Comic Vine News


Off My Mind: Should Evil Villains be Killed Before They're a Threat?

If the opportunity arouse, should the trigger be pulled?

What happens if you found yourself facing a child-version of what you knew would become a deadly threat to the world? This isn't a new question. Often, the question is tied to someone like Hitler and would it be right to go back in time and kill him as an infant?

This is a similar situation to what Fantomex dealt with back in UNCANNY X-FORCE #4. While on a mission to destroy Apocalypse before he could gain full power and proceed to wreak havoc and destruction upon the world, the team found themselves facing what appeared to be an innocent child being groomed by a genocidal cult to become the evil despot.

When the moment came to deal with the child, there was some hesitation. It was Fantomex that decided to pull the trigger. Now he finds himself on trial by the Captain Britain Corps in the mythical realm of Otherworld for his actions.

== TEASER ==

We know killing shouldn't be the solution for heroes but Fantomex made the decision based on the old argument. He figured that destroying what would become pure evil was the best way to deal with the problem. It's really a matter of whether or not the child should be held responsible for actions they have yet to commit.

In the case of killing Baby Hitler, it's already known what that infant will grow up to do. Going into the past, the future has already happened. There's no question whether or not the 'evil' person will stick to their evil path.

In the case of Fantomex's decision, the child was being groomed to become Apocalypse. He didn't know who he was or who he was supposed to be. He was being educated to become a version of the Apocalypse we all know. Could there have been another solution?

Fantomex made another decision after killing the child. He had a clone created who was raised in a virtual reality world. Killing a child wasn't a decision Fantomex took lightly and by making a copy of the child, he could see if there was a chance to redeem that child. This would be a way to explore the argument of Nature vs. Nurture.

Is the evil contained in a villain due to their genetic make up or does it have to do with how they were raised? The child that Fantomex killed was being programmed to follow the ways and thinking of Apocalypse. With Genesis, there is the chance to see if being raised in a loving and caring home could change what appeared to be the child's future. In other words, was he born evil or simply raised to be that way?

Another example of Nature vs. Nurture is Spider-Man and Kaine. Peter Parker was raised by his loving aunt and uncle. The idea of great power and great responsibility was ingrained into his way of thinking. This wasn't the case for Kaine. He was created in a lab and the only thing he had to a parent (the Jackal) cast him out in utter disappointment for being defective. It's no wonder Kaine's way of thinking was muddled yet now, he's finding himself acting more like a hero. He doesn't want to go out and actually become a superhero but he's finding it harder and harder to deny the urge to do the right thing.

WOLVERINE AND THE X-MEN #4, is Genesis destined to be evil?

There are simply too many factors that go into what makes a person good or evil. Most comic book universes don't allow an individual to travel back in time to alter the past. It usually leads to further complications or the creation of an alternate timeline/reality.

If the future was known, it's a little different but the argument could still be made that the future is never set in stone. Knowing that a child could grow up and become a deadly force such as Apocalypse doesn't guarantee that they will. If there is some remote trace of goodness in the child, the proper upbringing might be able to turn things around so he'd become a savior instead.

Of course there's also the notion that heroes don't kill. I think even the noblest of heroes would have a hard time taking a life, even if it would guarantee saving the lives of numerous others, especially when that life is at an innocent stage.

There may not be a clear cut solution. Fantomex made a decision and is now dealing with the consequences. Whether or not Genesis will grow into a hero or still become an evil force (as seen in a possible future) remains to be seen. If a hero was ever placed in the situation where they had to make this decision, you can imagine they would struggle with making a decision.

Posted by Nova`Prime`

Its a complicated question, altering the future is the butterfly effect, you can alter one little thing and change everything. So by killing this person before they become evil or powerful might stop their evil but it could cause another evil to arise.

Also isn't evil villain sorta redundant?

Posted by wdchefdave

Don't ask the Punisher... or any of the Greek, Norse, or Roman godlings that run around in the comic book world. And, what do Judge Dredd and Hangman do?

Should they go back in time and kill an infant?


Wait until Hitler is 18 years old (Hey, it's your time machine!) and take him out.

Then watch your universe change into something you will not like.

If it is a question of killing "real time" bad guys... Give Frank Castle a little more time!

In an alternate universe... somewhere The Thing has slapped his hands on both sides of Dr. Doom's head... and popped it like a pimple!

Not pretty... but, very final.

Posted by KidSupreme

Nah you cannot kill them or jail them before they do the crime!

Posted by SC

My simplest thought on the matter is Alternatives? Capacity to know, and find, and implement alternatives, if that is more beneficial for more >> death not being able to find, and implement alternatives. So its really about the relative capacities of the people in the position to kill. Like we are a more capable society today, so things that got people killed or jailed in the past are treated with more compassion, understanding, intellect, resources so on. so you can stop a villain before they become a threat without killing them (unless you can't, but then I would wonder whether that was perception versus reality, in a similar way that can be compared to children with who suffer abuse and need to be treated to break the cycle.  

Posted by clemj
@wdchefdave: the thing has amazing techniques to kill as I see
Posted by saoakden

Has anyone ever noticed evil spelled backwards is live?

Posted by the_fallen11

Pshhhh I say do it. Kill one save hundreds...or thousands. If murk'in kid Hittler will save all of the families he will destroy in the future. Its a tough pill to swallow but I say the ends justify the means...same for any 'big evil' Saddam, Osama..exc. any one persons that threatens human quality on earth. Hop in you Delorean time travel when they are at their most vulnerable, pop em come back to a better present.

Posted by clemj
@MarvelMan1985: more than one gun it's apocalypse you're talking about
Posted by EdBlank

Time travel is bulls*** BUT: if you COULD go back in time and kill Hitler, maybe AMerica never becomes the superpower that WWII forced us to be. Maybe Russia, then, becomes the one and only superpower during what would have been the Cold War phase. Maybe the Commies spread out across the globe and do to every country what the Commies did to Russia whenthey first arose. Maybe the 11 million people killed in Russia during the transition is now multiplied by a factor of 10 or even 100 as they conquer more and more countries. Maybe they have to fight door to door in the US since we are all armed and believe in freedom. Maybe 20 or 30 million Americans die in what we come to call World War II: the war where Communism spreads across the globe. When you are considering all this stuff think about Prohibition. They THOUGHT they were doing the right thing, but really they just created the Mafia by forcing booze underground. "Ooops we made a mistake" They reversed it, but the Mafia didn't go away.

Posted by Mutant God

En Sabah Nur believed in survival of the fittest and I think he will decide that humans are the problem and will try to destroy them.

Posted by cracker_jack

In the real world yes, in the comic book world no..... they're too entertaining.

Posted by fodigg

It is morally problematic to kill in order to show the world that killing is wrong. This is why capital punishment is morally questionable at best, even when one carves out exceptions for killing in order to stop or end killing (e.g., gunning down a suicide bomber, killing in self defense).

What these hypotheticals try to do is impose the context of the latter on the reality of the former, leading to a sort of pre-crime form of capital punishment. It's bunk. If you have the opportunity to stop the crime before it happens, you have the time to do so without killing someone and thereby lowering yourself from a moral perspective.

Posted by laabitres

everyone deserves a chance to prove themselves

Posted by Jorgevy

Im not gonna go into an argument about whether heroes should or not kill. But I must say, killing someone before they do something bad is just wrong. First, if you are time travelling, then if you kill them before they commit a crime things can get worse. Also, instead of killing them you could help them or just stop them. No need to kill them. And if it's a precog future seeing thing, then, the future can change so once again, no killing, just stop them, change their ways or help them be better people.

So I think heroes should never make that decision. Im against killing villains in general, but that's another matter. Im specially even more against that if it's in a time/place where the crime hasnt happened yet and you could prevent it without killing them. And in this case, with fantomex, a child? I mean seriously, I dont classify that as any type of heroism.

Posted by hectorsquall
Posted by PhoenixoftheTides

No. It seems to me that the characters making this choice are often not the best people to come to a reasoned conclusion. If anyone is going to make this choice, it should be someone who approaches it as a mature, rational being with more of a justification than "It needed to be done and I had the sword to do it." Especially knowing that the nature of travelling through time and other dimensions can negate any "good" you thought you were performing by getting rid of one villain.

Posted by RedheadedAtrocitus

As an historian myself I can say with certainty that killing Baby Hitler would not have necessarily prevented the outbreak of the Second World War nor the impending Holocaust. To do so would apply a sense of inevitable happening in history, and anyone who hears that term should cringe, for any student of history realizes there is no inevitability in history. Prior to the First World War, Hitler for the most part was a mild mannered art student who wanted nothing more than to be an artist. Yes, he began to have some anti-Semitic feelings during those years...but it would not be until the First World War and the punitive aftermath that Germany succumbed to that made his road to Nazism clear. Hitler merely played on the feelings of the populace that was facing hard times ever since the Treaty of was the German people who were guilty of giving him his rise to power in the first place. This being said, no, I don't believe villains must be killed before they are a threat, because to do so implies once again that its inevitable that they will turn bad. And that is a bad mistake in of itself. Its just like you said, the future is never set in stone. Events cause us to become who we are, not the other way around. So yes, Fantomex should be guilty of murder, because we cannot say with certainty that Apocalypse would have risen to power as he did before by the grooming of this cult. Its one of those things that one must give the benefit of the doubt for..otherwise the hero becomes the villain.

Posted by LittleSocrates

The word is "arose," . Otherwise we're talking about another kind of dying.

Also, isn't this pretty much the central conflict of comic books? This is a huge part of what makes Batman fun to read.

Posted by Ganthetsward20

People can change, no doubt about it. But If you know someone will only be able to commit mass atrocities then perhaps they should be locked away or killed. I hate having to resort to death but for powerful metas and muties maybe that is the safest choice.

Edited by humanfly26

Something similar to this happened in Savage Dragon. Dragon kills Damien Darklord who would have grown up to kill several of his friends. By doing this, he ended up creating a world that was even worse!

Posted by Askani'Son

ya know, i was genuinely surprised that fantomex ended up killing schoolkid-apocalypse. at first i thought it was a simple misdirection: trick his teammates into thinking he killed the kid, but he had actually transported him to the world. but instead he did kill apocalypse, and then made a clone from his corpse. from a plot perspective, seems a bit convoluted.

Posted by Bestostero

why dont we kill the big threats that are now instead of throwing them in jail so that they can escape and do more harm first? lol

Posted by Or35ti

I'm really looking forward to see how this whole Genesis thing turns out. As for the question I think that when a known destined evil genocidal sh*t head is in the question then yeah, Fantomex did the right thing. But they should make sure that there is absolutely no other option at all.

Posted by Spartan101

no never,,its the measure of a true person who will change the child to become better than the time line suggests. Nothing is set,time lines are made in the here and now.

Posted by Cypher4

Not sure why they had to kill him. Why not rescue the kid instead?


It's a slippery question to ask because any of us really only has the position of our own reality, and even then almost none of us ever in the position to have to make said choice nor know what the situation itself would demand of us. In the fictional world things are spun entirely different. Apocalypse for example, can, would and intends to destroy the entire universe (see: The Twelve), every single life on Earth, ect. The Age Of Apocalypse showing another scenario of what would happen if he wasn't sided out. In real life many cultures execute killers so they won't continue doing so. In the comic world these killers will kill everyone, even in a an eye blink. I could equate the comic villain as such more as a force of nature that needs to be stopped flat, and thereby to the question of nature vs nurture as well. Again in Apocalypse's case as well. There was a few comics that come to mind, like the issue where Nick Fury tries to assassinate Hitler in the past, or Midnighter has his foes form of an infant from the past in his hands but doesn't kill him then. But the key there is past version, which would of course destroy the present by deleting something that has already happened, in say Apocalypse's case it hasn't happened, but will in the future if nothing is done to prevent it, so the comparison about if one could go back and stop something isn't actually applicable.


Also, in view of specific case, Apocalypse has been alive for how long now? Centuries right?

In his vast lifetime he's been privy to about every kind of experience and knowledge one could fathom, even going as far to being versed in detail of other timelines, and from the far reaches of the universe itself. The future shows in fact that Apocalypse will continue his efforts in the same way he always has and become steadily worse in doing so. In the question of nature vs nurture, Apocalypse was shown to be as far removed from any negative nurturing as one could be, and have every example set before him to learn different paths in life, being nurtured in adulthood, an extremely long one, that his own path would cause great strife (and Stryfe literally, wokka wokka!). Yet he chooses otherwise, keyword, he chooses of his own volition even after having learned everything the universe itself has to offer, and time itself can teach. So that sort of rules in favor of nature, that the way he is is hard coded, and especially rules in nature by way of insanity, being that he keeps repeating the same action with the same result, and does and will do so for centuries. I think Fantomex is making a huge mistake, and more, he's making one not minding that he's doing it for personal reasons, rather than putting his own self aside and doing it by way of math.


Some creatures kill. Lions have been a popular subject here so I'll go there for example. Many attempts to nurture lions have been made by man. Noting a certain case involving stage magicians, and another that happened at the exact same time in New York, where persons raised lions and never suspected them to kill...yet the lions attacked there handlers, the latter dying in the process. Apocalypse wasn't raised to be, much like the lion, he is, and his motivation is coded into his nature. History repeats itself. Looking at his lifetime of choices and actions, he wasn't made a way by being a childhood victim, he was a way in the fiber of his being. So the disturbing question then of course comes in that, knowing Apocalypse in his nature will do what he is prophesied to do (proven prophecy at that), and even becoming a God himself still didn't convince nor teach him to do otherwise nor anything under nor in-between, between one stage in his life and any latter he will kill millions, does one stop him at an earlier age, or wait to do it later just for the sake of upholding a principal, despite the fact they would then themselves by choice be condemning all those he will kill to death, as opposed to him, though he will have to be killed by someone later? The difference between Marvel continuity and reality to ours is a key factor in this question. So does math. You have two and know you will gain two more and therefore inevitably have four, but, you will require six. Do you control the only factor you are capable in reality, yourself and your reaction to influence events so you can instead gain four more and then have six? Or, do you after a serial rapist threatens to rape and kill your daughter, either condemn him to death as you have the opportunity (and Apocalypse will kill children BTW, millions), or, do you attempt to change his nature by way of reasoning, being nice to him, ect., more or less for the sake it seems the moral high ground as far as he is concerned, but knowing it more likely than not will not work and your daughter will pay for your choice, in effect making you having choose the moral high ground only for the victimizer, but done the exact opposite for his victims?


Adding to the equation of Apocalypse specifically is Cable, whom made it his entire live purpose to stop Apocalypse in the past, no matter what cost, including whom he had to kill to accomplish this. X-Force themselves got to see the results of Apocalypse first hand, and Warren well before. Outside of this any being that knew better has had the right mind to try and bring Apocalypse down otherwise, even villains, even those closest to him like Mr.Sinister. The real question of course ends when it is " kill a child ", not kill Apocalypse. It's only human to be weak in such a case and do the wrong thing anyways (though I noted this seemed a little beyond the members of X-Force in question given many of their past actions already in place). But Fantomex's further decision was not to not kill Apocalypse as a child. He already did that, and could have just as well tried to due the proper nurturing angle instead then. What he did in recreating another person like Apocalypse was cater to his own humanity, a known folly of our species, as well a trait of beauty, in order to cater to a new sense and possibly disproportionate one, of right and wrong Fantomex was learning by being present among heroes, a place which despite his own raising, by nature he always belonged. It could be reasoned that this Genesis however was genetically, and mentally fixed to be something different, as that's within the Worlds capacity, but only time will tell. It is notable though that who that specific name is a precursor too, Tyler Dayspring, and how nurturing exactly failed him as well, and instead a killer would always and inevitably come to be, one which Wolverine had no quarrel executing either.

Posted by MarvelMan1985
@clemj: Yeah it was more like a metaphor...I DO know that Apocalypse can't be stopped by a mere gun. :p
Posted by redhood21

it is an interesting question, but i think they made the right choice. i dont think apocalypse has even had a kind hearted counterpart in any alternate reality/previous encounter/alt timeline. He was being groomed for it and had they hesitated who knows what he would retain from his "learning". Fantomex's experiment could pay off or doom the world, but Uncle Cluster knows best i always say.

Posted by Xaviersx

I look at comic book villain treatment as not of the real world or maybe like the real deathrow, because if your mass murdering unrepentant and irredeemable villain is left to plot and plan escape, you're most likely gonna have more dead people's blood on his/her hands resulting from the nokill decision. Hey maybe Batman doesn't kill, but someone in the judicial system has to throw that electric switch or lethal injection realistically to deal with the likes of the clown prince of mass murder (except that in sales terms, you can't do logic just extend until your universe pops or reboots).

Have a five to ten year universe, have your more realistic justice system in the comicverse, and develop enough good stories, inclusive or exclusive of a villain where you go boy that was a bad-a$$ villain, I'm glad he/she got what was coming to them and the people are at least safe from him/her . . . until the new bad-a$$ is written.

Posted by Pbott

Yes they should be killed on the spot, this is a problem i have with mainstream superhero books it makes no scene at all why not to kill them which makes these characters who have a no kill rule hard to relate to. In all honesty If they were in the real world super man would be considered a villain in my book for not killing when its necessary because him not doing so results in lost lives.

Posted by JoseDRiveraTCR7

I can't believe people are actually answering yes. It's completely insane to punish someone for not committing a crime. This is thoughtcrime.

Posted by Darkmount1

Forget killing---lobotomize the killer and put them on ice, and then bury them deep underground.

Posted by Luthorcrow

@MyraMyraMyra said:

@Luthorcrow said:

@MyraMyraMyra said:

Anyways. I think it's many flavours of insane to suggest that any terrible person in history would "stick to his path" no matter what. Nobody is born evil in the real world.

I am sorry but some people are born evil. Now we can argue that how they are raised may change the degree of evil but they will still be at their core evil. Let's get a bit more specific because the word "evil" really is too vague. Evil can often simply mean an opposing will or side in a conflict but when we talk about pure evil we are talking about a sociopath. A person that does not recognize other people as having value, worth and are in capable of empathy for other people. A true sociopath is going to be evil no matter how they are raised because they simply lack the ability to feel other people's emotions.

People are not blank slates. The idea of the baby being innocent is a Christian concept and one that generally serves us well in law and government but in reality is not really true. We can turn the dial up or down but at the end of the day, the song remains the same.

Sociopathy isn't just another word for evil. It's a psychological condition caused by several different factors, and it's been argued that it's caused mainly by environmental factors, such as childhood experiences and parenting. Either way, I strongly, strongly disapprove of calling people with personality disorders "evil" & the general demonization of the mentally unstable.

Also, the idea of children as blank slates is not a Christian concept. The original Christian concept from the early Middle Ages suggested that children are born bad because of original sin and must therefore be beaten and diciplined into proper behaviour. The idea of the child as tabula rasa and childhood as a state of innocence comes from the 18th century philosopher Rousseau.

Evil, however, in Western discourses often (disclaimer: not always) pertains to a Christian/religious view of the world, stemming from the idea that there indeed are steady & indisputable forces of "good" and "evil" in the world, as opposed to the perception of good and evil being a case of subjective views & moral relativity. It's a dated, vague concept that cracks under the simplest philosophical examination, and in my opinion should not be used in all seriousness in any modern conversation.

Going back to Apocalypse, I'm not sure how to apply real world logic when it comes to superhero comics, as the view of the world the Marvel Universe offers us is really a construct of a variety of writers, all of who have dealt with questions of predestination, good, and evil in their own ways. I'm not sure how relevant psychological terminology is when analyzing a character like Apocalypse. Him I could call evil, because I think the concept of flat and simple "pure evil" is a part of the fictional universe the comics take place in. But as far as the real world is concerned, I'd leave a term as naïve as "evil" out of serious discussions, as I don't believe that it grants us a better understandment of any phenomenon.

I would prefer to sidestep the what is legitimately "Christian" in concept if for no other reason that I am atheist. But I will say much of what was codified as "Christian" from the First Council of Nicaea on has little to do with the teachings of Christ but are carry overs from Judaism or the Old Testament. I would lump original sin and much of the concepts of evil in that category. Anytime on a fundamentalist Christian quotes the 10 Commandments I have to laugh because that is not even in the New Testament, hence not part of Christianity.

As for the claim that sociopath is a result of upbringing vs. genetics is hardly a resolved issue and at this point it would seem the argument is at best probably both. I won't disagree that many sociopaths if raised in a none abusive environment will end up being functioning adults. Not nice people mind you but at least not serial killers. But I do strongly disagree that sociopath's are not evil. In fact that would be the only definition that I think really works if we are going to talk about something being pure evil. In the inability to feel empathy for anyone outside of yourself would the pure form of evil I can conceptualize. The only real question of nurture is to what degree of evil will this person end up being. A serial killer, mass murderer or serial rapist being the most extreme examples. The ruthless banker, lawyer or police officer being the functioning example.

Let's be frank, moral relativism is outdated and debunked viewpoint that is intellectually lazy and someone raised to believe Genesis from the Bible is the literal truth. I definitely agree with Sam Harris, that good and evil and moral thinking needs to evolve out of the religious and philosophical ghettos. We need to apply basic scientific reasoning and experimentation to moral questions.

Getting back to the specific question, given the Apocalypse question, the real question is moral to kill him before he becomes evil, the question is it moral not to? The meat of the question isn't the act but whether we are certain that his eventual evil turn is inevitable.

Interesting this very question was in the media yesterday when Eric Holder said that he believed it was legal to kill American citizens suspected of being terrorist. In this case, this is an outrageous claim and vast overstepping of Presidential power to suggest that someone's inalienable rights as provided by the Constitution can be abridged at the will of one man, the President, without any over site from judicial branch, without due process, or public trail. I have to admit I voted for Obama but at this point he is one upped every breach of civil liberties that Bush encroached upon. It may not seem scary now but all takes is for the definition of "terrorist" to become a bit more broad before it becomes a wholesale license for doing what you want.

Posted by GuruOfFunk

Sure. Considering none of these guys ever stay in jail, killing them seems the only logical choice. Kill one of them and save one thousand others.

Posted by TheWholeDamnShow

Before? No. After? Yes.

Posted by jordama

haha evil villains

Posted by JonesDeini

I'm a Punisher fan...that says all I need to say about this topic.

Posted by Mjdemon

man i love Archangel. Truly a badass. I would say yes they should kill evil before they are a threat or if thats not an option try to change that person so in time they wont be evil.

Posted by Apis

Killing them for "future crimes" is the same type of thinking that gives rise to prejudice against superhumans in the first NO.

Posted by Hakudoushinumbernine

personally i think it would be stupid for genesis to be made evil. he's so cute ^.^

it would be a waste. i like him in the friend group of Idie, Quentin, Broo and Kubark. XD they look like they have so much fun together.

i am alittle concerned about how he's going to find out about his whole life prior to coming to the school was a fake though...

>_> i don't like what this idea is insinuating. the reason he goes evil is because he finds out he's the clone of a Genocidal F^ck head and his parents were fake? not liking this one bit.

but i find genesis adorable. XD i just want to hug him XD

Posted by The Impersonator

X-Force kills because they're forced to kill.

Posted by Wowlock

Personally , I believe in innocence and I think the outside influence is the most effective way to change someone. Genetically Evil ? I don't think so. For that you either have to be nuts from the start or have a mental sickness. If someone is enjoying hurting others...well that is a mental sickness if you ask me.

But in this case , I never count on ''possible futures''. Especially with the X-men. They have soo many bleak and grim future , I start to think one day, they will clash and cancel eachother out and only the rare , good futures wilk remain.

For a Hero to cross the line and kill someone ( and a Kid infact, no matter who he/she is ) will change him forever. Neither you or himself can look at him at the same way. It may sound unfair but sadly that is the truth. For that sense, villians like Joker are geniuses... They taunt heroes , knowing that they won't cross the line and even if they do, villians will bring down the hero with them in that Dark Path. One of the good examples was Batman's first hush story where he decided to End Joker after he ''appearantly'' shot his childhood friend. That was the thin line where Batman would actually put an end to Joker and only Catwoman and Commisioner Gordon were able to stop him before he cross the line.

But as I always say, future is never set in stone or else life wouldn't have a meaning. It is about suprises and your decisions. If you would know how you will turn out in, say , 20 years, I bet you would do somethings differently if you want to change that. Then again, time-travel is such a messy concept, you cannot get a solid answer from these kind of situations.

Posted by Abattoir_Noises

As far as Fantomex killing the child Apocalypse is concerned, I think he was far enough removed from the situation to be the one to pull the trigger. He is still quite mysterious, and, being raised in an artificial enviroment, his decision came from a vastly different perception than all else involved. Obviously, he was still conflicted enough to collect a blood sample as a moral back door, and, perhaps it is because he's a product of "nurture"as opposed to "nature". However, the mission was to kill Apocalypse, no matter what the cost. They ( X-Force ) went through hell and back just to get to that point, for them to question themselves at that moment speaks volumes about those that fight for "good" and those that are "evil". The value of life, the chance for redemption, it all touches a nerve with every one of them ( X-Force ). For them to hesitate, it illustrates their hopes, our hopes, that the good in people will win out. People have been killing people, well, since we were people. Apocalypse has always been portrayed as not valuing life of any kind. As far as he is concerned, it's kill or be killed. The strong will survive, it is neither "good" nor "evil", it just is. Though we see the rationality in this, as humans ( and mutants, and mutant / sentinel hybrids ), we want to believe otherwise. Yes with hindsight, the easy answer, is to kill the Joker / Apocalypse / Hitler / take your pick, but we know the value of life, so actually pulling the trigger is not so cut and dry. Easier, though, for the man who is part sentinel and has four brains I guess.

To get back to the question, I personally believe that yes, most comic book villians should have, and would have, been killed a long time ago. I mean, you just don't go around murdering people and blowing up shit all the time without everyone saying enough is enough. So, for the sake of the medium, I'm glad that most of the iconic characters do not kill their adversaries, but if Apocolypse were real? I would like him dead please.

Posted by vicioushero

I would say it's justified. How many people need to die before someone realizes it's better to take them out instead of trying to rehabilitate. What I don't get is why just Apocalypse? Why don't they take out Osborn too? If you dawn a set of spandex and decide to take out a bank careless to the fact of innocents your probably ready for death row.

Posted by Static Shock

@BatClaw89: Deleted that offensive post of yours. There are Viners here that happen to be Jewish could find your post offensive. You have a warning for this. Refrain from this in the future.

Posted by LordRequiem

Giving is based upon reciprocity and thus, deal no mercy for those who offer would none.

Posted by Dru_zod

To me most heroes are born because of villans

But as long as the person doesnt destroy the world...................................

Who asked you to play God?????????

Posted by Mikey Venture

Wait wait wait. Look at the caption with Archangel freaking out, HE'S a blood 30 monster ! typo much marvel ? geez.....

Posted by Teerack