I know that it's kind of stupid when batman goes 'no killing' then proceeds to ruin someone's life by punching them into a vegetative state. But if someone had the power to overwhelm and easily apprehend someone much more effectively than for example special forces that are on equal footing in the engagement and in a 'kill or be killed' scenario, would it still make sense of them to kill logically? Or would it come down to personal convictions or perhaps orders from people above them as to why they chose to kill rather than capture?

If superman was "fighting" a normal gunman would it be a matter of personal conviction (or external circumstances) for him on whether the gunman lives or dies - yes, definitely, the power difference is that akin to a cat fighting a singular ant so of course it would be. Were superman to live in a world where every third gunman had kryptonite bullets then the outcome would be more dependent on the specific circumstances of the confrontation, in some he might retain his superior advantage, which would allow him to do whatever it is that he wanted, in others he might be forced to kill or maim.

Basically, it depends on the power dynamics.

S.nuffles Wrote: would it still make sense of them to kill logically

No, take spider-man for example. He comes equipped with perfectly nonlethal weaponry to web up the bad guys and leave them for the cops. Just about any street-level crook doesn't stand a ghost of a chance against him physically. He totally could go punch someone's head clean off, but that wouldn't make a lot of sense it would just make him a murderer. 

The state has a monopoly on violence. Vigilantes cross that line already, but if they implement the death penalty on their own whims, that's crossing a whole other level. How is the common person meant to know whether that corpse was a serial killer and not someone that the vigilante just didn't like? That's some major trust to put into a person with zero accountability. Some countries/states might not even have the death penalty anymore, which makes it even crazier.

The math might change if you're dealing with a Superman vs Doomsday scenario, where it's a life-or-death struggle for Superman and a one-sided slaughter for anyone else to even try. Hold nothing back, Sups! It's unfair, but we can't afford him losing that one.

It is difficult to take the world of comic book superheroes and try to apply real-world logic to situations. 

And I am specifically talking about superheroes in comic books and not just people with powers in another setting. 

Comic books have rules they have to follow similar to sitcoms. You can take the character on amazing adventures, but you have to put him back mostly as he was so the next guy can play with him. Batman doesn't get to kill the Joker, even though he kills dozens every time he gets out of Arkham. Somehow even Red Hood doesn't get to kill the joker, and Jason has no problem at all killing bad guys. The answer is simple: No joker, no joker stories. Hands off the clown.

Superman has to have restrictions. Without them there isn't much of a story, just a tyrant killing people with heat vision. Take those away and who knows....oh, wait, we do know. You get the Injustice Videogame and Comics. Bad Superman is worse than a lot of jokers. And for a REALLY messed up version of what superman could be, go read Irredeemable. Great read. And we do have another evil superman: Ultraman of Earth 3. He doesn't mind using heat vision from orbit for yucks. What are his restrictions? Addicted to Kryptonite, sexually manipulated by Superwoman, and constantly screwed with by Owlman. He's also pretty stupid. 

Batman probably should be killing people. Interestingly enough, he used a gun in the early issues. 

The main reason why Superheroes in comics don't kill people or change the world, is it wrecks the world. Take the chains off of Superman and several dictators die in the next minute, along with a lot of other people in certain governments. Or they have mysterious heart attacks or just go missing. Omelettes need a few broken eggs. Once you start changing the world, your ability to keep telling stories goes away. What companies have been doing lately though, is doing a lot of What If? sort of stories. 

Zombies have taken over the world in DC, Marvel, and even Archie. Vampires too. Fun reads, lasting a dozen issues and set in some alternate universe. In those worlds, lots of heroes start killing.

I think the point of superheroes is the message that just because they can kill, is why it's more powerful that they don't. Anyone can be lethal with anything (I literally have to carry insulin to live, but if a normal person were to have even a little of my insulin, it could kill them in a really awful way)--but someone so powerful that they are literally "above" human, that restraint is what keeps them admirable. The point is to emphasize equity amongst humans no matter what, even if we're not always strictly equal. 

Though I do find myself going, "Jesus Christ, just kill [villain] already!" 

Alas, I am not a superhero, so I don't have to worry about that highly sus power dynamic 

The Wrote: The main reason why Superheroes in comics don't kill people or change the world, is it wrecks the world. Take the chains off of Superman and several dictators die in the next minute, along with a lot of other people in certain governments. Or they have mysterious heart attacks or just go missing. Omelettes need a few broken eggs. Once you start changing the world, your ability to keep telling stories goes away.

That is really interesting. I guess superman is a weird example in many rights since he's completely unmatched, but that's what makes it interesting. I've never been a comic book fan and the debate about batman not killing popped into my head, but that's a good way to look at it.

I'm asking because one of my characters is someone who's the equivalent of a nuclear bomb. Someone who people send in instead of entire armies or special forces brigades, and its sort of a trade off for allowing her to live with such powers. She just happens to be someone without such ambitions of world domination and therefore doesn't resist unless she or people close to her become threatened by her orders.

But is that realistic considering she's intrinsically human and if shot at off guard or (in a one off case) matched in power can still die?

I think you might find comfort if you look into Vanya/Viktor from Umbrella Academy by Gerard Way (yes, that one). Arguably a nuclear bomb and possibly the most powerful of anyone, but he just wants to live a regular life without that power. It's very human to want what you can't have, especially if people only want you around so that you can hurt others.

Aly Wrote: I think you might find comfort if you look into Vanya/Viktor from Umbrella Academy by Gerard Way (yes, that one). Arguably a nuclear bomb and possibly the most powerful of anyone, but he just wants to live a regular life without that power. It's very human to want what you can't have, especially if people only want you around so that you can hurt others.

Oh that's really cool I had no idea. Thanks, I'll look into his character.

The Wrote: Batman probably should be killing people. Interestingly enough, he used a gun in the early issues. 

The main reason why Superheroes in comics don't kill people or change the world, is it wrecks the world. Take the chains off of Superman and several dictators die in the next minute, along with a lot of other people in certain governments.

The evolving nature of comics over 80 years and the commercial need not to kill off your most popular villains and achieve in-universe world peace aside, DC has actually explored this with Injustice Superman and the Grim Knight in Injustice and The Batman Who Laughs, respectively.

Injustice Superman is an Elseworlds Superman introduced in the video game Injustice: Gods Among Us in which Superman was tricked by the Joker into killing Lois Lane and destroying Metropolis, leading him to kill the Joker in a rage. The game starts off at the point where Superman is a global dictator just shy of the ruthlessness of a superpowered Kim Jong Un, but the comics tell the story leading up to it. Superman doesn't just kill one person and then go on a crazy rampage or take over the world. He stays true to himself for awhile, but realizes that his unwillingness to kill leads to just as many deaths as it would if he just let loose. And so he did let loose....in completely agreeable and measured ways. He killed a villain who was leading a global parademon invasion and who he had no other choice but to kill. He decided to use his power to "force his will" onto the world by grabbing brutal dictators and handing them off to their people to face [mob, if necessary] justice for their crimes. Everything he did was right. But the problem is--as Batman brought up to him--that it wouldn't stop there. If he could justify X, he could justify X+1. Everything is only a small step up from what comes before, and at no point was killing other superheroes, petty criminals, or even scores of civilians and inserting himself as sole ruler of Earth a giant leap from what he had been doing before that.

Normally, Batman is the same. In Under the Red Hood, he tells Jason Todd that he can't kill the Joker not because it would be too hard, but it would be too easy. Jason asked him why he can't make an exception given how horrible the Joker is, but Batman explains that he wouldn't be able to stop at the Joker, to "make an exception". It would be a killing spree. And in The Batman Who Laughs, we see a version of that hypothetical Batman from another universe. The Grim Knight (or "Punisher Batman", if you will) explored what happened if Bruce Wayne had grabbed the gun and killed the mugger that killed his parents. With an affinity for guns rather than an aversion to them, he has no problem with killing. He has all of Gotham City covered with kill satellites that obliterate anyone he deems worthy of death on the spot. And many of those killed really do deserve it. But he also kills the cops that were going to arrest him, he kills or maims officials that threaten to expose him (such as Harvey Dent), and he even has an explosive chip implanted in Alfred. When he gets to the main universe, he blows up the engine of a plane in order to force Batman to hand over Gordon. A Batman who kills rules over Gotham like Big Brother from 1984, hearing your every word and seeing your every move and unaliving and disappearing anyone who gets in his way.

Main universe Batman has it right, especially when it comes to himself and his own fragile mental state. The No-Kill Rule isn't there because killing is always bad, but because it never stops at justified deaths. It never stops at the Joker, it never stops at brutal dictators. It's like the Pringles ads say: "Once you pop, you just can't stop."

The Wrote: It is difficult to take the world of comic book superheroes and try to apply real-world logic to situations. 

And I am specifically talking about superheroes in comic books and not just people with powers in another setting. 

Comic books have rules they have to follow similar to sitcoms. You can take the character on amazing adventures, but you have to put him back mostly as he was so the next guy can play with him. Batman doesn't get to kill the Joker, even though he kills dozens every time he gets out of Arkham. Somehow even Red Hood doesn't get to kill the joker, and Jason has no problem at all killing bad guys. The answer is simple: No joker, no joker stories. Hands off the clown.

That's typically an important reason. Obviously, in terms of time-frame, scale, etc., superhero novels don't necessarily stick to a typical notion of 'realism,' and instead tend to follow certain conventions. Hence, sometimes criminals continually get jailed, escape, etc., almost ad infinitum. (And sometimes they're broken out by the superhero.)

Since the 'villains' are often an important part of the comics' appeal, and are sometimes about as recognisable as the superhero, it's generally favourable to preserve them in some way.

Obviously, several features of these comics could seem strange in isolation, but there are also eg. TV shows where mascot characters never age. So in a way it's not that surprising.

Morning,

I don't really get the whole superhero shtick, but I always wondered. 
You are a superhero, you don't kill, don't maim (much), just apprehend those pesky villains. According to real-world logic, those apprehended villains would walk within the hour, because of Lawyers, legalese, being clinically insane (so can't be charged), or just because of good old corruption.
Still, the superheroes apprehend the same idiot night after night, knowing, it does nothing, the villain will be there just in time for the comic's next issue. (I'm not even talking about the villains suing the superhero for excessive force, lasting damage or sexual harassment - hey, Superman touched me without consent!) Nothing changes.
I wonder, why the superheroes don't just throw the towel and retire, or start killing the villains. 

Mr Wrote: I wonder, why the superheroes don't just throw the towel and retire, or start killing the villains.

Are you familiar with the tale of the star thrower?

Quote:A woman was walking along a deserted beach at sunset. As she walked, she noticed a young girl in the distance. Every few moments she would reach down into the sand and then throw something into the water as far as she could.
As the woman approached the girl, she could see that she was picking up starfish that had washed up on the beach. One at a time she was returning them to the water. Kindly, the woman asked the girl what she was doing. She replied matter-of-factly, "I'm throwing starfish back into the ocean before they die." The woman looked along the coast and gestured,  "But there are thousands of starfish on this beach, and there are hundreds of beaches along the coast. You can't possibly make a difference."
The girl smiled, reached down and picked up another starfish. As she threw it back into the sea, she replied, "I made a difference to that one."
- Adapted from a story by Loren Eiseley

Even if the superhero seems to make no difference in the grand scheme when the world is such that the villain will be back the next issue after being stopped from victimizing someone, it made a difference to that one. 

It's that kind of unrelenting determination to keep trying to make the world that little bit better that makes a hero. Maybe doing so publicly will also help other people feel like they aren't alone in wanting to see the world better, that any small way they can make a difference will be worth it and the world might change as a whole over time. It's certainly more likely to occur than when they see even their heroes give up.

Mr Wrote: Morning,

I don't really get the whole superhero shtick, but I always wondered. 
You are a superhero, you don't kill, don't maim (much), just apprehend those pesky villains. According to real-world logic, those apprehended villains would walk within the hour, because of Lawyers, legalese, being clinically insane (so can't be charged), or just because of good old corruption.
Still, the superheroes apprehend the same idiot night after night, knowing, it does nothing, the villain will be there just in time for the comic's next issue. (I'm not even talking about the villains suing the superhero for excessive force, lasting damage or sexual harassment - hey, Superman touched me without consent!) Nothing changes.
I wonder, why the superheroes don't just throw the towel and retire, or start killing the villains.

Not really. Not as surefire a thing as you'd think.

There's always the whole thing about superheroes not being able to testify in court, but certain types of evidence left behind by the hero may not require testimony to be admissible. And for instances where a superhero may find themselves as a testifying witness, it could be argued that the Confrontation Clause may not require them to even reveal their identities. Exceptions already exist for children and in the interest of public policy, and it could be argued that allowing superheroes the freedom to do their work is a good enough policy interest to allow exceptions to the Confrontation Clause in this manner. Plus, if Spider-Man is a testifying witness, the identity of the person behind the mask can be argued to be irrelevant as he would be testifying in his capacity as Spider-Man (what does it matter who the person behind the mask is? Spider-Man caught the bad guy and Spider-Man is testifying).

Being clinically insane doesn't mean you can't get charged with a crime or get locked up. There's a bit of a misconception that if you're insane, you get to go free. No, it means you're institutionalized in a special facility. You're still having your freedom taken away by the state until the state determines you can have some or all of it back. In real life, it just means the Joker isn't being locked up with a regular criminal. It doesn't mean the Joker gets to walk.

"Corruption" is nebulous. What corruption? By who? "Corruption" doesn't necessarily mean "criminals walk free". It could often mean "innocent people go to jail", sometimes within the same country's legal system. And it also would differ depending on the level of crime. There are countries where you could do a lot of "business" with a bag of cash and no questions asked and the corrupt nature of that country's legal system means that they "didn't see anything", but that same country isn't going to let you get away with a public shooting spree or a sex trafficking ring. I don't disagree with you in principal; I could absolutely see wealthy and connected criminals such as the Kingpin, Norman Osborn, or Lex Luthor making a "donation" and finding their charges dropped. But the idea that the burglar who shot Uncle Ben or the mugger who killed Thomas and Martha Wayne, or otherwise working class or non-connected supervillains such as Electro are gonna get off scott-free due to "corruption" isn't gonna work as a storyline without some deeper explanation as to who knows who and who pulled what strings for what purpose. "Corruption" without any further elaboration only works for certain criminals/villains.

Supervillains suing a superhero for excessive for or sexual harassment is highly unlikely due to public knowledge of the outsized level of power they have. Plus, while vigilantism isn't recognized, things like "citizen's arrest" is a recognized legal concept that could easily be used by Superman to counter a rampaging villain's claim of "he touched me without my consent". Also, how do you issue a subpoena to Batman? Do you have a home address?

So no, while superhero law is untested in real life due to superheroes not existing, there are existing legal concepts and practices--and some reasonable inferences from them--that would likely mean that a criminal apprehended by a superhero probably is going to have a harder time getting out than you think. Not impossible--again, untested legal ground--but not quite as surefire either.

Though, a funny thing I saw was in a very early issue of The Amazing Spider-Man (we're going back to the first ten or so issues in 1963). Spider-Man sees a bunch of goons getting ready to break into a jewelry store and he takes them down. But when he tells them that he caught them red-handed and he's turning them over to the police, they laugh and say that they never got around to doing their robbery, so all he did was attack a bunch of innocent people. Spidey learned not to make that mistake again.