Is this the true Superman and what he is all about? Even when pushed to the breaking point he still will not break. Recently all these Lois dies and superman fly's off the handle story's have warped the character to make him seem like a ticking time bomb which is not what hes about.
>>81996741
Superman's been deconstructed so often it's hard to remember who he really is. He's just not for the selfish or the cynical. That might not be cool, but it's certainly good. And Superman is all about good.
>>81996741
Because people find it more interesting when a character has some duality. The sequence you've posted, regardless of what is happening, is boring as stale as fuck, and it honestly seems like transparent, self-indulgent aggrandizing of a character.
I feel like one of the requirements for being a Superman writer is that you have a full-on fetish for not killing bad guys. Like, every time Superman refuses to take a life, you just have to put down the pen and fap for a bit. It just seems weird. I'm not saying that Superman should be killing people, but the story shouldn't be so preachy about it.
>>81997529
The fact that we have to have this conversation every fucking day is WHY some writers feel the need to get preachy about it.
>>81996741
This is pretty stupid, that he won't even beat him up.
Makes Superman a lot less human in my opinion.
Superman should not have an absolute no-kill rule, not with the threats he faces. It can be a last resort but he should not hesitate to make the call when it's needed.
Wasn't there even a New 52 issue of Superman where he says something like "a universe saved through murder isn't worth saving?" That's extremely stupid if you ask me, what's one life, even an innocent one, vs the entirety of existence, everywhere, forever?
>>81997529
It doesn't occur to you that stories like that are a response to the constant flood of "Superman goes off the rails!" stories?
>>81997618
>what's one life, even an innocent one, vs the entirety of existence, everywhere, forever
Because there's always "another way". Another stupid, contrived, retarded, deus ex machina of a way.
>>81996741
>Recently all these Lois dies and superman fly's off the handle story's have warped the character to make him seem like a ticking time bomb which is not what hes about.
If you abuse him he will not brake, if you hamr the people he loves he will lose his human ties.
The insanity that is injustice, are all about how superman stops caring about being nice and only cares about keeping everyone safe.
Both are valid, it doesnt mean he is a ticking bomb, it means that some versions choose to focus a lot on his human side, and that how losing that would just leave the "alien that just wants to do the right thing".
>>81997622
That makes them even worse! Then they're not even stories, they're just propaganda. That's my real problem. The situations seem to go out of their way just to give Superman a weird circumstance to test his resolve against killing, but then it happens that there's always a backdoor and Superman easily figures it out and hey no one dies, yay!
But nobody ever writes that situation where there isn't another way out, and it just feels so stupid. It's like that neighborhood kid who couldn't stand losing so he always made up his own rules last second.
>>81997600
Except I'm pretty sure OP's example, and many of them, are from before this became such a big deal. Really, I feel like 15 years ago, superheros killing wasn't nearly as big of a deal. Now it's like weighted to be 90% of the criteria they're judged on. I know when I was younger, I always knew that superheroes should avoid gratuitous killing if they could, but not to the point where it becomes the center of who their characters are, and where they refuse to break that rule just so they can keep this pointless moral high-ground, especially when it's at the expense of innocent lives.
>>81997529
the problem with superman killing is were does he draw the line. and how people call him old fashion because of it you kill once you will kill again. that was the whole point of the Manchester Black story's that superman is not old fashion and out of date and can win without killing.Superman is god like with his powers but the world feels they can trust him without a question.
>>81997754
>the problem with superman killing is were does he draw the line
When there's another way, he won't kill. When there's no other way, he will. Authors who always shoehorn in some kind of shitty "other way" completely destroy all sense of tension.
I think showing that Superman knows when to take a life, and that he understand the importance of it, and is capable of drawing a line shows him as more of an intelligent and realistic person that I would trust. Authors always treat it like it's entirely black and white, as if killing one criminal, villain, or supervillain automatically means there will be a slippery slope to becoming a mass-murderer. There are many shades of gray.
Manchester Black is the perfect example. His way is wrong because he took it too far. He made himself judge, jury and executioner because he figured "might make right" and that indeed was wrong. However, there IS a happy medium. Superman needs to know when he must take a life because society's "system" is ill-equipped to deal with the threats he faces. He can't just keep throwing Atomic Skull in jail so every other week he can break out and nuke an entire city block. For Superman to not have the ability to judge and take responsibility for ending that problem permanently makes him look like a retard.
>>81997839
But Superman has faith in people. He would never believe himself to be a better judge than anyone else.
>>81998134
Except they never do because comics are stuck in this weird status where only minor characters dies permanently and the same old dances keep happening. The joker keeps on killing, Alex Luthor keeps plotting and the superheroes do nothing to solve the underlying issues.
>>81998134
But this isn't about being a "better" judge. Superman needs to be able to recognize when certain threats need to be neutralized permanently because mankind doesn't have the means to do it for themselves.
I've loved Superman my whole life, but as a kid I don't think I understood how fucking stupid the "code" was. Superman refusing to kill when innocents are being slaughtered as a result of his reluctance is terrible. It's a gigantic flaw, in his character and makes him look like he's disconnected from humanity, as he values some stupid, pointless "code" over innocent lives.
>>81998235
>superheroes do nothing to solve the underlying issues
Except in Injustice, where the story then had to enact a million and one coincidences, contrivances and horrific twists of logic in order to make Superman look wrong for wanting to take over the world.
Emperor Superman is too fucking good for us.
>>81998365
Don't they try to kill Darseid and Starro everytime they show up?
>>81997634
Deus ex machinas are better when the hero actually resigns himself to do the terrible thing that he needs to do and then someone else bails him out. They should be willing to sacrifice their moral code for the greater good.
>>81997839
I feel like you're setting up your example wrong, and >>81998134 thinks it's about heroes being judge/jury/executioner. I don't think any hero killing an already defeated/captured foe is the right thing, even though it's sometimes perfectly understandable and can be used as a character building moment. What I'm really really against is when a hero holds back in battle so as not to kill his opponents.
In your example if Superman catches Atomic Skull and he escapes, the next time he escapes and starts destroying stuff Superman shouldn't jump in front of his atomic blasts to block them and then duke it out until the Skull surrenders or is incapacitated but should instead go all out and end him.
I've always felt that when heroes show unnecessary mercy they fail the people who they think they are protecting, and open themselves for failure. When faced with the posibility of inocents dying, holding back is almost criminal. Of course the response should be proportional to the foe, so Superman shouldn't heat vision bank robbers from orbit, but when faced with Mongul he should go for the killing blow every time.
>>81996741
>>81996745
>>81996751
Superman does not kill humans, but everyone else is free game.
>>81998134
So it's obvious that Superman is okay with killing as long as it's decided by a government institution, right? He goes on and on about how "the system" works. So what if Superman were deputized and authorized to use lethal force by "the system"? What if he had a tiny earpiece that allowed him to confer with a permanently impaneled judge and jury that could decide, on the fly, if Superman should just ice the motherfucker he's currently fighting?
>"Your honor, this is Superman, I'm fighting Parasite, he just killed 6 families waiting in line for the tilt-a-whirl at the amusement park. What's the verdict?"
>"Guilty. Sentenced to death"
Problem solved.
>>81998676
So basically the Superman of TDKR?
>>81997748
>But nobody ever writes that situation where there isn't another way out
Describe a scenario that someone with all of Superman's powers could only solve by killing someone.
Like...being cynical is one thing, you're welcome to believe that a normal human being in the real world could be faced with situations where the only way to prevent a wrong is to shoot the guy in the head...
But a normal person can't push the moon and shoot lasers out of their eyes and ice out of their mouth.
>>81998656
This always gets cited as an example of Superman killing, but nothing in that reality's "real," it's all a creation of the Time Trapper (the green Kryptonite there doesn't even affect Superman). So Superman's execution of the Phantom Zone villains in this instance is somewhat of a cop-out.
>>81996841
>Conner
Oh sweet christ I missed this one
>>82001971
And yet stories followed afterward about how Clark was traumatized by doing it. He spent a while in self-imposed exile in space. It was even referenced as recently as being the thing that helped him overcome Max Lord's mind control and stop short of killing Batman in the OMAC stuff right before Infinite Crisis.
>>82001650
>Describe a scenario that someone with all of Superman's powers could only solve by killing someone.
The end of Man of Steel.
The issue isn't that Superman CAN'T solve the problem another way. In fact, ANY character ALWAYS can, and you're a bit of a maroon if you don't realize that, because all the writer has to do is write it that way. The problem is that it's terrible writing, to always have your character pull something out of their ass to keep intact a stupid moral code that ultimately only leads to more suffering from innocents. In reality, things never work out so perfectly.
Always finding another way is unrealistic and anti-climactic. It makes Superman seem inhuman and unrelatable, which is a complaint that was leveled at him for decades. Of course, now you get down to the great divide between Superman fans. Some actually WANT Superman to be an invincible god who always does the right thing and always saves everyone, since escapism is part of their allure to the character. Others like myself (and I may be speaking for a very small amount) want to view Superman as a man, since, psychologically he is. He's a farmer's son from Kansas who just happens to have the powers of a god. A man with the least accountability of all suddenly grew up to have the greatest responsibilities you could imagine. I think that responsibility should include knowing when to take a life for the sake of others. That's the allure of the character for me, anyway, and it would amazingly disprove Batman's bullshit "where do you draw the line?" mentality. Superman should be able to prove to him that you can take a life without becoming a fucking murderous villain as long as you've got the will.
The true problem shows up when (What's so funny about Truth..etc.) when a light is cast on Superman's way as being flawed. He can't save everyone. His way ISN'T perfect. Innocents died because he wasn't willing to end Atomic Skull, TWICE, and that makes him look impotent and selfish.
>>82002141
Why does Batman get a pass for that OMAC thing again?
>>81997618
>Superman should not have an absolute no-kill rule, not with the threats he faces.
>>81997634
>Because there's always "another way". Another stupid, contrived, retarded, deus ex machina of a way.
>>82003400
>he problem is that it's terrible writing, to always have your character pull something out of their ass to keep intact a stupid moral code that ultimately only leads to more suffering from innocents. In reality, things never work out so perfectly.
People like you guys make me sick and I'm 100% sure you don't do any real emergency response, mediator, swat type work to be the judge on what realistically has to happen to resolve fatal conflict. HINT: They are able to do so without lost of life. Superheroes are suppose to be 1000% more superior to normal emergency respondents with all types of powers, resources and intelligence to back them up. It's possible to be good at your fucking job and Superman is suppose to be literally the greatest of all time, not a generic Marvel hero. Stop constantly trying to lower him to our level because you demand bloodshed. Pick literally any other character you want.
