A superhero should always kill their most dangerous enemies...

Posted by DATNIGGA (1207 posts) - - Show Bio

I posted this on another site but I wanted to see what Comic vinners had to say on the subject... & I know It sounds harsh I know but allow me too explain...

See most become superhero's to save lives & protect people from dangerous super powered people & that is a good thing but the issue with that is sometimes in the process of saving others you create enemies that personally want nothing more than to kill you or ruin your life.... when you have people like this with superpowers most of the time you can't afford to just be the nice wonderful hero who beats people up & sends them to jail because that is really only a temporary solution to your average super villain they always escape & unlike the kind hearted hero they won't stop until your dead & unless you can do what needs to be done.... you end up Spidey :(

''NOBODY DIES'' except you.. unless your willing to do whats necessary to those that would destroy you...

I'm not saying heroes should be like punisher to every villain they see but at some point you have to recognize threats that have to be permanently dealt with. As a hero some of your villains just have to die... some could argue that act would make you no different from a villain cause your taking the law into your own hands but here's the thing...

Thats what being a vigilante is all about enforcing & taking the law into your own hands... long before hero's made giant groups that are supported by the government of course...

  1. if peter wouldn't have saved ock this wouldn't have happened...
  2. if batman would have killed joker he would've saved so much heart ake and death
  3. if spiderman would have dealt with osborn.... omg wow so much stuff wouldn't have happened

Some would argue that killing makes you a villain not a hero but....

  1. Captain america: has killed nazis like there was no tomorrow
  2. Thor: Hostage situation but still killed innocent family's & children
  3. wolverine: well that just goes without saying
  4. Superman: he killed doomsday
  5. X force: participants are still hero's even after the many assassinations & murders
  6. batman: he hung a guy that was undone by writers but never the less my point stands...

they are hero's just like a soldier is still a hero even after killing the enemies of the country, Once again Im not saying hero's should murder everything in sight... but being unwilling to kill an enemy who is hell bent on destroying you only leads to your inevitable downfall...

RIP PETER.... ( though you'll be back soon cause your an A list character)

#1 Posted by Strider92 (16756 posts) - - Show Bio

The problem is thats what makes Peter who he is. The guy would sooner let himself die than kill someone else purposefully. He's basically the embodiment of pure goodness in Marvel. If he did kill his most powerful enemy when would it end? How would he qualify someone as his most powerful enemy? It would end up with him making excuses to kill his enemies. Contrary to belief its far harder to let an enemy live than it is to kill them and Peter always chooses that option because taking the easy way out would drive him over the edge.

#2 Edited by comicace3 (6116 posts) - - Show Bio

@Strider92: The same goes with Batman. Even though He's not all good he has one rule and one rule only. Which makes him better than any other character. Well I obviously wouldn't forget Spidey in this. He's awesome too.

#3 Posted by Strider92 (16756 posts) - - Show Bio

@comicace3: Not exactly. While some of those elements do apply to Batman if it does come down to a kill or be killed situation with someone he knows deserves it killing them is an option. In the Court of the Owls arc he was perfectly ready to kill Lincoln March and even took the opportunity to attempt it.

#4 Edited by DATNIGGA (1207 posts) - - Show Bio

@Strider92:

''How would he qualify someone as his most powerful enemy?'' Someone who is more than likely to destroy his life personally... someone like the spot obviously wouldn't qualify for that...

but Doc ock, Green goblin, Venom they would apply cause these 3 have the knowledge, power and motivation to destroy spiderman. you can never be too careful as a superhero

#5 Posted by daredevil21134 (12154 posts) - - Show Bio

Don't forget Daredevil killed Bullseye

#6 Posted by DATNIGGA (1207 posts) - - Show Bio

@daredevil21134: That is true I should mentioned more instances where hero's have killed but the list would have been ridiculously long

#7 Posted by 80sBaby (1347 posts) - - Show Bio

The OP should keep in mind that the only reason these villains keep showing up to ruin the heroes lives is because of the nature of serialized fiction like comics. If this was Real Life, viallains like the Joker would've been put to death by the state a loooong time ago or the cops would've killed him "while trying to escape." The heroes would never have to make that decision because, in real life, jails/asylums wouldn't simply be revolving doors.

#8 Posted by Shawnbaby (10867 posts) - - Show Bio

If Superheroes always killed their villains...Superhero comics would have died out decades ago.

#9 Posted by dangallant984 (1282 posts) - - Show Bio

@Strider92 said:

The problem is thats what makes Peter who he is. The guy would sooner let himself die than kill someone else purposefully. He's basically the embodiment of pure goodness in Marvel. If he did kill his most powerful enemy when would it end? How would he qualify someone as his most powerful enemy? It would end up with him making excuses to kill his enemies. Contrary to belief its far harder to let an enemy live than it is to kill them and Peter always chooses that option because taking the easy way out would drive him over the edge.

I'm not interested in a Spiderman who's willing to kill under any circumstances; never have been, never will be.

That said, for some characters, the fact that they are left with no other option, becomes an important lesson in their character development and over all story. Most super heroes are not as smart or powerful as Spiderman, nor do they necessarily stand for what he does, that doesn't need to make them any less heroes.

Colossus, the X-men's Peter, killed Proteus and later Riptide. In both cases he was left with no other option, save letting all of his friends die -which would not be very heroic either. But that these choices weighed so heavily on him showed the true nature of his heroism, and ultimately made him a more interesting character. Which is why I read comics..

#10 Posted by JimTheSurfer (560 posts) - - Show Bio

Completely agree. Beating up bad guys and sending them to jail doesn't really solves anything, because they'll be back anyway. On the other hand... If Spidey would kill, he wouldn't be Spidey anymore.

#11 Posted by SoA (4975 posts) - - Show Bio

this is what the authority believed in , this is why they are awesome.

#12 Posted by DaveThePunisher (24 posts) - - Show Bio

I agree completely. What would Spider-man or Batman do if they caught a serial rapist? They would punch him in the face and then put him in jail. Well say that rapist gets out in a couple years and then rapes again. I bet that poor woman getting raped wishes that the rapist would have been caught by The Punisher instead of Spidey or Batman. The Punisher would have shot him dead and that next woman would be safe. But instead, Spider-man keeps his "code" and the rapist rapes again and the woman is brutally attacked and scared for life.

And forget about the whole "murder" thing. What about violent assaults? Spider-man has super strength and a punch from him would surely break your jaw. They never show the bank robber getting his broken jaw set or wired shut. They never show him having to eat through a straw for a month or having pain in his face for the rest of his life. If Spider-man and Batman were such angels, they wouldn't be violently beating these criminals. In America, you are innocent until proven guilty. Yet these "heroes" beat the crap of people based on their OWN judgement. A police officer can legally shoot and kill a suspected criminal if the situation arises. However, they can not beat the guy to a bloody pulp. Rodney King anyone? Batman won't kill but he will happily beat the living crap out of someone WAY beyond the point of just sub-doing him. Police are taught to subdue a suspect as non-violently as possible. I'd like to see Batman do that. It is backwards superhero logic that says they won't kill but they will torture and beat a person who is innocent until proven guilty. The Punisher does what any soldier would do. Other "heroes" do what any bully would do; beat someone up and then claim they are the good guys because they didn't kill them.

If you put on a costume, work outside the law, violently attack people, beat up suspects that have not even stood trial, an break many laws, YOU are the criminal. Batman killed a guy before. Same with Spider-man.... but people say because it was ONE murder that is is somehow better than The Punisher's thousands of murders. It may be a better, but they are still ALL murderers. Spider-man and Batman are just as much criminals as The Punisher. The only difference is, The Punisher's criminal activities actually makes people safe.

#13 Posted by Bionder (296 posts) - - Show Bio

All the so called "Do-Gooders" are responsible of many inocent lives lost because they have a code that can't kill villains, they go to prison then come back and kill a more dozen inocent lives and this vicious circle repeats over and over.

Like Ross said to the Punisher: "The infection cannot be cured, it must be cut out".

#14 Posted by GunGunW (997 posts) - - Show Bio

Some of these comments are irking me... so it's okay for Spidey to not kill but someone like Superman should? That doesn't make any sense. Didn't' Superman start the whole let's not kill anyone thing? That's a double standard and it's stupid.

Also you can't really count him killing Doomsday since Doomsday didn't really die and he's just an undead killing machine. The only other time I recall him killing was under Byrne and he did virtually everything wrong with the character.

If Superman kills, he's not Superman anymore... that applies to Superman even more than Spider-Man... Peter is great but he has a lot of problems and proven that anger can get the best of him at times. I'm not saying he should kill, but it's not more important for him to not kill than Superman

#15 Posted by The_Dreadnought (82 posts) - - Show Bio

We are talking about comics, here. It has been mentioned that the serial nature of comics led to villains always coming back and that if comic prisons and law worked like in reality they would not end up on the street again. I like the Punisher but never as much as Batman because I like the continuing antagonism with the Joker. Suspension of disbelief is crucial for enjoying comics because this stuff wouldn't make sense otherwise.

#16 Posted by nickzambuto (14180 posts) - - Show Bio

@daredevil21134 said:

Don't forget Daredevil killed Bullseye

He was possessed by a demon at the time.

#17 Posted by colonyofcells (2038 posts) - - Show Bio

A super hero should always sleep with the enemies.

#18 Posted by fodigg (6146 posts) - - Show Bio

@DATNIGGA: Heroic superheroes (as opposed to anti-heroic superheroes) are heroic because they don't kill. Because they hold themselves to a heroic standard. Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man don't kill because killing to show that killing is wrong doesn't make sense. These stories are morality plays, and it means very little to compare them to real life crime fighting because real life criminals don't keep getting out of jail and going on murder sprees.

#19 Posted by daredevil21134 (12154 posts) - - Show Bio

@nickzambuto said:

@daredevil21134 said:

Don't forget Daredevil killed Bullseye

He was possessed by a demon at the time.

He was in full control before he killed him.Read Daredevil 512

#20 Posted by CrimsonAlchemist (410 posts) - - Show Bio

@DaveThePunisher:I feel ya there man don't know about the Rodney thing but you made a real good point. Most of this "heroes" are hypocrites.

#21 Posted by DaveThePunisher (24 posts) - - Show Bio

@fodigg: Ok Killing is wrong... what about violently assaulting someone who has never stood trial? Spider-man would break someone's face because he believes he is guilty. What about a trial? What about constitutional rights? What about due process? If a cop caught a purse snatcher and punched him in the face, the cop could face criminal charges.... but not Batman! Why is Batman a hero? Because he didn't commit murder? What about when Batman stalks someone? Breaks into their house to spy on them? Beats them up? Batman should be held accountable for his crimes of stalking, breaking and entering and assault. What gives Batman the right to do what he does? He is not a cop or a lawyer and has no legal right to do what he does. He is a criminal who assaults innocent people (innocent until proven guilty).

#22 Posted by YourNeighborhoodComicGeek (20387 posts) - - Show Bio

@Shawnbaby said:

If Superheroes always killed their villains...Superhero comics would have died out decades ago.

Not really. The villains would have just gotten revived countless times, or newer villains would arise a lot.

#23 Posted by Shawnbaby (10867 posts) - - Show Bio

@YourNeighborhoodComicGeek said:

@Shawnbaby said:

If Superheroes always killed their villains...Superhero comics would have died out decades ago.

Not really. The villains would have just gotten revived countless times, or newer villains would arise a lot.

Except the writers would burn themselves out trying to create new villains...and the ones they created would be bland and one-dimensional due to never having any chance to develop into real characters.

#24 Posted by Sharkbite (293 posts) - - Show Bio
READ "ELEMENTALS" VOLUME 2 ISSUE 15

If your goal is outward, to do good in the world, to save lives, to affect other people, then it becomes nessesary to kill sometimes. Every police officer who ever suits up is taught this; sometimes there is not an option where nobody dies, you are choosing if the person who dies is the Bad Guy or the Victim. Indecision is the same thing as choosing to kill the victim, because in both cases you had the ability to save them and instead they died as a result of the choice you made.

Pose to yourself this question. An alien warlord has a huge mega-battleship flying above Earth. He is about to destroy the planet and kill every single human being in existance (roughly 7 billion lives). He is alone on his Mega-battleship and you have in your possession the only weapon capable of shooting down that Mega-battleship. Do you blow up his ship and kill him? Or do you spare his life, and sentence the entire planet to destruction?

There is not a right or wrong answer to this question. Some people honestly are not capable of killing Alien Warlord, even in this circumstance. Perhaps their religious beliefs have them under the understanding that all the dead victims will go to a better place. Perhaps they hold to the faith that somebody somewhere will be able to come up with a plan that doesn't involve killing, so they simply postpone the decision until it is too late. Perhaps they refuse to accept the weight of the decision, feeling that they will not shoulder the burden of of deciding who lives and dies. Or perhaps they will point their blaster at that ship and blow it to peices. There is no right or wrong decision, it's a moral point for the individual.

If you find yourself in the camp with the people who would be willing to take 1 life in order to save the entire world, then it becomes a matter of mathematics. You have the ability to take a life; how many lives have to be at stake before the total number of victims is worth more than the value of the Bad Guy's life? What if that one bad guy was only going to destroy the Western Hemisphere? Would you still kill him if only 3 billion lives were on the line instead of 7 billion? What if he's just going to set off a nuclear bomb and wipe out New York City? Is his single life worth more than the combined 8.2 million people there? What if we zoom in even further, and a suicide bomber is threatening to blow up a school of only 500 small children. Could is his life worth more than all of theirs? What if it's one on one, where some sadistic killer is about to murder an innocent person? Where do we draw the line? Exactly how many lives with the life of a killer worth? How many people should be sacrificed so we don't have to kill the Bad Guy?

There are really only two avenues of thought. Either a life is priceless; we cannot restore one so we have not the right to take one. Or else it's math. X = X. A life is worth a life. At the point somebody is going to kill someone else, you have a choice to make: which one of them deserves to live most?

If Batman would have killed Joker, he would have prevented hundreds of murders, including many murders of children. Batman does not spare the Joker because he believes the Joker could be redeemed. There is no value in the man. Rather, Batman spares the Joker because Batman does not wish to accept the responsability of choosing between life and death. The next time Joker breaks out and murders more people, Bruce can blame the Arkham guards for not keeping him locked up, and his own conscience remains clean even though those victims are no less dead.

Heroes killing villains is about how much responsability you're willing to take for others. Do you accept a position where you have to be responsable for making the decisions of who lives and dies, or is that too much pressure? Doctors have to make these decisions when it comes to transplants. Judges make these decisions in Capital Punishment states. Not everyone wants, or is well suited for that responsability. It's a matter of choice.

But with great power comes great responsability. So sometimes the world needs someone like Cyclops, to make the hard decisions and hate themself for what they've done, but still know deep in their heart that they had to do it because it needed done and no one else would.

#25 Edited by ImTheDamnBatman (3548 posts) - - Show Bio

Batman has no qualms with killing if he knows the situation calls for it.

#26 Posted by DATNIGGA (1207 posts) - - Show Bio

@GunGunW said:

Some of these comments are irking me... so it's okay for Spidey to not kill but someone like Superman should? That doesn't make any sense. Didn't' Superman start the whole let's not kill anyone thing? That's a double standard and it's stupid.

Also you can't really count him killing Doomsday since Doomsday didn't really die and he's just an undead killing machine. The only other time I recall him killing was under Byrne and he did virtually everything wrong with the character.

If Superman kills, he's not Superman anymore... that applies to Superman even more than Spider-Man... Peter is great but he has a lot of problems and proven that anger can get the best of him at times. I'm not saying he should kill, but it's not more important for him to not kill than Superman

well in new 52..

Superman was trying to kill green & bats if not stopped by the flash...

if he did murder them I would still look at him as superman though cause he killed batman... you know how awesome you have to be to pull that off?

@ImTheDamnBatman said:

Batman has no qualms with killing if he knows the situation calls for it.

No qualms with killing? Batman? your gonna have to show me an example of that... cause Ive never known batman to kill

@Sharkbite said:

READ "ELEMENTALS" VOLUME 2 ISSUE 15

If your goal is outward, to do good in the world, to save lives, to affect other people, then it becomes nessesary to kill sometimes. Every police officer who ever suits up is taught this; sometimes there is not an option where nobody dies, you are choosing if the person who dies is the Bad Guy or the Victim. Indecision is the same thing as choosing to kill the victim, because in both cases you had the ability to save them and instead they died as a result of the choice you made.

Pose to yourself this question. An alien warlord has a huge mega-battleship flying above Earth. He is about to destroy the planet and kill every single human being in existance (roughly 7 billion lives). He is alone on his Mega-battleship and you have in your possession the only weapon capable of shooting down that Mega-battleship. Do you blow up his ship and kill him? Or do you spare his life, and sentence the entire planet to destruction?

There is not a right or wrong answer to this question. Some people honestly are not capable of killing Alien Warlord, even in this circumstance. Perhaps their religious beliefs have them under the understanding that all the dead victims will go to a better place. Perhaps they hold to the faith that somebody somewhere will be able to come up with a plan that doesn't involve killing, so they simply postpone the decision until it is too late. Perhaps they refuse to accept the weight of the decision, feeling that they will not shoulder the burden of of deciding who lives and dies. Or perhaps they will point their blaster at that ship and blow it to peices. There is no right or wrong decision, it's a moral point for the individual.

If you find yourself in the camp with the people who would be willing to take 1 life in order to save the entire world, then it becomes a matter of mathematics. You have the ability to take a life; how many lives have to be at stake before the total number of victims is worth more than the value of the Bad Guy's life? What if that one bad guy was only going to destroy the Western Hemisphere? Would you still kill him if only 3 billion lives were on the line instead of 7 billion? What if he's just going to set off a nuclear bomb and wipe out New York City? Is his single life worth more than the combined 8.2 million people there? What if we zoom in even further, and a suicide bomber is threatening to blow up a school of only 500 small children. Could is his life worth more than all of theirs? What if it's one on one, where some sadistic killer is about to murder an innocent person? Where do we draw the line? Exactly how many lives with the life of a killer worth? How many people should be sacrificed so we don't have to kill the Bad Guy?

There are really only two avenues of thought. Either a life is priceless; we cannot restore one so we have not the right to take one. Or else it's math. X = X. A life is worth a life. At the point somebody is going to kill someone else, you have a choice to make: which one of them deserves to live most?

If Batman would have killed Joker, he would have prevented hundreds of murders, including many murders of children. Batman does not spare the Joker because he believes the Joker could be redeemed. There is no value in the man. Rather, Batman spares the Joker because Batman does not wish to accept the responsability of choosing between life and death. The next time Joker breaks out and murders more people, Bruce can blame the Arkham guards for not keeping him locked up, and his own conscience remains clean even though those victims are no less dead.

Heroes killing villains is about how much responsability you're willing to take for others. Do you accept a position where you have to be responsable for making the decisions of who lives and dies, or is that too much pressure? Doctors have to make these decisions when it comes to transplants. Judges make these decisions in Capital Punishment states. Not everyone wants, or is well suited for that responsability. It's a matter of choice.

But with great power comes great responsability. So sometimes the world needs someone like Cyclops, to make the hard decisions and hate themself for what they've done, but still know deep in their heart that they had to do it because it needed done and no one else would.

Yeah this is on point I agree with what your saying man taking responsibility is the main reason why they don't kill

#27 Posted by fodigg (6146 posts) - - Show Bio

@DaveThePunisher said:

@fodigg: Ok Killing is wrong... what about violently assaulting someone who has never stood trial? Spider-man would break someone's face because he believes he is guilty. What about a trial? What about constitutional rights? What about due process? If a cop caught a purse snatcher and punched him in the face, the cop could face criminal charges.... but not Batman! Why is Batman a hero? Because he didn't commit murder? What about when Batman stalks someone? Breaks into their house to spy on them? Beats them up? Batman should be held accountable for his crimes of stalking, breaking and entering and assault. What gives Batman the right to do what he does? He is not a cop or a lawyer and has no legal right to do what he does. He is a criminal who assaults innocent people (innocent until proven guilty).

All true, although there's some leeway with citizens trying to stop a violent criminal--a guy wouldn't get arrested for tackling a thief on the street--but with Batman especially there's a lot to be said about how he works outside the law and violates the rights of private citizens.

That said, so what? So they should just go ahead and kill people because they're willing to rough criminals up? That's some scary slippery slope logic.

#28 Posted by ImTheDamnBatman (3548 posts) - - Show Bio

@DATNIGGA He's done stuff before. He locked someone up named KGBeast and left him to starve. Once he set a bunch of criminals on fire. The thing about Batman is that he doesn't want to kill, but if he absolutely needs to he will. Also he doesn't care if he's not the cause of death. Batman has encouraged Superman to kill Luthor before.

#29 Posted by EdBlank (542 posts) - - Show Bio

Although I am a stickler for "realistic" writing, I have to disagree with the OP: does Punisher even have a "Joker"? I don't think he does but I was never a hardcore Punisher fan. Punisher is cool but - from what I half assume and half remember - almost everyone he faces is NEW cause all the old enemies are DEAD. That's great but you can't have that historical relationship between hero and arch villian. There's something just satisfying when [Hero] is headed for a showdown with his greatest enemy whom he has been sparring with for 50 years.

#30 Edited by DATNIGGA (1207 posts) - - Show Bio

@ImTheDamnBatman said:

@DATNIGGA He's done stuff before. He locked someone up named KGBeast and left him to starve. Once he set a bunch of criminals on fire. The thing about Batman is that he doesn't want to kill, but if he absolutely needs to he will. Also he doesn't care if he's not the cause of death. Batman has encouraged Superman to kill Luthor before.

Then why isn't Joker dead? thats someone who should be locked up & left to starve

#31 Posted by ImTheDamnBatman (3548 posts) - - Show Bio

@DATNIGGA Because he's never really found himself in a situation where he needs to kill Joker. In Hush, Batman was seconds away from killing Joker. The only reason he didn't was because Jim Gordon convinced him not to.

#32 Posted by consolemaster001 (5895 posts) - - Show Bio

thank you thank you THANK YOU . If spidey had killed norman (after the death of gwen stacy at least) here's what he could have avoided:

He would never have risen as director of HAMMER.

Asgard wouldn't have been destroyed.

His daughter would have been alive.

Dark reign would never happen.

Sentry (bob reynolds) wouldn't have went berserk.

The Dark avengers and the cabal would have never existed.

Norman's and gwen's "children" wouldn't be evil.

Loki and ares wouldn't die

Thwe Punisher wouldn't have died (yeah he's better now but he died in dark reign: the list).

If spidey would have ended this asshole none of these would have happend ! This further proves my point that heroes like batman and spiderman are doing more harm than good (their the reason half the villians exist.). And Superman, the "boy scout" had the balls to dispose of doomsday and general zod !

I don't know, i guess i'm overreacting a bit...

Online
#33 Posted by WaveMotionCannon (5546 posts) - - Show Bio

You're absolutely right.

#34 Posted by giantsfan576 (1095 posts) - - Show Bio

No. All of this may be true but if they do kill, there's nothing that separates the heroes from the villains. It's the legal systems fault that the most dangerous enemies aren't dead already. Can't believe all you people have no morals.

#35 Edited by 8008S (507 posts) - - Show Bio

DD said heroes "don't know all the answers" but "supplanting the legal system, being judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one" isn't one of them (I'm paraphrasing here). While we might have our own real life morality scales (and consequently disagreement over them), characters like Spider-Man work under definitions of hero according to their own scale and tradition (the actual Peter Parker, that is): in his case, a no killing code. Calling it lack of balls or moral high ground is sort of linked to whether you like the character (since it's one of the most important aspects of the mythos) and how well one can adjust to the principles and viewpoints the story offers.

That said I will speak my mind, the whole "It's heroes' fault when their villains escape and do awful sh*t" is a pretty poor argument. One cannot be blamed for whatever misguided damage another person decides to inflict upon others, imo.

#36 Posted by angelalfonso (1082 posts) - - Show Bio
#37 Posted by MASTER_OF_SUPRISE (719 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm going to disagree with the idea highly for 3 reasons. 1.If a hero killed all their enemies we'd lose several ideas of good stories. 2.To blame the hero for what a villain did is like blaming a country on one person. 3.Finally if they all killed their enemies nothing would make their characters unique or stand out. The fact that Peter doesn't kill is part of what helps Kaine stand out in the new Scarlet Spider series.

#38 Posted by giantsfan576 (1095 posts) - - Show Bio

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.