Should superheroes kill?

>>89138183
>f***ing

>>89138183

Go home Whedon. You're drunk.

>>89138183
Congrats on using stale Joss Whedon copy pasta.

>>89138183

I don't know where you got this pasta, man, but you should probably send it back.

>>89138183

Muggers, thieves, and petty low-key supervillains? Leave them alone. Maybe you could even encourage them to turn over a new leaf.

Guys like Joker, Carnage, or Green Goblin? Kill them on fucking sight.

>>89138546
>>89138573
Doesn't change the fact that he's absolutely right though.

>>89138577
It's a Joss Whedon quote

you shouldn't idolize the punisher

Bump for truth

As far as I can see there are three answers to this question:
The moralistic.
The ethical.
And the pragmatic. (from the creator's perspective)

The MORAL answer is to never-ever kill. And to pray for the villain's souls. And hope that they can one day be reformed. (puke)

The ETHICAL answer is to try to take them down if they're truly incapable of being restrained or imprisoned. That's the greatest good: stopping their inevitable evil in any way you can. But that just makes the hero that much closer to being a villain themselves, just look at Rightclops.

The WRITERS however, they need their juicy-dialog scene-stealing archenemies. You can have a true bastard one-shot villain killed off before they blow up the planet and that's understandable when the baddie is a true unredeemable and unstoppable psycho monster, but guys like the Joker are just too much fun for fans to read about to ever kill them off... for long. It's not as if Frank has a great rogues gallery. But who have the best rogues? The guys who don't kill, like Batman.

>>89140576
this

>>89138183
>f***ing

>>89138183
>f***ing

>>89138183
>f***ing guns

Your also not meant to admire frank he is not a hero by any means even he knows that

>>89138183
>f***ing

>>89138183
>f***ing guns
You potty mouth how dare you think censoring it makes that language ok

Superheroes? probably not
Anti-heroes? Vigilantes? sure why not

>>89138183
I don't think Frank sees himself as a hero. The only people who do in-universe are usually crazy wannabe Punishers who wind up killing innocents and getting Frank'd themselves.

File: Frankkillswhohelikes.jpg (149KB, 653x564px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 653x564px

>>89138183
Frank can't be all bad, he censors his language just like you.

File: SFNF13-27.jpg (570KB, 576x587px) Image search: [Google]

570KB, 576x587px

Not reading your OP post, but to answer the question of "should superheroes kill" I think super heroes should do anything deemed heroic by the creator of said hero, and there should be no creative limit or rule of what a hero can and can't do since what defines a hero varries from individual to individual, as morality does

Basically there "should" be as many different types of heroes as there are different kinds of people with different world views, considering comic books are a creative medium and creativity should not be censored considering we don't live in Nazi germany

>>89138183

I also think men shouldn't be cucks, but you are.

Go jump off a bridge, Joss

File: The_Punisher.jpg-large.jpg (153KB, 782x782px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 782x782px

>>89138183
>The Punisher is a coward
>that's fascist crap
lel, this fucking assrekt SJW cuck faggot.

In the capacity of a world where there exist beings capable of wiping out a city and causing millions if not billions of dollars in damage and could kill thousands of innocent people with an errant fart?

Yes, absolutely heroes should kill.

In the terms of The Punisher, it doesn't really matter if he kills or not. He's never meant to be a role model, or someone to emulate. He's (usually) written as a suffering man who refuses to cope and get help and stop causing damage. As if to say, "this is what happens when heroics fail and no one cares"

From a writing standpoint, it'd make no sense for Superman to just kill his adversaries. In his world, a good chunk of his villains exist merely because he doesn't fly them into space and watch them implode. His example is always meant to be that just because you have the power to do anything; that you must still strive to uphold basic human morality, this is why we love to see him succeed without murder.

tl;dr Yes. Comic Book characters should kill if it suits the narrative.

>>89147308
You think I give a h*ck???

>>89152525
The only vaguely amusing jokes this guy has ever written are the actual name Patri-Archie Comics and stairs muffin

File: bonnie-clyde-ambush.jpg (145KB, 512x283px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 512x283px

>>89138183
Time to put a bit of IRL into this. Escaped convicts with violet past get federal marshals on the case in the modern US. Those guys do try to recapture the convict but killing is a close second response. Why? Because the only things those conivcts really have at that point is there freedom and they are coming to take that away. Escaped convicts are generally just more willing to do violent and risky things then normal criminals. Hell they just pissed away any chance of parole and likely lengthen their sentence. That does not really point to rational decision making. A lack of rational decision making is a trait that can make a person dangerous.

Why am I talking about this subject? Because in any comic line with a rogues galley villains do break out of prison. So law enforcement will react to them like escaped convicts, not like innocent till proven guilty street criminals.

Bonnie and clyde are a great example of how law enforcement reacted to that type of issue even back in the days of golden age comics. The state of Texas gave a kill order on them and no one cared that it was unlawful.

Why are you puting a standard on comic book heroes that IRL law enforcement does not hold itself to?

>>89153659
And to be fair Golden Age heroes aren't shy about killing

Frank is a hero.
Whedon is a cuck.

There is no contest on who is right and who is wrong.