Superman General

Superman's no-killing policy would not make sense in the real world, that is true. In the real world, sometimes it is necesary to kill.

But Superman doesn't live in the real world. Superman lives in a comic book universe. This is why I end up disliking Man of Steel: because it tries to make everything around Superman ultrarealistic and thus makes him kill.

But the stories of Superman shouldn't be about making things ultrarealistic and the stories about Superman should not be about putting him into situations where he has to kill. Sure, you could do that, but why would you want to? What would that prove? That Superman is human like the rest of us? Why would you want to show that?

Superman is an ideal. Superman is what we aspire to be. That is why he should not kill. He is hope, the hope that we do not have to kill to survive, that hope that we can be better than what we are.

"Somewhere, in our darkest night, we made up the story of a man who will never let us down."

— Grant Morrison

"Brainiac is a robot, doesn't count"

Brainiac is a sentient being. He is capable of independent thought, and has all the same hopes, dreams, and motivations as an actual person. Superman regularly tears him to shreds, and has done his best to track down every last speck of his programming and destroy it. That's the exact same as trying to kill Brainiac, no matter how many hairs you split. And that's fine. Brainiac's insanely dangerous, totally evil, and the world will undoubtedly be better off without him. But it's still killing him.

"Doomsday was resurrected the same time that Superman was resurrected."

Did Superman resurrect him? No. Superman did his utmost to kill Doomsday, and in fact, succeeded in killing him. That he was later resurrected by others does not invalidate that, anymore than the Russian's resurrection invalidates the Punisher's beheading of him. In both cases, the hero killed the villain. In both cases the villain needed to die, and it was absolutely the right thing to do.

"And Superman never killed Darkseid. (Again: he disrupted his spirit with a note of pure multiverse. Which, on the whole, isn't exactly killing.)"

Darkseid was alive before Superman "disrupted his spirit". Afterwards, he was very, very not. Superman killed him. Which again, is fine. Darkseid needed to die. Darkseid needed to die more than anyone.

"As for Zod, oh yes he did not feel fine afterwards. In fact, he had a mental breakdown. There was a whole entire storyline about his mental breakdown."

And did he kill millions of people? Did he take over the world? Did he slaughter his former allies? No, he did none of those things. He felt bad, he had a breakdown, and he got over it. The same way that normal people do after they're forced to do something they'd rather not.

If his no-kill code requires him to depower himself after killing an Eldritch Abomination, thus depriving everyone of his protection, I feel pretty let down.

edited 25th May '15 8:32:26 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

Darkseid was not "alive" before Superman disrupted his spirit. He was, literally, a spirit. He had no body. No heartbeat. No pulse. He was a spirit, that was it.

Also: read my post above.

If his no-kill code requires him to depower himself after killing an Eldritch Abomination, thus depriving everyone of his protection, I feel pretty let down.

He depowered himself because he could no longer be Superman. He felt like Superman shouldn't kill and when he did kill, he couldn't be Superman any longer. You would rather he sacrifice his own mental wellbeing to maybe provide protection to everyone else (who are already being protected by other superheroes)?

Man, you probably also hate All-Star Superman because Superman never kills anyone in that.

edited 25th May '15 8:36:09 PM by alliterator

Superman's friends are spirits. He knows Deadman, he knows Zadkiel (who is a heavenly spirit). Some of his good buddies are elementals (I think Red Tornado was an air elemental at one point), among others.

Superman blew Darkseid apart to the extent he would face oblivion and never recover. Idon't see a meaningful distinction between that and death.

He knows Deadman, he knows Zadkiel (who is a heavenly spirit).

I think you just proved my point: Deadman's already dead and Zadkiel...well, I've never heard of him, so I have no idea.

And Superman may have disrupted his spirit, but he didn't kill him completely. Because, hey get this, Darkseid is still alive. They are even having something called "The Darkseid War."

I don't think that proves your point. In DC, spirits are people, too. If someone blew apart Deadman, his friends would be mighty unhappy.

And I don't see how Darkseid returning is meaningful. If Ted Kord returns to life, does that absolve Max Lord from his murder?

You are again, splitting hairs. Darkseid was on this side of the River Styx. Then Superman did not what he did and Darkseid was not on this side of the River Styx. That's killing him. And that's fine. Darkseid had to go.

I did read your post above. It was the same stuff you've been spouting the whole time. You want a Superman who is so emotionally fragile, so mentally unstable, that doing something that was absolutely, without a doubt, necessary to save his life and the lives of everyone on Earth, makes him quit. That's not Superman. There's nothing Super about it.

Me, I prefer a hero who tries to do the right thing, refrains from lethal force whenever possible, but is willing and able to use it if it becomes necessary.

Oh, and prepare to be amazed—I like "All-Star Superman". You know why? Because it was a well-written story. You know why I don't like "Earth-2"? Because it wasn't a well-written story. See, I don't care if Superman kills anybody in the story or not. I care only that a) he be willing to do it if it is necessary, and b) that should it become necessary, he not bail on the human race after the fact.

Darkseid came back in the New 52. Which is, you know, a reboot. And even if it wasn't a reboot, it would change nothing, because Superman still tried to use lethal force against him. You're like a defense attorney going "no, your honour, my client is a good person. He's never committed murder. Just attempted murder. He's a terrible shot you see." (Before you try and spin it, not calling Superman a murderer. Darkseid needed to go)

edited 25th May '15 8:50:05 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

You want a Superman who is so emotionally fragile, so mentally unstable, that doing something that was absolutely, without a doubt, necessary to save his life and the lives of everyone on Earth, makes him quit. That's not Superman. There's nothing Super about it.

So having mental distress from killing someone is being "emotionally fragile"? Wow. Good to know.

You apparently have missed the entire point of Superman.

So the point of Superman is to give up when presented with any quandary that challenges his sense of morality. Good to know. Sounds like your preferred version of the character is a real hero.

You really think I'm denigrating the mentally ill, call in a mod. They'll evict me from the site and you'll have "won" the argument. In the meantime, stop trying to make assumptions about my real life beliefs, and stop trying to "win" via cheap shot. We're discussing Superman, whose entire schtick is being better than us. If he can't deal with the sort of mental trauma that real life soldiers, police officers, and aid workers deal with, he has no business being in law-enforcement, and no business having "super" in front of his name.

edited 25th May '15 9:05:41 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

@Ambar Son Of Deshar

So, you don't like A Better World either then? Because that one also involves Superman forming a totalitarian society after executing one Supervillain, and I love that story.

That's not the point of Superman. The point of Superman isn't to be better than us, it's to be an ideal that we strive for.

All-Star Superman showed it best: when faced with an impossible choice, Superman will do the impossible. When faced with a super-powered Lex Luthor, does Superman kill him? Nope, he finds a way to depower him. When faced with Solaris the Tyrant Sun, does he kill him? Nope. "You'll live." And then he punches him out. When faced with a poisoned sun, what does Superman do? He goes into the sun and fixes it. Even if it takes a million years.

Saying that Superman should kill when it's necessary is strange, because he should never be in a position where it's necessary.

And now let me go through your list of people he has "killed":

• Doomsday. They both fought to the death. The problem here is that Superman wasn't trying to kill him, he was just trying to stop him. There is nowhere in The Death of Superman where Superman says, "I must kill him." No, he wants to stop him from destroying Metropolis. He ends up killing him, but then Superman dies and when he comes back, he doesn't really have to face killing Doomsday, because Doomsday is alive again.

• Brainiac. Okay, let's say that he's a sentient robot and that counts as murder. Where did Superman kill Brainiac? Looking at the Brainiac wikipedia page, it doesn't seem like Superman ever killed Brainiac. I see where Maxima lobotomized him. I see where Lana Lang killed him. I don't see where Superman ever killed him.

• Darkseid. And once again, Superman never killed Darkseid. First Batman poisoned him with a Radion bullet, then the Flashes led Darkseid's own Omega beams back to him which destroyed his physical body. Then Superman sang a note of pure multiverse which disrupted his spirit. He didn't kill the spirit. Why? Well, I'm going with "You can't kill a spirit." And there is no indication that Superman kills him, either. No "Oh, I've killed him."

And considering Final Crisis was written by Grant Morrison, author of the aforementioned Earth-2 and All-Star Superman, I'm going with "He didn't kill him."

edited 25th May '15 9:36:11 PM by alliterator

So, just because someone tried to kill someone, but they ended up not doing it, that makes it okay? Because anybody else would be put on trial for even attempting to kill somebody else, even if they didn't go through with it for one reason or another. In other words, just because Superman didn't kill anyone (and he has killed,) doesn't change the fact that he tried to kill them, and he shouldn't be excused from that.

edited 25th May '15 9:40:21 PM by kkhohoho

1) Who did Superman try to kill?

2) I think Superman gets a little leeway, because often he is fighting for his life and to save others.

3) This isn't the real world. Those consequences don't exist in the comic book universe. Suspension of disbelief.

edited 25th May '15 9:49:42 PM by alliterator

As has been said, he's tried to kill Braniac and Darksied on multiple occasions. So while he actually hasn't killed them, he's tried to. So, if you're willing to give him a 'little leeway' in trying to kill them, then shouldn't you also give him some slack if he actually does kill them, as long as he's in a situation where innocent lives are at risk? (Which could happen with at least Darksied, considering how freaking strong he is.)

And he has killed Doomsday. And don't give me that 'he came back' excuse; he still killed him. There is absolutely no way you can convince me that Superman doesn't have that on his hands just because Doomsday came back, or even because he was just trying to 'stop him'. He still killed him, though he did so to save lives, and because he had no other choice at the time. The point is, Superman's willing to kill lives if he sees there's no other choice; regardless of whether or not it's what he 'should' or 'shouldnt' do, that's just how it is in the regular comics. Now, you can argue whether or not this should be the case, but this is simply how it actually is at this point.

@kkhohoho

I think the "one bad thing happens to Superman and he turns evil" storyline, and the equally popular (and often comorbid) "Superman does one bad thing and turns evil" storylines are played out. They've been done a lot and I've never found them that convincing, regardless of how well written they are. "A Better World" is well written (or as well-written as such a story can be), but it just doesn't appeal to me, or what I want to explore in a Superman story. I also find the notion that Superman could that easily turn to evil to be somewhat offensive to the character.

If people want to explore what Superman would be like with a completely different upbringing and/or backstory, that's fine, and from my perspective at least, far more interesting. That's what Ultraman is there for, after all (though the Post-Crisis "dumb thug" incarnation seemed to miss the point). That's what Red Son explored. Hell, that's what Superboy-Prime is for, and there's a reason why I have a higher tolerance for that little monster than most do. I just don't see much point in turning Superman himself into a villain, and I certainly don't see much point in doing it because "Lois got killed by the Joker" or somesuch.

Regarding things reaching the point where they have to turn lethal with Darkseid, they've gotten there with Brainiac too, since he's near as dangerous, and every bit as evil.

@alliterator

Superman has trashed so many versions of Brainiac I don't even know where to start. He almost never goes in with the intent of arresting the robot, and hasn't since the late Bronze Age. That's without getting into adaptations like the DCAU, wherein he destroyed every spec of Brainiac's programming that he encountered, or Smallville, where he twice attempted to kill Brainiac—you can see one of those attempts in a link a page or so back.

As a robot Brainiac tends to get exempted from the no-kill business, not because he isn't sentient, but because you can show a machine getting disassembled without ratcheting up your rating and having the moral guardians on your ass.

edited 25th May '15 11:01:59 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

Hell, if you want a Superman that doesn't give a fuck, that's basically Superman in Justice League Gods and Monsters.

Superman has trashed so many versions of Brainiac I don't even know where to start. He almost never goes in with the intent of arresting the robot, and hasn't since the late Bronze Age. That's without getting into adaptations like the DCAU, wherein he destroyed every spec of Brainiac's programming that he encountered, or Smallville, where he twice attempted to kill Brainiac—you can see one of those attempts in a link a page or so back.

"Trashed" is not the same as killed. Again, I don't see where he ever killed Brainiac. Not in the "oh, you totally killed him" way. There's the "he's a robot, he survived that" way. Also, destroying Brainiac's programming is not the same as killing. That's like saying deleting a file is like killing.

Oh, and Smallville, but Smallville sucks.

So, fanfics. The only Superman fic I read so far was Man of Metropolis, which I thought was amazing up until the ending.

After the ending, I wanted to find the author and punch them in the teeth.

Would you mind putting the ending in spoiler tags?

I've tried and failed to convey the impact of the ending without summarising the whole story, and that's hard, because it's very dense, despite being rather short.

Just... remember the ending of The Great Gatsby? It felt like that. Like there's this huge build-up of an epic, dramatic development, and then it's crushed by one huge disappointment involving bad luck, maliciousness of some, and lack of courage of others.

It's heartbreaking.

And the worst part is, the villain might have been right all along.

x4 At this point, I just feel you're arguing semantics. If Doomsday was a robot, would you just say he 'trashed' him too? And not to mention, Braniac didn't start out as a robot. I read his first appearance, and he was a bonafide, honest-to-gosh, living breathing alien being. It's only later stories that turned him into a robot for whatever reason, but the point is, Braniac used to be, you know, alive, and Superman has still tried to kill him. Yes, not 'trash'; kill. You can argue the niceties all you want, but the fact is, Superman has still repeatedly killed/trashed/destroyed/whichever a sentient being. You can also argue if Superman should kill or not, but that doesn't change the fact that he has.

Oh yeah, and then there's Zod&friends from Byrnes' run. Like Doomsday, just because this may have been rectconned later doesn't change the fact that, at the time, he had killed them. It's there. The pages of that story will still exsist in time memorize. Superman killed Zod and his pals, and even if by some stroke of luck he didn't actually kill them, he still fully intended to, and that will never go away.

edited 26th May '15 6:17:23 AM by kkhohoho

What's the problem with Clark killing in self defense/ defense of others? Now, it's fine if you don't like the writers putting Supes in that situation of having to use lethal force, but I'm a bit annoyed that Thou Shall Not Kill is taken to mean one should not even kill in self-defense.

I read his first appearance, and he was a bonafide, honest-to-gosh, living breathing alien being.

And in his post-Infinite Crisis appearance, he was an alien, too. And Superman didn't kill him.

But he tried to, at least later on. If Superman tries to kill somebody — and he has, multiple times — then, even if it's out of self-defense or defense of others, that means he is willing to kill if necessary. But so far, you seem to have been saying he isn't.

Heck, I haven't even read many Superman comics, but I have seen most of the DCAU, and Supes has always been ready and willing to knock Darksieds' block off. And no, I don't mean 'disable him and put him away'. I mean 'freaking murder the SOB'. So he's got that on his resume.

edited 26th May '15 8:15:12 AM by kkhohoho

Once he saw the slaves of Apokolyps take him to healing instead of execution, I wonder why he didn't try to Finish Him! himself...