X-Men #18

[lordultimus]

Comments

[icon_uk]

Now there's an interesting, and worrying, ethical slippery slope.

The Children of the Vault aren't mutants, but they are descended from humans (thanks to the time speed shift within the Vault)

But xavier is looking for loopholes in their Three Laws (Dr Asimov would be proud), if they can classify their opponent as no- human, they're good to go.

Reminds me a little of the old BS&P rules for cartoons which meant a hero couldn't punch a person, but they COULD punch robots, so cue not only a a LOT of robots, but robots who looked a LOT like humans.

[beyondthefringe]

well, if they can classify AIs as enemies and wholesale slaughter them... (as seems to be a new prime directive in this status quo)

And let's not forget the flexible morality superheroes have when it comes to killing aliens, demons, and other sentient non-human lifeforms.
And of course the questionable ethics of engaging in time travel/timeline disruption. Wipe out a potential past/future and you're into untold numbers of casualties.

But no, -certain- heroes don't kill, and mutants don't kill humans any longer. They just maim them until they come back as cyborgs hellbent on revenge... and then the X-Men will find a way to reclassify them as non-human and...

[themajesticmoose]

No, they classsify anti-mutant AI as the enemy and eliminate them. I wouldn't call it a "Salughter" because I wouldn't call bigoted lumps of circuits and metal living things. And either way they're absolutely correct to do so and if I was a mutant in the Marvel universe I'd be onboard with that 100%. I wouldn't care about the "Life" of a racist tin can built by humans any more than I'd care about the coffee maker.

Actually that's a lie, I'd care about the coffee maker more

And I am also completely fine with mutantkind using violence against anyone, human or otherwise, who is trying to do harm to mutantkind. And if you're referring to the Reavers here...every last one of those bigoted fascist bastards deserved what happened to them. And if the Marauders do wipe them all out as far as I'm concerned they'll be in the right to do so. I'm not going to weep over the pathetic "Woe is me" whining of bigots who are upset they got hurt while trying to commit hate crimes because the minority they were trying to murder actually fought back

[beyondthefringe]

Have you ever considered switching to decaf?
I’m not sure it’s healthy to maintain this level of anger over comic book bad guys.

[themajesticmoose]

I'm not angry, I just have a special kind of intense loathing for certain kinds of comic villains. Not all of them. Some I even find fun or enjoy even more than the heroes. Who doesn't love Batroc or Rocket Racer or Captain Cold

Villains who are fictionalised versions of the kind of bigots who exist in real life though, them I want to get a visit from the Punisher.

[deh_tommy]

But we saw they had the capacity to change, no?

[themajesticmoose]

Personally I would say it's not worth the risk. Anti-mutant AI is too big of a threat to be allowed to exist in any form for any reason. The Council are absolutely right on that score.

[laughing_tree]

People shouldn't be blamed for the circumstances of their birth. In the sci-fi world of comics, extend "people" to mean anyone who's sapient, as the reformed Smileys in Hellions clearly were.

[themajesticmoose]

That's very easy for us to say when we, unlike Moira, havent lived through multiple genocides of everyone we have ever known, cared about or loved as well as our entire people and culture as a direct result of anti mutant AI coming into existence

In every single future Moira has seen it is anti-mutant AI that is the single greatest threat to mutantkind. Even more so than humanity. And I don't consider the Smileys to have been "Reformed" either. When Robo Hodge died he wasn't able to direct them to kill mutants. The very second before his death they were still actively trying to murder mutants and proving themselves a threat to mutant lives. It's entirely possible he or someone else like Bastion or that nauseating freak Stephen Lang would come along and just direct the Smileys to kill mutants again.

Smileys were created with the explicit person of hunting and killing an entire people out of bigotry. I am entirely onboard with the minority they were created to kill not wanting to allow these angry trash cans to exist

[laughing_tree]

"The very second before his death they were still actively trying to murder mutants and proving themselves a threat to mutant lives. It's entirely possible he or someone else like Bastion or that nauseating freak Stephen Lang would come along and just direct the Smileys to kill mutants again."

And any human or mutant is one mind-control or psychic possession anyway from doing the same. Wanting to curtail someone's rights because of the *potential* danger is exactly the logic the humans use against mutant superpowers.

The Smiley's actions were not of their own accord. Anyone being forced against their will to perform crimes are *victims* themselves.

"Smileys were created with the explicit person of hunting and killing an entire people out of bigotry."

Again, they're not responsible for the circumstances of their creation. What were Gabby and Laura created for again?

"I am entirely onboard with the minority they were created to kill not wanting to allow these angry trash cans to exist."

Don't blame the child for the father's sins.

[themajesticmoose]

These aren't children though. These are robots.

They are lumps of metal and wires. They are not people. They are a racist piece of software that someone put in a tin can and taught how to pretend to be a Real Boy.

And again...Moira has seen with her own two eyes that the "Children" repeat their fathers sins. Anti mutant AI leads to the genocide of mutantkind.

So if it's an "Us or Them" situation...yeah I'm rooting for mutantkind. Because I actually care about mutantkind. I don't care about whether a bigoted Alexa gets to Beep Boop another day

[laughing_tree]

If they can think and feel and have free will, why are they any less deserving of personhood than humans? Considering how often fiction uses robots as a metaphor for minorities -- like when Marvel civilians having issue with the Scarlet Witch and Vision getting together was clearly a play on miscegenation fears -- I'm going to have to hard disagree with you here.

Hell, even the person who genocided those Smileys -- Kwannon -- thinks of them as alive. The whole point of that scene was that they're alive. The whole emotional impact of her saving Greycrow from having to press the switch, or of Havok's dismay, is nonsense if they're just appliances.

[zachbeacon]

Yeah, not a big fan of heroes with a "I don't kill people" moral code deciding that some individuals don't count as people.

"Oh, I only kill monsters and he was a metaphorical monster so it's fine that I snapped his neck"

Though here its completely in keeping with the hypocrisy of the mutant ruling class.

[themajesticmoose]

I'm perfectly fine with them deciding it's fine to use lethal force on the Children of the Vault here. The Children of the Vault are would be world conquerors who want to commit genocide against literally all other life on earth and rule the world so yeah, I am completely fine with the heroes putting them down permanently

When a villain is at that level of evil I think it's perfectly acceptable for the heroes to use lethal force. It's not like they're murdering people for robbing banks or jaywalking here. They're using lethal force to not only protect their own lives but also to fight back against genocidal supervillain monsters.

[zachbeacon]

"It's not like they're murdering people for robbing banks or jaywalking here. They're using lethal force to not only protect their own lives but also to fight back against genocidal supervillain monsters."

You're just describing the X-Men as they existed before there was a "no killing" rule. If it isn't going to change anything then why pretend there is a rule?

[themajesticmoose]

The law doesn't exist to change anything in that way. The law exists for the same reason any law exists. To keep people from doing certain things with the threat of punishment. There are many mutants on Krakoa with a history of having done terrible things in the past. The Council passed this law to say "If you do this again you will be punished for it" because they don't want to just let people like Omega Red or Emplate to run around murdering people for fun and getting away with it.

[deh_tommy]

”Ape not kill ape.”

”You are not ape.”

[deh_tommy]

If you’re talking about Wonder Woman with Maxwell Lord... to be fair, I don’t think Wonder Woman has a no-killing rule. She tries not to kill if she’s can help that, sure, but that’s more in line with her philosophy of not trying anything extreme until you’ve offered a welcome hand first.

[zachbeacon]

Yes, it was a specific jab at that story*. That is literally the justification Rucka was using in an interview I heard back then. Never mind that – while Lord has always been shady – any outright evil actions he took prior to killing Ted Kord were later revealed to be because of some sort of coercion (mind control, possession, ect). Sure is lucky Diana just happened to be right that time.

*Though honestly it could apply to, say, a hero whose no killing rule doesn’t apply to aliens even through they’re teammates with a Martian, a Kryptonian, and a Thanagarian. That’s gotta make for some awkward meetings.

[themajesticmoose]

I mean it's canon that if Wonder Woman hadn't killed Maxwell Lord he would have turned the entire planet into a repulsive fascist garbage fire.

So she was canonically absolutely correct to kill him.

And it always bugged the hell out of me watching Clark and Bruce act like idiots living and behave like she'd done something terrible. "Oh no she killed a murderous fascist involved in mass murder and attempted world conquest, oh heavens what a tragedy"

Wonder Woman made the right call. I'd have done the same thing in her place. If Bruce and Clark don't want to use lethal force that's fine for them but they've got no right to treat someone who uses it to save countless lives like they're some kind of monster.

[deh_tommy]

Maxwell Lord is many things, but I don’t think fascist is one of them.

Plus, there was also the matter of him having Superman under mind control that could only be effectively stopped with his death.

[themajesticmoose]

I mean the world he created in the future we saw was absolutely a fascist dystopia. The beliefs he held and the goals he had were definitely fascism in action.

If you're saying he's not a NAZI I agree with that as his ideology is a different kind of evil to the evil of nazi ideology but he's still very much definitely a fascist. There are kinds of fascism besides the kind the Nazis practiced but they're all bad

[themajesticmoose]

I mean back when the Children of the Vault first appeared the X-men killed them all there as well. Killing them has always been treated as fine since long before the current Krakoa status quo was a thing.

And heroes in the Marvel universe in general are pretty much fine with killing their foes in this kind of situation as well. The only ones I can think of who haven't done things exactly like this on multiple occasions are Spider-Man and the Champions.

[donnblake]

X kind of seems to be tripping over himself here. FORCE protocols already allow the suspension of the three laws, but he's also invoking the loophole of the Children being post-humans anyways.

Also, I know it's the second law they really care about when they talk about these things, but it's nice to know that the reconnaissance team doesn't need to worry about stopping to make babies during the mission.

[shakalooloo]

Eh, the wording is 'murder' no man, so one could probably argue, as is done in the real world, that killing in time of war is not murder.

[lordultimus]

Well, the problem with that is, what qualifies as a "time of war" is pretty murky itself.

[donnblake]

Yeah, as with most societies' rules on killing people, Krakoa seems to have settled on "Don't. Unless you really need to, I guess. Then sure."

Which is, you know, not particularly inspiring, but as I say, not terribly unusual as these things go.

[themajesticmoose]

Personally I think that makes perfect sense and is a sensible way to do things. If they seriously tried to claim that it was never ever okay to take a life for any reason I'd think they were being idiots, honestly

[donnblake]

Well, yes, I think the fact that it works practically in the real world has something to do with its ubiquity. But it does make it more or less meaningless as a statement of principles. Perhaps there's been some society that operated on a premise of "Kill everyone all the time forever with no restrictions," but I can't imagine it lasted terribly long.

It's a bit like declaring "Our nation is in favor of good things, and in terms of bad things, we're opposed to them." Technically true, and certainly no worse than anyone else, but not in fact terribly revealing about the values of your society.

[themajesticmoose]

I mean I don't think it was ever intended as a statement of principles or values. I think in general laws don't have much to do with such things. Laws are just there to be part of what makes a society function

In this case the "Kill no man" law is there so that mutants who have...checkered pasts know that if they are caught killing humans they will end up in the Prison Pit right next to Sabretooth. In the same way that laws against murder exist in our society because if people could just get away with killing anyone any time they wanted the planet would be chaos.

[donnblake]

Agreed. I think where things can get interesting is in looking *where* the exceptions are- textually and subtextually.

[themajesticmoose]

Them making an exception here makes sense to me given the stakes and the kind of threat the Children of the Vault represent. It's easy enough to defeat a peacocking jackass like Donald Pierce using non murderous means...less easy to stop a species of basically natural born killers who exist only to wipe out any threat and conquer the earth without using lethal force

[donnblake]

Yes. The weird thing, though, is that "The Children of the Vault are an ultra-powerful threat both to Krakoa in particular and the world in general, and we should put all options on the table to deal with them" is only one of the reasons given in Xavier's statement, and the other is that they're not really human.

[themajesticmoose]

I mean they basically aren't. They have as much in common with us as we do with a neanderthal or a bird has with a dinosaur. They're pretty much funcctionally a new species at this point

[donnblake]

I don't think that it should be legal to murder neanderthals.

[themajesticmoose]

Well not for no reason no but if we lived in a world where neanderthals were trying to wipe us from the face of the earth to conquer the world I wouldn't have people people using lethal force to stop them achieving that goal.

[donnblake]

I'm going to take it that you mean you wouldn't have a problem with people using lethal force in that scenario- please correct me if I'm misreading you. In that scenario, neither would I, but the justification would be "These individuals/this group is trying to wipe us from the face of the earth," not "This group doesn't meet the definition of humanity."

[cainofdreaming]

Mutant -- Turns humans into frogs. Makes some deep fried frog's legs.

Quiet Council -- "Well, technically they didn't murder any humans."

[themajesticmoose]

They have sent multiple letters to Jamie Braddock over in Avalon asking him to stop abusing this loophole