• 61 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by Teerack

Nope. Comic books worlds really need more people willing to execute all the criminals.

Posted by AllStarSuperman

I love Greg Paks directness? also I agree with Kyle Higgins as well.

Posted by patrat18


Posted by SwampPing

If I ever have to bring someone in I'm definitely taking them out to dinner first lol, but in all seriousness Justin Jordan really nailed the answer here, Snyder was a close second.

Edited by iceslick

Nope, I don't think they should. Because they don't have the right to. They aren't cops or armed forces and last time I checked being. a vilgante is against the law too. So in a sense they are criminals too and who knows maybe they will someday will have to come to a choice that they have to off someone and I don't think they would want to turn themselves in. I know I might get a uproar for this. But they don't have the right to be patrolling other heroes beliefs.

Posted by Extremis

This is actually very interesting. I never thought why heroes don't go after someone like Punisher. I mean if you have heroes who are idealistic enough, and believe killing is always punishable, then they shouldn't and wouldn't stand for it.

Posted by Time_Phantom

I'm gonna say NO. But it'll happen regardless. Other heroes don't have the right to bring in other heroes that kill. Wolverine is a member of the friggin Avengers if they brought him in to answer for everyone he's ever killed now they'd all be hypocrites. Wonder Woman a founding Justice League member the last time I checked didn't mind putting bad guys to the sword if the case warranted it. Oh and Green Arrow shooting people with... well arrows.

I could keep going. Like every time super heroes put someone away and they escape, how many more people do they kill? They get locked up again. They escape and do it all over again. Super Heroes could be called criminals themselves.

That all being said I don't think you count as a super hero if you kill anyway. At that point you're more of a traditional vigilante to me. But the "super heroes" can't judge someone who believes differently on how to handle criminals. Seeing heroes next to other heroes that kill is interesting to see. That's why I thought War Zone (The Punisher vs. Avengers) was interesting. You've got the Punisher, who most of the other Avengers think is just some guy with guns up until he embarrasses several of them. (Blowing up Tony with his own armor was gold, don't care what anyone says about it.) Anyways these killer vigilantes are good for super heroes. Gives us more to think about.

Posted by TheAcidSkull

yes. Maybe not guys like green Arrow who only do it when there is no choice, but people like Punisher should be apprehended.

Posted by Kelevra216

Yes and No. Depends on the hero and their principles. So, pretty much I'm with Snyder. Pretty much Batman will go after other heroes that kill, hence his contingency plans from before.

Slightly off-topic: Usually when anybody kills anybody there should be repercussions but because of the ridiculously long timeline and continuity, those repercussions are pretty much useless. Then out of the whole continuity, only the highlights of the run are important.

I still believe in necessary killing (if there are no other options and judge/jury/executioner moments for some stories. It's just so cathartic under the right story elements.

Posted by Jekylhyde14

Of course, it always depends on the context and there should be exceptions to the rule depending on the circumstances. It's my personal belief, however, that superheroes that rely on killing to solve problems are not really superheroes. Sorry, if you do that then you become a mass murderer and you should hand in your gun and badge... and probably seek counseling. My answer is yes. They should go after people like the Punisher because that kind of behavior is just as destructive and counter-productive as anything a supervillain does. A true hero should always try to find a better way and should always believe in redemption. Castle should have been behind bars and gone through rehabilitation by now. Wolverine should have never been allowed in the Avengers. Superheroes should not kill.

I'm really glad that Oliver has been straying away from it in Arrow, and I hope that the new Superman learns this lesson post Man of Steel.

Edited by bob808

No. There needs to be a balance between heroes who kill and heroes who don't kill.

Posted by Mrgreenlantern

no we need proper balance of good and evil , our heroes should be black n white while the villains can be a shade of grey.

Edited by bob808
Posted by Jasoninthewoods

In reality Batman would have snapped by now ,and killed The Joker.

But you would lose a great villain :)

Posted by Kairan1979

@mrgreenlantern: that's not much a balance if the heroes are unwilling to do what't necessary while the villaing kill, burn and pillage without hesitation and regret.

Posted by amseaton

This depends on one's definition of "hero." Are heroes that kill really heroes or Anti-Heroes?

An Anti-Heroes is main character in a book, play, movie, etc., who does not have the usual good qualities that are expected in a hero (like refusing to kill).

Posted by danny_vasey

@jasoninthewoods: It's actually debated as to whether or not he did kill The Joker in The Killing Joke, but I know what you mean. Simple fact is if comics were wrote to be 'real' we'd likely have no good villains left ...

Edited by Asagod

Like everybody else said, it really depends on the situation.

Posted by Cafeterialoca

Can of worms that will be handled horribly simply because Wolverine will be hypocritical and somehow get a free pass by the other heroes.

Admit it, they will bullcrap us about how Wolverine doesn't get targeted.

Edited by StMichalofWilson

I say yes, because you never know if the heroes that kill become more dangerous or villainous due to thier actions.

Posted by blackkitty

@iceslick: You do realize if they don't have the right to go after them then... what right do they have to fight crime in the first place?

Posted by blackkitty

Well, this is a question I was always curious about. I mean, look at Scarlet Witch who killed other avengers like Jack of Hearts, removed the mutant powers from thousands of people destroying their lives and yet... it's all A-OK cause you know, she's an Avenger. At the same time, if Doctor Doom did that he'd be public enemy #1 so... hey matters more who you know than what you do.

Posted by Rubear

No. They should execute villians themselfs.

Edited by E1000

Is the soundtrack 65daysofstatic ??

Posted by Elwoodtoast

One thing I don't see being addressed is the difference between killing and murdering. One is criminal and the other isn't necessarily. Heroes shouldn't murder by deffinition of hero. But there are many instances where killing is legal, and perhaps even laudable.

Edited by AskaniSon295

Yes and then decide if the killing was necessary, and have a super-hero trial by super-heroes.

Edited by iceslick

@blackkitty: Of course I realize they don't have the right to fight crime. That's why I voiced my opinion.

Posted by thenexusrebound

I think there is a sort of gray area as several pointed out. Some villains just become worse after they are taken in, the anti-heroes do the dirty work that the heroes moral code won't allow. Now if the anti-heroes and such go around killing at random yes they need to be stopped.

Posted by cascadeking09

I think it depends on how far they go. Sometimes killing can be a more effective solution for the crimes that have been committed by a villian(s), but at the same time "heroes" cant just go around playing God all willy nilly, executing anyone who doesn't do right. Everyone does deserve a chance to change, however characters like the Joker should be imo. It is true that the ends don't justify the means, but somebody has to be willing to get their hands dirty too.

Posted by Noone301994

Absolutely not.

Edited by MN_Logan

I've always found it hilarious that people like Captain America and Spiderman go after murderers, yet Punisher and Wolverine get a free pass and no one cares when they kill a bunch of people. I guess it's ok because Wolverine is an Avenger. Because if there's one thing I learned from the Scarlett Witch killing a bunch of people and depowering 99% of the mutants, it's that Avengers can do whatever they want with no consequences.

In all seriousness though, I really wish this type of thing was adressed in comics, it could make for a really interesting story and answer a lot of questions, rather than the stupid "it's ok that they kill people because they're the good guys" nonsense.

Posted by Nightw BR

I think it depends, if a hero kills Darkseid for attacking Earth then that may be a reasonable kill, but if they kill a villain that is thieving then yes they should be chased after.

Posted by PeppeyHare

@mn_logan: Logan kills in defense of himself and others. Comparing him to punisher makes no sense.

Edited by Luchian

@teerack said:

Nope. Comic books worlds really need more people willing to execute all the criminals.

Batman should have culled his Rogues Gallery years ago. It would've saved countless lives.

Edited by ScarletBatman

You kill Darkseid or the Joker - completely justified.

You kill some C-List villain whose worst crime was robbing a bank? Probably not justified.

Having said that, are there any heroes out there whose hands are not stained?

Posted by HillbillyMorangie

Excellent video...should fictional media be teaching people what's right and wrong?... Personally I wonder if it should, comics, films and tv are the new medium and we have nothing that's replaced religion or fable anymore, sure in the 80s every child's cartoon did, from Captain Planet to the get along gang had a moral at the end.

Yes, I think every hero should deal with this, murder should be cause inner turmoil to a hero, and have repercussions for an anti hero, like someone wolverine killed 50 years ago has cause a community to develop that seeks to impression and torture him, in reality deaths rarely go unnoticed yet in comics people just die (see Austin Powers movies for a spin on that trope) and no one cares...

But why stick to murder (or killing in 'wars') have all crimes and poor choices go punished, or cause hardships, even some of the 'good' heros commit could have 'evil' after effects (wrath of khan is a good film for that).

But then a lot of comics do address issues, but as someone said in the video, it depends on the comic, maybe that should change, maybe your womaniser should get done for sexual harassment, your drunk should loose all their money, your killers should be put in prison, but then it could kill a story, it would have to be done well. Maybe the new She Hulk run will look at some of these issues, as Dan Slotts did? Maybe there is a market for a cross publishing house hero who can go in to get compensation for families, who fights to see superman pay for his crimes against minions and people caught in the cross fire? Personally I would enjoy it, but then I like anything that breaks genre conventions.

Posted by Paracelsus

Depends on the circumstances I suppose- painful though it is to accept, even law enforcement officers (be they Feds like FBI, DEA. ATF or local cops such as in Philly from which I just returned after spending Thanksgiving with my cousins) have to use deadly force "in the line of duty"(just as soldiers do in wartime). But even so, there are circumstances in which killing is unjustifiable- as the recent conviction of a Royal Marine sergeant by a court martial in the UK for the murder of a captured Taliban insurgent makes clear)- the hero(has anybody noticed that heroines kill even more rarely than their male counterparts? in question should be compelled to have his rationale for killing thorougly explained- just as police officers do when they are involved in an Officer Involved Shooting. Some heroes such as Iron Man, the FF, Spider-Man , Daredevil and others like Thor(despite being not just a God of Thunder, but one of battle as well) have never killed, whilst even squeaky clean types like Captain America have been known to kill at times!


Posted by DaseanComerWCR

Someone like punisher? Yea probably but someone like black panther or wolverine nope

Posted by Mrfuzzynutz

Interesting thought.. I was always under the belief, characters like The Punisher, or a Ghost Rider, even Moon Knight to a lesser degree..

They essentially are fighting the same fight as guys like Spider-Man and Daredevil just their methods differ...A LOT. But I think you want to be able to have a line that a guy like the Punisher can't cross, as long as his activities are kept out of the press, and doesn't bring attention on himself, or the superhero community as a whole, you allow them to operate their way.

But once the media starts turning on superheroes, and the mistrusting them, due to his actions, that is when you need to send someone in to "take him down".

And the fun part about characters like Frank. He is the perfect underdog, because The bright and shiny heroes like Spider-man and The Avengers rarely think of him, and when they do it is nothing more then a crazy guy with alot of guns, but The Punisher thinks about them, and he thinks about them as just another obstacle he needs to get around to finish the job.

Posted by WaveMotionCannon

Tynion and Capullo were the only ones I agreed with.

Heroes are forced to kill to protect innocents, Green Lanterns kill when necessary, Earth heroes killed Skrulls during the Secret Invasion and Infinity, Thor killed enemies of Asgard in the past, does that make him not a hero? I have no problem with putting a villain down that you know will kill and harm innocents like Massacre or The Joker for example.

Edited by fodigg

Interesting question. If superhero universes were the "real world" then oh my heavens yes. Punisher and his ilk are killers that need to be taken down. But trying to jam the superhero genre conventions (e.g., teen sidekicks, punching solves everything, super-powered street brawling) into a realistic setting only leads to frustrating storylines of half-measures toward reasonability that are then promptly forgotten again when convenient (e.g., Civil War).

Punisher and Spider-Man are both "comic book heroes" but their inspiration material comes from very different sources. Comic book universes are ones where we have Western characters and Hard Boiled Detective characters and Pulp-era Sci-Fi characters etc. If you try to enforce the rules of one overlapping genre across the entire universe, you wind up hurting the whole, because it won't fit everyone.

Shared comic book universes are ones where we should be able to have horror characters, hard-boiled cops, vengeful vigilantes, ninjas, robots, space crusaders, noble knights in armor, idealistic heroes, demi-gods and demi-goddesses, and all other manner of characters overlapping, and sometimes you just need to suspend disbelief a bit to make that work. I mean, imagine Jean-Luc Picard teaming up with John Luther or Jaime Lannister. In any of their individual settings that wouldn't jive, but in shared-universe comics, it has to.

Posted by ZombieMowlcher

I think Punisher is one of the heroes I would think other heroes would go after. I remember in Suicide Kings, Punisher tries to kill Deadpool without even trying to figure out if he was innocent. Kinda like his first appearance with Spiderman.

Posted by fodigg

@mn_logan: Logan kills in defense of himself and others. Comparing him to punisher makes no sense.

I think that depends entirely on who is writing each character.

Edited by RazzaTazz

In reality, most of the teams that exist in comics would be really dysfunctional. They only exist as they do to sell more comics. An Avengers team with Tony Stark, Wolverine, CA and Spider Man would be torn apart by infighting after a day.

Edited by DarkDay

@blackkitty said:

@iceslick: You do realize if they don't have the right to go after them then... what right do they have to fight crime in the first place?

Well you could argue that they don't have any right to fight crime. Most Superheros are vigilantes and are thus breaking the law themselves. However most comic governments allow it simply because what other choice do they have when beings with powers and abilities beyond the human norm are having throw downs in the streets?

The only choice really is if you'll foster nobility among the super powered elite or if you'll try to confront them directly and thus force people that would otherwise be beneficial to society to rebel against it with the previously mentioned powers and abilities beyond the norm. That's not to say that the government couldn't go after them, but that is to say that logically it doesn't make sense to poke the sleeping dragon with a toothpick.

@fodigg said:

@peppeyhare said:

@mn_logan: Logan kills in defense of himself and others. Comparing him to punisher makes no sense.

I think that depends entirely on who is writing each character.

Agreed. Logan has killed for vengeance quite a few times and that's not defense at all... On the other hand The Punisher killing a bunch of gangsters that are running a human trafficking ring...

There is some really fun contrasts and overlap in comics that I enjoy immensely. Also your statement about shared comic universes; I totally agree with that.

Edited by greenlucario

I don't know I suppose yes they should go after them because that's the M.O. of your Spider-Man and Captain America type characters that only see in black and white and that's what we love about them. But in the end they shouldn't take them in cause the ones like Moon Knight, Ghost Rider, and Kaine that deal in the gray areas are also important because they do the jobs that other heroes that don't kill can't.

  • 61 results
  • 1
  • 2