DC Comics General

Alliterator, are you seriously this obsessive over keeping Superman from having "killed" anyone? Darkseid was literally due to become the end of reality, and both Batman and Superman both came together and decided he needed to die.

Just because he later came back doesn't negate that decision in the moment.

...Is this some kind of purity thing?

Sign on for this After The End Fantasy RP.

Oh god here we go again.

No, I'm objecting to the fact that destroying Darkseid's essence is in any way comparable to actually killing someone. Like, would you consider destroying the One Ring to be the same as killing Boromir?

The only time Superman has ever really killed in the comics is the three genocidal Phantom Zone criminals and he was filled with anguish afterwards.

Edited by alliterator on Aug 19th 2019 at 3:10:37 AM

I would actually. Destroying the one ring is essentially destroying Sauron's life support equipment. Sure he had it coming and he would have plunged the world into suffering had he not been stopped, still doesn't change that they killed him.

There's just no pleasing you people is there?

Edited by alliterator on Aug 19th 2019 at 8:21:21 AM

Alright let me end this.

They shouldn't have censored Batman's penis.

"I am Alpharius. This is a lie."

Is the issue with Batman’s penis like a collectors item now?

when you keep moving the goalposts (implying souls can’t think and feel, implying that darkseid coming back doesn’t change that he died or that Superman essentially condemned him to oblivion, that Superman did consciously kill doomsday and has tried to kill villains like brainiac etc) no. We aren’t.

Also in order for Superman to be relatable he needs SOME flaws. As such there has to be a time where he can’t save everyone where he can’t talk every villain down....if he was ALWAYS able to avoid killing it would be an asspull, the universe bending over backwards to give him a freebie. Him killing zod works for that reason. Even a symbol like hope is going to have to break his principles on occasion. That he can get back up and keep fighting is proof that he’s a hero.

You want Superman to NEVER be in a situation where he has to disregard his principles and never want him to really be challenged. You want him to be an impossibly high standard rather than a standard that for all his virtue is still approachable.

I also found something about moore that makes him an even bigger hypocrite. See up until 2008 the copyright for Peter Pan was held by a children’s hospital. They did NOT approve of Alan Moore’s plan for lost girls. Heck I’ll just let Wikipedia sum it up.

“===Disputed copyright status=== On 23 June 2006, officials for [[Great Ormond Street Hospital]]—which was given the [[copyright]] to Peter Pan by [[J. M. Barrie|J. M. Barrie]] in 1929—asserted that Moore would need their permission to publish the book in the UK and Europe. Moore indicated that he would not be seeking their licence, claiming that he had not expected his work to be "banned" and that the hospital only holds the rights to performances of the original play, not to the individual characters. On 11 October 2006, Top Shelf signed an agreement with GOSH that did not concede copyright infringement, but delayed publication of Lost Girls in the UK until after the copyright lapsed at the end of 2007.”

So when the people who did own the copyright objected Moore tried to dispute their rights.....but then waited until the copyright expired to publish his porn in the us. Huh. It’s almost like he knew he’d be sued if he went ahead and didn’t want to get sued.

That’s....kinda slimy and given that he’s complaining about how creator intent for character should be respected it makes him an utter hypocrite with NO right to the high ground.

So again. Talented author. Terrible human being

Edited by LordYAM on Aug 20th 2019 at 12:52:27 PM

Au contraire, you are the one moving the goalposts. I've already pointed out where and when Superman has killed, but you refuse to acknowledge it and instead insist on maintaining that Superman killed Darkseid (who was already dead at the time) and Doomsday (who killed Superman at the same time Superman "killed" it and, hey, you've already lied about what he said right afterwards, but let's not acknowledge that either).

tldr; Your Examples Are Bad.

A character can have flaws without killing. Batman has plenty of flaws and you don't see people insisting that he kill. The fact that you think a character with a no-kill code has no flaws is silly to the extreme.

And yet, when the same thing happens to Batman, again, nobody complains. You can have a story where Superman's morals are challenged, but still have him not kill anyone. I know, it's called "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way?"

Again: the fact that you insist Superman must kill is silly.

People complain about Batman's no killing rule just as much. Arguably even more so given how much more bloodthirsty his villains are more than Superman's.

And frankly, you calling anyone else silly is not only annoying but a major case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Especially when it seems you can't even keep track of who has said what in this thread, not to mention this conversation started with you assuming another poster must have liked Man of Steel if they didn't like Superman's characterization in Superman:TAS.

And since you want to act like Doomsday and Darkseid don't count, I'll bring up another instance - Bizarro. Superman first killed him in a Superboy story in the Silver Age while insisting that Bizarro wasn't sentient (even though on page evidence clearly showed he was) and later on in Byrne's reboot kills him in a story that is based on the former one.

They really don't.

I didn't call anyone silly, I called the insistence that Superman kill silly. I called the saying that "not having Superman kill" meant that he had "no flaws" was silly.

But thanks for constructing a Straw Man to knock down.

I haven't read the Silver Age one, so I have no thoughts on it. However, in the Byrne story, Superman doesn't kill Bizarro — Bizarro was already dying, crumbling to dust. He just collided with Superman midair and completely crumbled into dust. Superman had no idea that would happen.

So again, Your Example Is Bad.

Edited by alliterator on Aug 20th 2019 at 2:09:33 AM

Going to pull things back to one of your arguments a few pages back. You said you can't charge Joker for Jason Todd's murder because he's alive. That's actually incorrect; murder by legal definition is killing another human being with malice, with killing currently defined as the irreversible cessation of all brain function by modern medicine. The Joker killed Jason Todd, that Jason came back latter through supernatural means doesn't change that he met the legal condition of being killed in the first place.

But can you prove it?

I'm surprised I brought up Batman's penis & we are not all talking about it......

"I am Alpharius. This is a lie."

Did Batman's penis kill anyone?

Probably.

At least one of the idiots complaining about it could have saw it & couldn't take it.

"I am Alpharius. This is a lie."

I don't know about Batman's but you could probably make the argument that Matt Murdock's penis is a murderer given how many that slept with him wound up dead.

Well for starters Jason Todd is still legally dead, at no point has he taken the steps to get that reversed.

Further to that his body had to be prepared for burial and he was buried in front of a half-dozen witnesses, and Joker has confessed to several people that he killed Jason. Now there a dozen reasons why Joker hasn't been tried for Jason's murder, but if you put continuity aside for a second and tried Joker for murder with all the facts available (and not allow the insanity defence to be used) he would be found guilty, since again he meets all the criteria for the legal definition of murder. To say that the Joker can't be tried because Jason came back from the dead effectively decimalises murder, as from that point you have put forth that there is no such thing as irreversible cessation of all brain function, thus negating the legal definition of killing.

TL:DR version; under the current legal definition resurrections don't void murder charges as the law has not factored in that people can be completely dead and beyond saving by medicine but can be brought back to life by a day spa operated by an ancient society of hitmen eco-terrorists.

x9

Actually I've kind of backpedaled on that. Regarding Superman TAS, in hindsight I've probally been too hard on it. It's still a decent show. Superman's fine. And he slowly gets more fleshed out as the show goes on. I think I was placing Superman on some sort of pedestal and expecting the show to attain heights it was never going to reach. I'd still prefer a show that takes a deeper look at Superman, but it is what it is. And what it is is still a entertaining show.

Edited by kkhohoho on Aug 20th 2019 at 11:07:24 AM

Doctor Who — Long Way Around: https://www.fanfiction.net/s/13536044/1/Doctor-Who-Long-Way-Around

He basically obliterated his soul. That’s essentially condemning it to oblivion which is so close to killing him as to be no difference. Also Lois’s words don’t change that Superman would have used lethal force in the fight. I’m aware of him executing the criminals. Sometimes you have to kill. The idea that he should never kill is as idiotic as the idea he should always kill.

I’m not saying Superman should kill as a matter of course. But you are acting under the assumption that Superman killing even once will somehow taint him forever (the end of whatever happened to the man of tomorrow has him retire due to killing....which in turn leaves the world vulnerable to the next asshole with powers.)

It’s not okay when the universe bends over for Batman. But you want it to bend over for superman.

No, I mean, "Can you prove that the Joker killed Jason Todd?" Because there's a saying in criminal law, which is "no body, no murder." Now, there have been murder convictions without bodies, but they rely on circumstancial evidence. I'm not saying you can't prove that the Joker murdered Jason Todd, but it would be pretty hard, since he's walking around and talking and not an actual literal corpse.

Again: how do you know this? You are simply assuming something because of the visuals, but if he actually completely destroyed his soul, then Darkseid would have been dead forever and not walking around right now, correct? Therefore, he didn't.

Since I already pointed out that he killed the three genocidal Kryptonians, I don't think I am.

People tend to bring this up, as if Superman is the only superhero on the planet, but he's not. Saying that he can never retire because then he would leave the world vulnerable is also silly to the extreme. If the world can't survive without Superman, there is something wrong with the world.

No, I want writers to stop trying to force Superman to kill. Why is it when Superman saves the day without killing, the universe bends over backwards, but when it's the opposite, it's not the universe also bending over backwards to make him kill? The universe isn't some neutral entity — it is completely and utterly controlled by the writers.

Edited by alliterator on Aug 20th 2019 at 9:39:51 AM

Again, he was only brought back due to the reboot. As far as pre-Flashpoint is concerned, he's deader than dead.

Doctor Who — Long Way Around: https://www.fanfiction.net/s/13536044/1/Doctor-Who-Long-Way-Around

Can't you guys drop it? Whatever this is about devolved into something completely mindless a good while ago, so please, find something else to talk about something else or just shut up.

Wake me up at your own risk.

As per DC Rebirth, there was no reboot. (Also, again, Final Crisis still happened in the New 52/Rebirth-timeline.)

Edited by alliterator on Aug 20th 2019 at 9:49:56 AM