Female Role Models in DC Universe

[Tron Bonne]

Telling different types of stories and making a more nuanced, or at least different, meditation on ethics? I personally prefer injecting this kind of realism in super hero stories. If super heroes are supposed to inspire us morally, and they always have easy moral decisions, then it accomplishes nothing. If they're highly moral people who find themselves, from time to time, in situations where there is no other way, and the story explores how they deal with that ethically, then that can actually impact our morals and how we engage the world in a meaningful way. Not to say that super heroes finding another way can't engage us and shape our morals meaningfully, showing how ethical people think their way out of murky ethical situations and find a better way is also an incredibly important lesson for people to learn, as well as people who are steadfast in their morals against injustice from the get to. But if their lives are nothing but third options and easy moral decisions, then they lose impact as role models. They can't teach us to be better people if they don't go through real psychological and emotional conflict.

I'm sorry, I just don't see the point in that. No, not all superheroes should be super moralists, I can agree, and I guess there's room for the anti-hero view in comicdom, but for the true, blue superheroes, it just seems pointless to even consider them some kind of 'moral inspiration' when they're moral center is as flip-floppy and paper-thin as those centers tend to be in real life (especially with Wonder Woman, to me).

If that's the logic you're going to have, it seems to the best option is just to have stories about cops and detectives living in a more realistic landscape where there's no room for fantasy. Because the only way that path leads for superheroes is Watchmen-esque and The Authority-esque, because that's as realistic as you get superheroes and how they react and have moral centers to injections of realism. And, well, if that's the kind of superhero tone you want, you're certainly not alone, but I think it sucks as a standard and is part of what's brought the genre down in recent years.

 

[Hound55]

I disagree.

At the moment there's shades of ethics in the superhero community as with regular people and I don't mind it at all. I find it interesting.

I like that different heroes have different places where they drift away from the curve. I think it's important that the pure light always be represented (in DC that's probably Superman, in Marvel I'd say Steve Rogers) but it would be boring if they all had the same moral position on all issues.

 

[Manic]

Let's not forget that this argument sparked out of Wonder Woman, a character who also strongly believes in reformation and redemption when possible.

 

[Tron Bonne]

I disagree.

At the moment there's shades of ethics in the superhero community as with regular people and I don't mind it at all. I find it interesting.

I like that different heroes have different places where they drift away from the curve. I think it's important that the pure light always be represented (in DC that's probably Superman, in Marvel I'd say Steve Rogers) but it would be boring if they all had the same moral position on all issues.

That's why I said there was room for the anti-hero viewpoint, and that not all heroes have to be super moralists. You can not be a completely good person, but strive not to kill and be a better person (early Wolverine is a good example, I believe, when he still had the humanity struggle going on), but if we're going to make even the entire superhero genre in moral grays, like Watchmen and The Authority, yeah, it just doesn't seem like there's much point to it. Just make them outright anti-heroes or strip it down to cops and detectives in a more realistic setting where a super moral gray area is expected, and maybe have some lighter fantastic elements.

Obviously this opinion is unpopular, but I think when you start imprinting this level of realism to the superhero genre, and characters that are meant to be idealized, you kill the point of it all. And it will never cease to baffle me that people see the need to do this, but I guess this is how society has shifted.

 

[Hound55]

Almost the entire superhero genre IS greys already.

Spidey sold his marriage to the devil, Identity Crisis split factions in DC...

It's just some are very, very light shades of grey, while others are merely very light or light shades of grey.

 

[The Question]

I'm sorry, I just don't see the point in that. No, not all superheroes should be super moralists, I can agree, and I guess there's room for the anti-hero view in comicdom, but for the true, blue superheroes, it just seems pointless to even consider them some kind of 'moral inspiration' when they're moral center is as flip-floppy and paper-thin as those centers tend to be in real life (especially with Wonder Woman, to me).

If that's the logic you're going to have, it seems to the best option is just to have stories about cops and detectives living in a more realistic landscape where there's no room for fantasy. Because the only way that path leads for superheroes is Watchmen-esque and The Authority-esque, because that's as realistic as you get superheroes and how they react and have moral centers to injections of realism. And, well, if that's the kind of superhero tone you want, you're certainly not alone, but I think it sucks and is part of what's brought the genre down in recent years.

In what way is what I'm talking about paper thin moral flip flopping? I'm not talking about people arbitrarily deciding that it's okay or not okay to kill people. I'm talking about someone with strong morals being in a situation where there is no third option to take. The idea that there's always another way has nothing to do with the characters' morality. It has to do with the circumstances they find themselves in. If they're in a situation where they either this one guy dies, or countless people die for an undetermined amount of time, and there are no other options, that whatever they choose isn't a sign of them having weak morals, it's a sign of them being completely out of alternatives.

I'm not talking about anti-heroes. I'm not talking about Punisher or Rorschach types. I'm talking about having the morals of these characters and their status as a role model actually mean something, by making their moral stance actually difficult to enact practically. Wether or not they cling onto their ethics in the face of that logistical, emotional, and psycholical hardship, as well as how they make ethical decisions in no-win scenarios, that's interesting, and that's a place where people can actually learn something about morality. If being moral is easy for them, then we don't learn anything. Of course someone will be a good person when it's easy.

It's also a huge leap from what I'm saying to The Authority or The Watchmen and to say they're your only options. I think there are plenty of ways to show how super heroes react morally to realistic situations in their stories, because their are more possible combinations of characters and situations than either of us could count. The Authority is one, unified and extreme reaction to morally difficult situations that I do disagree with in many respects, and while it is interesting (when the writers remember to not portray everything they do as the best thing ever but actually address the ambiguity), it's not your only option.

And Watchmen is actually somewhat closer to what I'm talking about in that you see a whole spectrum of moral possisions. You've got Nite-Owl and Silk Specter, who pretty much are true blue super heroes (albeit Julie's a bit more cynical), you've got Rorchach, who's crazy obsessed with justice and punishment, you've got The Comedian, who's just a schoolyard bully who found a way to hurt people on a government sallary, you've got Dr. Manhattan, who straight up doesn't care, and you've got Ozymandias, who's become so obsessed with the big picture of saving the world that he's grown detatched from individuals. That's complex, and that's interesting, and seeing how these characters react, ethically, to the no-win scenario in the story does raise a lot of questions about who's right and who's wrong that are worth thinking about.

But it's still not the only way you can approach it. You can have a hero kill someone when there was no option and then turn himself over the the authorities and let the courts decide what to do with him, or vow to never let that one moment drag him down into drakness permantently, or choose not to kill the guy and have to deal with the consequences. And that's just dealing with one scenario. You can approach it with a thousand different themes and a thousand different tones, the the story ending on a cynical, bitter-sweet, or optimistic note depending on how the character's final decision is portrayed. There's a lot of things you can get out of not making things easy for the hero. And I think they're a lot more meaningful than the alternative. You can't learn anything about morals from someone who never had to struggle with them, because morals are inherently a source of struggle. And I think that looking up to someone who has it easy and doesn't have to work at being a good person is ultimately pointless.

 

[Tron Bonne]

Almost the entire superhero genre IS greys already.

Spidey sold his marriage to the devil, Identity Crisis split factions in DC...

It's just some are very, very light shades of grey, while others are merely very light or light shades of grey.

I realize, and that's what I'm arguing against. I don't think the Watchmenizing of the mainstream superhero genre is good, and been something that's driven me away from the genre over the years. And I just find these real life rationalizations for these characters and situations so absurd, almost to the point of defeating the point of even writing superheroes.

But it's still not the only way you can approach it. You can have a hero kill someone when there was no option and then turn himself over the the authorities and let the courts decide what to do with him, or vow to never let that one moment drag him down into drakness permantently, or choose not to kill the guy and have to deal with the consequences. And that's just dealing with one scenario. You can approach it with a thousand different themes and a thousand different tones, the the story ending on a cynical, bitter-sweet, or optimistic note depending on how the character's final decision is portrayed. There's a lot of things you can get out of not making things easy for the hero. And I think they're a lot more meaningful than the alternative. You can't learn anything about morals from someone who never had to struggle with them, because morals are inherently a source of struggle. And I think that looking up to someone who has it easy and doesn't have to work at being a good person is ultimately pointless.

Well, sure, but that's not what been argued about in here at all. This isn't a case of struggle, this is a case of justifying someone killing and then being fine with it, with no problems. Here, you imply there's an inherent problem with it, and just read that scan SF posted. There's no ambiguity, no struggle, no worry of permanently going into the darkness, just a hero who thinks murdering those 'irredeemable' is okie dokey.

 

[The Question]

Well, sure, but that's not what been argued about in here at all. This isn't a case of struggle, this is a case of justifying someone killing and then being fine with it, with no problems. Here, you imply there's an inherent problem with it, and just read that scan SF posted. There's no ambiguity, no struggle, no worry of permanently going into the darkness, just a hero who thinks murdering those 'irredeemable' is okie dokey.

I don't mind Diana being fine with it. She knew she had no other option, and she doesn't strike me as the type who'd beat herself up over doing something when there wasn't anything else she could do.

The scan SF posted, BTW, is from before the incident with Max. So, take that for what you will.

 

[Tron Bonne]

I don't mind Diana being fine with it. She knew she had no other option, and she doesn't strike me as the type who'd beat herself up over doing something when there wasn't anything else she could do.

Why couldn't she have just knocked him out? And it's interesting you say that latter part, too, to me.

The scan SF posted, BTW, is from before the incident with Max. So, take that for what you will.

I know, it's from Identity Crisis, I think, but the principle is basically the same. There's no struggle like you mention, killing 'those kind of people' is good, in fact, preferable. She was talking about Dr. Light, but hell, it goes doubly for someone like Maxwell Lord.

 

[The Question]

Why couldn't she have just knocked him out? And it's interesting you say that latter part, too, to me.

Because when he came to he'd still have control over Superman. And he could use that control to keep everyone at an arm's length.

Although, that does raise an interesting question about putting him in a medically induced coma.

I know, it's from Identity Crisis, I think, but the principle is basically the same. There's no struggle like you mention, murder 'those kind of people' is good, in fact, preferable.

Yes, that that's that character's opinion, at least as it's presented in that story. Doesn't mean it's being presnted as correct. And I never said that a struggle of some kind would make it good.

 

[Manic]

nevermind

 

[Tron Bonne]

Because when he came to he'd still have control over Superman. And he could use that control to keep everyone at an arm's length.

Although, that does raise an interesting question about putting him in a medically induced coma.

Exactly, all of a sudden the 'there was no other way' goes out the window. Knocking him out, putting him in some psychic damping device or magic dome or something was an option. Or hell, we could have just had Wonder Woman fight Superman until he broke free. There's an amazing amount of options when you realize how true the superhero cliche of 'There's always a way' rings for the genre.

Yes, that that's that character's opinion, at least as it's presented in that story. Doesn't mean it's being presnted as correct. And I never said that a struggle of some kind would make it good.

Well, sure, nothing will make anything inherently good or bad, but you are promoting that for this kind of situation, right? Am I misunderstanding you?

 

[The Question]

Exactly, all of a sudden the 'there was no other way' goes out the window. Knocking him out, putting him in some psychic damping device or magic dome or something was an option. Or hell, we could have just had Wonder Woman fight Superman until he broke free. There's an amazing amount of options when you realize how true the superhero cliche of 'There's always a way' rings for the genre.

I think, in that case, you're getting into Deus Ex Machina territory. There was every indication that there was no way Superman would ever break free on his own.

But back to the subject of "there's always wa way." Yes, a writer can create a scenario where there is another option. But my point is that when there's always a way, then super heroes make lousy role models, because there isn't anything special with people who've never faced a situation where the moral decision wasn't easy.

Well, sure, nothing will make anything inherently good or bad, but you are promoting that for this kind of situation, right? Am I misunderstanding you?

I'm promoting it, but I'm also promoting it's oppiste. I like options.

 

[Tron Bonne]

I think, in that case, you're getting into Deus Ex Machina territory. There was every indication that there was no way Superman would ever break free on his own.

Dude, he's Superman, and she's Wonder Woman.

But back to the subject of "there's always wa way." Yes, a writer can create a scenario where there is another option. But my point is that when there's always a way, then super heroes make lousy role models, because there isn't anything special with people who've never faced a situation where the moral decision wasn't easy.

They make lousy role models, because they have the option of not killing? Not following at all. If anything, is the choice not to kill Max Lord far more moralistic, when he just turned on your forces and killed a valued and loved member of your super hero circle, than just saying to hell with this creep and killing him? Or, in our case, finding a way not to lose any life with the whole mind control stuff?

Besides, I think the moral values of heroes should lay in more than their body count. I think Wonder Woman's views of reformation and love are a big part of that, that ideal, but the ideal fades fast when she sees okay killing people without consequence okay, great even, as long as the person is 'irredeemable', whatever the hell that implies.

I'm promoting it, but I'm also promoting it's opposite. I like options.

For certain heroes, sure, but for heroes like these, with these realistic rationalizations and contexts, seems pointless.

 

[The Question]

Dude, he's Superman, and she's Wonder Woman.

What does that have to do with anything?

They make lousy role models, because they have the option of not killing? Not following at all. If anything, is the choice not to kill Max Lord far more moralistic, when he just turned on your forces and killed a valued and loved member of your super hero circle, than just saying to hell with this creep and killing him? Besides, I think the moral values of heroes should lay in more than their body count. I think Wonder Woman's views of reformation and love are a big part of that, that ideal, but the ideal fades fast when she sees okay killing people without consequence okay, great even, as long as the person is 'irredeemable', whatever the hell that implies.

I think I've made my point pretty clear, but I'll try again.

If there really is always another way, when, for the heroes, the only choice is between murdering people when they don't have to or not, when it's never actually difficult to be a highly moral person, then they're of very little use as role models. What keeps morals from being universal isn't just greed, selfishness, or hate, it's also the fact that there are situations in life where it's difficult, or even impossible, to do the right thing. What defines someone's morals is how they deal with those situations, not how they deal with situations where moral decisions are easy. What makes someone worth looking up to (or not) is how they hold on to their morals (or not) in such situations. Thus, if super heroes are truly going to be role models to us, then there have to be situations where there isn't another option, because that's when their dedication to their morals, or lack thereof, actually means something.

You're right, in a situation where you have the option of not killing someone, not killing them is more moral. But if you're in a situation where you have no choice, then what does the moral person do? That's interesting, and that's where you can actually learn something about morals.

 

[Tron Bonne]

What does that have to do with anything?

With the smallest bit of imagination, it literally has everything to do with it. Not even being silly or anything, 100% serious.

If there really is always another way, when, for the heroes, the only choice is between murdering people when they don't have to or not, when it's never actually difficult to be a highly moral person, then they're of very little use as role models. What keeps morals from being universal isn't just greed, selfishness, or hate, it's also the fact that there are situations in life where it's difficult, or even impossible, to do the right thing. What defines someone's morals is how they deal with those situations, not how they deal with situations where moral decisions are easy. What makes someone worth looking up to (or not) is how they hold on to their morals (or not) in such situations. Thus, if super heroes are truly going to be role models to us, then there have to be situations where there isn't another option, because that's when their dedication to their morals, or lack thereof, actually means something.

Eh, I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with this at all. Puts far too much real life weight on these characters. Sure, interesting to explore, but the slope is far too slippery to dive right into situations like these that defeat the point of idealized superheroes. Of course, if you don't like idealized heroes, we'll just have to disagree on what we prefer.

You're right, in a situation where you have the option of not killing someone, not killing them is more moral. But if you're in a situation where you have no choice, then what does the moral person do? That's interesting, and that's where you can actually learn something about morals.

But what are we learning about morals in this situation that's being talked about? And, more importantly, what do those morals actually mean in a world were killing means nothing? How can you carry any of these morals to this world when they obviously don't apply.

 

[Hound55]

Eh, I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with this at all. Puts far too much real life weight on these characters. Sure, interesting to explore, but the slope is far too slippery to dive right into situations like these that defeat the point of idealized superheroes. Of course, if you don't like idealized heroes, we'll just have to disagree on what we prefer.

What if you like idealized heroes but think they become better and more interesting when not every single character is the same cut-out idealized hero?

 

[Tron Bonne]

What if you like idealized heroes but think they become better and more interesting when not every single character is the same cut-out idealized hero?

Already covered:

I'm sorry, I just don't see the point in that. No, not all superheroes should be super moralists, I can agree, and I guess there's room for the anti-hero view in comicdom, but for the true, blue superheroes, it just seems pointless to even consider them some kind of 'moral inspiration' when they're moral center is as flip-floppy and paper-thin as those centers tend to be in real life (especially with Wonder Woman, to me).

If that's the logic you're going to have, it seems to the best option is just to have stories about cops and detectives living in a more realistic landscape where there's no room for fantasy. Because the only way that path leads for superheroes is Watchmen-esque and The Authority-esque, because that's as realistic as you get superheroes and how they react and have moral centers to injections of realism. And, well, if that's the kind of superhero tone you want, you're certainly not alone, but I think it sucks as a standard and is part of what's brought the genre down in recent years.

That's why I said there was room for the anti-hero viewpoint, and that not all heroes have to be super moralists. You can not be a completely good person, but strive not to kill and be a better person (early Wolverine is a good example, I believe, when he still had the humanity struggle going on), but if we're going to make even the entire superhero genre in moral grays, like Watchmen and The Authority, yeah, it just doesn't seem like there's much point to it. Just make them outright anti-heroes or strip it down to cops and detectives in a more realistic setting where a super moral gray area is expected, and maybe have some lighter fantastic elements.

Obviously this opinion is unpopular, but I think when you start imprinting this level of realism to the superhero genre, and characters that are meant to be idealized, you kill the point of it all. And it will never cease to baffle me that people see the need to do this, but I guess this is how society has shifted.

Though, I feel as if that's kind of going against what we're really talking about in here before that. The whole thing is 'This character was okay to kill this character because there's no other, and it was cool they did, because that guy was a *****e', putting it against real standards and rationalizations.

 

[BrianWilly]

And what happens when, in the process of "finding another way," Max makes Superman attack her again, or has him going after other people? He'd almost killed Batman. He almost threw her into the sun. Every second that Max is conscious is a second where Superman could take an innocent life; it's only through sheer dumb luck that he hasn't already. Like they'd mentioned in the issue, what would have happened if he had knocked her into a populated area? He's Superman and she's Wonder Woman so they would have...found a way?

So let's say they somehow circumvent the immediate danger of Superman killing anyone who gets close to Max. They manage to get Max into some sort of coma-inducing machine, so the next step is to...what, put Max in a lifelong coma? Possibly lobotomize him? How's that any different from a mindwipe? Diana has already mentioned that, in her worldview, killing someone is less immoral than molesting their mind like that.

And I think people sometimes forget that Diana turned herself in after killing Max. She doesn't regret the act itself, but she was fully willing to judged for it in accordance to the laws of the civilized world. People seem to have a very vigilante-like impression of Wonder Woman's beliefs, but she participated in due process willingly and was eventually exonerated through completely civil procedures. She didn't kill Max lightly. She understood the consequences of doing so. This was clearly not a case of "killing means nothing." Not in the comics that I read.

'There's always a way.'

And I got no problem with that stance. I think it's entirely defensible for a superhero to be fighting for a world where killing someone would never be necessary. But as evidenced, Wonder Woman never subscribed to that. She has killed before Max. And like I said: if Superman is going to lambaste her for it, then he should be going around criticizing every single police officer and soldier who has ever had to do the same. Yes, she has more power and options at her disposal than regular law enforcers...but she's also not going around snapping the necks of bank robbers and drug dealers; Max was hardly a regular threat.

It's the same with the other oft-touted rationale for not killing: "All life is precious." Okay, that's fair. Sanctity of life. But what about...aliens? Monsters? Extradimensionals? Artificial intelligence? Most superheroes who would never ever kill a human being wouldn't even blink at tossing someone like Brainiac into the sun. What's the difference between him and Max Lord? A PG-13 rating? It's hypocrisy.

And I hate it when heroes keep regurgitating these soundbites -- "There's always a way" "Life is precious" "It's wrong" "We stand for something better" "It's crossing the line" -- without understanding what they actually mean, simply out of habit because they think it's what the good guys should be saying. Why is it wrong? Why is it better? "Killing is wrong" is the beginning of the conversation, not the end! I agree with The Question on this; I want idealized heroes but I want their idealism explored. Otherwise they mean nothing, their words literally become just catchphrases for cartoon characters to drone.

As a sidenote, I recommend "Justice League Elite" to anyone wanting to read a nuanced, multi-dimensional story about the grey side of superheroism. I read through it all recently and was astounded at how much I liked it.

 

[The Question]

With the smallest bit of imagination, it literally has everything to do with it. Not even being silly or anything, 100% serious.

Yes, but if you keep making up reasons for why things should be easier for the characters, then it makes what they go through meaningless.

Eh, I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with this at all. Puts far too much real life weight on these characters. Sure, interesting to explore, but the slope is far too slippery to dive right into situations like these that defeat the point of idealized superheroes. Of course, if you don't like idealized heroes, we'll just have to disagree on what we prefer.

If there's no real life weight on these characters, then how can they be role models for our real lives?

And I have nothing against idealized super heroes. I have something agaisnt idealized situations. I'm not talking about making these characters any less moral, I'm talking about not always giving them an option.

But what are we learning about morals in this situation that's being talked about? And, more importantly, what do those morals actually mean in a world were killing means nothing? How can you carry any of these morals to this world when they obviously don't apply.

When did I say anything about killing meaning nothing?

Anyway, what we learn is how to take the moral path in a situation where you have no options, where it really is "one person dies or countless other people die and there's no third option." What's the right choice? How does that choice effect the rest of their lives and their moral decisions from that point on? How do they live with themselves and their decision? These are all things that do, or at least can, apply to real life in some way or another. And none of them imply that killing is meaningless.

 

[Tron Bonne]

And what happens when, in the process of "finding another way," Max makes Superman attack her again, or has him going after other people? He'd almost killed Batman. He almost threw her into the sun. Every second that Max is conscious is a second where Superman could take an innocent life; it's only through sheer dumb luck that he hasn't already. Like they'd mentioned in the issue, what would have happened if he had knocked her into a populated area? He's Superman and she's Wonder Woman so they would have...found a way?

So let's say they somehow circumvent the immediate danger of Superman killing anyone who gets close to Max. They manage to get Max into some sort of coma-inducing machine, so the next step is to...what, put Max in a lifelong coma? Possibly lobotomize him? How's that any different from a mindwipe? Diana has already mentioned that, in her worldview, killing someone is less immoral than molesting their mind like that.

And I think people sometimes forget that Diana turned herself in after killing Max. She doesn't regret the act itself, but she was fully willing to judged for it in accordance to the laws of the civilized world. People seem to have a very vigilante-like impression of Wonder Woman's beliefs, but she participated in due process willingly and was eventually exonerated through completely civil procedures. She didn't kill Max lightly. She understood the consequences of doing so. This was clearly not a case of "killing means nothing." Not in the comics that I read.

You know, you can take of this and apply it to just about any hero and villain. That's how loopy and slippy the logic gets.

And you misunderstood about what I said with 'killing means nothing' part, but that's my fault, bad choice of words. I meant to say 'death means nothing'.

And I got no problem with that stance. I think it's entirely defensible for a superhero to be fighting for a world where killing someone would never be necessary. But as evidenced, Wonder Woman never subscribed to that. She has killed before Max. And like I said: if Superman is going to lambaste her for it, then he should be going around criticizing every single police officer and soldier who has ever had to do the same.

And this, too, I think is a problem. They aren't cops, they're superheroes, and it's not the same. I don't remember the issue, but there's an old Legion issue where Superman defends a non-powered person for killing, but still condemns superheroes for killing, because they have powers and ways to prevent that from happening. Not sure on the writer or if he meant this with the story, but it serves very interesting as a commentary between the real world and the superhero comic world, and how they do not connect logically.

Yes, she has more power and options at her disposal than regular law enforcers...but she's also not going around snapping the necks of bank robbers and drug dealers; Max was hardly a regular threat.

Yeah, but that goes towards almost every powered Super Villain nowadays. Why not just kill them all with this logic?

It's the same with the other oft-touted rationale for not killing: "All life is precious." Okay, that's fair. Sanctity of life. But what about...aliens? Monsters? Extradimensionals? Artificial intelligence? Most superheroes who would never ever kill a human being wouldn't even blink at tossing someone like Brainiac into the sun. What's the difference between him and Max Lord? A PG-13 rating? It's hypocrisy.

Hey, don't put words in my mouth. I never said that was okay or whatever, but we all know the debate has raged about human killing. Personally, I prefer heroes not to kill even those, unless it's some kind of mindless robot or something, but when there's a conscious there, don't see it.

And I hate it when heroes keep regurgitating these soundbites -- "There's always a way" "Life is precious" "It's wrong" "We stand for something better" "It's crossing the line" -- without understanding what they actually mean, simply out of habit because they think it's what the good guys should be saying. Why is it wrong? Why is it better? "Killing is wrong" is the beginning of the conversation, not the end! I agree with The Question on this; I want idealized heroes but I want their idealism explored. Otherwise they mean nothing, their words literally become just catchphrases for cartoon characters to drone.

I guess we'll just have to call it a divide between our opinions, but I loves these things. I think there's room for exploration and deconstruction (and there has been many doing just that), but I don't know, I guess I just prefer the traditional heroes who don't need countless explorations and deconstructions to understand that killing is bad, helping is good, and love is all we have.

Yes, but if you keep making up reasons for why things should be easier for the characters, then it makes what they go through meaningless.

Yeah, like I said, I disagree

If there's no real life weight on these characters, then how can they be role models for our real lives?

I didn't say no real life weight, I said too much real life weight.

And I have nothing against idealized super heroes. I have something agaisnt idealized situations. I'm not talking about making these characters any less moral, I'm talking about not always giving them an option.

And, like I said, we'll just have to disagree on this, because I will always be a pretty firm believer in 'there's always a way' for the true bluers in mainstream superhero comics. There's plenty of room for other POWs, but that's always been a biggie to me.

When did I say anything about killing meaning nothing?

You didn't, and I wasn't trying to imply you did. Like I said above, I meant to say 'death means nothing' in the context of the comic world.

 

[hippie_hunter]

The biggest problem is that Max let Superman go. He was defeated. I don't have a problem with Wonder Woman killing, some superheroes deserve a little leeway when it comes to that golden rule. I have a problem with Wonder Woman killing when it's flat out murder.

She could have knocked him unconscious and imprisoned him before he took control of Superman once more. But no, she killed a man who was tied up.

 

[Stallion9979]

The biggest problem is that Max let Superman go. He was defeated. I don't have a problem with Wonder Woman killing, some superheroes deserve a little leeway when it comes to that golden rule. I have a problem with Wonder Woman killing when it's flat out murder.

She could have knocked him unconscious and imprisoned him before he took control of Superman once more. But no, she killed a man who was tied up.

Ok I read this thread and I love good debates...me personally I agree with her position...

If you re-read the scene he doesn't really let Superman go...he does it to toy with WW...his goal wasn't admitting defeat, he was merely proving a point that he could do it whenever he wanted...as a matter of fact while he's tied up he points out to Diana that now he's making Superman see Lois getting torn to shreds...he doesn't release Superman he merely changes what he's seeing...

There is an irony to the Death of Blue Beetle and Max Lord that I'm surprised no one picked up on...

When Ted is bound and Max is standing over him, he asks Max if its "Join or Die time" and the scene ends with Max executing him...Max in effect recreates this scene when bound by Diana...She has him tied up and he explains exactly what he is doing and why he is doing it...Superman is sitting in the corner losing his mind as Max is calmly telling Diana that murder is the only way to truly set Superman free...

By killing Max she is choosing the act of one evil to protect the greater good...any other option she so-called had would have been even more cruel then simple murder...

Does she mind wipe him? Induce a coma thereby basically killing him anyway? What would've been another solution other then murder that wouldn't have had anyone reading the story scratching their head saying that sucks? Anyway you go she has to do something immoral to stop Max and release Clark...She committed an act of mercy by ending it quickly and giving him a warriors death on the battlefield and sparing the world a god like being such as Superman from being unleashed...as someone else posted, it was by sheer luck that Clark didn't kill Bruce or the rest of the League and its even more unbelievable luck that her battle with him didn't result in massive casualties...

But if not...prove me wrong...what would you have done in Diana's place...

To me this isn't a comic book logic vs real life logic...this is a common sense issue...whether you are super powered or not...this is "What do you when you are faced with the real possibility of World War"...how far do you go to truly stop the threat whether morally bound or not...

 

[SuperFerret]

And I have to point out the irony that the guy whose always quick to call out Rorschach as a horrible misrepresentation of heroes, and bemoan people for looking at him as a model hero, is now arguing about how a very Rorschach like position and attitude are respectable for a superhero to have. Hey, just saying and all

Rorschach sets out to kill people. Wonder Woman will kill only if she has to.

Also, the biggest issue I have with Rorschach is his unflexible outlook. His "never compromise" bullcrap is the worst thing about him.

 

[BrianWilly]

I'm stretching a bit on this one, but I don't think we're even 100% sure that knocking Max out automatically negates his control of Superman. He was already controlling him with subliminal codewords and across vast distances. In retrospect I'm kind of surprised that killing him wouldn't somehow trigger an even worse response in Superman, though I suppose the point was that he didn't ever expect anyone, least of all Wonder Woman, to actually go through and kill him.

(Although his death did actually trigger Brother Eye into going into a doomsday endgame scenario)

You know, you can take of this and apply it to just about any hero and villain. That's how loopy and slippy the logic gets.

Yeah, but that goes towards almost every powered Super Villain nowadays. Why not just kill them all with this logic?

You can't apply it to just about any hero or villain. The equivalent situation would be the equivalent situation: "An irredeemable villain gives a hero no choice but to kill them, either by mind-controlling Superman into putting lives at risk, or by any other means." And not just the situation, either; we're talking about all sorts of different heroes and villains with all sorts of different temperaments, power sets, and options at their disposal. Superman himself probably would have reacted differently than Wonder Woman did if their positions were reversed, but they weren't. We got the situation that we got. These stories would be pointless to read, after all, if every single confrontation between heroes and villains could be boiled down to an easily-predictable template every single time. What if Batman was in Wonder Woman's shoes at that point in time? What would he have done? Green Lantern? Aquaman? Zatanna? What if the villain in question was Despero or Grodd instead of Max? The options and circumstances change for all of these, and the logic that I applied to Max wouldn't apply to all of them.

Circe, for instance. She's got godlike magical abilities, controls minds, turns people into animals, is all-around an incredibly dangerous foe...but she instantly loses her powers and becomes a normal woman when you surround her with moly. That makes incarcerating her a very workable option, without having to resort to mind-tampering. Also, she's been shown to be open to reform in the past; there was a time where she was even Diana's ally. Finally, the existence of her daughter Lyta gives her something to reform for. Immediately we see how different she is from Max and how the same logic wouldn't apply to the two of them at all.

And again, Wonder Woman has never subscribed to the no-kill rule. Yes, she has displayed mercy and redeemed quite a number of foes...and she has also killed her enemies when the situation called for it. If you place her in a situation exactly equivalent to the Max Lord scenario then, yeah, I would totally expect her to do the exact same thing. The times where she killed Deimos and Medousa, for instance, are very comparable: lives were at risk and she definitively ended the threat. No one seems to want to concede this point, but the only difference between them and Max Lord was that he didn't have snakes for hair.

And none of this is even touching on the fact that the JLA itself has come across situations where it apparently decided that it was okay to kill its enemies. The JLA killed Gamemnae in the Obsidian Age. They killed Z in New Maps of Hell. They killed Imperiex by tossing him at the Big Bang. They were fully prepared to kill Fernus, despite the fact that he was once the Martian Manhunter. (Superman's exact words: "Finish this. Whatever it takes.") (Hell, arguably they did end up killing Fernus if you take the position that he was a wholly separate lifeform from J'onn, at the end) There's probably a ton more instances that I can't think of off the top of my head. There is such a thing as always trying to find a better way, but the fact is that we've all seen many instances where superheroes were forced to go with options other than incarceration or redemption. Sometimes it has to do with the species of the foe in question. Other times it has to do with their threat level (Gamemnae was human). And we probably didn't even bat an eye when we read them.

And this, too, I think is a problem. They aren't cops, they're superheroes, and it's not the same. I don't remember the issue, but there's an old Legion issue where Superman defends a non-powered person for killing, but still condemns superheroes for killing, because they have powers and ways to prevent that from happening. Not sure on the writer or if he meant this with the story, but it serves very interesting as a commentary between the real world and the superhero comic world, and how they do not connect logically.

I do think that this is the most defensible argument in favor of superheroes not killing; they're not cops, they are not licensed by the authorities for lethal force, their one and only job is to subdue criminals for due process. If the law decides not to pursue capital punishment, well, that's up to the law to decide, not for superheroes.

But that's a legal issue; it has no ethical foundation. Ethically, there is no difference between a cop or a superhero killing to save lives when there is no other option available to them.