This is a good example of why I'm enjoying reading the Shadow. His methods have remained the same through his incarnations. He serves justice & makes no excuses or feels no remorse for it. He is who he is.
This is a good example of why I'm enjoying reading the Shadow. His methods have remained the same through his incarnations. He serves justice & makes no excuses or feels no remorse for it. He is who he is.
M
No problem here with a character who's generally pictured with blazing .45s in each hand being portrayed as a killer. Especially since he's (essentially) human.
Geoff Johns' homicidal superhumans just creep me out and seem utterly unheroic.
As his vision is driving the DCU, it has driven me away. In another month, all I'll be getting will be Wonder Woman's solo book, and only so long as it remains uninfested by Johns' storylines.
This is a good example of why I'm enjoying reading the Shadow. His methods have remained the same through his incarnations. He serves justice & makes no excuses or feels no remorse for it. He is who he is.
M
The same used to be true of Wonder Woman. She just didn't kill anybody while being who she was.
I really have no problem with Wonder Woman killing people. I'm not saying she needs to do it every single time she confronts someone, but I've always pictured the Amazons as a very brutal, warlike society. They worship Gods who play with human lives like they were toys, so it doesn't surprise me that some of that would rub off.
And who is to say that "Deal with" = "Kill" ? There are much worse things she could do than kill her enemies. Things that would have us all wringing our hands and fretting. "Cheetah, I've had about enough of those claws of yours..." (brandishes her sword)
Ultimately, Amazons are soldiers. Soldiers understand that there are enemies out there and that your duty as a soldier to to eliminate those enemies. "Don't die for your country - make that other sonofabitch die for his!" :)
Or, as my favorite line from the ol' Morrison JLA book goes: "Angels...meet Diana." :)
I'd have to know the context to judge whether her different approach is being shown as something cool, or whether it is a bit of inter-character tension that will come to a head at some point.
But I am with @Torchsong that I don't mind her having a different mindset than Superman or Batman, as she is of a very different background and culture.
Now, if it turns out that she does see it as a war and kills her foes, then I don't see her lasting long as a member of the Justice League unless she agrees to compromise and do things their way. But that makes for some story potential.
This is a fragment. I think what you meant to finish with is, "and since that would make for an interesting character dynamic, and we all know that DC is having some difficulty in that area right now, that is highly unlikely."
This is a fragment. I think what you meant to finish with is, "and since that would make for an interesting character dynamic, and we all know that DC is having some difficulty in that area right now, that is highly unlikely."
</ fixed>
:D
Well, they are having a tough time right now. But things can always get better. Heck, even Geoff Johns (who I have not been enjoying lately, which is why I dropped Justice League to begin with, and didn't stick with JLA past the first issue) made a great story out of a rift between the 'Trinity' back in Infinite Crisis. He might get his groove back someday.
Now you could all be misinterpreting that dialogue and this is actually a sign that she's finally returning to her original characterisation. That when she deals with her villains, she actually attempts to rehabilitate them and make them useful parts of society, rather than just throwing them in the world's worst mental health facility or the Phantom Zone.
Hahahaha. No. Of course she means she kills them. Because that is easier to write than a superhero with compassion.
Is this just a sign of the shrinking moral values of the world or just my aging but this does not bother me. Is it a pre-requisite for superheros to sign a pre-nup of sorts saying " I will not kill bad guys under any situation". The frenzy we whipped each other over Man of Steel, the silence over Spider-Otto seeming execution of Massacre, now this statement from Wonder Woman. The soldiers in my family killed people, I work with law enforcement and veterans who have killed people. If it happens in the line of fire or self defense why do we hold our fictional superheroes to higher moral standards than the real heroes? I do not think a super hero should pro-actively kill potential threats but if in combat they kill one, it is morally justifiable. To that point I never enjoyed the Punisher beyond his early appearances. The fact that in the past comics have not embraced this does not invalidate my belief. I think the attempt by Hero X to defeat Villain Y with out killing him seems to add drama to comics that otherwise would be a version of Spiderman beating the Vulture to death until next issue when he beats Kraven to death. If this was real life at some point Norman Osborn would have had to been killed by Spiderman. Maybe I'm missing a crucial element to comics but in 2013 I do not have a problem with this notion though I recognize the disconnect with expectations we all have.
The soldiers in my family killed people, I work with law enforcement and veterans who have killed people. If it happens in the line of fire or self defense why do we hold our fictional superheroes to higher moral standards than the real heroes? I do not think a super hero should pro-actively kill potential threats but if in combat they kill one, it is morally justifiable.
Soldiers and Law Enforcement Officers are working withing the law and have the sanction of government to kill when necessary. Even so, there are after-action reports and Internal Affairs investigations resulting thereof.
Superheroes are self-appointed vigilantes whose legal status is sketchy enough without adding homicide to the mix. If comics are gonna get "realistic" by having "heroes" execute their foes, then they should also have to realistically deal with the repercussions of their actions: criminal prosecutions for homicide, reckless endangerment, destruction of public & private property, operation of unlicensed vehicles, failure to file proper flight plans*, etc. And that's not even getting into the civil suits.
The soldiers in my family killed people, I work with law enforcement and veterans who have killed people. If it happens in the line of fire or self defense why do we hold our fictional superheroes to higher moral standards than the real heroes? I do not think a super hero should pro-actively kill potential threats but if in combat they kill one, it is morally justifiable.
Soldiers and Law Enforcement Officers are working withing the law and have the sanction of government to kill when necessary. Even so, there are after-action reports and Internal Affairs investigations resulting thereof.
Superheroes are self-appointed vigilantes whose legal status is sketchy enough without adding homicide to the mix. If comics are gonna get "realistic" by having "heroes" execute their foes, then they should also have to realistically deal with the repercussions of their actions: criminal prosecutions for homicide, reckless endangerment, destruction of public & private property, operation of unlicensed vehicles, failure to file proper flight plans*, etc. And that's not even getting into the civil suits.
*Littering AND Creating a Nuisance.
And I do not disagree with any of the consequences you say they should deal with. In fact that fallout is grist for great stories. It certainly more realistic than letting Norman Osborne get away with murder time and time again.
The soldiers in my family killed people, I work with law enforcement and veterans who have killed people. If it happens in the line of fire or self defense why do we hold our fictional superheroes to higher moral standards than the real heroes? I do not think a super hero should pro-actively kill potential threats but if in combat they kill one, it is morally justifiable.
Soldiers and Law Enforcement Officers are working withing the law and have the sanction of government to kill when necessary. Even so, there are after-action reports and Internal Affairs investigations resulting thereof.
Superheroes are self-appointed vigilantes whose legal status is sketchy enough without adding homicide to the mix. If comics are gonna get "realistic" by having "heroes" execute their foes, then they should also have to realistically deal with the repercussions of their actions: criminal prosecutions for homicide, reckless endangerment, destruction of public & private property, operation of unlicensed vehicles, failure to file proper flight plans*, etc. And that's not even getting into the civil suits.
*Littering AND Creating a Nuisance.
And I do not disagree with any of the consequences you say they should deal with. In fact that fallout is grist for great stories. It certainly more realistic than letting Norman Osborne get away with murder time and time again.
And I'm not looking for 'realism' in a comic book. If I wanted that, I'd read Time magazine. Nor am I looking for a comic that promotes the idea of a preventive murder as being the ideal method of dealing with an arch-enemy. That's not entertainment.
And I'm not looking for 'realism' in a comic book. If I wanted that, I'd read Time magazine. Nor am I looking for a comic that promotes the idea of a preventive murder as being the ideal method of dealing with an arch-enemy. That's not entertainment.
I concur.
Besides, we already worked through all these issues in the 1980s. Nothing Johns et al are doing is groundbreaking. Nor is it shocking to those of us who read Miracleman and Brat Pack/Maximortal.
The soldiers in my family killed people, I work with law enforcement and veterans who have killed people. If it happens in the line of fire or self defense why do we hold our fictional superheroes to higher moral standards than the real heroes? I do not think a super hero should pro-actively kill potential threats but if in combat they kill one, it is morally justifiable.
Soldiers and Law Enforcement Officers are working withing the law and have the sanction of government to kill when necessary. Even so, there are after-action reports and Internal Affairs investigations resulting thereof.
Superheroes are self-appointed vigilantes whose legal status is sketchy enough without adding homicide to the mix. If comics are gonna get "realistic" by having "heroes" execute their foes, then they should also have to realistically deal with the repercussions of their actions: criminal prosecutions for homicide, reckless endangerment, destruction of public & private property, operation of unlicensed vehicles, failure to file proper flight plans*, etc. And that's not even getting into the civil suits.
*Littering AND Creating a Nuisance.
And I do not disagree with any of the consequences you say they should deal with. In fact that fallout is grist for great stories. It certainly more realistic than letting Norman Osborne get away with murder time and time again.
And I'm not looking for 'realism' in a comic book. If I wanted that, I'd read Time magazine. Nor am I looking for a comic that promotes the idea of a preventive murder as being the ideal method of dealing with an arch-enemy. That's not entertainment.
I actually said I did not agree with the notion of preventative murder. I do not want to see court room battles and torts either. I just refuse to get bent out of shape over a villain getting killed. Arkham Asylum and the Raft are too porous for my reality.
And that's ultimately it. Heroes don't kill fundamentally because of literary restraints and the idea that we may "need" that villain again for something.
As someone else mentioned, it may be a sign of our times, and not necessarily a good one, but we have a society where the law simply doesn't always work.
Zod - If you let me live I'm going to wipe out every single person on this planet.
Joker - Not only am I going to kill as many people as I can, I'm going to make it personal.
Lawyer - We can get these guys life, maybe...insanity grounds.
Media - Is Zod right? Shouldn't we all die?
The old adage of "If you kill them you become no better than they are" is holding less and less water. It's being replaced with "If you kill them you prevent them from carrying through on their threat, and past evidence showing that threat to be valid, of killing everyone. DO it!"
I'm reminded of the scene in Maximum Carnage where Spidey breaks down and tells Firestar to use her powers to kill Carnage, with Venom rooting her on. Because it's Spidey asking, she does it, only to have him stop her when he realizes what he's asking her to do. Venom's pissed...and to be honest, I was as well. This guy is an unrepentant killer. He's said he'll kill again, without remorse. The only thing wrong was asking Firestar to do it. Do it yourself, or let Venom get in there.
Bottom line, kill one person to save the hundreds they've stated they have no problem killing? Yes. Even if it means I have to play judge, jury and executioner on the spot. This is not a bloodthisty lust for violence. This is putting down a rabid dog.
But that won't happen, because we love reading stories with the Joker in them.
Feels in-line with my favourite version of WW from Darwin Cooke's New Frontier:
I will confess to a profound fondness for this version of the character.*
But this was a Diana who had "fallen" from her heroic status. As had all the Golden Age heroes in one fashion or another. The story was about a new generation of heroes, who had been inspired by them, emerging and in the process reminding them what they had once been.
*Love her sturdy build and the way she towers over Superman.
Also, no silly-assed star-shaped earrings or "WW" choker, but look at the dents in her bracelets and tiara from 20+ years of campaigning.
Besides, we already worked through all these issues in the 1980s. Nothing Johns et al are doing is groundbreaking. Nor is it shocking to those of us who read Miracleman and Brat Pack/Maximortal.
Amended list: Miracleman Brat Pack/Maximortal Kingdom Come Marvels New Frontier The Golden Age Sandman Mystery Theater Starman Watchmen The Dark Knight Returns
Off the top of my head*, I can't think of a superhero series from the last 15 years that has broken any ground that hadn't already yielded a bountiful harvest to at least one of these.
*With the exception of Hellboy, which started prior to the 15-year mark.
Color my face red. New Frontier was published in 2004. Seems like longer.
Besides, we already worked through all these issues in the 1980s. Nothing Johns et al are doing is groundbreaking. Nor is it shocking to those of us who read Miracleman and Brat Pack/Maximortal.
Amended list: Miracleman Brat Pack/Maximortal Kingdom Come Marvels New Frontier The Golden Age Sandman Mystery Theater Starman Watchmen The Dark Knight Returns
Off the top of my head*, I can't think of a superhero series from the last 15 years that has broken any ground that hadn't already yielded a bountiful harvest to at least one of these.
*With the exception of Hellboy, which started prior to the 15-year mark.
Color my face red. New Frontier was published in 2004. Seems like longer.
Comments
M
Geoff Johns' homicidal superhumans just creep me out and seem utterly unheroic.
As his vision is driving the DCU, it has driven me away. In another month, all I'll be getting will be Wonder Woman's solo book, and only so long as it remains uninfested by Johns' storylines.
And who is to say that "Deal with" = "Kill" ? There are much worse things she could do than kill her enemies. Things that would have us all wringing our hands and fretting. "Cheetah, I've had about enough of those claws of yours..." (brandishes her sword)
Ultimately, Amazons are soldiers. Soldiers understand that there are enemies out there and that your duty as a soldier to to eliminate those enemies. "Don't die for your country - make that other sonofabitch die for his!" :)
Or, as my favorite line from the ol' Morrison JLA book goes: "Angels...meet Diana." :)
But I am with @Torchsong that I don't mind her having a different mindset than Superman or Batman, as she is of a very different background and culture.
Now, if it turns out that she does see it as a war and kills her foes, then I don't see her lasting long as a member of the Justice League unless she agrees to compromise and do things their way. But that makes for some story potential.
</ fixed>
:D
Hahahaha. No. Of course she means she kills them. Because that is easier to write than a superhero with compassion.
To that point I never enjoyed the Punisher beyond his early appearances. The fact that in the past comics have not embraced this does not invalidate my belief. I think the attempt by Hero X to defeat Villain Y with out killing him seems to add drama to comics that otherwise would be a version of Spiderman beating the Vulture to death until next issue when he beats Kraven to death. If this was real life at some point Norman Osborn would have had to been killed by Spiderman. Maybe I'm missing a crucial element to comics but in 2013 I do not have a problem with this notion though I recognize the disconnect with expectations we all have.
Superheroes are self-appointed vigilantes whose legal status is sketchy enough without adding homicide to the mix. If comics are gonna get "realistic" by having "heroes" execute their foes, then they should also have to realistically deal with the repercussions of their actions: criminal prosecutions for homicide, reckless endangerment, destruction of public & private property, operation of unlicensed vehicles, failure to file proper flight plans*, etc. And that's not even getting into the civil suits.
*Littering AND Creating a Nuisance.
Besides, we already worked through all these issues in the 1980s. Nothing Johns et al are doing is groundbreaking. Nor is it shocking to those of us who read Miracleman and Brat Pack/Maximortal.
As someone else mentioned, it may be a sign of our times, and not necessarily a good one, but we have a society where the law simply doesn't always work.
Zod - If you let me live I'm going to wipe out every single person on this planet.
Joker - Not only am I going to kill as many people as I can, I'm going to make it personal.
Lawyer - We can get these guys life, maybe...insanity grounds.
Media - Is Zod right? Shouldn't we all die?
The old adage of "If you kill them you become no better than they are" is holding less and less water. It's being replaced with "If you kill them you prevent them from carrying through on their threat, and past evidence showing that threat to be valid, of killing everyone. DO it!"
I'm reminded of the scene in Maximum Carnage where Spidey breaks down and tells Firestar to use her powers to kill Carnage, with Venom rooting her on. Because it's Spidey asking, she does it, only to have him stop her when he realizes what he's asking her to do. Venom's pissed...and to be honest, I was as well. This guy is an unrepentant killer. He's said he'll kill again, without remorse. The only thing wrong was asking Firestar to do it. Do it yourself, or let Venom get in there.
Bottom line, kill one person to save the hundreds they've stated they have no problem killing? Yes. Even if it means I have to play judge, jury and executioner on the spot. This is not a bloodthisty lust for violence. This is putting down a rabid dog.
But that won't happen, because we love reading stories with the Joker in them.
But this was a Diana who had "fallen" from her heroic status. As had all the Golden Age heroes in one fashion or another. The story was about a new generation of heroes, who had been inspired by them, emerging and in the process reminding them what they had once been.
*Love her sturdy build and the way she towers over Superman.
Also, no silly-assed star-shaped earrings or "WW" choker, but look at the dents in her bracelets and tiara from 20+ years of campaigning.
Miracleman
Brat Pack/Maximortal
Kingdom Come
Marvels
New Frontier
The Golden Age
Sandman Mystery Theater
Starman
Watchmen
The Dark Knight Returns
Off the top of my head*, I can't think of a superhero series from the last 15 years that has broken any ground that hadn't already yielded a bountiful harvest to at least one of these.
*With the exception of Hellboy, which started prior to the 15-year mark.
Color my face red. New Frontier was published in 2004. Seems like longer.
M
http://youtu.be/eEFfuc6hVCc
This 70's WW is from Robert Valley and other shorts will begin airing this Saturday on Cartoon Network at 10am.