The Twelve

[PhotoJones]

I'm drinking Guinness.

I'm being jealous of you.

 

[Kitsune]

I'm drinking Guinness.

You going for the world record in drinking Guinness?

 

[PhotoJones]

You going for the world record in drinking Guinness?

He'd have to beat me, if that's the case.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

He'd object then and he'd object now. He got that hard on for Fisk out of his system, and it's all good now. But that doesn't mean that Golden Age characters are any less heroic if the murder the bad guys. They're still saving innocent lives, and really that's what a hero boils down to.

A role model on the other hand is a different story....

It kind of does mean they're less heroic if they murder the bad guys to me. They're serving vengeance rather than justice in that case, which makes them anti-heroes like the Punisher to me. But I guess I have some outmoded morals, since I objected to Nightwing standing by when the Outsiders killed people and Connor Hawke murdering a man while admitting he could've tried to find a better way and Iron Fist not objecting in the least when Orson was killing Hydra agents left and right. The line between killers and non-killers was pretty strong when I started reading comics, but lately it's eroding.

 

[PhotoJones]

It kind of does mean they're less heroic if they murder the bad guys to me. They're serving vengeance rather than justice in that case, which makes them anti-heroes like the Punisher to me. But I guess I have some outmoded morals, since I objected to Nightwing standing by when the Outsiders killed people and Connor Hawke murdering a man while admitting he could've tried to find a better way and Iron Fist not objecting in the least when Orson was killing Hydra agents left and right. The line between killers and non-killers was pretty strong when I started reading comics, but lately it's eroding.

I think you're just confusing yourself. A hero, by definition, is someone of distinguished courage or ability. They don't have to be role models, although sometimes they can be.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I'm not talking about the definition of a hero. That's very broad. I'm talking about heroism as I see it, which doesn't include consistently killing people left and right. That's why I included all of those "to me"s and "I think"s.

 

[PhotoJones]

I'm not talking about the definition of a hero. That's very broad. I'm talking about heroism as I see it, which doesn't include consistently killing people left and right. That's why I included all of those "to me"s and "I think"s.

Obviously, I see a difference between Spider-Man leaving a mugger for the cops and the Punisher killing him. The result of saving a victim is still the same, even if the methods are different. And I too, like my superheroes to have morals. That said, the idea of these insane Golden Age characters coming back is something that interests me a lot.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

It interests me too. I'd just class them more as anti-heroes than heroes. The whole reason the term "anti-hero" exists in its common form regarding comics is to distinguish a character as a hero who uses more extreme measures than your average hero. The term came into use after the Golden Age, though. I bet if we went back and looked at a lot of Golden Agers, they'd fit the bill for an anti-hero better than an outright superhero.

 

[King Namor]

Well, I'm sure they wouldn't complain right then. Spider-Man's in a position to save people from those same things without resorting to such barbaric means, though, so I'm sure he'd object. Or he would have a few years ago. Now I'm not so sure.

Is this the same Spiderman who is on a team with Wolverine, Iron Fist, Cage, Spiderwoman, Echo, Ronin and Dr. Strange who are everyone either killers, former criminals, and/or morally and/or ethically questionable?

 

[PhotoJones]

It interests me too. I'd just class them more as anti-heroes than heroes. The whole reason the term "anti-hero" exists in its common form regarding comics is to distinguish a character as a hero who uses more extreme measures than your average hero. The term came into use after the Golden Age, though. I bet if we went back and looked at a lot of Golden Agers, they'd fit the bill for an anti-hero better than an outright superhero.

Vigilante is a better term then anti-hero.

 

[The Question]

Vigilante is a better term then anti-hero.

Yeah, but that isn't always applicable. Spider-Man is technically a vigilante, but I wouldn't call him an Anti-Hero. And there could easily be a character who fits Corp's definition of an Anti-Hero, but works for the Government or law enforcement, and is thus not a vigilante.

 

[PhotoJones]

Yeah, but that isn't always applicable. Spider-Man is technically a vigilante, but I wouldn't call him an Anti-Hero. And there could easily be a character who fits Corp's definition of an Anti-Hero, but works for the Government or law enforcement, and is thus not a vigilante.

Spider-Man's a superhero. Bright costume, superpowers, big time villians: superhero.

 

[The Question]

Spider-Man's a superhero. Bright costume, superpowers, big time villians: superhero.

Yes. But he is also, technically, a vigilante. Fights crime, patrols neighborhoods, and is not a law enforcement official or government agent.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Up until the registration act, the vast majority of the superheroes were also vigilantes. "Vigilante" just means they're not affiliated with the government.

 

[King Namor]

Actually other than Black Widow and the Witness the rest of the group were not killers in the Golden Age. Some were even Captain America types. And I don't see the Phantom Reporter or Rockman being killer types either.

 

[Anubis]

Now if you happen to wear a costume and go out and kill rapists and drug dealers, and pedophiles, then that would simply make you a murderer.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Unless you kill them while they're raping, dealing drugs, or molesting kids, of course. Then you're a hero who's kind of a dick.

 

[Dread]

Today's reveal is Mr. E, another non-spandex guy as well as a balding one at that.

http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=125240

Hmm, interesting. We have some spandex people and suit people, and some who sort of bridge both.

Along with a giant robot, and lord knows what with Rockman.

As for the conversation between photojones2 and TheCorpulent1, I do agree that the morality bar for what consitutes "accepted heroism" has been lowered. After all, in an issue of NEW AVENGERS we literally had Maria Hill blaming the deaths of the innocents Norman Osborn kills on Spider-Man because he never kills Osborn (and not on, say, a judicial system that always fails to lock him up, even now as he leads the Thunderbolts). Even back in the 90's, the concept of a superhero crippling a minor goon in a fight was a huge deal, and now we have heroes who don't bat an eye if one of their allies slaughters hundreds. Has Spider-Man expressed outrage at Wolverine or Punisher when he's teamed up with them like he used to? Usually not. In a way this stems from audiences for comics being considered to be older, within the teenage range, who expect somewhat less rigid stuff after prime time TV, movies, and video games.

That said, the Golden Age was before a lot of the COMICS CODE stuff and many of those old fellers were plenty gorey. The Specter used to melt people, for instance.

 

[Darthphere]

Superman would be killing fools back then.

 

[Dread]

Superman would be killing fools back then.

And technically he killed folks after Crisis; he iced the three Phantom Zone crminals of an alternate dimension with their world's Kryptonite rather than risk them destroying Earth.

What has happened within the last decade is the concept of "a hero never kills, ever, no matter what the circumstances" has become more outdated and unrealistic, even in comic books. That doesn't mean every hero is a slaughter machine, but we've moved away from the ridiculousness of Adam West Batman refusing to throw a bomb into the ocean because a family of ducks might be killed or injured. In real life, police officers don't have so rigid a credo (even if they are tried and convicted in the media if they dare shoot a minority, no matter what the circumstances, least in NY). I have noticed it but I can see how the trend evolved. After all, most superhero comics want us to believe that superheroes are like everyday Joe's, not the sort everday Joe's aspire to be but usually can't be.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I didn't have a problem with Superman's killing the Phantom Zone criminals in principle. If a hero weighs literally all of the options and comes to the conclusion that execution is the absolute only way to ensure the safety of others from a certain threat, that's fine. (Of course, in Superman's case, he could've always just called in the GL Corps to hold the Phantom Zone criminals the way they did with Superboy Prime or called some magic users to keep them imprisoned or something, which is why I said "in principle." It worked better with Cap and Baron Blood, since it was in the middle of a battle and Cap realized that there were no other feasible options right then that would neutralize Blood.) I'm mostly just getting tired of the casual killing and threats of killing that more and more heroes are starting to do like it's nothing new.

 

[Dread]

I didn't have a problem with Superman's killing the Phantom Zone criminals in principle. If a hero weighs literally all of the options and comes to the conclusion that execution is the absolute only way to ensure the safety of others from a certain threat, that's fine. (Of course, in Superman's case, he could've always just called in the GL Corps to hold the Phantom Zone criminals the way they did with Superboy Prime or called some magic users to keep them imprisoned or something, which is why I said "in principle." It worked better with Cap and Baron Blood, since it was in the middle of a battle and Cap realized that there were no other feasible options right then that would neutralize Blood.) I'm mostly just getting tired of the casual killing and threats of killing that more and more heroes are starting to do like it's nothing new.

I gotcha.

My issue I guess is that Spider-Man used to not get along with Wolverine because he murdered scores of people, and yet now they're bosum buddies on a team.

 

[The Question]

After all, in an issue of NEW AVENGERS we literally had Maria Hill blaming the deaths of the innocents Norman Osborn kills on Spider-Man because he never kills Osborn (and not on, say, a judicial system that always fails to lock him up, even now as he leads the Thunderbolts).

Well, that's just one person's opinion. One very cynical person's opinion. And, it really isn't the fault of the judicial system, since Norman's only ever been in jail once.

Has Spider-Man expressed outrage at Wolverine or Punisher when he's teamed up with them like he used to? Usually not.

Well, he's teamed up with them alot. It may just be that he no longer sees the point, since he's done it alot and they never listen.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I gotcha.

My issue I guess is that Spider-Man used to not get along with Wolverine because he murdered scores of people, and yet now they're bosum buddies on a team.

Yeah, it bugs me when non-killing heroes and killing heroes team up and the former never mentions anything. It's clearly a conscious choice on their part not to kill, given that killing someone is usually the easiest way to dispatch with them; yet they never bring up that divide anymore. I was actually taken aback in the Five of a Kind: Katana/Shazam issue last week when Batman shows up in Katana's house and she actually assumes he's going to tell her not to kill anyone anymore if she's to continue on his new Outsiders. The last time I remember anything being made of the fact that some heroes object to killing was with Batman again, when he was apprehensive about sending Batgirl in undercover as Kasumi in JL Elite because she might be asked or tempted to kill, and that was about three or four years ago.

 

[Dread]

Yeah, it bugs me when non-killing heroes and killing heroes team up and the former never mentions anything. It's clearly a conscious choice on their part not to kill, given that killing someone is usually the easiest way to dispatch with them; yet they never bring up that divide anymore. I was actually taken aback in the Five of a Kind: Katana/Shazam issue last week when Batman shows up in Katana's house and she actually assumes he's going to tell her not to kill anyone anymore if she's to continue on his new Outsiders. The last time I remember anything being made of the fact that some heroes object to killing was with Batman again, when he was apprehensive about sending Batgirl in undercover as Kasumi in JL Elite because she might be asked or tempted to kill, and that was about three or four years ago.

Yeah.

As for the "Spider-Man/Kingpin" thing, I CAN buy Spider-Man getting grim on criminals after May's being shot and whatever because in the past, he HAS gotten like that when people he loved were killed or threatened. He nearly pummeled Osborn to paste after he knocked Gwen off that bridge and only a cable saved Greenie (and even after at his hideout, Spidey nearly went over the edge with that beating). Daredevil had to physically disable Spider-Man to keep him from killing Sin-Eater after he shot Jean DeWolfe and nearly iced Betty Brant, and Sin-Eater STILL suffered nerve damage from the beating Spidey gave him (he'd later die in a police shootout).

Of course, it is interesting that Spider-Man would refer to a mass serial killer like Carnage as "the most innocent of all" (re: SPIDER-MAN UNLIMITED #2, the end of Maximum Carnage) because he'd been an abused child, yet shows no such mercy on Kingpin (who some bleeding heart could claim was warped by a life of poverty in a crime ridden neighborhood) when his own family is threatened.

Naturally, years after Spider-Man literally risked his life to keep Venom from killing Carnage during Maximum Carnage, he shows no qualms when Sentry murders him. Guess there really are no laws in space.

So, it does get awkward sometimes.