In terms of storytelling, I much prefer the world of classical mythology and dark fantasy, where it is up to the reader to decide who (if anyone) should be called a ‘hero’ or ‘villain’; and where people actually use their powers for personal gain and affecting the world. Instead we have people who can alter reality with their mind doing – nothing. No super technology, ubermensch don’t rule the world. That’s just absurd and inconsistent. Whether they were benevolent or not, superhumans would be the wealthiest and most powerful beings on the planet. Hardly anyone with that amount of power is going to give Obama the time of day, and they’d be right to do so – they ARE superior.

It’s a celebration of traditional superheroics over dark edgy nonsense, but it feels forced. One thing I took away from this comic – though I may be reading this into it – is that superheroes have to hold themselves to a higher standard of restraint because of their power. Killing (at least unpowered opponents) is trivially easy for them, and if Superman killed routinely then the entire population of earth would feel as though they were living in a cage with a tiger – a concept well-explored in Irredeemable and Miracleman. By dressing up in bright colours and showing immense restraint, the ubermensch resembles less a vengeful demigod and more of an approachable, inspirational figure.

Another argument is the escalation argument, which appears here in Batman & Robin #5.

The ‘crime fits the punishment’, meaning that if Superheroes kill, the villians will be comfortable raising the stakes too. This is an excellent argument, or it would be if the writers didn’t continually have the villians up the ante regardless.

This argument doesn’t really work when the Joker kills people for laughs already; when you’re dead you don’t really care whether your murderer eats your face afterwards or just leaves you lying there wearing a rictus grin. But it would be a plausible explanation in a setting where heroes were willing to kill villians who crossed the line, and where villains knew this and didn’t push their luck, both sides understanding the unwritten rules of the game.

A similar argument, also from Grant Morrison in JLA Confidential #3, is that killing simply wouldn’t work. This is funny because it’s both true and turns the idea of what constitutes a ‘realistic’ attitude on its head: In a comic book universe, it’s not unreasonable to expect a villain to come back from the dead as easily as he escapes from jail.

Possibly the strongest argument I’ve seen, though, comes from an issue of the New Mutants which I can’t now place:

“Sometimes, in battle, people die. But murder, Illyana? For any reason?”

It’s a little strange that people suggest it’s unrealistic for Batman to not kill the Joker in cold blood, simply to prevent him from committing any more murders in future, when in real life doing so would be blatantly illegal. If our society doesn’t think it’s necessary to execute people without trial, why should comic book society?

Granted comic book villains are often worse than any real life murderer and seemingly immune to incarceration, in which case it might be more plausible for the fictional USA to have extra capital offenses just for them – a specific body of law against blowing up cities with deathrays.

But to return to the point, when the police shoot an armed robber in the face they aren’t doing it to kill him, they’re doing it to stop him. If they kill him in the process, well, too bad. The same even applies in warfare – all the killing is purely incidental to destroying the enemy’s ability to fight.

Superpowers often (though not always) make it easier to take foes alive. A bulletproof cop could simply walk up to an armed robber and slap the cuffs on him, and wouldn’t have as much excuse for shooting him in the face.

I think this is the standard most heroes are actually held to. I’ve read plenty of comics in which supervillains died or appeared to die during fights. Slitting throats may not be acceptable, but causing the villain’s power armour to explode with him inside it is usually considered fair play.

On the other hand, the Simonson run of the New Mutants involved Illyana teleporting people into hell for an indefinite period of getting humped by demons, while the other characters told her this was good and preferable to simply shooting them in the head, because that would be murder, which is wrong. Simonson always did seem to have a tenuous relationship with the concept of right and wrong.

Regardless, I think this latter standard explains why Collossus can break necks and still come across as a hero, while Arno Stark forcing a man to submit to extrajudicial execution by threatening the life of his granddaughter comes across as creepy and ‘edgy’ at best, and brazenly villainous at worst.

Though, I hate bringing up business reasons for not doing something only because those are reasons we’re all aware of — and tolerate, at best, most of the time. They also run counter to the internal logic of many stories, so should be kept in mind as the ultimate ‘real world’ reason for certain actions, but I like to avoid them when discussing certain topics — they’re the trump card to every discussion: “Yeah, that’s all well and good, but it won’t happen because company A will lose money…” Takes the fun out of it, honestly. (And that’s not directed at you specifically, it’s just something that’s come up a lot in this discussion…)