A lampshade on "Heroes don't kill", plus a few other gems from JLA/Hitman

[thelazyreader]

Garth Ennis doesn't like superheroes. Among others, his reason being that he can't stomach the rigid 'Thou shall not kill' rule that most superheroes live by (often reinforced by editorial mandates) when in real life there are practical situations that necessitate, if not justify the need for deadly force, whether by cops, soldiers or even civilians.

So this was basically the key issue in his JLA/Hitman 2-issue series, where he made Kyle Rayner the 'straight man' of the story, voicing the layman's opinion regarding certain superhero policies.






Don't tell me you've never considered those points yourself. Interesting how superheroes generally just answer to the tune of "That's how it is. Accept it." when faced with such questions.

On a lighter vein, since I have several pages to go, a few humorous scans from the series.

-Tommy's would-be assassins arguing over who gives the orders.




-Tommy's pal Natt introducing his new girlfriend.




-Learning what became of all the forgotten spin-off characters from DC's old Bloodlines crossover.



-And the US President's dialogue during the whole fiasco.





 

Comments

[fredneil.livejournal.com]

One difference between the military and police and the Justice League is that the military and police are, at least theoretically, answerable to somebody for their actions. If a police officer kills someone and someone else says it wasn't necessary, there's an investigation. If Wonder Woman kills someone and someone else says it wasn't necessary, we've got Wonder Woman's word that it was.

Besides, when your team has one member who's super strong, invulnerable to just about everything and who can shoot fire from his eyes, another who has powers given to her from several gods, one who can run across the country in the time it takes another person the sneeze, one who can do just about anything by thinking about it and Batman there are going to be very few situations where there are no alternatives.

[thelazyreader]

While this issue is not clearly defined, most DC superheroes do operate with some kind of official sanction. Various civilian and military government organisations have channels of communication with the JLA and JSA and enlist their assistance on a semi-regular basis. I should think that when deputised in this manner they should at least have the same legal sanction with respect to deadly force that, say, cops get.

Even a civilian can get away with killing if it was in self-defence or in the defence of those close to him. A homeowner who pulls out his licenced handgun and shoots the terrorist shooting people and throwing grenades across the street will be lauded as a hero, not tried as a murderer(Yes, I know superheroes have powers to act otherwise, I was giving an example of such a situation).

To be brief, given how increasingly sadistic and murderous DC villains are becoming these days I would prefer the League, the Society and so on to at least consider deadly force as a last resort.

[thelazyreader]

Also, Superheroes ARE answerable to the law, only if one fails to cooperate others may be needed to bring him/her in.

[fredneil.livejournal.com]

Who investigated Max Lord's death to see if WW used excessive force? Who would?

The example you gave of a civilian shooting a terrorist only works if the terrorist is shooting people at that moment. If a civilian shot someone and said that person was going to kill people in the future or that person had killed people in the past, he would still be tried.

[thelazyreader]

Max Lord was, at the moment, controlling Superman and using him to try to kill Batman. With all the powers Superman has he could easily be destroying a city the next moment if Max wanted him. So yes, the terrorist analogy applies there.

[fredneil.livejournal.com]

I agree, it's very possible that it would apply there. (Looking at it in a meta sense, the only reason she didn't have alternatives is because the writer didn't want her to have alternatives. If a future writer wants it to have been unjustifiable, there will have been alternatives.)

But my point in bringing it up was to ask who she was accountable to. If it weren't justifiable, how would we, or rather, the DCU equivalents of us, know? If Max Lord had had a family who wondered about it, who would they ask?

[thelazyreader]

If the world didn't already know of Max's crimes, it would soon be made clear by the evidence and testimony provided by the heroes. Max's family would find out from the media and, if they persisted, from the authorities and the heroes themselves.

[fredneil.livejournal.com]

Knowing of Max's crimes and knowing that killing him was justified because there was no alternative at that moment are two different things, so you're back to "it was justified because Wonder Woman says it was justified."

My point isn't that Wonder Woman wasn't justified in this one case-though, as I said, a later writer could easily make that true- but that unlike the military and police, the Justice League isn't accountable to anyone if they do start killing.

[thelazyreader]

Wonder Woman wouldn't be the only person in the world who could give testimony. The other heroes and the evidence presented would verify the facts. So it's justified because the evidence and the witnesses show that it was justified.

The Justice League functions under the legal sanction of the UN and the US government and is thus accountable to their laws, though they are allowed some legal leeway in order to function. If a JLA member broke the laws, the others would rein him/her in. If the whole JLA broke the laws en masse(unlikely) then the JSA, Titans and so on will help. If for some reason all superheroes start playing Punisher then the world is screwed(though the government still has the Ultramarines).

[fredneil.livejournal.com]

I agreed that she might be justified if this one situation were investigated. My point is that there isn't any body that does investigate. Even if there's an answer to the question, the question isn't being asked.

Saying someone is accountable to the laws of the US and the UN doesn't mean much if no one is going to investigate whether or not those laws were broken.

"If a JLA member broke the laws, the others would rein him/her in." Which is what I'm saying. They're only accountable to themselves. That makes them still susceptible to saying "Well, WW (or whoever) is one of us, and if she says it was necessary, then it was." Even if the JSA and Titans opposed them, they're still not an authority that the JLA is answerable to.

[thelazyreader]

Not quite true. The US Government in the DC universe has a Secretary for Metahuman Affairs and a number of national and international organisations that monitor, investigate and deal with superheroes(The Agency, the Department of Extranormal Operations, Checkmate and so on).

The JLA is far from unaccountable.