Justice League: Generation Lost #15

[sailorlibra]

Four pages from the latest issue of Generation Lost.







So it's pretty clear that Max is not behind Wonder Woman's current circumstances.



They start talking about how it was the death of Wonder Woman at Max's hands that brought about the horrible future and discover that no one knows who she is, except for Booster, Captain Atom, Bea, and Tora.



Bea is probably going to be fine, but it is a nice dramatic moment.

Comments

We're Good Guys.

[nefrekeptah]

Love that little speech by Booster Gold. Love it. Don't know if I totally agree with it, but still, love it.

Re: We're Good Guys.

[darkknightjrk]

I loved that too.

"Come on, man, we're superheroes--we don't just kill people; we kick the living fuck out of them until they WISHED they were dead!"

Re: We're Good Guys.

[richardak]

I hated it. First of all, they're going to lock Max up? How? No one knows who he is. They could show a grand jury a video tape of Max committing murder, and they would see something other than what's there; that's already been established. Now they're the wanted criminals, so people are even less likely to believe them.

The conclusion is no less absurd. What does it even mean to lock Max up? He's been demonstrated to have the power, given a sufficient blood supply, to telepathically manipulate the entire population of the planet, including apparently fellow telepaths like the Martian Manhunter and Aquaman. What difference does it make what building he's located in?

And does anyone take seriously the idea of putting him in a power restraint device or devices? How hard would it be for Max to get out of that? Assuming such a device could be effective at all. After all, it was already established that the only way for Wonder Woman to free Superman of Max' control was to kill Max.

Which is maybe what bothers me the most. This seems like a not-so-subtle dig at Wonder Woman for having killed Max the first time, rather than finding that mythical other way. And even though I'm not a Wonder Woman fan, her actions were much more heroic to me than what Booster is proposing. She didn't prioritize keeping her own hands clean over the good of the whole world, and isn't sacrificing oneself for others the essence of heroism?

Re: We're Good Guys.

[jlbarnett]

The JLI wouldn't really be sacrificing anything though, considering how many of them want to kill him. Superheroes have to have the other way or they stop really being superheroes. Because superheroes can do anything.

Re: We're Good Guys.

[richardak]

So far, exactly one of them has expressed any desire to kill him. What they would be sacrificing is their own sense of purity and innocence. To me, a hero, super or otherwise, is someone who does what is necessary for a higher good, even if the cost to himself is very high. To me, what Booster is saying here is not at all heroic: he's refusing to do what it obviously necessary to stop Max so that he can sleep easily at night.

Also, they cannot do everything. One of the things they manifestly cannot do is effectively incarcerate Maxwell Lord, or, for that matter, bring about a successful prosecution of Maxwell Lord, or even convince the authorities or the public at large that they aren't criminals and terrorists responsible for the death of a thousand people in Chicago.

Re: We're Good Guys.

[musexmoirai.livejournal.com]

I fully approved of Wondy necksnapping Max; it needed to be done and I thought Bats and Supes treated her unfairly for it. But I also think it's completely in-character for Booster to oppose killing. Not because he's better or more heroic than Diana, but because he's a more lighthearted character than she is. They've been giving him more serious plotlines ever since CtIC, but he's still known for his goofy comic relief days. It'd feel so odd if he went down the anti-hero route. And fans would definitely call foul.

Re: We're Good Guys.

[richardak]

I don't know about that. His original series was pretty serious, with some fairly grown-up themes. It was a serious look at the idea of a man who acts heroically for money and fame, and it was not especially lighthearted. Also, I don't agree with this idea of a binary hero/anti-hero dichotomy. There is a big difference between a character like the Punisher, whose goal is to kill the bad guys, or Wolverine, who kills pretty much whenever it's merely expedient, and someone who kills when it really is necessary.

Re: We're Good Guys.

[musexmoirai.livejournal.com]

I get what you're saying about Booster's original series being more serious but I would still say that, even then, it was more about being a novel take on being an unusual kind of superhero than it was about grappling with slippery moral quandaries of whether or not to kill the bad guys. The stakes were lower, even if the tone was somber.

I still think I would find it OOC for Booster to kill because I personally see him as being too squeamish to do it unless his hand was forced. He's not a soldier like Captain Atom or a warrior like Wonder Woman (and Wondy only killed Max as a last resort). I do think he lacks some of their practicality and tends to go with his emotions/gut instinct more (though that could just be my own misinterpretation).

I shouldn't have used the word anti-hero, because that's actually not what I meant. I don't see a binary hero/anti-hero divide; it's definitely a spectrum and not either/or. What I MEANT was something more along the lines of "a hero who decides to dirty their hands for the greater good" but that seemed too unwieldy.

Honestly, when it comes to the question of killing villains, I just want the characters to stay in-character in how they respond to it. And I'd expect different characters to have different responses. Just like the fans do.

Re: We're Good Guys.

[wizardru]

Booster is, at his heart, a SUPERHERO COSPLAYER FROM THE 24TH CENTURY. Moreover, his best friend was a preeminent non-violent superhero of the era. Even if Booster was a killer, which we've never seen even a hint that he is capable of it, afaik, is the simple fact that he wants JUSTICE for Ted Kord. Not Revenge. He wants to do what Ted would do...and that means arresting Max and putting him in lockup.

But he's not above beating the ever living shit out of him first.

Re: We're Good Guys.

[richardak]

Well, I certainly agree with you that characters should be written in-character. The truth is that one could argue that Cap is being written out of character here: both in his original (DC) series and in Captain Atom: Armageddon, he also had a very strong rule against using lethal force. Of course, one could also argue that it was in character for Cap to agree with Booster, and that he was just blowing off steam with his original statement.

And I agree that none of these characters is anything close to a hardened killer. I wouldn't want them to be. The problem is, it is not in character for any of them to refuse to even consider at all the problem of what to do with Max when and if they do catch him.

Re: We're Good Guys.

[musexmoirai.livejournal.com]

Oh, I didn't know about Cap. Thanks for the tidbit! How ironclad is his anti-lethal force rule? Cuz he's being pushed really hard here. That alternate future is a pretty damn convincing argument for doing away with Max. I like your "he's blowing off steam" suggestion. That makes sense for why he calmed down so quick after Booster yelled at him.

That's what they decided for now, but I'm willing to put down money the issue will rear its ugly head again once they do get their hands on Max and he starts pulling his mind whammy tricks again. I doubt they'd directly kill him, but I wouldn't be surprised if they exploit a White Lantern ring loophole or trapped in him an alternate dimension or got rid of him indirectly through some other like means.

Re: We're Good Guys.

[richardak]

You're welcome, and, to answer your question, pretty ironclad. In Armageddon, he insists very strongly that "there's always another way." That being said, you're right that he's being pushed to the limit here.

I suspect you're right that the issue will rear its head again, which is why I think it's bad writing that the characters aren't acknowledging the problem now. That being said, I hope that if Max does die, it's because they kill him directly. That whole trope where the villain dies without dirtying the hands of the hero bothers me. If the hero doesn't think the villain deserves to die, or can't muster the fortitude to kill him, then the villain should live, and the hero and everyone else should live with the consequences. Anything else feels like a cop-out to me.

Re: We're Good Guys.

[musexmoirai.livejournal.com]

Aw, Cap. I'm liking him more and more.

Yeah, the hero not directly dirtying his hands is a bit of a cop-out, but I think it's pretty standard practice? Like how Bats went "I'm not going to kill you but I don't have to save you" to Ra's in Batman Begins. So I'm kind of expecting it.

Re: We're Good Guys.

[richardak]

He's a great character. I keep hoping that DC would republish his 1980s solo title as a Showcase volume, but so far, no luck. They're generally pretty reluctant to do Showcase volumes from that era, reportedly because they have to renegotiate the contracts to make that profitable, but I wish they would work out a way to do it. They have republished the Charlton-era Cap stories in the Archive editions, but those are much less interesting, in my opinion.

I agree it's standard practice, but I still don't like it. It's as though the writer is acknowledging that, yes, the villain deserves to die, and expects us, the audience, to agree, but for some reason the hero is not allowed to agree. That bothers me.

Re: We're Good Guys.

[jlbarnett]

you're really being far more judgemental than comics are meant to be. Especially since there's really no such things as consequences in comics.

Re: We're Good Guys.

[richardak]

In the well-written ones, there are.

Re: We're Good Guys.

[jlbarnett]

rarely. Comics are to long term. And event may have consequences for a storyline. Or a year. Or even a decade. But eventually you get the the point where Batman isn't that open with his sidekicks because that's the way he's been written for so long and Jason Todd's death is an excuse. And then a new writer can come in and Jason Todd isn't even dead anymore.