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

[icon_uk]

I have to say I'm tired of the "We're heroes, we don't kill" debate. It's comics, a long form media where annihilating your cast isn't going to work. Just accept the fact that most of them don't and move on, constantly drawing attention to it isn't going to change anything.

And to have Kyle be the one questioning it doesn't work for me, since with the GL ring, he can kill, quite literally, with a thought.

On, and your preview image is way too large, 400x300 is the largest allowed outside a cut

[espanolbot]

Technically he couldn't kill anyone with a thought until quite recently.

[thelazyreader]

Oh, I understand the 'Joker Immunity' of villains quite well. What bugs me is the absolute insistence on heroes not using lethal force under any situation, even when the alternative would be death of the hero or other innocents. Even when heroes kill under such considerations they are generally immediately hunted down for trial and judged far harshly by the superhero community than would be merited.

Like Barry Allen killing Zoom and then having to go through a 2-year trial followed by forced retirement. Like Star Boy killing whatsisname and getting kicked out of the Legion. And so on..

Even worse is when heroes are inconsistent about it from arc to arc. Like Batman repeatedly stopping Jason Todd from killing Joker and then shrugging off Selena Kyle's murder of Black Mask. Like everybody ostracising Wonder Woman for killing Maxwell Lord to save innocent lives when she had no immediate alternatives and then completely ignoring the issue Black Canaray killing Oliver Queen(Everyman in disguise) when she could have easily defended herself without stabbing him in the neck.

[kagome654]

I just wish there was more distinction made between 'killing when it is an absolute necessity' and 'becoming a bullet spraying executioner.' In these stories, and in comics in general, it's usually the latter that is demonstrated in these arguments. The majority of heroes, given the nature of their abilities, do not NEED to kill anyone, and to use excessive force, which is what it would usually be, would be an abuse of their powers. I'd wager the majority of superheroes could make it through their career without ever having to resort to lethal force because...they're comic book characters, they have so many options and abilities at their disposal.

Also, Kyle, I know what you were getting at, but if you're looking to debate the merits of a certain hard line position I would suggest NOT bringing up the cruelties committed by US military. You're bound to get a knee jerk 'DO NOT WANT' reaction (and not without reason).

[golden_orange]

The example of 'seriously messing up dudes just to find out the time' also doesn't really help here since, yeah, obviously it's supposed to be a flippant example, but it's also suggestive the kind of excessive abuse of force which, the merits of killing in self-defence or not, arguably no one in authority should have access to, never mind superheroes.

[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.

[deepspaceartist]

Actually, he could at this point. Kyle's ring didn't have an AI, and therefore couldn't talk or act independently of his will, until rebirth. No Guardians, no Guardian's rules, after all.

[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.

[icon_uk]

No yellow limit, no 24 hour limit, no rules. He could kill if wanted to.

[pyrotwilight]

Odd that they would say most were maimed or killed of the Bloodliners. Given the story takes place around the start of Grant Morrison's run or thereabouts none were maimed or murdered for shock value at that point. That didn't start until Infinite Crisis.

Saying they were forgotten is another thing.

And saying the JLA didn't trust people like say England's defender Lionheart over Hitman who they see as a petty criminal still rings odd to me.

[icon_uk]

It's Garth Ennis, and Hitman is his character, and also, alas, about the only New Blood to actually produce a viable series, so I suppose he feels entitled to downplay them.

Of course, the thing about the New Bloods is that there was no real reason for ANY of them to become heroes (or villains) they were ordinary people who gained powers through a near death experience, I imagine a chunk of them would just want to go back to ordinary lives.

[ejne7]

I like that the ex-Spetsnaz guy don't need no big talk to impress people. Just "Spetsnaz."

Not that it does him much good in the end.

[jcbaggee]

Kyle's always kind of been in this role. Anybody else remember when Nero first showed up with the Yellow Ring, and Kyle said "This guy's bad news, we may have to kill him." and immediately every other hero went "Whooooooa, now."

I do agree that it's kind of a tired debate, and one that definitely needs a little rest, but I'm glad some writers at least acknowledge this. A lot of the heroes do have their own personal reasons for adhering to the "No Killing" rule, and for the ones who don't I'm glad they occasionally explore it.

[drakyndra]

I just wish there was more distinction made between 'killing when it is an absolute necessity' and 'becoming a bullet spraying executioner.'

I agree with this very much. It's one thing to point out the flaws in the Thou Shalt Not Kill rule, but the only time it ever seems to happens is from characters who have racked up huge death-tolls, and it makes the argument hard to take seriously, since it often comes off as "Writer is complaining about Superheros that are as badass and dark-n-edgy as his character."

...Are there any characters who do kill when necessary, but haven't made killing people their sole modus operandi?

[darrylayo]

The "no killing rules" wouldn't be a big deal if the villains weren't so bloodthirsty themselves.

If Joker is just a bank robber who likes pulling pranks besides, it's easy to say "just lasso him in and lock him up." But nowadays, we have heard that Joker has personally caused over two thousand deaths--TWO THOUSANDS DEATHS--it seems not only naive, but absolutely appalling that nobody's willing to put him underground for good. Especially considering Comic Book Jail's revolving door policy.

It's an argument that does not work because the very nature of the villainy that the bad guys get up to these days is so atrocious that the "HEROES" begin to look like enabling villains because they summarily refuse to stop them.

[thelazyreader]

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

[thelazyreader]

Funnily enough many of these same no-killing superheroes have no qualms about dealing punishments WORSE than death.

[turtlefu]

The people against the death penalty are the same people who support this, IMHO.
I mean, if you see that there is no circumstance where it is okay to kill a criminal (no death penalty), then the logical line of reason is that no superhero should kill at all.

[thelazyreader]

The only fair alternative to a death penalty is life imprisonment. Unfortunately it's not really a viable option in a world where all prisons are cardboard prisons and even the most heavily guarded villains will break out within days of getting in if they want to.

So whether or not the death penalty is necessary or not in the real world, it sure as hell is needed in comic universes.

[thelazyreader]

I never understood how the no-killing rule of Green Lanterns was supposed to work. With the ring there are a thousand different ways of killing someone without directly blasting them. You could just drop an anvil over someone. You could blast a hole in a spaceship and make it crash. You could make a giant hand grab and throw someone over a ledge. What's stopping them from dying?

[sianmink]

"Are there any characters who do kill when necessary, but haven't made killing people their sole modus operandi?"

Doesn't Diana fit this? She only kills monsters. People can be monsters under certain circumstances.

[korvarthefox.livejournal.com]

But that doesn't mean it's down to the heroes to kill the villains.

[thelazyreader]

The one time she killed a 'monstrous' human it raised a major stink in the DC-verse.

[thelazyreader]

It is if it's a kill-or-be-killed or a kill-or-let-innocents-be-killed situation.

Like Flash killing Zoom to save his fiancee's life.

[korvarthefox.livejournal.com]

Wolverine would be one, strangely enough. He's perceived as being kill-crazy, but he's no Punisher.

I agree that he only characters who seem to snark at non-killing heroes are the ones "who have racked up huge death-tolls" as you say. I wonder if they wonder if they realise that if the boy scout they're mocking did change their ways, the kill-crazy vigilante might be the first up against the wall...