capeshit will use whatever bullshit to justify the hero sparing the irredeemable villain just so that they can continue profiting from it.
Bad* capeshit will use whatever bullshit
Onec read an article which used the same backwards logic to argue against the death sentence. First they talked about how the death sentence is barbaric and evil, then they cited a poll showing most people sentenced to life in prison would rather have gotten a death sentence and used this to argue that therefore life in prison is the better punishment if what you want is to make these people suffer.
life in prison and the death penalty are both pretty fricked up, we should focus on rehabilitation as much as possible and reserve life in prison for only the worst/most dangerous criminals like serial killers
but the American 'justice' system is a joke
>Simple solutions have no place in a complex world
Occam rolling in his grave
Killing is wrong in the context of a capeshit universe, for the reasons he said and also because death isn't real there.
It's just like how in Warhammer mass genocide and extreme fascism was necessary for the survival of humanity, but it would be wrong IRL.
Reality is somewhere in between
If death isn't real there then why does it matter if you kill the bad guy or not? At least if you kill them, they'll stay gone a little longer than if you toss them into an easily-escapable asylum.
Having them escape an asylum is better than having them crawl out of hell, likely with some newfound supernatural powers and an amplified desire for revenge
>Having them escape an asylum is better than having them crawl out of Hell
Arkham Asylum is built on top of a Hellmouth and run by demons that feed on evil people. They subtly influence the minds of Gothamites to remove roadblocks to crime sprees and then drive inhabitants of the city mad so they'll be turned into violent killers that will slaughter those around them and then be thrown into the Asylum where the demons can feast on them. The only reason why they'd allow a potential meal to escape their grasp is because they were fattening it, intending for the person in question to slaughter more people and therefore become a better meal for the demons.
It is absolutely NOT fricking better for people to fricking escape Arkham than escape Hell because the latter Hell WANTED to happen (or the person in question is not evil).
Side Note #1: Just killing motherfrickers means the demons don't get to eat. Another good thing.
Side Note #2: Yes, Batman technically unknowingly works for demons by sending them food.
Side Note #3: Gotham itself is evil and should be razed beneath the waves.
I really appreciate how the guy from the country that still has the death penalty for criminals is lecturing a bunch of superheroes from countries that don't about killing criminals.
In fairness, Superman at least got PTSD the last time he had to carry out an execution, a thing he canonically did followed by a thing that canonically happened.
And during said PTSD he ended up getting a murderer off death row with new evidence to reduce the severity of their charge because he was driven by hallucinations of his victims find some way to assuage the guilt.
This insane motherfricker is strong enough to end life on earth.