No real argument for Thou Shalt Not Kill?

Why not? If not for the extremely contrived unreliability of super soldier programs, official authority has all the physical power it needs to combat any external threat that would otherwise be superhero material. Even modern comics severely downplay the actual effectiveness of realistic military hardware, to contrast with increasing power creep for the capes and their foes. In terms of force alone, anything after 1945 is pure inflation, the practical inconsequentiality of which needs all sorts of plot-devices to explain away.

I'm with @King Zeal on this one - taken at face value, powerhouse superheroes would have a much greater effect on human life than just punching bad people with reckless abandon. Oversight would be among the least of problems. That's why I prefer the mid-carders - guys whose operations are still beyond regular cop-and-robber engagements, but not quite requiring national guard intervention. Conversely, mid-level rogues also manage to be interesting enough without becoming mass murderers or serial killers. In my opinion, career criminals and mercenaries working for ominous organizations are the best villains to have, since they can put up a good fight without necessarily earning a death sentence from either cape or country.

It would if all those people with superpowers and an interest in amateur law enforcement decided to get serious and become the proper authorities.

"Superhero needs a day job!" How about cop? "He has to scrape by because he needs a job that offers the flexibility to run out and be a superhero." That's what cops do!

They don't, however, because superheroes being official law officers resolves too many of the Standard Drama Go-Tos of superheroing.

edited 1st Nov '14 1:34:29 PM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

Well, Barry Allen is a cop (and his rogues are much like I described), and Green Lanterns basically are the proper authorities... give or take. Though the GL mythos is more space opera than superheroics, at least from what I've seen. But still, we have proof of concept.

In general though, it may be just me being more of a Marvel fan than anything, but the superhero as an anonymous vigilante is functionally a half-dead unicorn trope by now. Instead, the Avengers operate openly, the Fantastic Four are more or less freelance, and the hulks, demigods, mutants and assorted mercs usually deal with their own category of threats. That leaves only Spider-Man, Daredevil and the Punisher in the traditional crime-fighter mold. Conversely, DC keeps its capes busy with much bigger threats, frequently in other worlds or dimensions, so much that only the non-powered Bat-family seems to deal with street level crime on any regular basis.

All in all, the situation is kinda like the no-killing thing - it's a question that, under smart writers, doesn't even have to be asked. Why didn't Superman solve world hunger last month - he was fighting an alien warlord at the time. Why couldn't Batman buy Gotham some peace and prosperity - aside from being borderline certifiable himself, he was also engaged with a secret society of ultra-corrupting bird people that would've foiled him... or something to that effect. Et cetera, et cetera.

It's not really quite that simple, and people applying this viewpoint to works always feels too naive in the end. there is a big difference between being the punisher and gunning down every criminal ever and using lethal force when there is no other choice. it doesn't make it "right", or "just", but sometimes the alternative is much worse. this is why i didn't have an issue with man of steel, superman just made the best decision he could have under the circumstances and accepted the guilt he would have to carry as a result.

Exactly this.

There is a HUGE difference between killing in cold blood and using necessary force to neutralize an active threat.

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

I don't buy that for the exact reasons OF the Man of Steel.

As I've said for a while now, that movie bent over backwards to put Superman in that situation. While, yes, murder as a last resort can be certainly explored as a reality, the entirety of MOS was a very cynically designed outlook at The Cape in general. With all of Superman's abilities and skill, the entire thing just didn't feel like I was watching Superman so much as some other guy with his power set

The worst part is that a lot of the time a villain or anti-hero in a story where this is in play will inevitably call out the hero on how problematic this viewpoint really is and how their unwillingness to do what is necessary to protect what's important to them means that other people will inevitably suffer (i.e Jason Todd in Under the Red Hood, Saito from Rurouni Kenshin, etc). The narrative either doesn't address this properly or just sweeps it under the rug, continuing to maintain the hero's stance as righteous and moral even though the story itself clearly displayed how flawed it is.

Why not? If not for the extremely contrived unreliability of super soldier programs, official authority has all the physical power it needs to combat any external threat that would otherwise be superhero material. Even modern comics severely downplay the actual effectiveness of realistic military hardware, to contrast with increasing power creep for the capes and their foes. In terms of force alone, anything after 1945 is pure inflation, the practical inconsequentiality of which needs all sorts of plot-devices to explain away.

Which is all nice and dandy until freaking Galactus comes a-knockin'.

Be fair; most superheroes can't handle Galactus. Like, what is Dare Devil supposed to do to him? Challenge him to a lie detector contest?

edited 1st Nov '14 7:10:00 PM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

@wegr & Tobias: There is difference between having authority and taking authority

And honestly, those stories do that because writers are all about drama :P If standard was "Superheroes kill bad guys" then they would instead have it turn out that killing them is bad idea or all villains are tragic ones or something. In real life you don't just escape prison every week without problems

edited 1st Nov '14 9:38:30 PM by SpookyMask

Given the fact that superhero movie villains die with few if any complications, I think the only explicit consequence would be the reduced over-reliance on "iconic" villains, with writers having to do some actual writing, rather than recycle the same stories over and again.

The main cause of a great many storytelling problems in superhero comics is their perpetual nature. Outside of film, there's no story where Batman looks over a clean and peaceful Gotham and throws his cowl away with a smile, or where Superman observes empowered humans in a world where being faster than a speeding bullet is nothing special. For all its borrowing from heroic legends, the mythos just doesn't have an ending as they do. A nigh-negative continuity is all well and good for a comedy series, but tends to deflate any serious attempts at drama. Even when anyone gets killed, they're either too marketable to lose permanently, or too disposable to care about in the first place. So, as a counter-point to the above, it's precisely stories where writers try and go for drama, that are most self-defeating in the long run. Mystery is good; action is good; comedy is great; drama - not so much.

edited 2nd Nov '14 2:29:26 AM by indiana404

Not as much as you might think. Most people who have authority are the ones who made an effort to take it, whether by joining an available military organization, entering into politics, or small-scale authorities like advancing their career, becoming a teacher, etc. An authority figure is a person who made a deliberate effort to shoulder that responsibility, and whose effort was acknowledged and validated by the authorities that exist above them. Nobody trips and falls into the role of Police Sergeant.

Traditional superhero stories like to beat the Ambition Is Evil horse because it feels less virtuous for a superhero to accept a government paycheck for his services rendered. Unlike reality, where the generally-accepted status quo for people who want to devote their lives to saving people is to become part of one of the existing organizations that do that and be rewarded for your life-saving duties with the necessary financial support to continue existing in society, the status quo of superhero worlds is that people who want to devote their lives to saving people must do it pro bono, or else they're just greedy dipshits who are only in it for the money and don't care about protecting people.

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

To be fair, superheroes do stem from a culture beatifying divinely-imposed martyrdom, and from times of great distrust of the state. When it's overplayed however, the whole idea that being good sucks is something of a deal-breaker, especially as superheroics are otherwise entirely voluntary and, indeed, unpaid. Next to fascist self-righteousness, the other popular deconstruction for the superhero is that of a masochist desperately searching for a purpose in life... for which to die. Having great responsibility is not the same as getting yourself beat up for the benefit of ungrateful apathetic citizens.

That's what I like about the Super Robot idea - it's a deliberate team effort, most often under some sort of official authority, and, apart from Evangelion-grade angsty deconstructions, usually pays off quite well. The Iron Man mythos has definite shades of this, especially nowadays. What's even more interesting is how, as Stark dropped the secret identity antics and started operating openly, his influence grew much more than any of his suits could offer. The less traditionally superheroic he acted, the more he could actually accomplish... so, naturally, that made him the villain in any story likely to shake-up the status quo. When you think about it, the idea of an official law enforcer with enough firepower for any job is both the antithesis and the final deconstruction of superheroes as a whole. No wonder the genre automatically vilifies it.

Or they would present the idea that killing them was not necessarily "good", but necessary. Again, it's not like the hero has to kill every single major villain. just particular ones like the joker who aren't going to ever be productive to society and have caused way too much damage already.

This is my main issue with dc and marvel's output these days, and why i largely stopped reading it (i actually made a thread about it lol). any attempt at drama falls flat on its face.

edited 2nd Nov '14 11:24:51 AM by wehrmacht

And speaking of superhero drama, I was watching Film.Avengers again this weekend, and my mind got to thinking during the second act, what with the heroes constantly fighting each other. While the second of these instances is hand waved as Loki's scepter having influence over their minds, it still reminded me of how easy superheroes are to fight each other, since that was one of the whole points to Marvel's teams.

The biggest cliche of the superhero is that violence is the ultimate way to solve a problem. These days, every superhero is ranked by their ability to end conflicts with violence, and I'd argue that this has gotten out of hand. As Indiana said, this was a bit more understandable in the early 20th Century, because the idea that violence is inherently harmful hadn't quite become popular yet. We were still in an era where if two large nations had a beef with each other, direct open war seemed like a pretty feasible solution. That, of course, came crashing down when we suddenly had the ability to annihilate cities with no effort whatsoever.

Superhero comics still ignore this (except when they don't, like in Comicbook.Civil War), or at the very least, treat violence in a very romantic manner. No superhero gives any real thought to whether or not punching this other guy will have legal repercussions or cause an accidental homicide, or even break their own bones.

And even when they don't ignore it, (like in Civil War,) the whole issue is handled so haphazardly that you wish they did ignore it, or at least waited to deal with it until they could actually handle it competently.

I would add to this that a trend I've noticed is that superheroes don't trust superheroes. Let's You and Him Fight happens a lot, sometimes over downright stupid things that could be - and often ARE, once the violence is over with - resolved with five minutes of conversation. There's a certain benefit of the doubt that most heroes get downright offended when they're not offered, but are reluctant to offer to others.

• DAREDEVIL: I know this man was found innocent of his crimes, but I'm certain he's guilty, so I'm going to beat the hell out of him until I have proof!
• REPORTER: Murder in a back alley! Authorities suspect Spider-Man.
• DAREDEVIL: Spider-Man! Of course! I always knew he'd snap one day, what with his outside-the-law antics and running from cops and stuff. Now's my chance to take him down.

Most traditional superheroes are criminals by virtue of being vigilantes at the very least, and as a result, they often commit a variety of crimes in their regular activities; B&E, larceny, evidence tampering, kidnapping, destruction of property, etc. Most superheroes also know this and are ready to apprehend each other at the drop of a hat, the moment they even so much as suspect that one of their colleagues has crossed a line - and even then, those lines seem to be rather blurry.

To my knowledge, DC doesn't have this issue; their heroes are more trusting of each other.

edited 3rd Nov '14 8:36:55 AM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

Generally yes, except when Batman is involved; then, all bets are off.

DC has adopted Marvel's methods of characterization, though. Take, for example, the New Fifty Two version of the Justice League, adapted into the animated film, Justice League War. The first meeting between Batman/Green Lantern and Superman starts with Superman pummeling the crap out of them.

I also think part of the problem is what I call "Character Inflation"; that is, the longer your universe goes on, the more characters that flood in until it becomes oversaturated. Then, like a currency without value, the only way to make a new character stand out is to introduce them by having them fight the old ones. (Incidentally, this is also why character deaths/random heel turns become rampant; with so many characters running around, publishers want to get rid of some of them. Again, like loot in an MMO—you have find some way to destroy the excess to reduce inflation.)

For me the main problem come for the fact that comic book universe are made pretty much for the chararters, that is why heroes never dies unless in necesary(after all, gwen stacy dying is a big deal and having come bad from the dead is a no,no, other heros....) or how even after so many super in the universe earth history is pretty much the same(after all we can have a heroe winning the irak war by himself, don we?)

that is why alternative universes dosent have that kind of issues and main chararter die left and right and the world barely looks like our own

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"

Eh, let's just agree that superhero comics have lot of story and ethics and formula problems(when super humans are that common, how the heck world even works outside of America? :p I mean, I think DC and Marvel do have ones that aren't American and don't live in America, but they don't show them unless they want to have something stereotypical) when you think about it :p Still, I say idea of super powered executioners wouldn't sound good in any circumstances

edited 4th Nov '14 8:46:48 PM by SpookyMask

When it comes to continuity, I've taken to looking at superheroes as a Super Mario-esque cast of vaudevillian actors, where each story is best to be taken on its own. That doesn't mean a lot of plots aren't stale and overdone anyway, but at least it helps me not to cringe whenever the next world-threatening peril comes along and the resident capes wax dramatic on the terrible mortal risks involved.

As for authority, I've seen it mentioned how the world at large simply keeps its supers under tighter regulations, and I reckon costumed vigilantes aren't nearly as prevalent for various cultural reasons. It's kinda how only the USA is so keen on private gun ownership, or the use of civilian law-enforcers like bounty hunters. In a twist of logic, this would mean most of the world doesn't have that many supervillain problems, precisely because its heroes are licensed to kill.

edited 5th Nov '14 12:21:46 AM by indiana404