Superman Vs. Homelander

[Rater202]

Also, if Batman says that, just make him pull the trigger. That's a cheap cop out of his "no kill" rule.

No... Because the scene was Batman and Superman confronting lex in person while Clark was pissed and actively contemplating killing Lex due to the stunt Lex had just pulled.

We see Clark's thoughts, he's comparing Lex to a fox that just won't stay out of the henhouse and sometimes there's no choice bu to kill the fox.

It's not Batman's no kill policy being tested. It's Clark's.

All Bruce says, after some internal monolog about the threat that Lex poses is that if Clark kills Lex at this moment, Bruce won't hold it against him. And that he'd help hide the body.

Ultimately, Clark doesn't go through with it... But near thing.

[Devonix]

When it comes to the killing thing, you also have to take into account that this is a world in which the characters involved know for a fact that killing someone won't get rid of them forever. Killing the Joker just means some demon's gonna get ahold of him, and probably send him back to Earth, now you have Demon Joker.

At least if you lock him up, you actually know where he is.

[Peelee]

No... Because the scene was Batman and Superman confronting lex in person while Clark was pissed and actively contemplating killing Lex due to the stunt Lex had just pulled.

We see Clark's thoughts, he's comparing Lex to a fox that just won't stay out of the henhouse and sometimes there's no choice bu to kill the fox.

It's not Batman's no kill policy being tested. It's Clark's.

All Bruce says, after some internal monolog about the threat that Lex poses is that if Clark kills Lex at this moment, Bruce won't hold it against him. And that he'd help hide the body.

Ultimately, Clark doesn't go through with it... But near thing.

If Batman sees Superman debating killing a guy and Batman says, "I won't stop you if you want to kill him," then Batman doesn't have a no-kill rule. That Batman has a "the blood isn't technically on my hands" rule. As I said, cheap cop out. Just have him pull the damn trigger if he's gonna go that route.

Also, I was unaware that Superman had an absolute no-kill rule.

[Devonix]

If Batman sees Superman debating killing a guy and Batman says, "I won't stop you if you want to kill him," then Batman doesn't have a no-kill rule. That Batman has a "the blood isn't technically on my hands" rule. As I said, cheap cop out. Just have him pull the damn trigger if he's gonna go that route.

Also, I was unaware that Superman had an absolute no-kill rule.

Superman doesn't have a no kill rule, he has a no murder rule. The thing is that Superman can easily capture most opponents, with no threat to himself or to other people. Supes wants to protect life, all life. He doesn't want to beat his opponents, he wants to save them, because he feels that everyone has the possibility of change and becoming better.

Superman killing is a last resort to save the lives of others.

[Peelee]

Superman doesn't have a no kill rule, he has a no murder rule. The thing is that Superman can easily capture most opponents, with no threat to himself or to other people. Supes wants to protect life, all life. He doesn't want to beat his opponents, he wants to save them, because he feels that everyone has the possibility of change and becoming better.

Superman killing is a last resort to save the lives of others.

That's more or less what I meant with that last line. But you put it much better.

[Rater202]

If Batman sees Superman debating killing a guy and Batman says, "I won't stop you if you want to kill him," then Batman doesn't have a no-kill rule. That Batman has a "the blood isn't technically on my hands" rule. As I said, cheap cop out. Just have him pull the damn trigger if he's gonna go that route.

Also, I was unaware that Superman had an absolute no-kill rule.

Superman's code against killing is a lot less strict than Batman's. Superman has no problems killing something that needs killing, though he'll feel really bad about it afterward.

Batman's code against killing is "I do not believe that I have the right to make the decision to end someone's life. As an unelected vigilante, I have no actual authority to make the decision to imprison or execute, and as it is the law is being bent significantly in my favor. Beyond that, Gordon was quite clear that the deal I have with the police department goes away if he ever suspects I deliberately killed someone, and finally, having done a thorough inventory of my mental state I do not believe I could take a man's life and be okay afterward. The best-case scenario is it breaks me, the worst-case scenario is that I go off the deep end and end up murdering criminals" and overtime added, "honestly a lot of them don't stay dead anyway and there's a serious risk of the particularly evil or insane people coming back with supernatural powers."

It's not about moral superiority. It's about, for as cynical as Bruce is, he still believes that the system can work. He values life enough, even the lives of murderers, that he doesn't think he has the right to personally take it. If someone is to be killed, it should be done by the cold judgement of the state, not by any one individual man who may or may not have an emotional reason for doing it.

Batman doesn't have a problem with other people killing, per se... He has a problem with murderers, and he insists that if you are in his territory you follow his rules("we bring them in, but it's the state's job to determine what justice is and carry it out"). If you, on your own time, commit a justifiable homicide in the interest of saving lives, he doesn't have a problem with that, unless there were other options and you can't give a good reason for why you didn't pursue them.

This isn't a "don't get blood on my hands" thing, this is a "I can see the argument for killing him, and this is your call. If you want to go for it..."

[Peelee]

Superman's code against killing is a lot less strict than Batman's. Superman has no problems killing something that needs killing, though he'll feel really bad about it afterward.

Batman's code against killing is "I do not believe that I have the right to make the decision to end someone's life. As an unelected vigilante, I have no actual authority to make the decision to imprison or execute, and as it is the law is being bent significantly in my favor. Beyond that, Gordon was quite clear that the deal I have with the police department goes away if he ever suspects I deliberately killed someone, and finally, having done a thorough inventory of my mental state I do not believe I could take a man's life and be okay afterward. The best-case scenario is it breaks me, the worst-case scenario is that I go off the deep end and end up murdering criminals" and overtime added, "honestly a lot of them don't stay dead anyway and there's a serious risk of the particularly evil or insane people coming back with supernatural powers."

It's not about moral superiority. It's about, for as cynical as Bruce is, he still believes that the system can work. He values life enough, even the lives of murderers, that he doesn't think he has the right to personally take it. If someone is to be killed, it should be done by the cold judgement of the state, not by any one individual man who may or may not have an emotional reason for doing it.

Batman doesn't have a problem with other people killing, per se... He has a problem with murderers, and he insists that if you are in his territory you follow his rules("we bring them in, but it's the state's job to determine what justice is and carry it out"). If you, on your own time, commit a justifiable homicide in the interest of saving lives, he doesn't have a problem with that, unless there were other options and you can't give a good reason for why you didn't pursue them.

This isn't a "don't get blood on my hands" thing, this is a "I can see the argument for killing him, and this is your call. If you want to go for it..."

No, that line is pretty much a "don't get blood on my hands" thing. Like, you can keep trying to argue the point, but it's not going to sway me. I fundamentally disagree with you on this.

[comicshorse]

Doing the math was something I did a few months ago, and the math supports the idea that, in the grand scheme of things, the Joker isn't a big deal.

All of the "main timeline" jokers, golden age, silver age, post crisis, and New 52 collectively have a body count of 616 confirmed kills.

The Joker first appeared in 1940.

So, the Joker's average body count, per year, is 7.7. I actually misremembered my own math and thought it was much higher than that.

If you account for the fact that there are canonically three jokers, it becomes just over two people a year on average.

For comparison, 65.8 people per year die from car accidents in Chicago(and Gotham is typically based on Chicago.)

I'm intrigued by this. Is there a web-site that's worked this out (and if so what) ? Because this seems awfully low. I mean if we are including people killed by the Joker's minions I'd think the 'War of Jokes and Riddles' storyline would be easily into treble figures on its own

[Rater202]

I'm intrigued by this. Is there a web-site that's worked this out (and if so what) ? Because this seems awfully low. I mean if we are including people killed by the Joker's minions I'd think the 'War of Jokes and Riddles' storyline would be easily into treble figures on its own

Google "Joker Body count" and there's a page on the Dc wiki that keeps track of them.

Admittedly, I there are also an unknown number of possible kills. I only did my math on the confirmed kills.

[comicshorse]

Google "Joker Body count" and there's a page on the Dc wiki that keeps track of them.

Admittedly, I there are also an unknown number of possible kills. I only did my math on the confirmed kills.

Ok, thanks
That's this morning's plans made (takes deep breath, dives in)

[M1982]

Hercule would best this Superdude. After saving the world from Cell, he later saved the world again from this god of destruction guy called Billig. He even became a god himself to fight him. How could some Supermen alien beat him?

The last alien champion arriving on earth to challenge our hero had a change of heart at last Minute and rather ran for his live!

That's how Hercule Deals with aliens!

[M1982]

If we're talking the strongest version of Superman vs Homelander then yeah it's not even worth discussing. Homelander is a middling powerhouse who happens to be impressive by mortal standards, sure. But Superman is strong enough to punch the universe into retconning, fast enough to escape the gravitational pull of a black hole, and tough enough to take a nuke to the face without much problem even in some of his weaker incarnations.

...but if we're talking "more powerful than a locomotive, faster than a speeding bullet, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound" Superman, that's probably more of a fair fight? And sure that's probably not what OP meant, but also Superman has lost battles on occasion when by all accounts he shouldn't have even been inconvenienced.

It's almost as if the authors have no grasp of physics:)

Mentioning tanking a nuke isn't actually worth mentioning at all after the black hole Stunt. The forces he endured there are so many orders of magnitude beyond, in comparison tanking a nuke is as meaningless as tanking a snowball thrown by a toddlet

[dancrilis]

"I won't stop you if you want to kill him," then Batman doesn't have a no-kill rule. That Batman has a "the blood isn't technically on my hands" rule.

Batman has at least once explained his rule on killing fairly clearly and easily.

Spoiler: Batman Explains His Rule On Killing

Show

[Rater202]

Batman has at least once explained his rule on killing fairly clearly and easily.

Spoiler: Batman Explains His Rule On Killing

Show

That's actually a pretty bad example... Batman was involved in the causing of that train accident. So, by not saving Ras from it, he did in fact kill him.

[CharonsHelper]

Superman's code against killing is a lot less strict than Batman's. Superman has no problems killing something that needs killing, though he'll feel really bad about it afterward.

Batman's code against killing is "I do not believe that I have the right to make the decision to end someone's life. As an unelected vigilante, I have no actual authority to make the decision to imprison or execute, and as it is the law is being bent significantly in my favor. Beyond that, Gordon was quite clear that the deal I have with the police department goes away if he ever suspects I deliberately killed someone, and finally, having done a thorough inventory of my mental state I do not believe I could take a man's life and be okay afterward. The best-case scenario is it breaks me, the worst-case scenario is that I go off the deep end and end up murdering criminals" and overtime added, "honestly a lot of them don't stay dead anyway and there's a serious risk of the particularly evil or insane people coming back with supernatural powers."

It's not about moral superiority. It's about, for as cynical as Bruce is, he still believes that the system can work. He values life enough, even the lives of murderers, that he doesn't think he has the right to personally take it. If someone is to be killed, it should be done by the cold judgement of the state, not by any one individual man who may or may not have an emotional reason for doing it.

Batman doesn't have a problem with other people killing, per se... He has a problem with murderers, and he insists that if you are in his territory you follow his rules("we bring them in, but it's the state's job to determine what justice is and carry it out"). If you, on your own time, commit a justifiable homicide in the interest of saving lives, he doesn't have a problem with that, unless there were other options and you can't give a good reason for why you didn't pursue them.

This isn't a "don't get blood on my hands" thing, this is a "I can see the argument for killing him, and this is your call. If you want to go for it..."

Yeah, it always struck me that Batman wasn't a pacifist; he wouldn't be against killing in war etc.

It always felt that it was largely a rule for himself as a line that he would never cross, because he knew that once he crossed it he could easily go full-on Punisher if he wasn't careful, or possibly even worse.

In the scene described above with Superman & Lex, I'd only consider that a hypocritical "blood's not on MY hands" if he'd been egging Superman on to kill Lex Luthor.

[Peelee]

Batman has at least once explained his rule on killing fairly clearly and easily.

Spoiler: Batman Explains His Rule On Killing

Show

Yeah, I don't think that really makes the case you believe it does.

[Friv]

No, that line is pretty much a "don't get blood on my hands" thing. Like, you can keep trying to argue the point, but it's not going to sway me. I fundamentally disagree with you on this.

I would call it not "don't get blood on my hands", so much as "I do not trust me, but I trust Clark, and Clark isn't going to kill Lex unless it really is absolutely necessary."

[Peelee]

I would call it not "don't get blood on my hands", so much as "I do not trust me, but I trust Clark, and Clark isn't going to kill Lex unless it really is absolutely necessary."

Nope. "I won't kill you but I won't stop this guy from killing you" is "I technically don't have blood on my hands". "I trust this guy to kill" means "I have nothing against killing, so long as it's the right person doing the killing".

I don't buy it. I never have bought it. I never will buy it. If they want Batman to go that route, then just let Batman do it himself instead of making him hide behind weak words.

[dancrilis]

Yeah, I don't think that really makes the case you believe it does.

I am not really making a case more I think it can be helpful to get words from the horse's (or a version of the horse's) mouth at times.

For comparison:

Spoiler: Alfred Also Has A Rule On Killing

Show

[Ramza00]

(I agree with Peelee)

Batman’s who thing with killing is the “sacredness” of murder can only be performed by people who have the sacred right to do so, people who are ritually pure and ordained the sovereign right to kill, like a high priest. This high priest in the Gotham, US culture is the judge and jury. Put another way the sacred sovereignty rests in the people in this culture, but in other cultures society allows / grants this power to a king, and other cultures a high priest. Etc, etc.

Batman / Bruce recognizes he is not the sacred sovereign, he is merely a rich guy who dresses up in a drag costume trying to tap into the elemental fears of criminals where someone can stop them and drag them away out of the corner of their eyes.

—————

Batman / Bruce has an ideology but like Peelee I find it lacking and I do not grant this mystical belief of this is how things should be with killing and murder. It is merely a farcical word game where saying Murder is Profane, but ritual killing by the law is somehow Sacred for the ritual acts cleans the judge and creates an atmosphere of forgiveness and atonement.

[Strigon]

Nope. "I won't kill you but I won't stop this guy from killing you" is "I technically don't have blood on my hands". "I trust this guy to kill" means "I have nothing against killing, so long as it's the right person doing the killing".

I don't buy it. I never have bought it. I never will buy it. If they want Batman to go that route, then just let Batman do it himself instead of making him hide behind weak words.

I mean, his reasoning is essentially "It may be right to kill some people. I do not trust myself to make that distinction, so I will not make the choice to kill anyone. However, someone else may be in a better position to make that call, and I won't stop them."
It's no different than a normal person not prescribing medicine because they don't have the expertise, but allowing a doctor to prescribe that same medicine when they see it as necessary.

The issue isn't "Killing is wrong, so I don't want blood on my hands," it's "I don't trust myself in particular to choose who dies, but I recognize Superman as a higher authority on the matter, and I'm willing to accept his judgement."

Also, for what it's worth, I don't think Batman would consider himself innocent in the killing of Luthor in this case. I'm pretty sure he'd consider himself just as responsible for Luthor's death as he would Superman.

Edit: It's also worth pointing out that there are many Batmans out there, who tend to vary drastically on who they will kill and why/why not. But as a rule, it tends to be more pragmatism than morality with Batman - ie, "If I kill this person, I lose the trust of Gotham and risk going down an ever-darker path". Whether or not he performs an action that is morally the same as killing someone himself is kind of irrelevant, because his justifications for not killing are usually not, at their core, moral.

[Peelee]

Spoiler: This is how Batman should act with his code

Show

Anything less than that doesn't fly, as far as I'm concerned. Various Batman's in the hands of various authors have done worse. I disagree with those. That is my Batman. TAS Batman is my Batman. Gandalf's "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?" is my Batman.

[CharonsHelper]

Spoiler: This is how Batman should act with his code

Show

Anything less than that doesn't fly, as far as I'm concerned. Various Batman's in the hands of various authors have done worse. I disagree with those. That is my Batman. TAS Batman is my Batman. Gandalf's "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?" is my Batman.

That's not mutually exclusive with being okay with killing in other circumstances. She was an innocent who had been manipulated. Lex Luther isn't.

To a slightly different tac: that's basically the classic DM Paladin trap of "kill the baby or the demons win" BS, but not killing the baby doesn't mean that a Paladin wouldn't kill the demons that show up, or their summoners.

[Peelee]

That's not mutually exclusive with being okay with killing in other circumstances. She was an innocent who had been manipulated. Lex Luther isn't.

Don't care. Like I've said before, this is a fundamental disagreement. I will not be swayed in this. You can explain your reasoning (like how I'm explaining mine), but it's not a debate.

For me, Batman is best Batman when he wants to stop the killing. Doesn't matter who. Doesn't matter why. And nobody should be killed while trying to accomplish that. Bad guys try to kill? He should try his best to stop that. Good guys try to kill? He should try his best to stop that. Because just stop the damn killing.

When Batman stops caring, I stop caring.

[dancrilis]

Sure if you take one of the best versions of Batman (most in my opinion don't really live up to that) - but even he was willing to risk killing someone at at least one point (and was tempted to do the job himself a short while later).

Spoiler: Batman TAS clip

Show

[Peelee]

Sure if you take one of the best versions of Batman (most in my opinion don't really live up to that) - but even he was willing to risk killing someone at at least one point (and was tempted to do the job himself a short while later).

Spoiler: Batman TAS clip

Show

I see Batman immediately trying to save him, then Batman being human but still not giving in. I don't see him killing. I don't see him trying to kill.

You can't "gotcha" me with a clip. TAS is among the best I've ever seen Batman consistently portrayed, but if you can dredge up a clip of him killing someone on there, I'll be the first to decry that episode. It's not going to make me change my stance. It's just going to make me dislike that rendition of Batman.

I agree that most versions of Batman don't live up to his best. And it should be pretty easy to guess how I feel about most versions of Batman.

[Traab]

I wonder, can anyone tell me when it was that batman stopped killing people? Classic batman killed PLENTY of people, mooks especially. There was one comic where he basically hung a big mental aptient a bad guy had doped up on drugs with a cable from the bat plane while he flew off. His very first comic he literally punched a fat dude into a vat of acid. Another dude in a later comic threw a sword at him, batman used a door to block it, then punched the guy as he begged for mercy neck first into his own sword. In another detective comic he dodged a gunman trying to shoot him, the proceeded to break his neck by kicking him so hard in the head his neck snapped. These were all in the first year or so of his creation. A lot of the others were alternate versions so dont count, but im honestly curious to know when they established "no killing, no, not even then." as his mantra.

For the record I agree, BtAS is THE batman character for me, and the ace scene was great.

[CharonsHelper]

Don't care. Like I've said before, this is a fundamental disagreement. I will not be swayed in this. You can explain your reasoning (like how I'm explaining mine), but it's not a debate.

Two things.

1. This is the internet. EVERYTHING is up for debate.

2. I was mostly pointing out that the clip about Ace (which I agree is awesome) doesn't actually prove your point at all, though you seemed to think that it did. My explanation of Batman above is 100% consistent with that scene, as well as the rest of Batman TAS.

In addition - I really don't see Batman being ALWAYS for saving lives. I definitely see him being okay with the death penalty (assuming Gotham had it). He wouldn't plunge the needle in himself, but I don't see Batman showing up at the execution to punch prison guards and save a serial killer from the needle either.

In the Sewer King clip above, he specifically said that it was up to the courts - which implies that he'd be okay with whatever sentence they gave.

[Ibrinar]

Don't care. Like I've said before, this is a fundamental disagreement. I will not be swayed in this. You can explain your reasoning (like how I'm explaining mine), but it's not a debate.

What does it matter whether you care or will be convinced to whether the clip is relevant as example?

[Peelee]

Two things.

1. This is the internet. EVERYTHING is up for debate.

2. I was mostly pointing out that the clip about Ace (which I agree is awesome) doesn't actually prove your point at all, though you seemed to think that it did.

In addition - I really don't see Batman being ALWAYS for saving lives. I don't see him not being okay with the death penalty (assuming Gotham had it). He wouldn't plunge the needle in himself, but I don't see Batman showing up at the execution to save a serial killer from the needle either.

In the Sewer King clip above, he specifically said that it was up to the courts - which implies that he'd be okay with whatever sentence they gave.

1.) 1 and 2 are the same point, in a way; I'm not debating. I'm not making a point. I'm not proving a point. I'm explaining why I have my belief, and used a clip as an example. I don't care if the clip doesn't cover all cases; it's just an example, it doesn't need to. If you disagree, that's perfectly fine. If you want to convince me I should think differently, that's not going to happen, and I'm perfectly happy to tell you why.

B.) I don't see Batman breaking in to stop the plunger from being pushed in a state-sanctioned execution. I do see Bruce Wayne fighting against the death penalty in Gotham City with his considerable resources. I should also point out that I like when Gotham City, from all appearances, does not seem to have the death penalty (for any depictions where it does, see my opinion in depictions of Batman being OK with killing in some circumstances).