I'd be happy to see a touch of justifiable homicide in my comics. Always wanted to. We can handle it. The industry can handle it. They want realism and maturuty The good guys can certainly still be the "good guys" and I think that's an important and unexplored angle and lesson for some of the readership to see.
I'd be happy to see a touch of justifiable homicide in my comics. Always wanted to. We can handle it. The industry can handle it. They want realism and maturuty The good guys can certainly still be the "good guys" and I think that's an important and unexplored angle and lesson for some of the readership to see.
I've always found 'justifiable homicide' to be one of those self-contradictory terms -- like 'jumbo shrimp' and 'military intelligence'. I just find something wrong with a hero, any hero, explaining to the police afterwards, "Sure, I killed him -- but it was totally justified. He had it coming!" Sounds a little too close to the Trayvor Martin case for comfort. And I certainly don't want to see my heroes engaging in it. As usual, when something like this creeps into the books, I blame the writers and the editors for going there.
I get that in comics you dont want to see Spiderman kill Norman Osborn but legally "justifiable homicide" is not a contradiction. It is a defense allowable under law to kill some one to prevent worse mayhem and murder. There are defenses for killing someone that when the time comes you, I or Clark Kent have to do so and not go to jail.
I'd be happy to see a touch of justifiable homicide in my comics. Always wanted to. We can handle it. The industry can handle it. They want realism and maturuty The good guys can certainly still be the "good guys" and I think that's an important and unexplored angle and lesson for some of the readership to see.
I've always found 'justifiable homicide' to be one of those self-contradictory terms -- like 'jumbo shrimp' and 'military intelligence'. I just find something wrong with a hero, any hero, explaining to the police afterwards, "Sure, I killed him -- but it was totally justified. He had it coming!" Sounds a little too close to the Trayvor Martin case for comfort. And I certainly don't want to see my heroes engaging in it. As usual, when something like this creeps into the books, I blame the writers and the editors for going there.
So in your world there is no such thing as a situation where, A- someone may HAVE to take someones life? For example to save their own life or the life of another? And apparently if they did they must naturally be callous about it? B- there is no such thing as someone (supervillain for example) who could justly be considered "too dangerous to live"?
Why couldnt or shouldnt such a concept be explored in the fictional comicbook world?
I would love to hear your first hand account of George Zimmermans emotional state and his exact utterances to Law enforcement the night he shot Trayvon Martin since I wasnt there.
Just to clarify, you dont believe there are intelligent people in the Military?
Why couldnt or shouldnt such a concept be explored in the fictional comicbook world?
I think it has been. The best example done, to my recollection, was the infamous "Trial Of The Flash" story arc that ran through the last couple of years' worth of his title, leading up to the Crisis back in the 80's. Barry Allen, in order to protect the woman he is about to marry, finds himself forced to kill the Reverse-Flash. But could he have done anything else to save her that didn't involve justifiable homicide? Was it really his only choice? The story explored a lot of ramifications of that act, including the possibility of his being convicted for murder, and the potential expulsion from the JLA for breaking one of their cardinal by-laws, regardless of whether or not his action was judged to be legal. This, for all of the problems the overlong arc had, was one of the best in covering this particular trial. (No pun intended there.)
Even Wonder Woman's killing of Max Lord a few years back had the grace of exploring the consequences of her action. Now, however, we seem to be getting a rather blase' acceptance of the act without any concern of consequences, accepting that, not only is it a matter of course, it should also be a matter of standard procedure. And I don't find that to be a cornerstone of heroics -- certainly not from people with powers and abilities far beyond my own.
Why couldnt or shouldnt such a concept be explored in the fictional comicbook world?
I think it has been. The best example done, to my recollection, was the infamous "Trial Of The Flash" story arc that ran through the last couple of years' worth of his title, leading up to the Crisis back in the 80's. Barry Allen, in order to protect the woman he is about to marry, finds himself forced to kill the Reverse-Flash. But could he have done anything else to save her that didn't involve justifiable homicide? Was it really his only choice? The story explored a lot of ramifications of that act, including the possibility of his being convicted for murder, and the potential expulsion from the JLA for breaking one of their cardinal by-laws, regardless of whether or not his action was judged to be legal. This, for all of the problems the overlong arc had, was one of the best in covering this particular trial. (No pun intended there.)
Even Wonder Woman's killing of Max Lord a few years back had the grace of exploring the consequences of her action. Now, however, we seem to be getting a rather blase' acceptance of the act without any concern of consequences, accepting that, not only is it a matter of course, it should also be a matter of standard procedure. And I don't find that to be a cornerstone of heroics -- certainly not from people with powers and abilities far beyond my own.
Who's saying it has to be a cornerstone? You are basing some of your comments on the position that "justifiable homicide" would become the norm or as you say "standard procedure". I have painted no such picture and recognize the dramatic futility of that result each month. I have said embrace the consequences. You are arguing points I have not made or already addressed. All I am saying is why remove that tool from the toolbox of heroes. Letting the afore mentioned Norman Osborne get away with murder has it's own dramatic futility.
Barry Allen killing Reverse-Flash was an accident. There was no 'I need to kill him or else!' moment. He was surprised when a bystander (a cop?) said that the R-Flash was dead.
Barry Allen killing Reverse-Flash was an accident. There was no 'I need to kill him or else!' moment. He was surprised when a bystander (a cop?) said that the R-Flash was dead.
That's true, it had been an accident. But for several chapters of that story even Barry began to wonder if that was true -- if, during the heat of the moment, he hadn't pulled out all the stops and killed Zoom to prevent him from ever threatening anyone else Barry loved. The incident caused a lot of self-doubt and self-recrimination, part of the package of repercussions Barry had to deal with.
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.
To me, this was always the best explanation presented in the comics for why the majority of superheroes keep themselves (and each other) from crossing that red line into killing. I mean, sure, it is already a pretty big ask to suspend your disbelief and accept that people would allow all these vigilantes to operate even if they didn't kill, since they are still breaking all sorts of other laws, and generally doing the things that only sworn officers and other authorities should be doing, and given that you don't have many stories of superheroes testifying at trials, it must be hell convicting someone left tied up outside of a police station of a crime.
BUT it would be even harder to suspend that disbelief once a hero kills. It just seems like that is something the society would not let them do, even if they didn't mean to, or only do in an extreme case. Ultimately, it calls too much attention to the fact that they are vigilantes in the first place.
So there has been a long history of stories positing that the heroes are allowed to put on their masks and do what they do so long as they don't kill and regulate themselves, and we have got used to suspending our disbelief with that limit in mind.
Thing is, when she first began as a character, there is no way she would have been allowed to kill or deal with villains in the same way as male leads. Although quote is out of context as a character evolution it fits within the leeway that writers are given for development and ensuring modernity. Batman got darker....
Also, to add context, I read the issue this panel appears in, and on the NEXT page (bolded words are the ones in italics in the book)--
(They are flying, in the middle of investigating something)
Superman: I trust you are not talking about KILLING them, Diana.
WW: ONLY if it comes to that.
Superman: There's no doubt INNOCENT PEOPLE have been put on DEATH ROW.
WW: Not if you have a LASSO of TRUTH.
(they land)
(pause panel- no dialogue, they are standing, Superman seems to be processing what he is heard)
Superman: Maybe we should change the subject.
And then they get interrupted by Pandora, and the story continues from there.
I add this not because I think everyone will suddenly be okay with it, but I think the panel in the context of the scene makes it clear that this is not just some bit of New 52 Wonder Woman status quo presented matter-of-factly (e.g. 'She kills. It's cool. No problem!') but rather that it is presented as a difference between her and Superman, it is something that is a problem growing between them. Rather than just being a fact about Diana, it seems rather that beginning of a story-- introducing a conflict that will come to a breaking point later. Sure, some may feel that Superman is not reacting strongly enough or urgently enough, I take that point before it is even made. But it is not like he didn't react at all. And it also makes it clear that, if Wonder Woman kills, she is at least not casual about it.
So, some added context, for what it is worth.
(Sort of like looking at the "white people!" panel vs. looking at the whole scene, including what is on the next page. I throw that one out for the old timers.)
Thing is, when she first began as a character, there is no way she would have been allowed to kill or deal with villains in the same way as male leads. Although quote is out of context as a character evolution it fits within the leeway that writers are given for development and ensuring modernity. Batman got darker....
Well, in 1941 her fellow All American and DC counterparts (they didn’t merge until 1944) were all pretty squeaky clean themselves. She dealt with her enemies in much the same way as the male heroes of the two companies (though with more emphasis on bondage and spanking ;) ). Marston would be rolling over in his grave to see Wonder Woman even bring up to possibility of killing her opponents. He designed her to show the power of love, peace, harmony, and the superiority of feminism. But, then, he held some fairly radical views.
Personally, given the mythological basis of her origins, I don’t have a problem with her killing as a last resort. I prefer to see her as the reluctant warrior, who is all the more ferocious for it in her effort to finish a battle once it has begun.
Ah, punishment by spanky and fatal boulder retribution! Pseudo-maternity and indirect action, the female powers!
I'd like to see a return to traditional values in the comic world...Spiderman could certainly up his fetish aspects with his constant supply of bondage rope... I may have to begin a thread on what would be the fetish-superpower of different characters...hmmmm....
I can't believe we're talking about the same character that was created for and enjoyed by children. My daughter loves the idea of Wonder Woman, but the old stuff is too old, and the new stuff is cold-blooded and cold-hearted. In 20 years' time, when we're all old, dead or jaded, there will be no one to read or care which version of Wonder Woman is the best. The only hope of survival is if she exists as a movie, which I shudder to think what WB would do to her.
I fear these heroes are hanging on like a loose tooth, and soon will be extinct. And the more they are "modernized", the faster it is happening.
Push that little "disagree" button if you will, but that's where I am with comics, right now.
For what it is worth, the WW of the New 52, at least in her own title (I don't regularly read JL) doesn't feel modernized. She feels classical. In a way, she actually feels like she has been brought back to a concept much older than the characters publishing roots.
As Peter said, Marston's Diana killed. This character has LONG been a warrior that killed when it was necessary. I've been reading the Perez series with my daughter, and had to skip over a few pages when she DECAPITATED her foe (and then again several issues later when Zeus wanted to bang her... That became a very short story). Talk about moral decay, or cry about the fact that they don't write comics like they did when you were a kid all you want, but this trait has long been a part of Wonder Woman's character.
I like modernizing. Silver Age Wonder Woman was modernizing. Mod Diana Prince was modernizing. Perez was modernizing. I imagine the reason for modernizing is because publishers heard readers state that the "old stuff is too old". ;)
As Peter said, Marston's Diana killed. This character has LONG been a warrior that killed when it was necessary. I've been reading the Perez series with my daughter, and had to skip over a few pages when she DECAPITATED her foe (and then again several issues later when Zeus wanted to bang her... That became a very short story). Talk about moral decay, or cry about the fact that they don't write comics like they did when you were a kid all you want, but this trait has long been a part of Wonder Woman's character.
Not to nitpick, @Paul, but Peter said Marston’s Amazons killed, not WW herself. Admittedly, I haven't read very much of the Golden Age or early Silver Age Wonder Woman material, so someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think there are any deaths that can be attributed to WW on-screen or off, intentional or even unintentional until Pérez revamped her post-Crisis. Marston’s Wonder Woman fought with her lasso and her fists, not with swords. She even managed to reform a few of her villains.
Again, I'm not saying I have a problem with today’s version of the character being willing to kill, because I don’t. But there is a distinct difference between the Marston Wonder Woman (he died in 1947) and the various post-Crisis versions of Wonder Woman. Twenty-five years is still a fairly long history for the willing-to-kill version, but WW did spend her first 46 years without spilling blood, and I don’t think you can just completely dismiss that history, or the people who prefer that version, out of hand.
As for “modernization,” the problem with publishing a stable of characters that have outlived their creators is that times change, attitudes change, etc. So, yeah, you need to update the hairstyles and the clothing and the cars on the street and the types of phones they are using. And you can modernize the storytelling—these days that means less dialogue; few, if any, captions; decompressed stories; etc. But all of this is done (ideally, anyway) for the purpose of making the characters more relateable to the reader. And that should be a goal for any story in any medium—relateable characters. They don’t have to be likeable—they don’t even have to be all that realistic—but they need to be relateable, believable (there is a difference between “realistic” and “believeable” in storytelling! But that’s for another rant), if you want them to make a lasting impact.
As Wonder Woman has been established thus far in the New 52, having her kill is believable. Whether she's more relateable because of it is up to the individual. That being said, DC could just as easily have created a believable Wonder Woman who is unwilling to kill. The question—and it’s the underlying question of the Man of Steel movie debate—is which version is more relateable, and what does that say about the comic-reading public?
Also, and I am about 7 or 8 issues behind on her solo book (looking forward to them, though, New 52 is the first WW title I have stuck with)-- so this is a question that maybe @WetRats or anyone else that is current on her book can answer:
*Is* she a 'stone cold killer'? Has this come up enough that you would describe this as a part of the premise of her character? (e.g. 'this one is a billionaire whose parents were killed and now he fights crime. . . this one is the last survivor of an alien planet and now defends his adopted species. . . and this one is an Amazon princess who kills people'?)
I feel like some people, who maybe aren't reading the books she is in, are looking at that provocative panel and figuring this means that the New 52 WW is now the Punisher. But I don't think that is how she is actually being portrayed.
Of course there are warrior moments in her past, such as the ones from the Perez run that @Paul talked about. I know she alludes to killing enemies in this excerpt from JL. But in the 20+ issues of her solo book, how many of her enemies have they had her kill? I don't remember any in the issues I've read, but I could be forgetting.
In this scene with Superman she may be articulating that she doesn't have a red line about killing like they do (again, the warrior vs. superhero trope, which I think a lot of writers have used in the past for her). But in a few years worth of New 52 WW stories, has she even crossed that line yet? Or is this a cultural conversation about something that is not actually happening in the books right now?
@David_D: If she has killed in her own comic, it hasn't been jarring to the point I noticed.
But the current Wonder Woman comic isn't a superhero book. It's a HERO* book. It's so thoroughly steeped in mythology that slaying the occasional monster would be completely appropriate.**
Despite Orion sniffing around her in both books, I don't see much connection at all between the WW portrayed in the JL books and the one in her own book.
*Ok, heroine, technically, but she's in the tradition of Hercules, Achilles & Jason, but classier.
**Some people settle for double standards, I've got pentuple standards!
@WetRats- Thanks for that. (And I agree that the new WW book is more classical and superhero, and it is something I think has been great about it. It is like Sandman with more ass-kicking).
And I am guessing that she hasn't killed anyone in the 20+ issues of Justice League, especially given that a panel where she just talks about being capable of it got the attention, as opposed to her actually doing that in the comic.
So, it sounds like there is less killing in the WW book than in the 1980s Perez days. And if there has been killing, it has been more along the lines of monster slaying than, say, killing people.
To digress for a second- I actually wonder if that might be where that conversation with Superman from the issue in question is going-- part of the difference between WW and the rest of the trinity is that their villains are deranged people, where her villains are actually monsters. And, at least in this point in their relationship, when humanity is still pretty new to her, she hasn't yet learned the difference. Which, of course, is something she could learn later. As what the characters haven't learned yet, or where they conflict, is often where stories come from.
Anyway, bottom line, and another reader can correct me if I am missing something-- at the moment, the New 52 Wonder Woman actually kills less than the 1980s one, which was more than 30 years ago. So do we really need to be worrying about what the current incarnation will mean in 20 years? Given that she is actually not as violent as the Perez incarnation, shouldn't those that have a cultural concern about this actually feel better about the current incarnation than they would have felt about the 1980s one? Especially if you deal in what is actually in the books, as opposed to what you see people saying about the books.
You know, at first I was going to argue that killing and modernization have nothing to do with one another. After all, death and war have been around since the dawn of man. But in terms of the 75 years of superhero comic book storytelling, it is a fairly modern trope to have the hero kill. Yes, there have always been exceptions—Michael Fleisher’s Spectre is a notable one—but it’s only in the past 25 years (after Watchmen, Dark Knight, Miracleman) that it’s become a fairly common occurrence. And I'm not talking about Punisher-level killing, but that Miracleman vs. Johnny Bates, Dark Knight vs. Joker, and, yes, Man of Steel vs. Zod (the similarities between this and the Miracleman scene are so strong, if I was a conspiracy theorist, I’d wonder if WB filmed it just so Marvel can’t do it in a future Miracleman movie without looking like they ripped off MoS), where the hero “has” to take the villain’s life for the greater good.
As David says, it is pretty much a trope now, so strictly in that sense, yes, I think having your hero be willing to kill is “modern.” That’s not to say it’s necessary, because it’s not.
@David_D: If she has killed in her own comic, it hasn't been jarring to the point I noticed.
But the current Wonder Woman comic isn't a superhero book. It's a HERO* book. It's so thoroughly steeped in mythology that slaying the occasional monster would be completely appropriate.**
Despite Orion sniffing around her in both books, I don't see much connection at all between the WW portrayed in the JL books and the one in her own book.
*Ok, heroine, technically, but she's in the tradition of Hercules, Achilles & Jason, but classier.
**Some people settle for double standards, I've got pentuple standards!
I would definitely agree with the first two paragraphs. I haven’t read any of the Justice League books beyond Justice League #1, so I can’t comment on the last paragraph. I would say, though, that the way she is portrayed in her eponymous title does not preclude the possibility that she wouldn’t kill a human being in certain circumstances.
Comments
B- there is no such thing as someone (supervillain for example) who could justly be considered "too dangerous to live"?
Why couldnt or shouldnt such a concept be explored in the fictional comicbook world?
I would love to hear your first hand account of George Zimmermans emotional state and his exact utterances to Law enforcement the night he shot Trayvon Martin since I wasnt there.
Just to clarify, you dont believe there are intelligent people in the Military?
Even Wonder Woman's killing of Max Lord a few years back had the grace of exploring the consequences of her action. Now, however, we seem to be getting a rather blase' acceptance of the act without any concern of consequences, accepting that, not only is it a matter of course, it should also be a matter of standard procedure. And I don't find that to be a cornerstone of heroics -- certainly not from people with powers and abilities far beyond my own.
BUT it would be even harder to suspend that disbelief once a hero kills. It just seems like that is something the society would not let them do, even if they didn't mean to, or only do in an extreme case. Ultimately, it calls too much attention to the fact that they are vigilantes in the first place.
So there has been a long history of stories positing that the heroes are allowed to put on their masks and do what they do so long as they don't kill and regulate themselves, and we have got used to suspending our disbelief with that limit in mind.
(They are flying, in the middle of investigating something)
Superman: I trust you are not talking about KILLING them, Diana.
WW: ONLY if it comes to that.
Superman: There's no doubt INNOCENT PEOPLE have been put on DEATH ROW.
WW: Not if you have a LASSO of TRUTH.
(they land)
(pause panel- no dialogue, they are standing, Superman seems to be processing what he is heard)
Superman: Maybe we should change the subject.
And then they get interrupted by Pandora, and the story continues from there.
I add this not because I think everyone will suddenly be okay with it, but I think the panel in the context of the scene makes it clear that this is not just some bit of New 52 Wonder Woman status quo presented matter-of-factly (e.g. 'She kills. It's cool. No problem!') but rather that it is presented as a difference between her and Superman, it is something that is a problem growing between them. Rather than just being a fact about Diana, it seems rather that beginning of a story-- introducing a conflict that will come to a breaking point later. Sure, some may feel that Superman is not reacting strongly enough or urgently enough, I take that point before it is even made. But it is not like he didn't react at all. And it also makes it clear that, if Wonder Woman kills, she is at least not casual about it.
So, some added context, for what it is worth.
(Sort of like looking at the "white people!" panel vs. looking at the whole scene, including what is on the next page. I throw that one out for the old timers.)
Personally, given the mythological basis of her origins, I don’t have a problem with her killing as a last resort. I prefer to see her as the reluctant warrior, who is all the more ferocious for it in her effort to finish a battle once it has begun.
I'd like to see a return to traditional values in the comic world...Spiderman could certainly up his fetish aspects with his constant supply of bondage rope... I may have to begin a thread on what would be the fetish-superpower of different characters...hmmmm....
I fear these heroes are hanging on like a loose tooth, and soon will be extinct. And the more they are "modernized", the faster it is happening.
Push that little "disagree" button if you will, but that's where I am with comics, right now.
Again, I'm not saying I have a problem with today’s version of the character being willing to kill, because I don’t. But there is a distinct difference between the Marston Wonder Woman (he died in 1947) and the various post-Crisis versions of Wonder Woman. Twenty-five years is still a fairly long history for the willing-to-kill version, but WW did spend her first 46 years without spilling blood, and I don’t think you can just completely dismiss that history, or the people who prefer that version, out of hand.
As for “modernization,” the problem with publishing a stable of characters that have outlived their creators is that times change, attitudes change, etc. So, yeah, you need to update the hairstyles and the clothing and the cars on the street and the types of phones they are using. And you can modernize the storytelling—these days that means less dialogue; few, if any, captions; decompressed stories; etc. But all of this is done (ideally, anyway) for the purpose of making the characters more relateable to the reader. And that should be a goal for any story in any medium—relateable characters. They don’t have to be likeable—they don’t even have to be all that realistic—but they need to be relateable, believable (there is a difference between “realistic” and “believeable” in storytelling! But that’s for another rant), if you want them to make a lasting impact.
As Wonder Woman has been established thus far in the New 52, having her kill is believable. Whether she's more relateable because of it is up to the individual. That being said, DC could just as easily have created a believable Wonder Woman who is unwilling to kill. The question—and it’s the underlying question of the Man of Steel movie debate—is which version is more relateable, and what does that say about the comic-reading public?
*Is* she a 'stone cold killer'? Has this come up enough that you would describe this as a part of the premise of her character? (e.g. 'this one is a billionaire whose parents were killed and now he fights crime. . . this one is the last survivor of an alien planet and now defends his adopted species. . . and this one is an Amazon princess who kills people'?)
I feel like some people, who maybe aren't reading the books she is in, are looking at that provocative panel and figuring this means that the New 52 WW is now the Punisher. But I don't think that is how she is actually being portrayed.
Of course there are warrior moments in her past, such as the ones from the Perez run that @Paul talked about. I know she alludes to killing enemies in this excerpt from JL. But in the 20+ issues of her solo book, how many of her enemies have they had her kill? I don't remember any in the issues I've read, but I could be forgetting.
In this scene with Superman she may be articulating that she doesn't have a red line about killing like they do (again, the warrior vs. superhero trope, which I think a lot of writers have used in the past for her). But in a few years worth of New 52 WW stories, has she even crossed that line yet? Or is this a cultural conversation about something that is not actually happening in the books right now?
But the current Wonder Woman comic isn't a superhero book. It's a HERO* book. It's so thoroughly steeped in mythology that slaying the occasional monster would be completely appropriate.**
Despite Orion sniffing around her in both books, I don't see much connection at all between the WW portrayed in the JL books and the one in her own book.
*Ok, heroine, technically, but she's in the tradition of Hercules, Achilles & Jason, but classier.
**Some people settle for double standards, I've got pentuple standards!
And I am guessing that she hasn't killed anyone in the 20+ issues of Justice League, especially given that a panel where she just talks about being capable of it got the attention, as opposed to her actually doing that in the comic.
So, it sounds like there is less killing in the WW book than in the 1980s Perez days. And if there has been killing, it has been more along the lines of monster slaying than, say, killing people.
To digress for a second- I actually wonder if that might be where that conversation with Superman from the issue in question is going-- part of the difference between WW and the rest of the trinity is that their villains are deranged people, where her villains are actually monsters. And, at least in this point in their relationship, when humanity is still pretty new to her, she hasn't yet learned the difference. Which, of course, is something she could learn later. As what the characters haven't learned yet, or where they conflict, is often where stories come from.
Anyway, bottom line, and another reader can correct me if I am missing something-- at the moment, the New 52 Wonder Woman actually kills less than the 1980s one, which was more than 30 years ago. So do we really need to be worrying about what the current incarnation will mean in 20 years? Given that she is actually not as violent as the Perez incarnation, shouldn't those that have a cultural concern about this actually feel better about the current incarnation than they would have felt about the 1980s one? Especially if you deal in what is actually in the books, as opposed to what you see people saying about the books.
As David says, it is pretty much a trope now, so strictly in that sense, yes, I think having your hero be willing to kill is “modern.” That’s not to say it’s necessary, because it’s not. I would definitely agree with the first two paragraphs. I haven’t read any of the Justice League books beyond Justice League #1, so I can’t comment on the last paragraph. I would say, though, that the way she is portrayed in her eponymous title does not preclude the possibility that she wouldn’t kill a human being in certain circumstances.