InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "why are there still monkeys?"

superfan1 (superfan1) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-11-11 17:39:00

Entry tags:

char: booster gold/michael jon carter, char: wonder woman/diana of themyscira, creator: dan jurgens, creator: matthew sturges, creator: mike norton, creator: norm rapmund, publisher: dc comics, title: booster gold

Booster Gold #26
.

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

majingojira
2009-11-12 06:12 am UTC (link)

There is no defending it, IMO. It is childishly simplistic.

One day, I will concoct a morally repugnant method of imprisonment that is so worse than death that even the heroes of DC will be appauled by what is being done.

The person doing it will repond with a "What, it's not like I killed 'em or something."

Unfortunatlly, the nonlethal methods being employed and whitewashed are getting more and more morally repugnant every day.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

ladymirth
2009-11-12 06:31 am UTC (link)

I was working on a fic where a Batman is forced to work with a vigilante who is determined to hunt down a psychopath who killed her son. Bats gives her an ultimatum that is she is to work with him she will stop herself from killing at all costs. She agrees - and then proceeds to maim all four of his limbs, and then paralyzes him so his brain and sight are fully intact, but he will never be able to move more than his eyeballs ever again. And when Bats finds him, the mutilated criminal is begging with his eyes to put him out of his misery. And Batman can't make himself grant him that final mercy because he has vowed never to take a life.

...

What? He killed children; it's totally justified. *is evil sociopath*

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	ex_darkblade992 2009-11-12 03:25 pm UTC (link)
	Umm no. Just no. While I like the concept of deconstructing Batman's refusal to kill the rest of the plot sounds like it crawled out of the bottom of the hole I've been trying to bury the 90s in. That is the only way any superhero would let anyone get away with something like that before beating her within an inch of her life and dragging her to Arkham. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

ladymirth
2009-11-12 05:36 pm UTC (link)

Well, that's one reason I haven't put it up for public consumption. There are some fics you write to share with others and some which you write simply to excorcise your own ~~rage issues~~ inner demons.

You're missing my point. It's not about what she did or whether she got away with it. It's challenging the widely-held assumption that killing is the ultimate do-not-cross line.

That is the only way any superhero would let anyone get away with something like that before beating her within an inch of her life and dragging her to Arkham.

Yeah, because this works so damn well with the Joker. Also, IMO, beating someone within an inch of their life is not that much better than killing them. I wonder how many times Batman has caused some unlucky thug permanent damage that way.

There isn't just one clearly defined line that ensures your moral purity, especially if you're working as a vigilante. Sometimes you need to destroy in order to protect, and that means making tough judgement calls about life and death.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

ex_darkblade992
2009-11-12 07:12 pm UTC (link)

I know there is a fine line it's really for the best the line remains for most heroes.

Kingdom Come, The Justice Lords from DCAU and The Authority (most of the time) are well written examples of what happens when you do things like that. Once the heroes start killing off villians then the game changes and they'll have to kill more and more often and it won't be long before the law stops tolerating them.

Further more heroes that kill are a concept that should only be allowed to be touched by very good writers. It is way to easy (as demonstrated by most of characters created and/or revamped in the 90s) to turn the heroes into remorseless psychopaths gunning down other remorseless psychopaths and that doesn't make for a good story.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

freezer818
2009-11-12 11:14 pm UTC (link)

Kingdom Come, The Justice Lords from DCAU and The Authority (most of the time) are well written examples of what happens when you do things like that. Once the heroes start killing off villians then the game changes and they'll have to kill more and more often and it won't be long before the law stops tolerating them.

Ah, the ol' ~~Once You Pop You Can't Stop~~ "Slippery Slope" argument.

What bullshit it is.

Sure we, the readers, can see that argument for what it really is (Joker Immunity masquerading as moral code). But from a reality standpoint, that "Thou Shalt Not Kill" argument simply doesn't hold up. As if killing off a complete monster villain somehow would transfer said complete monsterness to the hero. As if they will never EVER find themselves in a situation where it's the bad guy or them/innocents. As if non-super powered people (cops, soldiers, ordinary people defending themselves) don't deal with that every day without turning into The Punisher.

You can point at The Justice Lords and the Authority, I'll point at Vash The Stampede and Batman's Rogues Gallery as a rebuttal.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

ex_darkblade992
2009-11-12 11:31 pm UTC (link)

No it doesn't directly transfer the complete monster behavior to the killing hero but it does scare off the lesser villians who aren't complete monsters or worse forces them to step up their game to more brutal levels themselves. Also as it has been mentioned elsewhere the heroes don't have the legal authority to kill unless it is self defence. Killing in the defence of others who are not legally under your protection is a crime (at least Canada I will admit I'm not fully informed on the nuances of American law) which means they are now criminals themselves. Superheroes as criminals leaves a few options.

1) Continue to operate as they always have outside of the law but with the law actively working for them it won't last long before they are caught and depending on their power level brought down. No matter what their power level is eventually (if we ignore plot armour of course) they will be forced into one of the following options.

2) Surrender tot he authorities for their crime(s). This kind of ends their series as they are now facing life and/or death penalty.

3) Actively shut down the law. Basically the Justice Lords and the Authority's approach.

I don't see any of those options as good things.

I've never actually watched Trigun but doesn't Vash have a thou shalt not kill policy stronger than most of the DC and Marvel line up?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

freezer818
2009-11-13 12:12 am UTC (link)

I've never actually watched Trigun but doesn't Vash have a thou shalt not kill policy stronger than most of the DC and Marvel line up?

Yes, one that is portrayed as borderline suicidal, given the amount of damage he soaks up, rather than use lethal force to defend himself. (Not to mention the property damage that ensues due to Vash prolonging battles). The show portrays this as foolish, especially given the dangerous lunatics he goes up against.) The show all but outright states that Wolfwood's adoption of Vash's ways

Spoiler:

cost him his life

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Read comments) -