People have faith in police officers and the armed forces.
And I was under the impression that the Registration Act was born out of society's need to feel safe and secure, not to feel good about their heroes having the moral high ground. If it was, Captain America would still be running around, and Iron Man would be moping somewhere. The SHRA seemed to be society's way of saying, "Stop playing your stupid little superhero game and just protect us. Don't showboat and get a bunch of people killed like the New Warriors. Don't go on and on about the Constitution and personal freedoms like Captain America and his Secret Avengers. Take this money, do the job, and make sure my family and I make it home safe every night." It always seemed like the solution of a pragmatist, not an idealist. Which isn't something I agree with at all, but that seemed to be the rationale as laid out in the story.
Maria Hill even says in the Illuminati special that, had Spider-Man had the good sense to kill Green Goblin a long time ago, fewer people would be dead today.
Not officially. I think they more cripple than kill anyways.
And Munch, people don't necessarily trust the police. We just had a cop around here get shot in the chest twice by a man, and when they shot the kid there was a decent sized section of the public who were convinced that one cop shot the other cop in the vest so they could kill the kid.
And besides, there's a difference between cops and superheroes. Cops are normal people. Superheroes have extraordinary abilities, powers and equipment. There's always, especially in the Marvel universe, going to be a certain level of distrust, and if you authorize lethal force in anything other than say, an alien invasion, it isn't going to sit well with most of the public.
Well, even though it's all wrought with OMD-BND-ugh-factor, Civil War still happened the "same way", so his reasoning would be how Iron Man abused power with Clor and shit, right?
And besides, there's a difference between cops and superheroes. Cops are normal people. Superheroes have extraordinary abilities, powers and equipment. There's always, especially in the Marvel universe, going to be a certain level of distrust, and if you authorize lethal force in anything other than say, an alien invasion, it isn't going to sit well with most of the public.
I'm not saying that Iron Man needs to start tearing muggers in half, or otherwise start punishing street-level criminals more severely than is necessary. But do you honestly think that the American public wouldn't sleep better with Dr. Doom or Magneto dead? Look at Osama Bin Laden; dude killed a few thousand people and blew up two buildings. I doubt that most of the country would object to having him put before a public firing squad. Now, I'm not saying that's right, but I think it's true.
Now compare Bin Laden to Magneto, who killed a much larger number of peoplee during his attack on New York, Dr. Doom, who has murder warehouses in Latveria for disposing of unruly citizens, or Juggernaut, who knocked down the damn Twin Towers. Or think on a smaller scale; how many people have street-level supervillains like Shocker, Electro, or Dr. Octopus murdered? They're equitable to our world's serial killers, most of whom have far smaller body counts than their fictional counterparts. While Charles Manson and Ted Bundy might have their admirers, most people are happy that they're dead or rotting in jail. Unfortunately, citizens in the Marvel Universe don't have the assurance that the "bad guys" will actually stay in jail, and all that leaves is a more permanent solution.
Once again, I'm not saying superheroes need to go off murdering everyone, or killing villains that have already been subdued, or anything else that's a callback to 90's style vigilantism. But when a government sanctioned law enforcement officer has the option of exercising lethal force in order to preserve life, I think that's the reasonable and responsible thing to do, and I think that would be an interesting issue to explore in the present day Marvel U.
How would you feel about a police officer that allowed an armed gunman to murder several innocent civilians so he could tackle and subdue him, rather than simply shoot the guy, and save all those innocent lives? That's the kind of situation I'm talking about. How many times during a villain's murderous rampage could a hero save a lot of lives by just going all out and putting the guy down for the count, before he had a chance to do any more damage? Look at Spider-Man; the guy spends all his time pulling punches, drawing fights out longer than need be, when he could just hit one of his murderous villains with his full strength, permanently ending the threat.
Once again, I'm not saying superheroes need to go off murdering everyone, or killing villains that have already been subdued, or anything else that's a callback to 90's style vigilantism. But when a government sanctioned law enforcement officer has the option of exercising lethal force in order to preserve life, I think that's the reasonable and responsible thing to do, and I think that would be an interesting issue to explore in the present day Marvel U.
How would you feel about a police officer that allowed an armed gunman to murder several innocent civilians so he could tackle and subdue him, rather than simply shoot the guy, and save all those innocent lives? That's the kind of situation I'm talking about. How many times during a villain's murderous rampage could a hero save a lot of lives by just going all out and putting the guy down for the count, before he had a chance to do any more damage? Look at Spider-Man; the guy spends all his time pulling punches, drawing fights out longer than need be, when he could just hit one of his murderous villains with his full strength, permanently ending the threat.
Nothing is more true than this about the Joker. Batman is personally responsible for pretty much every single person the Joker, and to the same extent, the rest of his rogue's gallery, kills.
But when a government sanctioned law enforcement officer has the option of exercising lethal force in order to preserve life, I think that's the reasonable and responsible thing to do, and I think that would be an interesting issue to explore in the present day Marvel U.
Everyone has the option to kill people who pose an imminent threat to others. Superheroes just choose not to because they can generally subdue villains without killing them or sacrificing innocent lives in the process.
That's the kind of situation I'm talking about. How many times during a villain's murderous rampage could a hero save a lot of lives by just going all out and putting the guy down for the count, before he had a chance to do any more damage?
Not that often. I can't think of any instances where, during a fight, a hero's reluctance to kill led to civilian deaths. Usually the deaths precede the fight, before the hero can do anything.
But when a government sanctioned law enforcement officer has the option of exercising lethal force in order to preserve life, I think that's the reasonable and responsible thing to do, and I think that would be an interesting issue to explore in the present day Marvel U.
Everyone has the option to kill people who pose an imminent threat to others. Superheroes just choose not to because they can generally subdue villains without killing them or sacrificing innocent lives in the process.
That's the kind of situation I'm talking about. How many times during a villain's murderous rampage could a hero save a lot of lives by just going all out and putting the guy down for the count, before he had a chance to do any more damage?
Not that often. I can't think of any instances where, during a fight, a hero's reluctance to kill led to civilian deaths. Usually the deaths precede the fight, before the hero can do anything.
Batman knows for a fact that the Joker will either get off or escape every time he's arrested. He knows this.
Here's my question.
How quickly would that escalate the levels of damage done by the villians if they knew they where going to die anyway?
I mean, Magneto is appearently powerful enough to destroy the world, or at least shatter cities at will. He's showing restraint when he only kills a dozen innocent people over the course of a fight. If the heroes go all out and escalate the conflict to lethal levels, very quickly the villians will follow suit. And, almost without exception, the villians are more powerful then the heroes (because this makes for a better story).
I like to think that the government allows super-villains to thrive so they can study their weapons technology and anomalous genetic structures for their own purposes. Civilian casualties or not, the United States would have a significant advantage over other countries in terms of firepower if they were swimming in death rays and super-strength cocktails.
So does everyone else, but that isn't enough to lay the responsibility of deciding whether or not to kill the Joker upon them.
Yeah, but they don't actively fight the joker every goddamn week.
That doesn't make it Batman's responsibility in any way. You may as well say it's Superman's responsibility, he could kill Joker anytime he wants.
Actually, Sentry presented an interesting explanation for that issue as applies to Superman/Sentry: there just isn't time to stop EVERY problem.
However, in the particular, I agree: every single person (super or otherwise) should be doing their best to kill mass/multiple murderers like Joker.
We have a justice system so the average person doesn't have to become a vigilante to see justice done.
That said, the appearance of superheroes is likely the first indication of an increasing loss of faith in the government to protect citizens, and so one probably could expect a mob of angry citizens to hunt down and kill the Joker if the DC Universe was allowed to naturally progress rather than remaining in stasis.
But when a government sanctioned law enforcement officer has the option of exercising lethal force in order to preserve life, I think that's the reasonable and responsible thing to do, and I think that would be an interesting issue to explore in the present day Marvel U.
Everyone has the option to kill people who pose an imminent threat to others. Superheroes just choose not to because they can generally subdue villains without killing them or sacrificing innocent lives in the process.
That's the kind of situation I'm talking about. How many times during a villain's murderous rampage could a hero save a lot of lives by just going all out and putting the guy down for the count, before he had a chance to do any more damage?
Not that often. I can't think of any instances where, during a fight, a hero's reluctance to kill led to civilian deaths. Usually the deaths precede the fight, before the hero can do anything.
Also, Superman, Spider-man, Batman, Iron Man...they aren't cops. (Or weren't, in Iron Mans case). They are/were civilian vigilantes. No matter how sanctioned the Avengers were or how loved the Justice League is. They can only kill in self-defense, and when you're that far above humans, or that much more skilled/protected, it's harder to decide if it was self-defense.
Which brings up the next logical point; why the hell do comic courts not put some of these people to death?
"So, you can shoot death beams from your eyes and wiped out an airport last week because you were bored. 342 dead, a four digit injury figure, and damages totalling over a billion dollars. We have this on camera, and after being apprehended on the scene by the Super Awesome Squad, you gave out signed autographs.
... Bailiff, please shoot the defendant.
NEXT!"
All joking aside, some of these guys have pretty impressive body counts and are essentially living, insane weapons of mass destruction. "I'm sorry" doesn't quite cut it, when the U.S. puts down people for far less already.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Also, Superman, Spider-man, Batman, Iron Man...they aren't cops. (Or weren't, in Iron Mans case). They are/were civilian vigilantes. No matter how sanctioned the Avengers were or how loved the Justice League is. They can only kill in self-defense, and when you're that far above humans, or that much more skilled/protected, it's harder to decide if it was self-defense.
I was actually referring solely to registered superhumans in the Marvel U, who are cops. They pull a paycheck, receive standardized training, and are required to answer to the government.
I agree that while Batman probably should just kill the Joker, he also can't because that changes him from a helpful citizen aiding the police to a well-intentioned murderer that's unaccountable to any higher authority.
Once again, I'm not saying superheroes need to go off murdering everyone, or killing villains that have already been subdued, or anything else that's a callback to 90's style vigilantism. But when a government sanctioned law enforcement officer has the option of exercising lethal force in order to preserve life, I think that's the reasonable and responsible thing to do, and I think that would be an interesting issue to explore in the present day Marvel U.
How would you feel about a police officer that allowed an armed gunman to murder several innocent civilians so he could tackle and subdue him, rather than simply shoot the guy, and save all those innocent lives? That's the kind of situation I'm talking about. How many times during a villain's murderous rampage could a hero save a lot of lives by just going all out and putting the guy down for the count, before he had a chance to do any more damage? Look at Spider-Man; the guy spends all his time pulling punches, drawing fights out longer than need be, when he could just hit one of his murderous villains with his full strength, permanently ending the threat.
I think the way I would reason this is that Super Heroes are more than just cops. Super Heroes have the ability to use non lethal force without putting the victims at risk, since they have a history of it. Cops may not have any other option. They are not super fast, their reflexes are normal, they do not heal. I might think that Super Heroes tackle and sub due guys because they are one of the few people who can exercise that option.
But The Joker is a special case. I mean, they've explored that theme so much that it just doesn't make sense for anyone to let him live. Whenever they have Joker kill another major character or commit a new mass murder, and no one stabs him in the face, it just exposes the silliness of the super hero code.
I think the way I would reason this is that Super Heroes are more than just cops. Super Heroes have the ability to use non lethal force without putting the victims at risk, since they have a history of it.
A few years ago I would have agreed with you, but it seems like since Civil War, Marvel's official line is that superhero battles cause immense amounts of property damage and death; look at the climactic battle in Civil War. That was a bunch of heroes, guys legitimately interested in minimizing death and destruction, and it caused something like seventeen deaths. Or so I seem to recall, though that may have come from Front Line. Granted, a lot of heavy hitters were present, but even if you've got something as simple as Doc Ock throwing cars at Spidey, there's potential for a bodycount.
But The Joker is a special case. I mean, they've explored that theme so much that it just doesn't make sense for anyone to let him live. Whenever they have Joker kill another major character or commit a new mass murder, and no one stabs him in the face, it just exposes the silliness of the super hero code.
After originally reading this post, I read the Joker's Wikipedia article.
Apparently, at one point Nightwing beat the Joker to near death, but Batman revived him.
I still kind of hate that story Devil's Advocate where Batman actually goes about gathering evidence to clear Joker for a crime he didn't commit, so he doesn't get executed. Sure, if he'd allowed Joker to die for it then a guilty man would have gotten away with it, but man, couldn't he have just taken a timely vacation, then come back post-execution to get the real killer?
Or think on a smaller scale; how many people have street-level supervillains like Shocker, Electro, or Dr. Octopus murdered?
That's actually an interesting question: how many people has Shocker murdered? I think the number may be small than you'd think.
Aside from just choking them to death with his bare hands or something, is the Shocker even capable of killing someone? I always figured he was like taser-level of electricity, conceivable lethal, but only with a lot of bad luck on the shootee's part.
sportzboytjw on
Walkerdog on MTGO
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
I can't remember where it was, but I remember in one Iteration, Spider-man took to referring to Shocker as Quilt Man for the entire duration of his rampage. It rocked.
Or think on a smaller scale; how many people have street-level supervillains like Shocker, Electro, or Dr. Octopus murdered?
That's actually an interesting question: how many people has Shocker murdered? I think the number may be small than you'd think.
Aside from just choking them to death with his bare hands or something, is the Shocker even capable of killing someone? I always figured he was like taser-level of electricity, conceivable lethal, but only with a lot of bad luck on the shootee's part.
The thing is it's not even electricity, it's vibrations. Now that's not to say he hasn't been contracted for killings at various times, but I'm not sure he's ever been able to carry one the whole way through without being caught.
Wildcat on
0
sportzboytjwsqueeeeeezzeeeesome more tax breaks outRegistered Userregular
edited July 2008
so he's more likely to sprain their neck or something. Painful, but probably not lethal.
EDIT
So I know "list" and "rankings" are stupid and crap BUT:
From Wiki
"The character is a long-term recurring foe of the superhero Spider-Man and was ranked #3 as the coolest Spider-Man villain ever, after Green Goblin and Venom, at Marvel's official website in 2005"
Really. Third-coolest. EVER. Not, like, The Kingpin (I know he's not a Spidey exclusive, but still), or maybe Doc Ock, or even FREAKING SCORPION IS LESS LAME THAN SHOCKER. Even Electro. I'm furious.
sportzboytjw on
Walkerdog on MTGO
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
Posts
And I was under the impression that the Registration Act was born out of society's need to feel safe and secure, not to feel good about their heroes having the moral high ground. If it was, Captain America would still be running around, and Iron Man would be moping somewhere. The SHRA seemed to be society's way of saying, "Stop playing your stupid little superhero game and just protect us. Don't showboat and get a bunch of people killed like the New Warriors. Don't go on and on about the Constitution and personal freedoms like Captain America and his Secret Avengers. Take this money, do the job, and make sure my family and I make it home safe every night." It always seemed like the solution of a pragmatist, not an idealist. Which isn't something I agree with at all, but that seemed to be the rationale as laid out in the story.
Maria Hill even says in the Illuminati special that, had Spider-Man had the good sense to kill Green Goblin a long time ago, fewer people would be dead today.
Tumblr Twitter
And Munch, people don't necessarily trust the police. We just had a cop around here get shot in the chest twice by a man, and when they shot the kid there was a decent sized section of the public who were convinced that one cop shot the other cop in the vest so they could kill the kid.
And besides, there's a difference between cops and superheroes. Cops are normal people. Superheroes have extraordinary abilities, powers and equipment. There's always, especially in the Marvel universe, going to be a certain level of distrust, and if you authorize lethal force in anything other than say, an alien invasion, it isn't going to sit well with most of the public.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
I'm not saying that Iron Man needs to start tearing muggers in half, or otherwise start punishing street-level criminals more severely than is necessary. But do you honestly think that the American public wouldn't sleep better with Dr. Doom or Magneto dead? Look at Osama Bin Laden; dude killed a few thousand people and blew up two buildings. I doubt that most of the country would object to having him put before a public firing squad. Now, I'm not saying that's right, but I think it's true.
Now compare Bin Laden to Magneto, who killed a much larger number of peoplee during his attack on New York, Dr. Doom, who has murder warehouses in Latveria for disposing of unruly citizens, or Juggernaut, who knocked down the damn Twin Towers. Or think on a smaller scale; how many people have street-level supervillains like Shocker, Electro, or Dr. Octopus murdered? They're equitable to our world's serial killers, most of whom have far smaller body counts than their fictional counterparts. While Charles Manson and Ted Bundy might have their admirers, most people are happy that they're dead or rotting in jail. Unfortunately, citizens in the Marvel Universe don't have the assurance that the "bad guys" will actually stay in jail, and all that leaves is a more permanent solution.
Tumblr Twitter
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
That was the worst thing to happen ever in comics.
Motherfucking Magneto was there like a month after he turned half of New York into a concentration camp and destroyed the Brooklyn Bridge.
Once again, I'm not saying superheroes need to go off murdering everyone, or killing villains that have already been subdued, or anything else that's a callback to 90's style vigilantism. But when a government sanctioned law enforcement officer has the option of exercising lethal force in order to preserve life, I think that's the reasonable and responsible thing to do, and I think that would be an interesting issue to explore in the present day Marvel U.
How would you feel about a police officer that allowed an armed gunman to murder several innocent civilians so he could tackle and subdue him, rather than simply shoot the guy, and save all those innocent lives? That's the kind of situation I'm talking about. How many times during a villain's murderous rampage could a hero save a lot of lives by just going all out and putting the guy down for the count, before he had a chance to do any more damage? Look at Spider-Man; the guy spends all his time pulling punches, drawing fights out longer than need be, when he could just hit one of his murderous villains with his full strength, permanently ending the threat.
Tumblr Twitter
Nothing is more true than this about the Joker. Batman is personally responsible for pretty much every single person the Joker, and to the same extent, the rest of his rogue's gallery, kills.
Everyone has the option to kill people who pose an imminent threat to others. Superheroes just choose not to because they can generally subdue villains without killing them or sacrificing innocent lives in the process.
Not that often. I can't think of any instances where, during a fight, a hero's reluctance to kill led to civilian deaths. Usually the deaths precede the fight, before the hero can do anything.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Batman knows for a fact that the Joker will either get off or escape every time he's arrested. He knows this.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Yeah, but they don't actively fight the joker every goddamn week.
How quickly would that escalate the levels of damage done by the villians if they knew they where going to die anyway?
I mean, Magneto is appearently powerful enough to destroy the world, or at least shatter cities at will. He's showing restraint when he only kills a dozen innocent people over the course of a fight. If the heroes go all out and escalate the conflict to lethal levels, very quickly the villians will follow suit. And, almost without exception, the villians are more powerful then the heroes (because this makes for a better story).
That doesn't make it Batman's responsibility in any way. You may as well say it's Superman's responsibility, he could kill Joker anytime he wants.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Actually, Sentry presented an interesting explanation for that issue as applies to Superman/Sentry: there just isn't time to stop EVERY problem.
However, in the particular, I agree: every single person (super or otherwise) should be doing their best to kill mass/multiple murderers like Joker.
That said, the appearance of superheroes is likely the first indication of an increasing loss of faith in the government to protect citizens, and so one probably could expect a mob of angry citizens to hunt down and kill the Joker if the DC Universe was allowed to naturally progress rather than remaining in stasis.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Which brings up the next logical point; why the hell do comic courts not put some of these people to death?
"So, you can shoot death beams from your eyes and wiped out an airport last week because you were bored. 342 dead, a four digit injury figure, and damages totalling over a billion dollars. We have this on camera, and after being apprehended on the scene by the Super Awesome Squad, you gave out signed autographs.
... Bailiff, please shoot the defendant.
NEXT!"
All joking aside, some of these guys have pretty impressive body counts and are essentially living, insane weapons of mass destruction. "I'm sorry" doesn't quite cut it, when the U.S. puts down people for far less already.
I was actually referring solely to registered superhumans in the Marvel U, who are cops. They pull a paycheck, receive standardized training, and are required to answer to the government.
I agree that while Batman probably should just kill the Joker, he also can't because that changes him from a helpful citizen aiding the police to a well-intentioned murderer that's unaccountable to any higher authority.
Tumblr Twitter
I think the way I would reason this is that Super Heroes are more than just cops. Super Heroes have the ability to use non lethal force without putting the victims at risk, since they have a history of it. Cops may not have any other option. They are not super fast, their reflexes are normal, they do not heal. I might think that Super Heroes tackle and sub due guys because they are one of the few people who can exercise that option.
But The Joker is a special case. I mean, they've explored that theme so much that it just doesn't make sense for anyone to let him live. Whenever they have Joker kill another major character or commit a new mass murder, and no one stabs him in the face, it just exposes the silliness of the super hero code.
Facebook: MeekinOnMovies
Twitter: Twitter.com/MeekinOnMovies
My 10 commandments of game reviewing
7 Great Games Playing Watch_Dogs will remind you of/url]
Far Cry 4: 10 Essential Features it Must Have
10 Videogames Ruined By The Hype
A few years ago I would have agreed with you, but it seems like since Civil War, Marvel's official line is that superhero battles cause immense amounts of property damage and death; look at the climactic battle in Civil War. That was a bunch of heroes, guys legitimately interested in minimizing death and destruction, and it caused something like seventeen deaths. Or so I seem to recall, though that may have come from Front Line. Granted, a lot of heavy hitters were present, but even if you've got something as simple as Doc Ock throwing cars at Spidey, there's potential for a bodycount.
Anyhow, that's my take on it.
Tumblr Twitter
After originally reading this post, I read the Joker's Wikipedia article.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Tumblr Twitter
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Tumblr Twitter
Aside from just choking them to death with his bare hands or something, is the Shocker even capable of killing someone? I always figured he was like taser-level of electricity, conceivable lethal, but only with a lot of bad luck on the shootee's part.
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
Facebook: MeekinOnMovies
Twitter: Twitter.com/MeekinOnMovies
My 10 commandments of game reviewing
7 Great Games Playing Watch_Dogs will remind you of/url]
Far Cry 4: 10 Essential Features it Must Have
10 Videogames Ruined By The Hype
EDIT
So I know "list" and "rankings" are stupid and crap BUT:
From Wiki
"The character is a long-term recurring foe of the superhero Spider-Man and was ranked #3 as the coolest Spider-Man villain ever, after Green Goblin and Venom, at Marvel's official website in 2005"
Really. Third-coolest. EVER. Not, like, The Kingpin (I know he's not a Spidey exclusive, but still), or maybe Doc Ock, or even FREAKING SCORPION IS LESS LAME THAN SHOCKER. Even Electro. I'm furious.
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)