Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

So, I started re-reading the early issues of the current X-Factor series, and the Madrox Limited before that, recently. And, having read the mini and only the first 12 issues of the series, every member of the team except Monet and Siryn have killed someone. Madrox slit a guy's throat with a playing card, Wolfsbane murdered an astral projection, Rictor hung a man in a theater, Layla set up an electrocution and tried to kill Quicksilver, and Guido karate chopped a guy's throat in. And NOBODY CARES. There is no remorse beyond a one-panel recap, and there are no lasting effects on the characters for what is widely held, at least in the comic community, as something that is utterly reprehensible and unable to "come back" from. Shit, Rahne's more upset about a future vision of killing Madrox and Layla than about having killed a quadriplegic.

On that note, I'm wondering what other hero-murders have occurred with little or no consequence. Wonder Woman's world-saving killing of Max Lord caused a huge stink in the JLA, but was largely forgotten until just recently.

So, who else got away with it?

Wolverine always gets away with it, he's a hero and he's killed alotta people, before and even whilst he was a hero

Originally posted by steverules_2
Wolverine always gets away with it, he's a hero and he's killed alotta people, before and even whilst he was a hero

Except during those Weapon X days he did'nt have a choice they brainwashed him.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Except during those Weapon X days he did'nt have a choice they brainwashed him.

Thats why I added the before bit...because that was before he was a hero I remember his weapon X days, I am a wolverine fan...but not a fan boy who thinks he could beat superman which fan boys believe he could do

The really interesting one is Captain America- He's the embodiement of American values.....

....In other words he doesn't mind using a gun

This is what I've been saying all along, Marvel has no control here. There's no dividing line between the heroes who'll gladly eat the corpses of villains and the ones that do not kill. Wolverine has chopped up countless people throughout the years. Imagine how many random guards he has killed in his time, I highly doubt the guy who's chillin outside a facility is the lord of all evil....

When Barry snapped Zoom's neck, Wonder Woman also happened to try and vote him out of the Justice League haermm

Originally posted by willRules
The really interesting one is Captain America- He's the embodiement of American values.....

....In other words he doesn't mind using a gun

We talking Bucky or Steve? I dont recall steve using a gun...Bucky on the other hand...

You're not stating the difference between killing and murdering.

DC went way over the top with Wonder Woman killing Maxwell Lord - an entirely justifiable act that was neccessary.

Captain America (Steve Rogers) of course tries not to kill if he can, but it's not like he has no deaths at his hands - see WW2.

The world the Mutant community lives in is not like any other in DC or Marvel, where there are powerful factions that hate them for simply existing. Theirs is a kill-or-be-killed world of survival.

And haven't we seen the Green Lantern Corps finally get authorization to use lethal force? Overdue in my opinion.

Saying Heroes don't kill is an oversimplification. Don't police officers sometimes kill in the line of duty?

Police officers aren't heroes.

Anyways, I agree with the points you bring up. Killing and murdering are different things. Because you can take a lot of lives simply by making bad decisions. Imagine how many people are sent into poverty/death by starvation or other things when heroes throw down? At least they acknowledged this in the Invincible comics.

Originally posted by steverules_2
We talking Bucky or Steve? I dont recall steve using a gun...Bucky on the other hand...

Either, both Bucky and Steve have used firearms and both have killed numerous soldiers

the "heroes don't kill" mantra is something that's spread almost universally through comics, even in relation to characters who kill without giving a shit. he got his ass kicked by captain america because of that fact alone, he's fought spider-man because of it, etcetera. while it's not always practiced as it is preached, it's something of a golden rule in a majority of the superhero community.

the whole "are cops heroes?" thing is something i don't want to get into. police officers don't, or at least are never instructed to, "kill first, ask questions later." guns aren't drawn unless there is a threat, shots aren't fired unless the officer, a fellow officer, or a victim is in a directly threatened situation with a weapon or something similar. and the shots are almost always meant to disarm and end the situation without casualties. SWAT and the Feds and so forth, not exactly the same rules. same with soldiers. that's not what I'm talking about. i mean comic book superheroes.

back to my example, since we're making the distinction between murder and killing, which i suppose boils down to intentional v. unintentional. Madrox didn't mean to kill the guy, it happened on instinct. Rahne didn't mean to kill the guy, she was under attack. Rictor seemed to have meant to kill the guy, but it was in defending his own and Siryn's life. Layla obviously meant to kill the guy, and had seemingly no compunctions about attempting to set Quicksilver up to be killed as well. and Guido wasn't responsible for murdering Dr. Buchanan because he was in some sort of hypnotic/post-hypnotic state. but that doesn't mean those lives aren't lost due to their actions, and there is literally next-to-no reaction about this in the comics. where's this "hero's code" idea when nobody cares they're causing people to die, or outright killing them?

Cyclops rebooted x-force because "x-men don't kill," but House of M Cyke said "whatever rules you place on yourself, they have no place here," or something to that effect. he wanted the assembled heroes to kill Magneto's crew. he also killed Ugly John, a "mercy killing," in New X-Men. i'm sure i'm forgetting something there, too.

just seems like levels of hypocrisy and flip-flopping, and i just want to know who's done it, and if they've done it, who cared?

i believe as a rule heroes should kill...no im not saying i want any of my favorite heroes to develop a penchant for remorseless killin, but sometimes it is necessary. sometimes i wonder if batman realizes that whenever the joker breaks out of Arkham he racks up no less than a high 2-figure body count...and killer Croc eats at least 6 ppl..and Zzaaszz butchers a small handful of women and children..hmm...just saying.

now i know this is the part where everyone is gonna say that good guys need bad guys and if you kill all the bad guys its gonna be too hard to come up with bigger and better bad guys, but look at the Xmen...for years Xavier have been drumming into them that killing is wrong and "there is always another way" and "if we kill we are no better than they are." and as was shown in the intro of Vulcan he wasnt timid about manipulasting thier thoughts and feelings on a subconscious level...and where did that get them? whenever some anti mutant group/subversive govt. faction attacks the school no less than a dozen mutant kids get killed each time, then the best they can hope for is Kurt giving a Eulogy and Mccoy quoting shaksepeare...ppfftt

I think sometimes in comics, the ends justify the means? e.g. someone like Wolverine who murders hordes of mostly innocent guards, it is to stop the plan and get to the bad guy or whatever they are guarding although maybe sometimes the writers do get too trigger happy

Some villains are just so evil that the only way to deal with them is to kill them

Originally posted by steverules_2
Thats why I added the before bit...because that was before he was a hero I remember his weapon X days, I am a wolverine fan...but not a fan boy who thinks he could beat superman which fan boys believe he could do

No they don't. please I love to here of a current member who believes he beats superman...........come on name one.

THIS is what Wolverine fanboys do.

They have the mutant ability to turn every single thread into some kind of debate about the character.

He made a hyperbole-based comment about the nature of Wolverine fanboys, Battlehammer. He didn't insult your Father. Just...let it go. You are only proving why everyone hates Wolverine fanboys.

On topic: heroes do what heroes need to do. Deluded heroes don't kill. Batman would be a hypocrite to kill Joker, but so what? I'd take the many lives I'd save as a bonus.

-AC

Batman gets away with killing Darkside thanks to the horrendous writing of Grant Morrison.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
Batman gets away with killing Darkside thanks to the horrendous writing of Grant Morrison.

I like that part. Batman always tried to defeat the evil that killed his parents, he faught a war on crime/evil. Darkseid was the embodiment of all that he fights against and he beats him with a weapon that is similar to that responsible for his creation, a gun .

Same thing almost happen in Infinite Crisis when Batsy pick up the gun and tried to kill Luthor from earth 2....however, Johns came to his sense and pull back....Morrison idiocy on the other hand....

Originally posted by Disappear
the "heroes don't kill" mantra is something that's spread almost universally through comics, even in relation to characters who kill without giving a shit. he got his ass kicked by captain america because of that fact alone, he's fought spider-man because of it, etcetera. while it's not always practiced as it is preached, it's something of a golden rule in a majority of the superhero community.


Dident Puniohser beat capt or was winning?

also capt would be a hypocrit no? I mena for one he killed people and to his best friend was an assassin.

Being with someone whose morals differ from yours = being a hypocrite.

Times are crazy!

Originally posted by Battlehammer
Dident Puniohser beat capt or was winning?


Nope not all

BH, i was referring to the civil war "fight," where cap just beats punisher mercilessly for having killed two villains who were trying to join up with the anti-registration underground. i don't have the issues handy, but i believe frank refused to fight back.

Originally posted by Disappear
, but i believe frank refused to fight back.

I think thats because Frank is too a fellow solider and respects Captain America.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
THIS is what Wolverine fanboys do.

They have the mutant ability to turn every single thread into some kind of debate about the character.

He made a hyperbole-based comment about the nature of Wolverine fanboys, Battlehammer. He didn't insult your Father. Just...let it go. You are only proving why everyone hates Wolverine fanboys.

On topic: heroes do what heroes need to do. Deluded heroes don't kill. Batman would be a hypocrite to kill Joker, but so what? I'd take the many lives I'd save as a bonus.

-AC Uncalled for. You're turning this into a personal attack, which isn't any less of an offense to the thread than what you're calling out Battlehammer for doing.

----------------------------------------

I would support heroes killing if there was some sort of SRA in place. If they're going to be required to use lethal force, they should be put under far stricter reigns than any other task force we use.

Otherwise, where is the line drawn between Batman killing Joker and Punisher shooting a drug dealer?

Originally posted by Original Smurph

I would support heroes killing if there was some sort of SRA in place. If they're going to be required to use lethal force, they should be put under far stricter reigns than any other task force we use.

Otherwise, where is the line drawn between Batman killing Joker and Punisher shooting a drug dealer?
To me, it's the important/meaning of that action. Batman puts a lot of emphasis on how important it is not to take a life and so on. Naturally, not killing the Joker has already led to countless deaths. That's not Batman's problem though, somehow DC has the most retarded judicial system in the comics-verse.

Originally posted by Disappear
BH, i was referring to the civil war "fight," where cap just beats punisher mercilessly for having killed two villains who were trying to join up with the anti-registration underground. i don't have the issues handy, but i believe frank refused to fight back.

Yeah, he said something around the lines of Cap being his hero in Vietnam. May be wrong, but it went a little like that. I actually liked that part.

Originally posted by Original Smurph
Uncalled for. You're turning this into a personal attack, which isn't any less of an offense to the thread than what you're calling out Battlehammer for doing.

----------------------------------------

I would support heroes killing if there was some sort of SRA in place. If they're going to be required to use lethal force, they should be put under far stricter reigns than any other task force we use.

Otherwise, where is the line drawn between Batman killing Joker and Punisher shooting a drug dealer?

How? If he denies he's a Wolverine fanboy then he's in denial. Also, he was doing something that people genuinely hate fanboys of ANY kind for; specifically Wolverine ones.

It applies to all, one of whom is him.

I was the one being TOLD that he was what I said he is when I came back here. He's a known Wolverine preacher.

-AC

Originally posted by Battlehammer
No they don't. please I love to here of a current member who believes he beats superman...........come on name one.

I was being sarcastic...

But I think I have seen in the past fan boys who have said he win, I'm sure in some threads its been said...wolverine888 or whatever his name was may have been one of those members but I have a life and don't keep a list of members who said wolverine could beat superman

take the wolverine chatter somewhere else, fellas. it's not important and it's unrelated.

back on topic, another x-factor-related killing. when madrox multiplies himself silly, while under hypnosis, and ends up killing the crew of a HYDRA base, he comes to a mentions that he feels absolutely nothing for it. "no regret. no horror. no elation. just... empty." he also mentioned earlier that he was intending to kill the man who'd hypnotized guido and reiterated his intention right before being hypnotized himself.

does this behavior make madrox specifically NOT a hero, by the accepted definitions? or does it just complicate the relationship between heroes and killing? let's get back into talks about that; these x-factor references are merely to bring up points, not to be discussed solely. feel free to add anything that applies.

Yeah, I've always thought the entire direction of X-force, especially their new incarnation is totally aimed to be the anti-hero sort of gang. Which is cool, because thye're doin' stuff I wish the X-Men did.

it's just sad that they had to butcher cyclops to get it running.

Originally posted by Kris Blaze
To me, it's the important/meaning of that action. Batman puts a lot of emphasis on how important it is not to take a life and so on. Naturally, not killing the Joker has already led to countless deaths. That's not Batman's problem though, somehow DC has the most retarded judicial system in the comics-verse.


Abolutley agree but I wouldn't blame the setup of the DCU either. The deaths should be considered the Joker's fault, insane or not.

Originally posted by -Pr-
it's just sad that they had to butcher cyclops to get it running.

Yeah, I'm sort of on the fence about that decision. Like, I'm glad Cyclops is finally getting gritty and over the top by forming X-Force, but at the same time, it goes against his character in a sense.

Originally posted by Disappear
take the wolverine chatter somewhere else, fellas. it's not important and it's unrelated.

back on topic, another x-factor-related killing. when madrox multiplies himself silly, while under hypnosis, and ends up killing the crew of a HYDRA base, he comes to a mentions that he feels absolutely nothing for it. "no regret. no horror. no elation. just... empty." he also mentioned earlier that he was intending to kill the man who'd hypnotized guido and reiterated his intention right before being hypnotized himself.

does this behavior make madrox specifically NOT a hero, by the accepted definitions? or does it just complicate the relationship between heroes and killing? let's get back into talks about that; these x-factor references are merely to bring up points, not to be discussed solely. feel free to add anything that applies.


It's certainly an interesting point. I think if we go by comic book rules, then we'd lump them into the Anti-hero group, well meaning but willing to commit acts that might be considered villainous. However, for me personally, I'd major on what Kris Blaze was referring to when he was talking about the meaning/intention being important, what defines an anti-hero as having the heroic element has to be their intention, otherwise someone like the Punisher would be hanging around with characters like Bullseye.

Originally posted by Scythe
Yeah, I'm sort of on the fence about that decision. Like, I'm glad Cyclops is finally getting gritty and over the top by forming X-Force, but at the same time, it goes against his character in a sense.

it's just how he's been portrayed during the whole thing. could i see him forming x-force? sure. but not the way he's done so. he's far too callous about the whole thing, and that doesn't sit right with me.

Originally posted by -Pr-
it's just how he's been portrayed during the whole thing. could i see him forming x-force? sure. but not the way he's done so. he's far too callous about the whole thing, and that doesn't sit right with me.

I know what you mean. How do you think they'll deal, or should deal, when it's revealed he formed X-Force? That is if it's still a secret, last time I checked it was.

Originally posted by Scythe
I know what you mean. How do you think they'll deal, or should deal, when it's revealed he formed X-Force? That is if it's still a secret, last time I checked it was.

emma knows about it, and a few others know something's going on, but haven't said anything outright.

beast left over it, though. well, not just that, but a few things too.

scott will have to face the music big time. i don't know what they're going to do about it, though.

Originally posted by Original Smurph
Uncalled for. You're turning this into a personal attack, which isn't any less of an offense to the thread than what you're calling out Battlehammer for doing.


Thanks. Wierdly enough I missed that comment AC made.


what else is new AC a hypocrit 24/7. find it funny he calls me the fanboy given the utter gibberish he stated about DP.

Lol his attempts to attack me personally make me chuckle, thanks for the support though.


-BH

Originally posted by -Pr-
emma knows about it, and a few others know something's going on, but haven't said anything outright.

beast left over it, though. well, not just that, but a few things too.

scott will have to face the music big time. i don't know what they're going to do about it, though.

Yeah, I remember now in Utopia crossover, he told Emma about it. I'm looking forward to what's goin' to happen to him.

Originally posted by Disappear
BH, i was referring to the civil war "fight," where cap just beats punisher mercilessly for having killed two villains who were trying to join up with the anti-registration underground. i don't have the issues handy, but i believe frank refused to fight back.
Oh ok yea I read that issue, Punisher got beat down. Your right though he did not fight back.

I thought you were refferring to that fight they had in the early 90's I believe.

-BH

Originally posted by -Pr-
it's just how he's been portrayed during the whole thing. could i see him forming x-force? sure. but not the way he's done so. he's far too callous about the whole thing, and that doesn't sit right with me.

while i agree it's a drastic shift, i don't necessarily agree that it's an incorrect or out-of-character portrayal. everything the x-men have had to face, especially since m-day, has re-organized the way their threats need to be dealt with. as was said earlier, they couldn't do anything the "heroic" way without it leading to deaths. and with scott's unofficial role as the leader of all mutantkind, especially in wake of utopia, making the tough decisions has to fall on his shoulders. the parallels between what he's doing now and what xavier did regarding the deadly genesis team and with danger are interesting, and hopefully intentional, and when that all comes to a boil it'll be an interesting read.

as far as intent of action goes, i can understand that, but it's a difficult to justify point in-comic. i almost got expelled from military school for having "cheated," in my case a higher-ranking student was copying my homework without my knowledge, and my entire argument in my own defense was that cheating requires both action and intent. while i was blinding performing actions that led to the cheating/plagarism, i didn't know that's what was going on and had no intention of cheating. so i get the whole "based on intent" idea. but how can intent actually be judged or understood, being only a thought process with no actual physical standing? cops and judges have to deal with the nature of intent from day-to-day, such as a justifiable homicide or things done in self-defense. but it's all based on testimony and witnesses and there's never REAL proof. so how can it really be judged? how can someone know the punisher is cleaning up crime, the dirty way, for the greater good and not just because he's a whacko with a mad-on for criminals?

Originally posted by Disappear
while i agree it's a drastic shift, i don't necessarily agree that it's an incorrect or out-of-character portrayal. everything the x-men have had to face, especially since m-day, has re-organized the way their threats need to be dealt with. as was said earlier, they couldn't do anything the "heroic" way without it leading to deaths. and with scott's unofficial role as the leader of all mutantkind, especially in wake of utopia, making the tough decisions has to fall on his shoulders. the parallels between what he's doing now and what xavier did regarding the deadly genesis team and with danger are interesting, and hopefully intentional, and when that all comes to a boil it'll be an interesting read.

as far as intent of action goes, i can understand that, but it's a difficult to justify point in-comic. i almost got expelled from military school for having "cheated," in my case a higher-ranking student was copying my homework without my knowledge, and my entire argument in my own defense was that cheating requires both action and intent. while i was blinding performing actions that led to the cheating/plagarism, i didn't know that's what was going on and had no intention of cheating. so i get the whole "based on intent" idea. but how can intent actually be judged or understood, being only a thought process with no actual physical standing? cops and judges have to deal with the nature of intent from day-to-day, such as a justifiable homicide or things done in self-defense. but it's all based on testimony and witnesses and there's never REAL proof. so how can it really be judged? how can someone know the punisher is cleaning up crime, the dirty way, for the greater good and not just because he's a whacko with a mad-on for criminals?

i honestly just mean in terms of regret or guilt. none of which he's shown enough of during his time making these frankly appaling decisions.

Originally posted by Kris Blaze
Batman puts a lot of emphasis on how important it is not to take a life and so on. Naturally, not killing the Joker has already led to countless deaths. That's not Batman's problem though, somehow DC has the most retarded judicial system in the comics-verse.


It's because there is no Death Penalty in Gotham. The minute the writers plant the capital punishment EVERY single left winger nutjob comic book geek would be up in arms with questioning the ethics and all that bullshit.

Killing the Joker isn't about choice...it's about not capable of doing. How many times have Joker survive several attempts in his life just to comeback and be more vicious? I'll spoil it for you guys...many. Joker is practically indestrutible..it's a force...it's an evil being that eventually returns...

There is been the theory of not just one Joker but several Jokers in the history of DC. Which may add juice to the myth...but that is just one more of the many theories sorrunding the character.

Besides, anyone wanting the joker death would be twice hypocritical if someone wanted to kill their beloved villain.

Case in point kill that lame Doctor Doom or Green Goblin for good.....or even overrated Mr. Sinister...how about them?

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
Besides, anyone wanting the joker death would be twice hypocritical if someone wanted to kill their beloved villain.

Case in point kill that lame Doctor Doom or Green Goblin for good.....or even overrated Mr. Sinister...how about them? ?

These aren't a bunch of marvel fanboys out to get DC villains because they hate them. Joker is an awesome character. He still should have died years ago for his crimes, but it's not because he's not well written or I don't particularly like him. He's my favorite villain.

Those were only examples. Again, there is so much of Joker that remains unknown...as I mention in the theory stated earlier.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
It's because there is no Death Penalty in Gotham. The minute the writers plant the capital punishment EVERY single left winger nutjob comic book geek would be up in arms with questioning the ethics and all that bullshit.

Killing the Joker isn't about choice...it's about not capable of doing. How many times have Joker survive several attempts in his life just to comeback and be more vicious? I'll spoil it for you guys...many. Joker is practically indestrutible..it's a force...it's an evil being that eventually returns...

There is been the theory of not just one Joker but several Jokers in the history of DC. Which may add juice to the myth...but that is just one more of the many theories sorrunding the character.

Besides, anyone wanting the joker death would be twice hypocritical if someone wanted to kill their beloved villain.

Case in point kill that lame Doctor Doom or Green Goblin for good.....or even overrated Mr. Sinister...how about them?
AbFNJRe4TNU

Originally posted by WickedDynamite


Case in point kill that lame Doctor Doom or Green Goblin for good.....or even overrated Mr. Sinister...how about them?


They are marvelous villains, especially Doctor Doom.


Joker is awesome too. My second favorite, behind Doom. But while Doom is a powerful wizard, and a genius on almost cosmic scale with a bad ass armor, Joker, while totally being a crazy terrorist/mass murder s.o.b., he's just a man. A man that have been captured many, many times.

U.S., have in some states the death penality, and people have the right to use firearms to self-defense, right? In these conditions, normally, the Joker should have been killed, a long time ago.

You can't kill Doom anyway. You know it'll end up being a Doombot.

true about the Doom bot...squirell girl and luke cage are the only two ppl i cant think of off top that have put hands on dude and beat that ass regally. say what you will about Doom but he is nigh untouchable to the average Joe. Joker on the other hand everytime he goes buck wild Batman swoops in.....break his jaw....bruise a couple of his ribs and other assorted bones. sure from a practical POV the joker needs to be killed but we still need more joker stories so thats not gonna happen but its the fact that Bats and Superman have taken an unmovable stance that they dont kill no matter what...even if it costs THIER lives or the lives of countless others ,as long as they can have one more thing to beat themselves up about.

Originally posted by Disappear
while i agree it's a drastic shift, i don't necessarily agree that it's an incorrect or out-of-character portrayal. everything the x-men have had to face, especially since m-day, has re-organized the way their threats need to be dealt with. as was said earlier, they couldn't do anything the "heroic" way without it leading to deaths. and with scott's unofficial role as the leader of all mutantkind, especially in wake of utopia, making the tough decisions has to fall on his shoulders. the parallels between what he's doing now and what xavier did regarding the deadly genesis team and with danger are interesting, and hopefully intentional, and when that all comes to a boil it'll be an interesting read.

as far as intent of action goes, i can understand that, but it's a difficult to justify point in-comic. i almost got expelled from military school for having "cheated," in my case a higher-ranking student was copying my homework without my knowledge, and my entire argument in my own defense was that cheating requires both action and intent. while i was blinding performing actions that led to the cheating/plagarism, i didn't know that's what was going on and had no intention of cheating. so i get the whole "based on intent" idea. but how can intent actually be judged or understood, being only a thought process with no actual physical standing? cops and judges have to deal with the nature of intent from day-to-day, such as a justifiable homicide or things done in self-defense. but it's all based on testimony and witnesses and there's never REAL proof. so how can it really be judged? how can someone know the punisher is cleaning up crime, the dirty way, for the greater good and not just because he's a whacko with a mad-on for criminals?

So the difference between justifying killing for the greater good or all killling being murder is the intent, not the action itself? Even if it all leads to the same consequense?

This question really makes my noggin overheat, especially when you relate it to real life dilemmas like is the death penalty for protection or vengence.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
It's because there is no Death Penalty in Gotham. The minute the writers plant the capital punishment EVERY single left winger nutjob comic book geek would be up in arms with questioning the ethics and all that bullshit.

Killing the Joker isn't about choice...it's about not capable of doing. How many times have Joker survive several attempts in his life just to comeback and be more vicious? I'll spoil it for you guys...many. Joker is practically indestrutible..it's a force...it's an evil being that eventually returns...

There is been the theory of not just one Joker but several Jokers in the history of DC. Which may add juice to the myth...but that is just one more of the many theories sorrunding the character.

Besides, anyone wanting the joker death would be twice hypocritical if someone wanted to kill their beloved villain.


The Joker is not Darkseid, who got remade by the Source when The Spectre destroyed him. He has no powers. This has been discussed heavily in the Batman forum, how it's become increasingly difficult to justify why he should live in gotham. DC has gotten backed into a shrinking corner every since he killed Jason Todd in 1988, with how to handle him.
You just look at out of continuity books like The Dark Knight Returns and Kingdom Come - they have no problems letting Joker get killed off in there.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
It's because there is no Death Penalty in Gotham. The minute the writers plant the capital punishment EVERY single left winger nutjob comic book geek would be up in arms with questioning the ethics and all that bullshit.

Killing the Joker isn't about choice...it's about not capable of doing. How many times have Joker survive several attempts in his life just to comeback and be more vicious? I'll spoil it for you guys...many. Joker is practically indestrutible..it's a force...it's an evil being that eventually returns...

There is been the theory of not just one Joker but several Jokers in the history of DC. Which may add juice to the myth...but that is just one more of the many theories sorrunding the character.

I could buy the multiple Joker theory, because that actually sounds plausible. A cult of some kind, with supernatural elements.

That doesn't change the fact that whoever the Joker is at a current time CAN be killed. If he can't, why is there more than one? Too many contradicting ideas there, though the initial one is good.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
Case in point kill that lame Doctor Doom or Green Goblin for good.....or even overrated Mr. Sinister...how about them?

How is Sinister overrated? The man is barely in any comics. The height of his appearance was either Mutant Massacre and Inferno. He wasn't used properly in Messiah Complex and now he IS "dead". Last I read, he was "dead".

If anything, he's one of the most underrated and underused villains in comics. If you don't read Marvel, I understand not knowing, but then don't speak matter-of-factly.

Secondly, Green Goblin isn't currently around.

-AC

Originally posted by roughrider
The Joker is not Darkseid, who got remade by the Source when The Spectre destroyed him. He has no powers. This has been discussed heavily in the Batman forum, how it's become increasingly difficult to justify why he should live in gotham. DC has gotten backed into a shrinking corner every since he killed Jason Todd in 1988, with how to handle him.
You just look at out of continuity books like The Dark Knight Returns and Kingdom Come - they have no problems letting Joker get killed off in there.

If you look at the stories closely you will notice the consequences that are trigger if Joker dies. That is why he can never die...even in the future he is reincarnated as a computer virus in Beyond.

He lives in Gotham for the simply reason of his origins and it's basically his base of operations (i.e. Arkham)

Originally posted by Disappear
while i agree it's a drastic shift, i don't necessarily agree that it's an incorrect or out-of-character portrayal. everything the x-men have had to face, especially since m-day, has re-organized the way their threats need to be dealt with. as was said earlier, they couldn't do anything the "heroic" way without it leading to deaths. and with scott's unofficial role as the leader of all mutantkind, especially in wake of utopia, making the tough decisions has to fall on his shoulders. the parallels between what he's doing now and what xavier did regarding the deadly genesis team and with danger are interesting, and hopefully intentional, and when that all comes to a boil it'll be an interesting read.

as far as intent of action goes, i can understand that, but it's a difficult to justify point in-comic. i almost got expelled from military school for having "cheated," in my case a higher-ranking student was copying my homework without my knowledge, and my entire argument in my own defense was that cheating requires both action and intent. while i was blinding performing actions that led to the cheating/plagarism, i didn't know that's what was going on and had no intention of cheating. so i get the whole "based on intent" idea. but how can intent actually be judged or understood, being only a thought process with no actual physical standing? cops and judges have to deal with the nature of intent from day-to-day, such as a justifiable homicide or things done in self-defense. but it's all based on testimony and witnesses and there's never REAL proof. so how can it really be judged? how can someone know the punisher is cleaning up crime, the dirty way, for the greater good and not just because he's a whacko with a mad-on for criminals?

There are some brilliant points here but a couple of problems. Firstly we have to remind ourselves that we can't equate comic book logic to real world logic, especially with the justice system. Sometimes our justice system (which I mean the whole world) makes more sense than any kind of comic reality and, unfortunately, sometimes the reverse is true.

But even assuming we were to apply real world logic, we can't undervalue the nature of intent enough here. It may be intangible, unquantifiable and sometimes irreconcilable in its nature. However it is nonetheless vital in both the real world Justice system and a comic one. It affects notoriety, morality and a whole range of other issues. It can quite literally make a world of difference and sometimes become even more important than the action itself. Not to get all philosophical but the question "Why?" for anything is there because of intent.

With all this in mind, intent becomes a haphazard and dangerous thing, but the greater crime in all this would be to ignore it because of its intangible nature.

Originally posted by roughrider


The world the Mutant community lives in is not like any other in DC or Marvel, where there are powerful factions that hate them for simply existing. Theirs is a kill-or-be-killed world of survival.



Interesting one ... Should HUMAN morality even apply to Mutants, and other Super humans who had significantly different genetic make up ? IMO its analogous to applying Morality to the animals on the Savanna, or our old Neanderthal Ancestors ?

Originally posted by Kris Blaze
Being with someone whose morals differ from yours = being a hypocrite.

Times are crazy!


Ummm not really !!!!

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
Ummm not really !!!!
Don't tell me you missed the sarcasm uhuh

Originally posted by Kris Blaze
Don't tell me you missed the sarcasm uhuh

Apologies !

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
Apologies !


I'd like to see your thoughts on the topic by the way.

Originally posted by -Pr-
i honestly just mean in terms of regret or guilt. none of which he's shown enough of during his time making these frankly appaling decisions.

Its possible to become numb to these sort of things and it could probably be explained that hes been conditioned to become that way.

in the eyes of more enthusiastic cyclops fans, and i mean no ill will with that categorization, having cyke become jaded to the "heroes don't kill, x-men don't kill" doctrine is just the same as if captain america made an avengers hit-squad. or superman. he's a boy scout, again not derogatory, and this drastic shift in his personality seems almost out-of-character. i'm all for it, not being the hardest of cyclops fans, and i prefer a more realistic, "noir" leaning in my characters. but i completely understand both sides of the argument.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
or even overrated Mr. Sinister...how about them?

gtfo.

Originally posted by Deadline
Its possible to become numb to these sort of things and it could probably be explained that hes been conditioned to become that way.

becoming numb to it would be a distortion of the character, seeing as he's supposed to question every little thing he does.

what do you mean conditioned?

Originally posted by Disappear
in the eyes of more enthusiastic cyclops fans, and i mean no ill will with that categorization, having cyke become jaded to the "heroes don't kill, x-men don't kill" doctrine is just the same as if captain america made an avengers hit-squad. or superman. he's a boy scout, again not derogatory, and this drastic shift in his personality seems almost out-of-character. i'm all for it, not being the hardest of cyclops fans, and i prefer a more realistic, "noir" leaning in my characters. but i completely understand both sides of the argument.

that's the problem, though: it's not well written. it wasn't gradual. it just started out of the blue.

and you can be realistic without wanting to murder things.

deadpool kills

Originally posted by -Pr-


that's the problem, though: it's not well written. it wasn't gradual. it just started out of the blue.

and you can be realistic without wanting to murder things.

entirely understood. i've been veering away from x-men in the last few years, only really getting back into the main comics around the time of utopia x, and things like that. it seems, to a casual reader like me, that he's simply hit his limit. so few mutants, so many still dying, a lifetime of fighting for a dream that he is constantly seeing denied him. it's like when a movie cop turns dirty; dark and gritty and kind of cool but not anything that can last without the audience getting bored. it'll return to the status quo eventually, but for now, i'm enjoying the ride.

How's it not a work in-progress?

Did Eve of Destruction and New X-Men not happen? Seem to recall a fair share of increased aggression.

Originally posted by Disappear
entirely understood. i've been veering away from x-men in the last few years, only really getting back into the main comics around the time of utopia x, and things like that. it seems, to a casual reader like me, that he's simply hit his limit. so few mutants, so many still dying, a lifetime of fighting for a dream that he is constantly seeing denied him. it's like when a movie cop turns dirty; dark and gritty and kind of cool but not anything that can last without the audience getting bored. it'll return to the status quo eventually, but for now, i'm enjoying the ride.

and that's fair enough.

Originally posted by Kris Blaze
How's it not a work in-progress?

Did Eve of Destruction and New X-Men not happen? Seem to recall a fair share of increased aggression.

in new x-men he was disillusioned more than ever, but that changed when astonishing came along. he grew in to his role and grew with emma. he was actually in a good mindset before messiah complex.

Originally posted by -Pr-
in new x-men he was disillusioned more than ever, but that changed when astonishing came along. he grew in to his role and grew with emma. he was actually in a good mindset before messiah complex.
Point Paul.

X-Force essentially ignores the effect Emma had Cyclops, in Astonishing and on.

Exactly.

I can see what Disappear is saying, but for those of us who spent ages thinking of Cyke as an obedient boy-scout, it's not an easy pill to swallow just to say: "Ok he's a bad-ass now and we accept that.".

It doesn't feel like he is believably bad-ass, just that someone's decided he is one.

-AC

Originally posted by Kris Blaze
Point Paul.

X-Force essentially ignores the effect Emma had Cyclops, in Astonishing and on.

i know, and that's the problem.

every so often cyclops has a defining arc that sets up the character for the next few years. he had it with simonsen in x-factor, he had it during the claremont/byrne run, and he had it during morrison's run.

the problem is that he had one during astonishing. he grew both as a person and as a leader. emma brought out sides to him he would have never shown jean.

yet he goes from that, to messiah complex, and then to today. it's against the entire point of the character.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Exactly.

I can see what Disappear is saying, but for those of us who spent ages thinking of Cyke as an obedient boy-scout, it's not an easy pill to swallow just to say: "Ok he's a bad-ass now and we accept that.".

It doesn't feel like he is believably bad-ass, just that someone's decided he is one.

-AC

not an obedient boy scout. just a man with a clear set of ideals. he's going against them right now.

i don't even mind that he set up x-force. i don't mind that he's ordered people killed. it's the fact that he's so damn comfortable with all of it, and shows almost no remorse about it.

Originally posted by -Pr-


becoming numb to it would be a distortion of the character, seeing as he's supposed to question every little thing he does.

what do you mean conditioned?




I don't know I think he started to gradually change. I saw hints of it in Uncany X-men were mutans were crucified outside the mansion. The cold ruthless Cyclops started to emerge. Stuff like that over time can make you cold and ruthless, thats what I mean by conditioned.