Comic Vine News


Off My Mind: Are Civilian Deaths Necessary for Realism in Comic Books?

Comics are meant to be fun and full of fantasy. Do mass killings enhance the stories?

Comic books are mainly about superheroes fighting supervillains. There is a threat against innocent lives and it's up to the heroes to save the day. Heroes clash against their enemies, a battle is fought and the good guys win. It's almost a sort of brightly colored dance they do.

When superhero comics started gaining popularity, it was all fun and games. Did anyone really ever get hurt? Sometimes a hero would. Heroes even paid the ultimate price at times with their lives. But because they're superheroes, there usually is a way for them to come back from the dead.

Over time, the stakes got higher. The threats got bigger. Soon, it wasn't just superheroes or the occasional supervillain dying. More and more, innocent civilians started getting caught in the crossfire. Innocent humans were dying. The deaths started happening more often until the numbers were off the charts. Does the death of innocents add to the nature of superhero comics?

== TEASER ==

One example that comes to mind is in the first volume of The Ultimates. Bruce Banner turned into Hulk and went on a rampage. The Ultimates fought him to contain him but there was only so much they could do. During the battle, the Hulk's rage caused an immense amount of destruction. The death count was over three hundred. Three hundred lives gone just like that. It might not have been completely Banner's fault since the Hulk was uncontrollable but those deaths seemed insignificant. Banner stayed locked up in luxury while the PR department put a spin on the battle. Hulk was later released and used to fight off an alien invasion.

What about Ultimatum? Over a million New Yorkers were killed when a tidal wave hit the city. That's a lot of people. It was meant to be an insane amount to drive the point across to us. This was a new age. Villains didn't play nicely anymore. Throughout the rest of the series, there really wasn't a whole lot of attention given to the dead. In the end, the villain was punished and mutants were hated even more. The real focus was put on the dead heroes. They were the ones that mattered. The one million New Yorkers were just a simple statistic.

It could be that the Ultimate Universe has different rules. Things are more extreme. In the regular Marvel Universe, Hulk went on a rampage in Las Vegas. Twenty-six people, two kids and a dog were killed. This may not seem like a huge number compared to the other examples but these deaths, while not even seen, were the catalyst that started Planet Hulk and World War Hulk. It was questioned why Hulk was allowed to go on rampages and where would the death toll end? So he was shot out into space.

The death of innocents was also a big part of the current Wolverine arc, Wolverine's Revenge (in issues #'s 10-14). Wolverine has killed many people over the years. It turns out he's also killed many innocents at different points in his life. Of course the deaths at Stamford kicked off the Super-Human Registration Act and Civil War.

I remember when an innocent dying was a big deal. Remember when Captain George Stacy died saving a kid while Spider-Man and Doc Ock were fighting on a rooftop? Or even Gwen Stacy's death. Those deaths meant something. It was a shock and had a profound effect on Spider-Man. Hulk kills a bunch of innocent people (well, maybe they were up to some naughty things in Vegas...) but did he show remorse over the deaths?

When the death toll starts getting higher and higher, the impact of innocent deaths is insignificant. The other thing to consider is comic books are meant to be fun and entertaining. There is way too much death in the news. Do we really need to read about them in comics? Of course if civilians were never threatened or harmed, it would make things too easy for the heroes. There wouldn't be any seriousness to the superhero game. The possibility of innocents suffering is what drives most heroes. You can't have epic superhero/supervillain battles without casualties. It's just when the deaths go into the hundreds, thousands or higher, it becomes just a number without a lot of meaning.

  • 116 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Posted by Moncole

Superheros cause lots of damge

Posted by Burnstar1230

Superheroes are not perfect. They can't be everywhere at once, so I would say  yeah, it does, but it doesn't mean that some random joe has to die.

Posted by ryanwh

Killings only matter when there's an emotional connection to the killed, which there never is because in comicbookland, anyone people care about never stays dead. Comics and the writers have created a world with no stakes at all. And that's why they'll never be real writers.

Posted by EdwardWindsor

Its just like in real life to have truely great heroes you need peopel who see truely eveil deeds and stand up to stoop them. Mass killing are only equalled by the heroes saving masses of peopel. I feel its a very yin-yang like idea to have one you need some of the other to balance it out. If heroes saved everyone all the time villians would become pointless since their threats of deaths would become hollow.

Posted by daak1212

Yup and no.  Quite frankly death is meaningless in comics nor is the story truly that mind boggling or thrilling.  Good guy wins with either lil to no lose or major lose if it's an event.  I think comics need lasting results and hero's should retire or die more often.  Clearly replacing the old with the new is a good tactic case in point Bucky and Dick.

Edited by Deadcool

Or cource they do, I read comics because I love to see heroes rescuing people, innocent people. To bring an emotional impact to the hero, he has to see deads to strive more the next time, but I don`t like to see A LOT OF DEATHS, in 52 the people died a lot, A LOT OF DAMN CIVILIANS! even SOME heroes, I didn't liked 52 for some reasons, the deaths is what I MOST hated.

Posted by jordama

One death will always matter more than a million. Because when only one person dies it feels like more could have been done to save that person. When a million dies it is more uncontrollable. I keep thinking about Nightcrawler. His death seemed so profound but if a team of X-Men died it seems like it would have been a little less. 

Posted by FoxxFireArt

Civilian deaths give a feel of consequence and danger. If no noncombatants could ever been injured, why is the superhero fighting to begin with. A super-hero fights to keep civilians safe from what the police can't. Most comics take place in a metropolitan area. It would be weird to have epic battles in such highly populated areas and no one got hurt.
The Joker isn't scary or intimidating because of this looks, unless you have a phobia of clowns. It's that fact that he's a psychopath who will kill. If he never killed anyone. He'd be a literal joke.
Civilian casualties also creates a sense of drama for the heroes. They cam make the person question their tactics or their very existence as a hero if innocent deaths are the result of his actions or inaction. It isn't the use of death in comics that makes it lose significance. It's the fact that no hero ever seems to stay dead. It's up to the author to give it meaning. Such as how it was used in Marvel to begin Civil War.

Posted by maxicere


Posted by NightFang
@Moncole said:
Superheros cause lots of damage
The villains are to blame for that too.
Posted by Or35ti

They aren't necessary but they certainly do help bring more realism and up the stakes a whole lot. It's hard to believe when two super beings are dishing it out in the middle of NYC and entire buildings fall that no one gets hurt.

Posted by TDK_1997

Yes,there needs to be a civilian death to be more realistic and dramatic

Posted by tonis

tough issue to address unless it's an 'intended' impact from the writers perspective.

I've actually thought many times watching animations why a city can be destroyed without seeing anyone suffer but it seems to be a 'secondary' agenda in most of those stories and with some understandable reasoning behind it.

They 'technically' don't wanna 'bring anyone down', and let's face it, that's a major downer to any 'feel good' super hero story.

I guess when your deciding that direction you wonder if your trying to portray 'hope' or 'despair' and you use that sort of thing to represent it effectively, but realistically it is TRULY a bitch to show it the way it is and not tweak out a viewer or two in how you do it :)

Posted by MagmaGazer

Superheroes have their flaws as much as the next guy. Civilian deaths serve to add some semblance of reality to an otherwise fictionist  series and plot.

Posted by M3HR4N

I think it's the joy of comics.

Posted by lorex

Civilian deaths are generally not necessary or at least not in the huge job lots that tend to accompany "Big Events". I don't count nameless SHIELD (Hydra, AIM, League of Assassins, etc) agents as civilians either. The occasional killing to show how truly evil a villain is can advance a story or plot. What would help realism would be the passage of time, characters growing older getting married having children. Also ti help realism would be for dead characters to stay dead no matter how much as segment of fans want them back, screw em. Writers created good heroes once why not give new writers a chance to create a new iconic character instead of rehashing the same old thing over and over again. How many times does the Joker need to break out of Arkham and kill dozens of people before he gets pitched off a skyscraper.

Posted by Chaos Burn

If I was a human, i'd just live ANYWHERE BUT NEW YORK CITY

Posted by jubilee042
@TDK_1997 said:
Yes,there needs to be a civilian death to be more realistic and dramatic
what he said 
Posted by mistersarcastic

Well yeah, like everyone else has said thus far, you can't have heroes, which lead to villains, which lead to fights of epic proportions and NOT have any collateral damage. 

Posted by DoctorTrips

No they're not necessary because there doesn't need to be 'realism' in comics. Comics are supposed to be fun and full of life, and danger, and thrills, and action. When you inject something like realism into a wholly unrealistic world it spoils it; it gives us crap-tastic heroes who act more like celebutante jackasses, cheap soon-to-be redundant storylines, fifty different Avengers teams, one-hundred and eight different X-groups, the constant stream of Bat-crap, a reboot and a retcon, another 'event' to hold us over until the next one comes around and does something inconsequential.
No we can't just have heroes and villains who wear masks and colorful costumes because that doesn't happen in the real world. No, our heroes can't have secret identities they need to be more like the people we watch on TV because that'll hook in new young readers as they text what they think because they've given up on speech. No we can't just enjoy a fantastic battle in the skies over New York we have to ask questions like "Well what's the government going to do about this?", "How does this affect the Facebook generation?", "How many civilians sued the Justice League after their daring battle with Brainiac?", "Is Superman truly an American hero?". Modern comics are trying to live on the cutting edge seven days a week and they're being sliced to pieces; this isn't cutting edge, this is the Jersey Shore with a cape and a viking helmet.
Superman doesn't need social problems, Spider-Man doesn't need twitter, the Avengers don't have to be an arm of the US government, Captain America doesn't need to enter into any political debates, Jay Garrick doesn't need a metagene to explain his powers, we don't have to kill huge populations to see the political fallout our heroes will face.
Can't we just suspend our disbelief, have some fun, and leave the real world behind when we turn the page? Is that so hard?

Posted by welshguy

I remember the issue of Alan' Moore's Miracleman where most of LOndon has been slaughtered and in the ensuing fight even more die.That remains one of the most horrific and powerful comics I've read. I think this civilian casualty thing just shows how the world, and we humans and our attitudes, have changed. When Godlike beings clash it seems reasonable (even in such fantasy) that us lowly mrotals suffer. It just hammers home how powerful these beings are and how fragile we are. Its an odd mix of realism and fantasy.

Posted by BatmanFromBeyond

Maybe but sometimes they overexagerate with the bodycount

Posted by damswedon

If the death actually means something and has lasting repercussions then yes.

Take the Judge Dredd story Apocalypse war from 1982, in the story Sovs from East Meg One invade Mega City One and kill 400 Million people. In retribution Dredd leads a commando unit to capture Sov nukes and they nuke East Meg One completely wiping it and the 500 Million citizens out. The total death count is 900 Million people, 30 years since that story and the current "Mega-story" is about a Sov group fighting in retaliation and it is one in many stories to do so, in 1999 there was a story where Dredd got put on trial by Sovs for the things he did.

Another Dredd story, Necropolis, has a civilian body count of 60 million citizens but it also resulted in a loss in faith in the Judge system, a democratic referendum (which failed) and reminded people why Judge Death is the threat that he is.

That isn't to say there are bad examples of high body counts the early 90's Grant Morrison, Mark Millar and Garth Ennis runs are full of meaningless death with seemingly no idea of why events happen and it all lead to the near collapse of 2000AD. Hell since then John Wagner hasn't let a single person writ a major or important Dredd story.

Posted by howlett76

can't have real toe to toe fights without some civilian being scared or at the very  least hurt.. even killed in some cases...  just doesn't feel right to be that clean... no fight is perfect

Posted by antvent85

A man I wish you hadn't posted that image for the cover of the article, now I know how Wolverine 14 ends, thanks for the spoiler =/
Posted by Nova`Prime`

Is it weird that Wanda is basically throwing her breasts in her father's face? I guess not considering the rather "odd" way her and Quicksilver act together in the Ultimate Universe.

Posted by Xenozoic Shaman

Puny humans.  Hulk had right-of-way. 
If villains cause so much damage in the Ultimate universe, it makes me wonder why the "heroes" still stick to their "do not kill" philosophy.  Sounds like they'd save a lot of lives by putting down some of their villains.  (Compared to the standard universe.)

Posted by The Devil Tiger
@daak1212 said:
Yup and no.  Quite frankly death is meaningless in comics nor is the story truly that mind boggling or thrilling.  Good guy wins with either lil to no lose or major lose if it's an event.  I think comics need lasting results and hero's should retire or die more often.  Clearly replacing the old with the new is a good tactic case in point Bucky and Dick.

Posted by djotaku

Wasn't that essentially the point of the way battles happened in Dragon Ball Z? (the cartoon - not sure aobut the manga) 
NO matter how evil the bad guy, all my memories are of them going to some empty expanse of land to fight.  So there's drama for the heroes, but no innocent bystander for the villains to use to distract the heroes.  
Do we need this level of realism?  On my recent blog post, most people said they didn't want realism in their superhero comics.  Me, I prefer some amount of it.  Also who cares about a bad guy who only wants to kill the heroes?  But a bad guy who wants to commit genocide, that's a bad guy that must be stopped!

Posted by Iridium

That is why the likes of Batman, Superman and Captain America really do not care for the 'average joe' ... they keep letting these supervillans live to kill 3 more million next issue.
The truly caring heroes are the Wolverines, Punishers and Lobos of the universe. 

Posted by G-Man

@antvent85: It wasn't mentioned where that image was from. Also, that image doesn't spoil the big twist in Wolverine #14.

@Nova`Prime`: That was actually Mystique looking like Wanda.

Posted by Frobin

The Ultimates were NOT the first book which established mass murder, crime against humanity and genocide in superhero comic books ... im pretty sure it has been The Authority (no wonder) ... for sure one of the best superhero team books ever (of course just volume 1). It established terrorism and genocide in the superhero genre, BUT it was meant for adult readers!    

I don't think that the body count makes more realism! In fact, after it's pretty overused now, meanwhile it's an unrealistic element, because the superheroes still save the day somehow, but the body count is high ... though after a genocide in almost every story arc life goes on as nothing ever happened. So: NO, I don't think it is an element of more realism ... more violence or brutality maybe is (if it fits the character) ... violence between heroes and villains ... because The Joker is a psycho and he kills people. Here violence and brutality fits. And even injured civilians are a realistic element, in case of a hero/villain fight ... ambulances, injured bystanders, maybe even sometime a very small death toll to show the drama and the danger ...  that would be more realistic, but not so pathetic overused like we've seen it the recent years ...   
Meanwhile I hate those massive attacks of villains or monsters or whatever which a death toll of a small village. Just for the effect. Ultimatum is the worst example ... killing just without purpose or sense for the storytelling, just for the show effect, just to get a WOW! Same for killing superhero characters ... again Ultimatum the worst example ... and it's totally overused too!
Moreover there were always genocide and mass murder in superhero comic books ... for example in big events, alien invasions or so ...but you had to imagine them ... and it worked!  A good writer can show the tragedy with other effects than a high death toll and seas of blood.
Civilan deaths in superhero comic books therefore should be used carefully and cautious:  
, if it brings forward the story or is necessary to make a point.   
But mostly NO, especially the death toll is very high, because then it's a bit impious to let the good guys save the day and then (next issue) life is going on as always. It's unrealistic.  
Then it's more realistic, the heroes glorious save the day after a huge attack which endangered the whole mankind  - and no one dies or just a few victims (which better show the dramatic aspect).

Posted by fodigg

I think less is more with this. There's a point where the mind just shuts off when hearing numbers, but one or two faces with back stories will tug on the heart strings a lot more. 
I watch the newest Avengers cartoon, for example, and it's like old-school GI Joe. The pilots always bail out of the plane, helicopter, tank, whatever before it blows up. The monster gets knocked into a building but it never takes the whole thing down. That's fine, I think, and if you do want to go "grittier," you don't have to kill 300 civilians. Or even one civilian. The Avengers Academy book recently showed that you could do it by killing three bad guys who were shooting civilians. A hero having to take a life, even a faceless villain's, was treated with care and had emotional impact. And the different attitudes of Mettle and Veil showed the different sides of the argument well.

This is actually a very similar discussion to general topic of "gore level" in stories. I also think less is more with gore in these superhero stories, especially films. Look at Captain America: The First Avenger. People were getting killed a lot, but usually by falling to their deaths off-screen, being disintegrated into puffs of blue smoke, or bloodlessly shot and falling over. The risk and violence and danger were the emphasis, not gore. It wasn't about focusing on the deaths, but on the heroes defeating the villains. However, in the final throes of act 3, when things were getting serious—oh, spoilers I guess—we see Rogers throw some hapless hydra agent through an airplane propeller. And this wasn't an off-screen thing like in Raiders of the Last Ark, this guy turns into red mist on camera and the noble Cap doesn't even blink. He doesn't seem to even think about it. So right before the final confrontation, with just a little gore and a little realism, we get the emotional impact of this violence driven home. The stakes are raised.
I understand that other genres of film have other goals. I wouldn't support a totally gore-less Saving Private Ryan or something. Even if I can't stand the torture-porn "horror" films so popular today, I get that they're setting out to deliver exactly that, so they need to rev it up. But for superhero films, I think a lighter touch creates a better film and can get you further in bringing the impact of violence home for the audience. Even with the very violent characters like Wolverine, Punisher, Judge Dredd, or Spawn. Less is more.

Posted by Grimoire

Its a double edged sword kind of issue. 
When a supervillan kills a lot of people its kind of expected out of them since it would have to justify a superhero to work all the much harder to stop said supervillan. These are throw away deaths for the most part unless some acquaintance of the hero was also caught into it. 
On the other hand massive deaths by the hands of DC's amazons on masses of normal civilians during Amazon's Attack came out as much more horrible because they were suppose to be on the good side. (Warrior's with a supposed code of honor.) After this happened I noticed that there was near close to nothing in reaction to it and that just made the entire seige of deaths meaningless as a whole.

Posted by Deadknight

This reminds me of a quote from Joseph Stalin: "One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic."  
While this is a considerably cold and heartless thing to say, it stills rings true in most cases when deaths can be swept away as nothing but a number. Certain deaths will impact us more than others - more people would at least know of the death of a president than a school teacher, but why it that? At large, people seem to forget that death is death, and a premature one at that is a tragedy. Why then do massacres and genocides get debased down to a number? Such devastation should be infinitely more tragic than a single death. 
Numbers and statistics certainly are necessary to ascertain the death and destruction brought on by an event, but more often than not people will forget that each and every single number in a statistic was a human being whose life was taken before its time. Numbers are convenient, but if we use them to keep track of death, then we typically forget the severity of those deaths. 
In all honesty I'm just rambling now because I have no idea where I'm going with this, but I still felt the need to say it all the same. 
I certainly don't wish to condone and/or agree with Stalin's quote, but it still seems to be an unspoken and detestable truth somewhere along the line...
Posted by Kairan1979

I think civilian deaths make comic books more realistic. Who is going to read about Gotham if the villains are always caught by Batman without causing much damage? Gotham isn't Gotham without its dark atmosphere.

Posted by Chris2KLee

Civilian deaths are OK for adding drama and a sense of danger, but it's an easy concept to abuse. If you are constantly committing genocide in every story, the effect wears thin and loses it's impact.

Posted by PhoenixoftheTides

It really depends on the series. If civilians die and heroes die (with no coming back) as a result of these super-powered battles, then the danger of the battle is real and palpable. When civilians die but the heroes are unaffected, it starts to seem like a sick fantasy where roid raging maniacs throw cars at each other for "The greater good." or "Because they hate one another.", not really mindful that the cars are falling on kids, grandparents and other bystanders. 

Posted by Green ankh
@DoctorTrips said:
Can't we just suspend our disbelief, have some fun, and leave the real world behind when we turn the page? Is that so hard?

I really agree here. I miss the less :reAL" books of the past.
Posted by Divine_Monkey

Comic book deaths have become a crutch for untalented (or lazy) writers. Can't figure out how to make a story seem important? Kill a bunch of civilians. Can't figure out how to make a villain seem dangerous and menacing? Kill a B-level hero.
That's probably why we have so many characters return from the dead. Some hack writer creates a new villain/re-design an old one, and in order to show off what a bad*** he is kills off a character with potential. So they have to bring them back later.

Posted by goldenkey

I agree with this to a point.  I wouldn't say Batman and Superman don't care for the average joe.  they have their lines they don't cross.  We really don't need that debate.  Captain America in his Ultimate version DOES kill the bad guy and that's one of the things makes him interesting in that universe.  He's a solier as much as a super hero and that's something forgotten about in the 616 version.
Posted by Sammo21

Magneto needs to be a better dad and tell Scarlet Witch to stop dressing like such a tart.

Posted by The Stegman

i say yes, yes they are needed

Posted by Owie

The problem for me is that the mass deaths happen, but then have no long-term effects.  In War of the Hulks, they trashed Washington DC.  After that, it's not like any other comics mentioned it in any way.  I mean we have seen in real life the drastic nationwide effects of real devastating acts in this country, from 9/11 to Katrina--it destroys the economy, slows down government services, etc.  In the comics, they have these dramatic thinsg happen where cities are destroyed, tons of people are killed, but there are no real effects from all that.
Then, in Fear Itself, only a year after War of the Hulks, Sin and her army trash Washington again, just as if it had never happened. 

Posted by Cafeterialoca

I don't think they are needed.
It's more of a high school mentality of F*** the world that people think it's needed.

Posted by MastaKilla

I think it all depends on the context of the story. For example, many of the comic stories/crossovers of the 90's included tons of bloodshed, innocent and otherwise, because it was deemed the cool thing to do and in that instance it does nothing to enhance the story. However, when it is woven into the context of a story that lead to moral quandaries and repercussions, such as in the New Warriors story that led directly to the Civil War event, it has meaning. Yes, comics are entertainment but it's cool to know that, at times, they can make one think about realistic issues in society as a whole.

Posted by Rosencrantz&Guildenstern

I don't see the point why we should favor a certain tone or theme in a whole of a media over another. Why shouldn't there be civil damage in a comic? Because it makes it less fun? That's a bit like saying there souldn't be any sex or dirty words in high literature because it makes it less sophisticated, which is complete nonsense (take a look at the works of Ernest Hemingway, Aldous Huxley or Kurt Vonnegut). 
Not all Superhero comics are happy-go-lucky and fun loving in nature: the ton of the first Batman stories were closer to gothic and detective stories than everything else, and the Hulk can be seen as a symbol of humanities fear of civilisation's destruction caused by atomic warfare. Or look at Spider-Man: his inability to save his uncle (a civil), social insecurities and his desire for a normal life conflicting with his sense of responsibility are at least as essential to the character as his witty humor and heroic swashbucking.
What I'm trying to say is that it is not what happens in a comic that it matters but how is it executed. Sure, fun and threill are improtant aspects of a comic, but that doesn't mean it can't have any other tone. It's also all about the handling: if the author pulls it off well, and the particular elements in the story serve their purpose, then it's fine. Of course the deaths of a hundred nameless civilians won't touch a reader as much as the death of a well developed character, but in the case of Jason Aaron's recent Wolverine storyline for example it served a storytelling purpose. After all, Logan's all about his past sins and how he has to live with his regrets and punishment, besides his usual dilemma of "improving myself" vs "accepting who I am." You see, not even superhero comics are just all about fun: it can be at least as good, if not better, if a comic is able to capture you, give you a unique expreience, affect you emotionally, or even make you think of things, the world, even yourself. Just look at Alan Moore's writings.
To cut things short: there are several elements within comics or fiction that can capture one's imagination: some like tons of action, some prefer the plot to have as many twists as possible, some like personality oriented stories, etc. Stories in general can be good in so many ways, limiting the available serources or tools of crafting a story has no use. Of course, there will always be lesser writers who can only use taboo themes or deaths as means of cheap sensationalism and lame attempts to boost sales, but that doesn't mean someone else can't write a good, fascinating story with lots of deaths in it. Remember, the question is not the what, but the how and why.

Edited by kfhrfdu_89_76k
@Rosencrantz&Guildenstern said:
Not all Superhero comics are happy-go-lucky and fun loving in nature.  
You`re right about that. But does death really make them better? I`m sure that you know that almost noone died in the Hulk comics at the 60`s and 70`s. Or in 60`s Spidey comics.   

Terrible. Just terrible that so many think that should be alot of dying in comics. Yes, sure it is realistic that a supervillain with awesome power kills, I dunno, 5000 people just like that. But is it good. No. I`m sick of it. If I`m ever gonna get a chance to make comics (with great writers) I`ll make sure that there doesn`t die a 100 persons per every comic I make. Actually, mostly there will be noone to die in a comic I make. Well, it may be that I will change my mind when it happends. But I hope I wont. 
So, to answer the guestion, yes, there`s too much civil losses in comics.  
Posted by Jnr6Lil

Its necessary because with all the fights that go on it would make no sense for everyone to come out safe.

Edited by LordRequiem

    It would be very unrealistsic for there to be no casualties during these epic battles. I would argue that a villain is not a villain unless he does something malevolent i.e. world domination, sure, but that would most definately require killing some people. I liked it when Black Manta behind that fish counter, killed those innocent people just 'cus he's a nutter. 
    The innocents need  to realise they are really nothing in comparison to metahumans or whatever superpowered being, mutant etc. and give them a wide birth so as to avoid becoming collateral damage. I think even though they help, superheroes should genuinely be feared more than respected by the general populus, for what they are capable of.

  • 116 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3