Alright, I think I've been sitting on this one for a while now, and I'm finally deciding to put it into this. Over the last decade or so, we've gotten an influx of stories that show heroes who, unlike many of the classics, decide to kill people; Injustice/Justice Lord Superman, Homelander along with many others. While I do agree that it is an interesting idea, and is fun to explore, I do have issues with people who claim that these heroes are right for what they do. There's a reason why, typically, heroes avoid killing when they can even more just so that the villains can reappear in comics. It's based on a moral code that they are typically unsure of whether or not they'd be able to stop once they killed the first person. However, I see so many people have the opinion that this is the right thing to do for those heroes and it doesn't sit right because it seems that the bigger picture is lost.
So, let's look at what happens during the Justice Lord/Injustice timeline where the Justice League kills all criminals and opposition regardless of how serious the crime. Superman states that the killing with end when people can live without fear, but they never will because he is still keeping that fear alive and that is how a dictator rules. In getting rid of the more dangerous criminals, he's done the world a service and that can't be denied, but he's fostered a world where crime is at a minimum simply because people know that the only answer for their crimes is death or, at lightest, lobotomization. You can only rule through fear so long before the people beneath you or even those who stand beside you have had enough and find a way to get rid of you and, in the case of Superman, kryptonite seems to drop like candy in all of its different iterations.
I remember growing up with a particular Justice League cartoon that I loved more than most shows I enjoyed growing up. The Justic Lord timeline started when Lex Luthor killed Flash and Superman, goaded by Wonder Woman and attempted to be stopped by Batman, stormed the White House and killed him. Then began the regime which, even though the people fled when they saw the League, many people were unhappy with the authoritarian rule. A man was dragged into a van to meet some unknown fate because he was getting aggressive with a waiter at an outdoor cafe. Again, at best he'd be lobotomized but he could be dead...neither of which are a reasonable punishment for simply getting mad because you thought the service was bad. Batman even made his Justice Lord equivalent rethink what he was doing when he mentioned that their parents would be real proud of them ruling over the planet with an iron fist. 190Please respect copyright.ＰＥＮＡＮＡigi017UKLC
On a brief note, a ton of people don't seem to understand why, despite the many atrocities of his villains, why Batman doesn't kill, say, the Joker. Batman is not trying to be judge, jury and executioner and the real reason Joker and all the rest is still alive is less his fault and more the fact that Gotham apparently has the worst legal system in the world. Joker should've be killed ages ago for what he's done, but Gotham keeps sending him to Arkham from which he continues to escape and then Batman has to clean up the mess. He knows that they're not able to take down his villains but he doesn't want to go any further than that for fear of what it would do to him, alongside the massive amount of unresolved trauma he already has, and that he'd find it just too easy to kill everyone...but he doesn't believe that's his choice to make.190Please respect copyright.ＰＥＮＡＮＡEBCDzopO55
On an even briefer note, let's talk about the way that super heroes who kill distinguish crime...they don't. In a cutscene of Injustice, Superman puts thieves in the same category as murderers...which are two completely different things. Not all criminals deserve to be killed and for some of those who were convicted of thievery, he doesn't seem to care what they stole. Some people steal because they have no alternatives to survival (in their eyes for at least some) and do it out of necessity rather than want or greed. These people are also not worthy of killing or being lobotomized. There's a reason why we have laws put into place and regulations to determine the punishment that criminals deserve according to their crimes. Some crimes, I will concede, are worthy of the death penalty, but these heroes don't make that distinction...crime is crime to them, no matter how severe, and the penalty for everything is death.190Please respect copyright.ＰＥＮＡＮＡZ2PfIv7t1H
Again, heroes like this are an interesting concept because we all grew up with heroes with strict moral codes, but it's when people try to say that they are 100% right is where the problem lies. If you ensure peace and safety through fear and threat of retaliation, you have not created peace and safety, you have created a dictatorship. Yes, so criminals have crimes so heinous that they truly do deserve the death penalty, but this a one-size-fits-all situation. I wonder how many people would continue to agree if they were on the other end and being targeted for whatever small infraction these heroes decide to call them out on?
190Please respect copyright.ＰＥＮＡＮＡzxfL8ceUmR
