|
Post by redsycorax on Jul 31, 2022 3:21:36 GMT
How might revenge be pursued in the DC multiverse and against whom?
Notably, Batman has had the opportunity to kill Joe Chill for the murder of his parents, but proved that he was a better man by realising that Chill had residual remorse and guilt for what happened and refrained from doing so.
On the other hand, when it came to Iris Allen, who he believed had been killed by Professor Zoom, Barry Allen's Flash ended up snapping Professor Zoom/Eobard Thawne's neck (although he was trying to kill Barry's erstwhile fiancee Fiona as well as at the time, so arguably that could be collateral self-defence).
What about J'Onn J'Onnz and General Blanx, leader of the White Martians, who devastated civilisation on Mars and forced evacuation to New Mars? What about Black Canary? If Aquarius came back and Dinah had the power to do so, would she kill Larry Lance's killer? As for villains, it might be argued that the Joker's insanity is the result of his perceived disfigurement through his enforced chemical bath while fleeing Batman as the Red Hood.
But...suppose it emerges that the detonation of Krypton's core wasn't a natural event but induced by another species or particularly malignant individual? Suppose someone wiped out Themiscyra? How would Wonder Woman react? Clearly the Cheetah doesn't have the power, but what about an AU Paula Von Gunther?
Thoughts, please.
|
|
|
Post by johnreiter902 on Jul 31, 2022 7:44:20 GMT
Generally speaking, a hallmark of superheroes is that they choose justice over revenge. If you take revenge, you are no longer a hero.
|
|
|
Post by redsycorax on Aug 1, 2022 0:32:42 GMT
Although, in Barry's case, he thought Thawne/Zoom had already murdered Iris, as indeed did Thawne himself, and he had good reason to believe that Thawne's next target was Barry's then-fiancee, Fiona, so was Barry justified in using preventative lethal force in that context? Re-reading that issue of The Flash, too, it seems clear that Barry did not intend to break Zoom's neck, so that suggests accidental manslaughter to me, rather than lethal intent, which would amount to murder. Moreover, Barry seems not to have intended to kill Zoom, despite the intense provocation involved.
That specific situation seems to be akin to a law enforcement official who may need to use severe or lethal force to restrain or take down an armed assailant, especially if that assailant has used firearms, knives or other instruments either against other people, threatened to do so or has had a prior criminal history of doing so. Under such circumstances, a law enforcement official might well be justified in using tasers or their own firearms to incapacitate, or, if the situation warrants it, kill the assailant.
Clearly, if we're pondering this, with increased power comes increased responsibility. One could argue that the Flash had a duty of care toward Thawne to restrain the lethal use of his superspeed, but at the time, Barry believed that Zoom had already murdered Iris and was threatening Fiona. That's what made the Trial of the Flash storyline so thought-provoking, and I think it was legitimate to ask those questions under those circumstances.
Although it's post-Crisis, a similar question might be posed when it came to John Byrne's Superman and the execution of the Pocket Universe's General Zod, Faora and Quex-Ul. Previously, the three of them had deliberately and cold-bloodedly obliterated all human life on that Earth. They had destroyed any Phantom Zone projector device that might have returned them there and it seems gold kryptonite didn't exist in the Pocket Universe. And therein, we come to debate the morality of the death penalty under such circumstances. Effectively, those three Kryptonians had committed planetary genocide. Was an exemplary punishment therefore required for this act of mass murder? And if so, what alternative could have been provided in that context? Was Superman entitled to believe that the trio might have found their way back to the sole Earth and repeated their crime?
Would Batman be entitled to kill the Joker if the figure in question was directly threatening to kill someone else otherwise? There seems little doubt that the Joker lacks any sense of rational restraint under such circumstances. Again, if tried in a court of law, one could argue that given the unpredictably of the Joker's actions and the fact that he had killed beforehand under an analogous situation, the Batman might be left with no other choice, no matter how much he might engage in self-recrimination and doubt after such necessity had prevailed. It could be argued that Gotham's moral universe is darker than that in other DC environments, though. However, such an outcome is at least plausible.
Note that I am not arguing for the universality of indiscriminate lethal force grim and gritty storylines in this context. However, as you might acknowledge, these three different scenarios do suggest that there might be certain extreme circumstances in which, either intentionally or otherwise, superheroes might need to use lethal or potentially lethal or incapacititating force- just as is the case with mainstream law enforcement officials in their everyday professional lives.
|
|
|
Post by johnreiter902 on Aug 1, 2022 13:26:50 GMT
I read the entire Trial of the Flash. The contention of the prosecution was that, even if Flash did not intend to kill Thawne, his judgement was compromised and he did not consider all his options. Kid Flash was called as an expert witness on the use of superspeed, and described three different ways Flash could have stopped Professor Zoom without the use of lethal force.
Superman once asked Batman if he would allow the Joker to live, if he knew it would cost him his own life to do so. Batman's answer I think epitomizes what it means to be a hero.
"There would be another way. There is always another way."
Hal Jordan once said something similar to Kyle Raynor, while they were fighting Sinestro. Evil always wants you to believe there are only two options. But there are always more.
|
|
|
Post by dans on Aug 1, 2022 22:00:48 GMT
I think 'not always'. particularly when you are fighting someone with super powers and you are in a life and death situation. It is a lot easier for Kid Flash to spend time AFTER a situation is over to come up with 'other ways' or Brainiac 5 AFTER a situation is over to come up with 'other ways' - but even normal people not fighting for their lives sometimes don't have time to think of those 'other ways'...
|
|
|
Post by redsycorax on Aug 2, 2022 0:07:31 GMT
Clearly, people do need to be held accountable for their actions. However, I think the Trial of the Flash storyline was useful for precisely that reason. If the Flash's judgement was compromised and he didn't intend to kill Professor Zoom but inadvertently used lethal force, that would amount to manslaughter and he would receive a commensurate sentence if found guilty of that crime. As for Batman, his intellect is widely acknowledged as being somewhat higher than those of his peers, so I would suspect that in his case, he probably does consider all the probable contingencies he'll face in a given situation, precisely because he has a thorough and methodical approach to his given subject. Others, like Barry, might have had their judgement impaired by situational factors, such as the fact that he believed (a) Zoom had murdered Iris and (b) he was threatening to kill Fiona as well.
Let's do a thought experiment and evaluate what might have happened if Barry had been found guilty of manslaughter. Would he (a) accept the decision and ask Superman to imprison him in the Phantom Zone for the duration of his sentence (b) would he ask Batman to negate his superspeed abilities as a response (c) would he permanently exile himself to the thirtieth century once he found Iris was alive, albeit in a new body? All of the above seem to be plausible responses. Instead of which, as we know, the Crisis on Infinite Earths happened and Barry sacrificed himself to prevent the Anti-Monitor firing an antimatter cannon at the five surviving Earths.
|
|
|
Post by johnreiter902 on Aug 2, 2022 2:20:11 GMT
Clearly, people do need to be held accountable for their actions. However, I think the Trial of the Flash storyline was useful for precisely that reason. If the Flash's judgement was compromised and he didn't intend to kill Professor Zoom but inadvertently used lethal force, that would amount to manslaughter and he would receive a commensurate sentence if found guilty of that crime. As for Batman, his intellect is widely acknowledged as being somewhat higher than those of his peers, so I would suspect that in his case, he probably does consider all the probable contingencies he'll face in a given situation, precisely because he has a thorough and methodical approach to his given subject. Others, like Barry, might have had their judgement impaired by situational factors, such as the fact that he believed (a) Zoom had murdered Iris and (b) he was threatening to kill Fiona as well. Let's do a thought experiment and evaluate what might have happened if Barry had been found guilty of manslaughter. Would he (a) accept the decision and ask Superman to imprison him in the Phantom Zone for the duration of his sentence (b) would he ask Batman to negate his superspeed abilities as a response (c) would he permanently exile himself to the thirtieth century once he found Iris was alive, albeit in a new body? All of the above seem to be plausible responses. Instead of which, as we know, the Crisis on Infinite Earths happened and Barry sacrificed himself to prevent the Anti-Monitor firing an antimatter cannon at the five surviving Earths. My opinion is he would have accepted the sentence. Barry is first and foremost a police officer, and his high respect for the law would lead him to believe that he should be fully accountable to it like anyone else.
I don't think precautions would need to be taken to prevent him from using his superspeed to escape. Considering his record, they would first probably imprison him in a normal cell, and trust his honor not to escape. If he did break jail, then stronger methods might be required. However, Superman might suggest the Phantom Zone for another reason. It would allow the Flash to maintain his secret identity.
|
|
|
Post by redsycorax on Aug 2, 2022 2:47:05 GMT
Except Barry Allen would also have vanished- unless Superman built a robot replica to fulfil his duties?
|
|
|
Post by DocQuantum on Aug 2, 2022 3:05:54 GMT
The Flash's appearance had been changed by Gorilla City scientists before the end of the trial (the Flash was terribly beaten up and suffered numerous injuries, many to his face and teeth), so the Flash was unmasked and didn't look anything like Barry Allen. His hair color was changed from blonde to black, for example. Presumably the Gorilla City scientists made other such genetic alterations so that his fingerprints, voice, dental, etc wouldn't match, either.
Barry Allen himself was never up on charges for anything. I could imagine one of his JLA friends helping him explain the reason that Barry went missing, but I seriously doubt he even still wanted to keep his original identity at all. By the end of the series it looked like he wanted a fresh start, especially when he discovered that Iris still lived. If he had not died in the Crisis I could see the two eventually returning to the 20th century under new identities, since that was their true home.
|
|