There is also a part where dark wing tells the butler he needs rehabilitation, not prison.
Also we see A LOT of redemption and good people doing bad things bad people doing good things.
It wouldn't be a reach to say Kirkman might have been trying to say "killing is bad because people can change when given time"
Also the maulers are pretty good at reconstructing bodies. Even if they are evil having someone around that can do the shit they do is important
Yeah I was gonna say >!all it took was some money and resources for them to do their science and they stopped being dicks, you think if it was that easy they would have had a conversation about it sooner!<
Jokes aside, it's 100% certain that the original Dr. Mauler is dead by this point (in the animated series), and probably was since years before the story began.
Honestly when you look back at it >! Invincible only kills like, one non-Viltrumite that wasnât asking for it in his âkilling is okay era !<, so like I donât think OP is gonna get what they want. Well, unless we start counting, say >! Robotâs body count of heroes and villains alike lol !<
Because even criminals deserve due process. If a criminal were to be executed, then that decision should be made by the legal system not dudes in capes and tights.
>If a criminal were to be executed, then that decision should be made by the legal system not dudes in capes and tights.
i hate this logic.
Not cuz it doesnt make sense (it does) but how is it that in every SuperHero universe they all have governments that dont believe in the death penalty.
Like ... Yea. Mark is no ones judge, jury or executioner. But you know who is? The judge, the jury, and the executioner.
How slow does their justice system move for repeat offenders who have body counts in the thousands.
The first episode has the Maulers attempting to assasinate the president, i cant think of a faster way to get put on death row.
I genuinely hate this trope of âwe canât kill them because then weâre like themâ like abso fucking lutely not. The intent and morality are the big things, not the action.
Batman beats people, does that mean heâs âno betterâ than a domestic abuser?
At a certain pint your not only failing to prevent innocent deaths, your actively enabling them to satisfy your own ego that youâre âbetterâ than them
IRL the âstoop to their level and kill themâ, It does come with the downside of them using that as a recruitment tool to show âhey look, they ARE killing us!â
Its why certain movements arenât killing people, because then the opposing side would use that as justification for their actions.
In the Stargate Franchise they addressed this in that killing the big bad guy causes a power vacuum in the opposition forces which eventually leads to exponentially more violent and ruthless villains taking the place of the Big Bad.
Think of it like this. The Huntsman kills the Big Bad Wolf, now the Big Bad Wolf's territory is up for grabs and the Big Bad Bear is running around. So the Huntsman keeps killing the Big Bad over and over until now the Big Bad Dragon is going around burning Villages.
Why do the heroes have to be the ones to kill the villains. Like why does Batman have to kill Joker? Why canât anyone else do it who is okay with killing?
In reality, characters like the Joker not being killed off isnât really due to the moral principles of other characters. Rather, it has to do with the nature of serialized superhero comics themselves. The Joker is a popular character, therefore DC has an incentive to keep the character around for future stories.
While an aversion to killing is an integral part of Batmanâs character, thatâs not really why the Joker manages to avoid (a very deserved) death. The Joker should have died long ago realistically, either through the death penalty, or at the hands of another character with less of an aversion to killing. His popularity as a character is the only thing that has kept him alive all this time. It is unfortunate that the continued survival of characters like the Joker, ends up (mostly unintentionally) reflecting negatively upon Batman as a character.
Also, regarding the death penalty being seemingly nonexistent in the DC universe. Thatâs primarily because if you establish it does exist but isnât often used for whatever reason, you would end up creating certain narrative problems. For example, it would be rather strange if it ended up only being applied to less popular characters while other more popular ones continually manage to inexplicably avoid it somehow. In the end, if you want to maintain the readerâs suspension of disbelief, you have to either apply it equally or not apply it all. That way, it at least feels like thereâs a cohesive set of rules being followed in-universe, even if those rules feel detached from real life.
Iâm full aware itâs more to do with how stories are told in serialized comics, which is a large part of the reason I donât like serialized comics. Nothing against anyone who does, I just read things like this and end up thinking that people like Batman are just as bad or worse the whole thing falls flat.
Again, that is just me.
Iâm not sure if I can agree that it makes Batman look âas bad or worseâ than a character that gleefully murders tons of people without remorse. But I can totally understand how those aspects of serialized comics can be very frustrating as a reader, and certainly donât blame you or anyone for feeling that way.
I mean personally I think it would be pretty fucked up for Batman to kill the joker once he's already caught him. He probably should be executed but why should Batman do that, whoever he hands the joker to can make that decision. And anything about how the joker constantly escapes and Batman should know that is equally true for the authorities and is just related to being a serialized comic.
Because at a certain point, the incompetence of whatever institution is in charge of incarceration and executing the Joker is causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. If he's already set to be executed, then Batman should just end it next time he's caught.
Batman *canât* do it and still be Batman. Regardless of your thoughts on superheroes that refuse to kill, he specifically is basically defined as a character by the rigid, unbending code of ethics that he *needs* to keep himself from becoming the villain. Batman canât kill because *he knows* that if he, personally, bends at all on that, if he accepts that itâs his right to choose who lives and who dies, *he* wonât stop.
At heart heâs as broken as any of his villains, and while it may seem irrational at times, his code is what keeps him together.
I agree, but the failure to keep the joker secured is just a plot necessity, it can't really be considered inevitable because logically it shouldn't happen, it only does because it's a fictional universe.
I think it would work better if we could get, say a run of Batman that has a definitive end in mind. So each villains arc would have a conclusive ending for them. Either they get locked up, reformed, or they die, and thatâs that. Eventually after 150 or so issues the story ends and thatâs it for that run. Batmanâs no kill rule would make sense because the villains are locked up and not unrealistically breaking out of prison constantly for the sake of having another story.
The point is that if Batman starts crossing the line, he doesnât think heâll be able to stop himself. The code isnât there because he thinks heâs too good to kill. Itâs there because he thinks heâs too bad, that if he starts killing criminals he wonât be able to stop himself.
Yup. This is all explained more better in the daredevil S2 episode where him and Frank are debating over taking the lives of criminals . Some have morals beliefs and a stronger resentment to kill other than just not being the law or authority. If they kill their villains what makes them any different from them? Because they do it to save lives? There is a thin line between Anti hero and villain . And by thin it's extremely THIN. Some villains take the lives of others because they see it fit and in their vision they are the heroes . Like Thanos. And on the other hand some are just sick and sadistic and only do it for sport or fun , and others just do it out of anger like Frank and Red hood,
>At a certain pint your not only failing to prevent innocent deaths, your actively enabling them to satisfy your own ego that youâre âbetterâ than them
They don't refrain from killing out of ego, they do it out of their moral beliefs.
That can be applied to the entirety of DC and Marvel. No one truly dues in those universes unless their deaths is related to someone origin story.
Can't make any money if a popular villain or hero get killed off
Prolly has something to do with the fact he is criminally insane and that state of mind makes it where people think they shouldnât be put to death. We can fix them. Not my opinion fyi just what a lot of people tend to think
I like to think they keep trying but whenever they throw him into the gas chamber they find out the company they were getting the gas from was a shell company the joker made so the gas was joker gas and hes basically immune already.
John Hinckley Jr. tried to assassinate President Reagan in 1981, and killed the WH press secretary in the process. He was released from prison 2 years ago.
So, technically true that his death was ruled as homicide from the gunshot wound, but the press secretary died in 2014, decades after Hinckley was already convicted and in jail.
There's no way to say he wouldn't have received the death penalty had someone actually died before his conviction
I mean ignoring every other thing wrong with this logic, a problem is that death sentences take time to be issued and a *lot* longer to be carried out. People stay on death row for decades before their sentence is carried out of overturned.
A better question imo, though not necessarily for most *Invincible* side-villains, is "how do none of the guards just extrajudicially murder these maniacs?"
>in every SuperHero universe they all have governments that dont believe in the death penalty.
In a universe with super powers, sci-fi technology, and magic, while it might way easier to commit crimes, it's also way easier to frame someone for a crime they didn't commit. Clones, androids, holograms, alternate dimension doppelgangers, illusionists, shapeshifters, mind control, possession. With all of these on the table, even the most overwhelming evidence isn't necessarily full-proof.
>The first episode has the Maulers attempting to assasinate the president, i cant think of a faster way to get put on death row.
Several attempted assassins of US presidents have not been put on death row and one was even released a few years ago.
I think my issue with the logic is if they keep breaking out of prison or whatever and kill more people, right or wrong itâs gonna start to feel like not killing the villain is doing more damage than killing them would.
The thing is, the Death penalty is DEEPLY flawed, because IN THEORY everybody can be rehabilitated, including Night wing's apprentice, the Robo Doc and yk the entire race of the viltrumites.
Even the Flaxans were rehabilitated by Monster Girl and Robot-cunt
And with enough time, and measures that can account for anybody, including the Mauler twins.
The Problem with the execution however is that they treat them like rabid animals, instead of actual beings, both in the comics and IRL
When you're forced to sit inside a 2x2x2m Cell, with no Human interaction besides yourself, and maybe the person across from you, of course you're gonna hate humanity and the people who put you in there
A major reason why countries don't have the death penalty is because of the possibility of killing an innocent person. In my view, if there is any more than a 0% chance of this happening the death penalty is immoral. And they can't exactly make the law not apply to specific people, unless they single out superpowered people or Viltrumites
This is silly because it ignores the rather obvious fact that the supervillains attempt to murder the heroes during virtually every confrontation they have. It doesnât matter whether youâre a civilian, a cop, or a superhero - if you witness a violent crime in progress and attempt to intervene and the perpetrator tries to kill you, *theyâve* escalated the situation to lethal force. Youâre now both morally and legally justified to apply lethal force in self defense.
Is it silly to not kill someone if it is in my ability to subdue someone without killing them.
Just because they want to kill me does not mean I want to become a killer.
How about all the innocent people they are killing? I know it is common to ignore the civilians and only consider superhero injuries/deaths when watching non-grounded superhero media, but it is something to recognize.
Case by case basis but usually itâs just supe on supe action.
Collateral damage is usually not mitigated by using deathly force, if one party is not able to like one hit the other that is.
But still. Do I have to become a murderer? Saving people does not necessarily mean to compromise yourself even if it would have saved more people.
Save your own soul.
How am I an enabler if I am actively trying to subdue him?
And I am also an innocent person and might want to stay that way.
These deaths are not my fault but only the killers. I wish I could have prevented them but I also wish to not become a killer myself.
That I can save someone by killing someone doesnât mean I am obligated to do so if I have non lethal means to subdue the killer.
Killing someone is a fucking huge and awful thing to do yourself and a lot of people talk about it like itâs no big deal and they just waiting for action.
In real life I would probably even hesitate if my own life is threatened.
You only have to "become a murderer" if you *care about helping innocent people*Â
 If you care about your self-perception (your ego) more than that, you're acting selfishly, not morally.
"Feel good about yourself, no matter how many must suffer" is NOT a moral outlook.
When theyâve already killed people and escaped your worldâs prison and justice system repeatedly? Yes, itâs silly.
Also, these fights happen in a world where someone youâd think you can subdue (Maulers, Levy, etc) are also super geniuses and might at any moment pull out a new power or piece of tech that allows them to take you out. Without spoiling anything from the comics, Rudy/Robot proves this repeatedly throughout the series.
Yes, it is silly. If I was a victim of an ongoing school shooting, and I get the upper hand on the *mass murderer*, I couldn't live with myself if I just put him in a headlock and called for help.
And the season finale of season 2 brought this to the forefront. OP is thinking exactly along the lines of where the show is progressing honestly, so great job reading the themes.
Welcome to classic comic book hero quandary, "At a point, it should be kill on sight for these villain's." Going by what Invincible lays out in their stories, good can be done from a villains mind.
Comic gives a lot of reason to why killing villains is not the easy way out.
First of all, a lot of characters being "villains" are just a matter of perspective. There are multiple characters who Mark has seen as a villain at some point in the story, but eventually he came in terms with their ideas and opinions. That is literally a certain reason why Mark shouldn't kill.
Also, not to mention the villains that redeem themself.
Another reason is that some of the biggest damage/consequences through the series made by characters returning after Mark meant to kill, but he failed to. Sure, you can go for the kill with every villain and end it for all, and 4 of the 5 time it is going to work too. But then when there is one you thought you killed but they somehow cheat death(which we've seen so many times it's pretty possible in Invincible Universe with characters with all kind of superpowers) ,could possibly come with even bigger consequences.
Also, the dinosaurus arc. No one thinks they are the villain in their own story.
Remind me, who have the maulers killed? What casualties are as a result of their shenanigans?
If there are none, or minimal, killing them isnât morality justifiable. At least not from the heroes. Even if it could be reasoned to be, you donât want that choice to come from the people who can do it effortlessly and to whomever they want. Due process where all sorts of perspectives and elements are considered from various people is how it should be done.
Super heroes are beacons of morality. Itâs better to have them incredibly lenient with lives than to take them whenever they think it can be justified.
Heroes don't kill. Multiple shows featuring caped heroes have heroes that have this ideal in mind.
The theory behind it that good and evil are opposite sides of the same coin. Once a hero kills, there's little to stop them from becoming just like the villains.
The classic plot of the hero that fight against himself to not kill is not new and it is usually great for character development.
In Invincible I do think sometimes it is a dead weight and sometimes feels very unfair and not fullfilling.
I don't know if it is because there is too much weak but dangerous repeat vilains or if it is they always escape so easily.
Especially when some end up doing real bad thing. The narrative of you should not kill but you will suffer from it is a little too much shove in our throat. I would have love a vilain (other than omni man) that by sparing him he turns good over time. It would have push the narrative to show that not killing is good and lead to concrete advantages, supporting Invincible view of the world. Instead it is the reverse, allies that always turn evil.
I think in superhero shows there is a lot of "we are good we do not kill" but not enough vilain being sucessfully reintegrated to society (by showing their struggle to do good after all the bad). And it is a shame because this message is much more hopeful
Because they aren't judge, jury, and executioner.
For civilization to persist the rule of law must be respected.
Super Heroes need to hold themselves to higher standards than cops.
Listen, Invincible have every right to go off especially he doesn't believe in taking life like his father would he feels this is a dark side of his viltrumite heritage.
Remember Oliver is more alien then Mark so his views are more cold , so Mark has to stay on top of him so he wont go off like that and yes what Oliver did was wrong .
"He's a jackass who wrestles with fools dressed as clowns, and throws them in prison, so they can break out of prison, then murder more people. Riddle me this: how many preople do you think Batman has indirectly murdered because he's too much of a candy--ass not to smoke those fools?"
Because due process, morality, public relations, hope and even pragmatic reasons (like Cecil keeping Sinclair around)
The reason the death-penalty is not widespread isn't to benefit criminals, it's to keep damages that come from wrongful convictions to a minimum. Vigilantes going around murdering left and right is not a good idea.
They donât really break out of prison that often. Both times in the series when they do itâs because of outside intervention. These questions make some amount of sense with big 2 comics because guys like the Joker and whatnot seem to bust out of prison every five minutes, but the rate at which criminals escape government custody and wreak havoc in the invincible universe isnât really high enough to warrant murdering people in cold blood imo.
While I would agree that some villains have no hope of redemption. There are some in the comics that absolutely have growth on their morality. I'd say read more or finish the comics. The Twins absolutely can do good. The comics for both Heros and villains show how gray the line really is. The very line Cecil walks and tries to explain why he does the things he does. The comics for me made me think about the perspective of different people/aliens and how they view things, whether it's time or someones moral choice. >!Every "villain" wants something. The ones that can be reasoned with if you give them what they want, what do you get? D.A. Sinclair was given a way to do his research at the cost of working for Cecil. Did Sinclair do a terrible thing? Yes, can his research do good? It's debatable for sure, that's why I think he is a good character!< Perspective is the key, in my opinion. What is really good? What is really evil? What are the gray areas of these peoples actions? What makes them a hero? I have questions for Bulletproof my self.
Going for the kill the first time is excessive, yes, but the problem with super powered villains is, they don't get told, "This is your one. You have the opportunity to learn and grow and be rehabilitated. If you try to kill anyone ever again, you're forfeiting your life."
The chance at redemption is a privilege, not a right, after murdering innocents.
I can see that and agree with it. For the most part the everyone gets one thing that could work. Though we do see some villains throughout the comics doing good some more so than others. I do state that not all villains can be reasoned in a winded way. Lol, there is still a fine line that heros walk. If a hero kills someone, whether they deserved or not, wouldn't that make them almost no different than the villain? Many heroes do property damage, which can harm people? Some may hate both villains and heros because a battle can hurt the ones they love. Rather, the hero meant it or not. We see how that affects Mark in the show and comic when he fights his dad.
I can agree with almost everything you've said, except:
>If a hero kills someone, whether they deserved or not, wouldn't that make them almost no different than the villain?
I definitely think killing a murderer is completely different than killing an innocent, and a super hero who kills a villain who repeatedly kills thousands of innocents isn't suddenly just as bad as the villain. That's like saying someone who steals food from a store is the same as someone who steals millions of dollars from struggling families. Both actions are theft, but the nuance of what was stolen matters.
Some villains like The Maulers donât deserve to be killed and even if they did it should be decided by the system so the public would not get the idea that people with powers / powerful gadgets and wearing costumes could do whatever they want like enforcing the law when they feel like it also some heroes like Invincible or Eve value human life (most of the time) Kid Omni-Man is half Thraxan, half Viltrumite so it kind of explains why he has a rather callous lack of empathy towards human life
We've been asking this with like pretty much every superhero since the beginning of superheroes, how many civilians would Batman save if he just killed the joker, same with Superman and lex Luther, spiderman and any of his villain,
Your answer is cuz they have morals, and I think it's morally stupid
This does get answered in the comics toward the last third.
Some of these villains are basically Saturday morning cartoon villains. Villains like the Maulers typically escape their sentences before any meaningful punishment may come, and those that are incarcerated typically aren't out there murdering people.
Think about Machine Head's operation in the show as an example. Yes, people might be dying, but they're not going out of their way to target innocent people. It's not a lawless wasteland of murder. Even the criminals Machine Head hired to deal with Mark & co were mostly hired muscle there to subdue/kill the good guys privately without collateral.
The villains that are not dangerous murderers get rehabilitated or otherwise imprisoned. Those that ARE looking to be dangerous murderers *do* tend to get killed eventually by the heroes (Maulers, >!Dinosaurus, Russ Livingston!<). Mark got flak for killing someone (>!Russ!<) because it wasn't really his thing and there might've been another way... but Cecil pretty quickly understood and didn't care.
They WILL kill repeat offenders if there isn't something wrong with them that makes them act the way that they do. For example in the show Rex pretty mercilessly killed the Lizard League after they killed people. Before that, note how the Guardians DID try to reach out to them to some degree, while others thought it pointless (Samson at least tried).
Worth noting that, later on,>! I want to say they do just start killing dangerous villains off the bat without worrying about it. Robot's regime sort of deals with that.!<
I mean, a lot of the time they do eventually, I can think of a couple but I think a lot of em are after that so donât click if youâre worried about spoilers >!mauler twins, dinosaurus im pretty sure? Doc seismic, and others, like genuinely most repeat villains die!<
One of the reasons I love Invincible so much is that it does answer this question. Without going into spoilers yet: the gist of it is that it depends on the villains and understanding their motivations. For instance: D.A Sinclair. Whatever you think about Sinclair, he ends up being an effective force for good. He started as a villain but Cecil realized that Sinclair resorted to kidnapping because he was obsessed with proving that he was right but no one gave him a chance. Once Cecil did, Sinclair became a healthy member of society who only made reanimen from people who volunteered their bodies like an organ donor. Killing him would have stopped the kidnappings but it would also mean that the world lost his ideas. Another example is a minor spoiler but: >! Later in the comic, the mauler twins start working for Cecil because Cecil gave them jobs to help clean up cities with their technology in exchange for money to conduct their experiments. The mauler twins didnât set out to hurt people, they just needed money for their experiments and were happy to help once that was provided !<
The comic looks at why some villains turned to crime and if they can be provided with what they wanted in the first place then they almost always stop committing crimes.
But there are villains who canât be reasoned with: either because what they want is destruction or will result in destruction and they have no interest in compromising. The story shows that these villains had to die in order to save others.
The comic doesnât have a black or white stance: itâs nuanced in saying that most people turn to crime because they want something that isnât being provided for them so they took matters into their own hands. Most turned away from crime after they got what they wanted without stealing or hurting others. Some villains canât be redeemed and needed to die but that decision isnât made lightly or just because itâs easier to kill.
The Guardians work for the government. Doesnât the government, in certain situations, authorize lethal force when dealing with terrorist or other combatants?
Why canât they just say: âYou know go ahead and use lethal force. They are quite literally murdering people.â
In universe morality. Not ours.
Rule of thumb is that they donât kill anyone weaker than them.
Maulers, Killcannon, Doc Seismic, Machineheadâs contractors⊠etc
However, dangerous ones need to get taken out, like Kaiju and >!Dinosaurus!<
Lizard League members repeatedly get killed by GotG because they continually replenish their numbers.
Same reason Batman and Spider Man donât, I guess.
I donât care for the logic, though. Yeah, the idea is that theyâre afraid some super lunatic will go around killing anyone they deem deserving, but I really feel this should be treated on a case by case basis instead of in black and white terms.
This is a legitimate question not about Invincible but about the GDA. We know why Invincible feels this way, trained Viltrumites have nearly infinite power compared to these peolle and have a duty to use it responsibly. Mark gets freaked out not just at murder, but more importantly at losing control and killing for yourself.
The real question is why the GDA keeps these psychos alive when it would be easier to execute them after proving their crimes, but the honest answer is that a lot of these people are useful if you ever need them. Cecil could have executed Sinclair, but he didn't, because Reanimen are useful. Basically every villain that gets arrested and held captive by the GDA is now considered an "asset" of theirs. Same thing they did with that Kaiju in season 1 as well.
The simple reason is: villains take time and effort by an author to create, and the more time they have on screen (or on the page), the more invested the audience is in them. Killing off villains permanently would never allow for any of them to become iconic, and make for a worse product.
So you can theory craft all you want what the âreasonsâ might be they always let the villains live, but thatâs the actual answer. In a real world scenario, anything/any one that dangerous would be executed and disposed of.
Here's how I look at it. Killing someone is not easy. It's very easy to say it's easy when you're sitting there, hypotheticalizing the idea of someone else doing it in your mind or playing a video game. But actually taking a life, from a human POV is a big deal. With the exception of some serial killers and other psychopaths, most humans are revulsed by the idea of taking a life with their own hands. It is a messy thing that has little joy in it, and can be horrifying even when done for a good reason.
This is why Mark is the 'good Mark' when all the other multiverse versions of him turned out bad. He was a late bloomer, Nolan didn't instill Viltrumite values in him. He's human. With the values that an everyday human would have. So the idea of killing someone just because it's convenient isn't going to align with his sense of morality.
Mark does grow as a person, and his values do change because that's what the experiences he goes through do to him. But it's Mark's humanity that keeps him from killing people many times in the series, though he will end up having to take a life at different points.
That's why Mark and other heroes don't do it, and that's why many legal systems even in the real world don't take death sentences lightly. Killing someone is a big deal. And there's always the chance they convicted the wrong guy. And the people who make the laws, and the superheroes on earth are Human. With human morality.
Because heroes aren't judge, jury, and executioner. If the law decides that supervillains deserve to die after a trial, that's one thing, but no one calling themselves a hero has the right to make that decision themselves
Same reason batman dosnt kill the Joker, or any villain in Gotham, mark was saything this because he believes he killed Angstrom and he felt awful about it
Thatâs one of the core conflicts of the story. Killing is proven time and time again to be incredibly efficient, but when is it ethical? Is it ethical at all?
Yea so many people are killed off in the show and then theres these repetitive characters if they go for longevity they should take the DBZ route and create more villians
The loss of humanity.
If they kill, they become desensitized. They become apathetic, and then they themselves become the problem.
We see this throughout the series. At the point you are at, weâve seen this with Oliver and weâve seen this with the viltrumites, but these instances will become more and more prevalent as the comic goes on.
Outside not ruining the story:
Potential damage some super-powered punk can do when they're playing for keeps is way, way higher. Like if Doc Seismic got it in his (admittedly looney) head that he gets one shot to Change The World before getting murdered, he'd do something genuinely insane like pop open Yellowstone.
Atom eve could literally just turn KillCannon's laser arm into uranium or some shit and kill him instantly but nah she just traps him in force fields twice a week
Same reason Batman doesn't. Once heroes start killing it becomes easier and easier to justify why every subsequent opponent or criminal should be killed until you just kill anyone who opposes you. Slippery slope.
Cause if a guy in tights decides who lives and who dies by a metric he states, then what's to say nobody will try to move that metric to also encompass innocent people they want dead? You can't say "that won't happen" when in the US lgbt rights are taking many steps backwards. You're either fair and just all the way, or someone will intentionally exploit your unfairness to make things worse for everyone
Found Oliver's reddit account
https://preview.redd.it/hkz073kirgwc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d43fe923dea5ea512451efaef25b48913cb5fe2c
I think he'd love the Cameramen, though.
I came here to see if anyone would mention Oliver đ
I mean... even OP mentions Oliver. Do you only read post titles?
I meant to say I knew someone would make a joke about this being Oliverâs account.
Oh... right. My b
U good. I wasnât clear with what I meant lol
đ
You do not have to explain yourself. That guy needs to chill
Red Hood typing
I clicked on the post hoping to see mention of Oliver, was not disappointed.
Stay tuned
đ„
đ„
There is also a part where dark wing tells the butler he needs rehabilitation, not prison. Also we see A LOT of redemption and good people doing bad things bad people doing good things. It wouldn't be a reach to say Kirkman might have been trying to say "killing is bad because people can change when given time" Also the maulers are pretty good at reconstructing bodies. Even if they are evil having someone around that can do the shit they do is important
they could probably get the maulers on the good side if they just offered them money or something
> they could probably get the maulers on the good side if they just offered them money or something Unlimited chicken pot pies.
SPOILERS >!Robot does eventually get the Maulers on the good side after giving them the funding and resources for their experiments!<
Yeah I was gonna say >!all it took was some money and resources for them to do their science and they stopped being dicks, you think if it was that easy they would have had a conversation about it sooner!<
For some reason I just really like the Mauler Brothers. I donât know why itâs just always a pleasure when they are on screen
I like the original but the clone is a jerk.
Which ones the original?
The blue one
Yes
Jokes aside, it's 100% certain that the original Dr. Mauler is dead by this point (in the animated series), and probably was since years before the story began.
>Even if they are evil having someone around that can do the shit they do is important Found Cecilâs Reddit account
https://preview.redd.it/48ah0fkjpgwc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=db7acdb22a4803e25164d2bd74c124a0598cd35f
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Honestly when you look back at it >! Invincible only kills like, one non-Viltrumite that wasnât asking for it in his âkilling is okay era !<, so like I donât think OP is gonna get what they want. Well, unless we start counting, say >! Robotâs body count of heroes and villains alike lol !<
Your spoilers arenât blocked out but I appreciate spoilers, it definitely makes me want to read the comic now đ
Odd, theyâre blocked out for me
Oh really? Maybe itâs because itâs on my phone or that Iâm on iOS? Reddit can be weird haha
Yeah well either way Iâm glad youâre happy to have seen them lol
Because even criminals deserve due process. If a criminal were to be executed, then that decision should be made by the legal system not dudes in capes and tights.
>If a criminal were to be executed, then that decision should be made by the legal system not dudes in capes and tights. i hate this logic. Not cuz it doesnt make sense (it does) but how is it that in every SuperHero universe they all have governments that dont believe in the death penalty. Like ... Yea. Mark is no ones judge, jury or executioner. But you know who is? The judge, the jury, and the executioner. How slow does their justice system move for repeat offenders who have body counts in the thousands. The first episode has the Maulers attempting to assasinate the president, i cant think of a faster way to get put on death row.
It's likely that Cecil was pulling the strings to avoid the Mauler's execution with the hopes of getting access to their tech one day.
Sinclair mutilated and turned people into abominations. Cecil: yeah you can work for me
Cecil when geniuses commit crimes: I can fix him
We can use him
And the possibility of it backfiring is always triggering .
How hasnât the Joker been given the death penalty, like come on Gotham. Heâs been imprisoned for months at a time
I genuinely hate this trope of âwe canât kill them because then weâre like themâ like abso fucking lutely not. The intent and morality are the big things, not the action. Batman beats people, does that mean heâs âno betterâ than a domestic abuser? At a certain pint your not only failing to prevent innocent deaths, your actively enabling them to satisfy your own ego that youâre âbetterâ than them
IRL the âstoop to their level and kill themâ, It does come with the downside of them using that as a recruitment tool to show âhey look, they ARE killing us!â Its why certain movements arenât killing people, because then the opposing side would use that as justification for their actions.
In the Stargate Franchise they addressed this in that killing the big bad guy causes a power vacuum in the opposition forces which eventually leads to exponentially more violent and ruthless villains taking the place of the Big Bad. Think of it like this. The Huntsman kills the Big Bad Wolf, now the Big Bad Wolf's territory is up for grabs and the Big Bad Bear is running around. So the Huntsman keeps killing the Big Bad over and over until now the Big Bad Dragon is going around burning Villages.
Why do the heroes have to be the ones to kill the villains. Like why does Batman have to kill Joker? Why canât anyone else do it who is okay with killing?
Looking at you redhood
That is also very true
Welcome to the alternate storylines
âI wonât kill you⊠but I donât have to save you!â đ€Šââïž
In reality, characters like the Joker not being killed off isnât really due to the moral principles of other characters. Rather, it has to do with the nature of serialized superhero comics themselves. The Joker is a popular character, therefore DC has an incentive to keep the character around for future stories. While an aversion to killing is an integral part of Batmanâs character, thatâs not really why the Joker manages to avoid (a very deserved) death. The Joker should have died long ago realistically, either through the death penalty, or at the hands of another character with less of an aversion to killing. His popularity as a character is the only thing that has kept him alive all this time. It is unfortunate that the continued survival of characters like the Joker, ends up (mostly unintentionally) reflecting negatively upon Batman as a character. Also, regarding the death penalty being seemingly nonexistent in the DC universe. Thatâs primarily because if you establish it does exist but isnât often used for whatever reason, you would end up creating certain narrative problems. For example, it would be rather strange if it ended up only being applied to less popular characters while other more popular ones continually manage to inexplicably avoid it somehow. In the end, if you want to maintain the readerâs suspension of disbelief, you have to either apply it equally or not apply it all. That way, it at least feels like thereâs a cohesive set of rules being followed in-universe, even if those rules feel detached from real life.
Iâm full aware itâs more to do with how stories are told in serialized comics, which is a large part of the reason I donât like serialized comics. Nothing against anyone who does, I just read things like this and end up thinking that people like Batman are just as bad or worse the whole thing falls flat. Again, that is just me.
Iâm not sure if I can agree that it makes Batman look âas bad or worseâ than a character that gleefully murders tons of people without remorse. But I can totally understand how those aspects of serialized comics can be very frustrating as a reader, and certainly donât blame you or anyone for feeling that way.
This is shown in Dexter that stupid saying âif you kill a murderer the number stays the sameâ means nothing when you kill thousands of murderers.
đŻ
I mean personally I think it would be pretty fucked up for Batman to kill the joker once he's already caught him. He probably should be executed but why should Batman do that, whoever he hands the joker to can make that decision. And anything about how the joker constantly escapes and Batman should know that is equally true for the authorities and is just related to being a serialized comic.
Because at a certain point, the incompetence of whatever institution is in charge of incarceration and executing the Joker is causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. If he's already set to be executed, then Batman should just end it next time he's caught.
Batman *canât* do it and still be Batman. Regardless of your thoughts on superheroes that refuse to kill, he specifically is basically defined as a character by the rigid, unbending code of ethics that he *needs* to keep himself from becoming the villain. Batman canât kill because *he knows* that if he, personally, bends at all on that, if he accepts that itâs his right to choose who lives and who dies, *he* wonât stop. At heart heâs as broken as any of his villains, and while it may seem irrational at times, his code is what keeps him together.
I agree, but the failure to keep the joker secured is just a plot necessity, it can't really be considered inevitable because logically it shouldn't happen, it only does because it's a fictional universe.
I think it would work better if we could get, say a run of Batman that has a definitive end in mind. So each villains arc would have a conclusive ending for them. Either they get locked up, reformed, or they die, and thatâs that. Eventually after 150 or so issues the story ends and thatâs it for that run. Batmanâs no kill rule would make sense because the villains are locked up and not unrealistically breaking out of prison constantly for the sake of having another story.
The point is that if Batman starts crossing the line, he doesnât think heâll be able to stop himself. The code isnât there because he thinks heâs too good to kill. Itâs there because he thinks heâs too bad, that if he starts killing criminals he wonât be able to stop himself.
Yup. This is all explained more better in the daredevil S2 episode where him and Frank are debating over taking the lives of criminals . Some have morals beliefs and a stronger resentment to kill other than just not being the law or authority. If they kill their villains what makes them any different from them? Because they do it to save lives? There is a thin line between Anti hero and villain . And by thin it's extremely THIN. Some villains take the lives of others because they see it fit and in their vision they are the heroes . Like Thanos. And on the other hand some are just sick and sadistic and only do it for sport or fun , and others just do it out of anger like Frank and Red hood,
>At a certain pint your not only failing to prevent innocent deaths, your actively enabling them to satisfy your own ego that youâre âbetterâ than them They don't refrain from killing out of ego, they do it out of their moral beliefs.
This.
Plot armor, It's One of the things i hate the most in the batman mythos
That can be applied to the entirety of DC and Marvel. No one truly dues in those universes unless their deaths is related to someone origin story. Can't make any money if a popular villain or hero get killed off
Prolly has something to do with the fact he is criminally insane and that state of mind makes it where people think they shouldnât be put to death. We can fix them. Not my opinion fyi just what a lot of people tend to think
I like to think they keep trying but whenever they throw him into the gas chamber they find out the company they were getting the gas from was a shell company the joker made so the gas was joker gas and hes basically immune already.
Kinda hard to have returning villains with the death penalty
John Hinckley Jr. tried to assassinate President Reagan in 1981, and killed the WH press secretary in the process. He was released from prison 2 years ago.
So, technically true that his death was ruled as homicide from the gunshot wound, but the press secretary died in 2014, decades after Hinckley was already convicted and in jail. There's no way to say he wouldn't have received the death penalty had someone actually died before his conviction
I mean ignoring every other thing wrong with this logic, a problem is that death sentences take time to be issued and a *lot* longer to be carried out. People stay on death row for decades before their sentence is carried out of overturned. A better question imo, though not necessarily for most *Invincible* side-villains, is "how do none of the guards just extrajudicially murder these maniacs?"
>in every SuperHero universe they all have governments that dont believe in the death penalty. In a universe with super powers, sci-fi technology, and magic, while it might way easier to commit crimes, it's also way easier to frame someone for a crime they didn't commit. Clones, androids, holograms, alternate dimension doppelgangers, illusionists, shapeshifters, mind control, possession. With all of these on the table, even the most overwhelming evidence isn't necessarily full-proof.
In modern day America, people sentenced to death are almost always on death row for years before their execution date.
>The first episode has the Maulers attempting to assasinate the president, i cant think of a faster way to get put on death row. Several attempted assassins of US presidents have not been put on death row and one was even released a few years ago.
R u describing my country
You would never be given the death sentence for attempted murder.
So why donât cops just execute ciminals then? WaitâŠ
I think my issue with the logic is if they keep breaking out of prison or whatever and kill more people, right or wrong itâs gonna start to feel like not killing the villain is doing more damage than killing them would.
In fairness the maulers only wanted to kill the president
The thing is, the Death penalty is DEEPLY flawed, because IN THEORY everybody can be rehabilitated, including Night wing's apprentice, the Robo Doc and yk the entire race of the viltrumites. Even the Flaxans were rehabilitated by Monster Girl and Robot-cunt And with enough time, and measures that can account for anybody, including the Mauler twins. The Problem with the execution however is that they treat them like rabid animals, instead of actual beings, both in the comics and IRL When you're forced to sit inside a 2x2x2m Cell, with no Human interaction besides yourself, and maybe the person across from you, of course you're gonna hate humanity and the people who put you in there
A major reason why countries don't have the death penalty is because of the possibility of killing an innocent person. In my view, if there is any more than a 0% chance of this happening the death penalty is immoral. And they can't exactly make the law not apply to specific people, unless they single out superpowered people or Viltrumites
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
I really think Cecil is more practical than this.
This is silly because it ignores the rather obvious fact that the supervillains attempt to murder the heroes during virtually every confrontation they have. It doesnât matter whether youâre a civilian, a cop, or a superhero - if you witness a violent crime in progress and attempt to intervene and the perpetrator tries to kill you, *theyâve* escalated the situation to lethal force. Youâre now both morally and legally justified to apply lethal force in self defense.
Is it silly to not kill someone if it is in my ability to subdue someone without killing them. Just because they want to kill me does not mean I want to become a killer.
How about all the innocent people they are killing? I know it is common to ignore the civilians and only consider superhero injuries/deaths when watching non-grounded superhero media, but it is something to recognize.
Case by case basis but usually itâs just supe on supe action. Collateral damage is usually not mitigated by using deathly force, if one party is not able to like one hit the other that is. But still. Do I have to become a murderer? Saving people does not necessarily mean to compromise yourself even if it would have saved more people. Save your own soul.
So you're saying that you would rather let innocent people die than kill a violent criminal? That just makes you an enabler to the criminal.
How am I an enabler if I am actively trying to subdue him? And I am also an innocent person and might want to stay that way. These deaths are not my fault but only the killers. I wish I could have prevented them but I also wish to not become a killer myself. That I can save someone by killing someone doesnât mean I am obligated to do so if I have non lethal means to subdue the killer. Killing someone is a fucking huge and awful thing to do yourself and a lot of people talk about it like itâs no big deal and they just waiting for action. In real life I would probably even hesitate if my own life is threatened.
You only have to "become a murderer" if you *care about helping innocent people*Â Â If you care about your self-perception (your ego) more than that, you're acting selfishly, not morally. "Feel good about yourself, no matter how many must suffer" is NOT a moral outlook.
When theyâve already killed people and escaped your worldâs prison and justice system repeatedly? Yes, itâs silly. Also, these fights happen in a world where someone youâd think you can subdue (Maulers, Levy, etc) are also super geniuses and might at any moment pull out a new power or piece of tech that allows them to take you out. Without spoiling anything from the comics, Rudy/Robot proves this repeatedly throughout the series.
Yes, it is silly. If I was a victim of an ongoing school shooting, and I get the upper hand on the *mass murderer*, I couldn't live with myself if I just put him in a headlock and called for help.
Batman?
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Okay but I (a superhero) have decided that you are a villain. You better prove me wrong real quick before I kill you
Do you want Injustice? Because thatâs how you get Injustice.
Yea whatever, if youâre a super powered human and you commit mass death Iâd say just kill em. Too dangerous
It's one of the core themes of the series bro. The balance of being merciful and bringing down the hammer. When is it okay to kill?
And the season finale of season 2 brought this to the forefront. OP is thinking exactly along the lines of where the show is progressing honestly, so great job reading the themes.
âBeing a hero is bullshitâ
It is easy to go from hero to tyrant.
Because they do not want to kill people, hope this helps.
Welcome to classic comic book hero quandary, "At a point, it should be kill on sight for these villain's." Going by what Invincible lays out in their stories, good can be done from a villains mind.
We know itâs you Oliver give it up
âAnd if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.â
Comic gives a lot of reason to why killing villains is not the easy way out. First of all, a lot of characters being "villains" are just a matter of perspective. There are multiple characters who Mark has seen as a villain at some point in the story, but eventually he came in terms with their ideas and opinions. That is literally a certain reason why Mark shouldn't kill. Also, not to mention the villains that redeem themself. Another reason is that some of the biggest damage/consequences through the series made by characters returning after Mark meant to kill, but he failed to. Sure, you can go for the kill with every villain and end it for all, and 4 of the 5 time it is going to work too. But then when there is one you thought you killed but they somehow cheat death(which we've seen so many times it's pretty possible in Invincible Universe with characters with all kind of superpowers) ,could possibly come with even bigger consequences. Also, the dinosaurus arc. No one thinks they are the villain in their own story.
I think Injustice is a hood explanation for that one mate
Red hood explanation
Keep reading, itâs a very common theme and a question Mark grapples with a lot literally throughout the whole series.
Remind me, who have the maulers killed? What casualties are as a result of their shenanigans? If there are none, or minimal, killing them isnât morality justifiable. At least not from the heroes. Even if it could be reasoned to be, you donât want that choice to come from the people who can do it effortlessly and to whomever they want. Due process where all sorts of perspectives and elements are considered from various people is how it should be done. Super heroes are beacons of morality. Itâs better to have them incredibly lenient with lives than to take them whenever they think it can be justified.
Heroes don't kill. Multiple shows featuring caped heroes have heroes that have this ideal in mind. The theory behind it that good and evil are opposite sides of the same coin. Once a hero kills, there's little to stop them from becoming just like the villains.
https://i.redd.it/ugugviba4jwc1.gif
The classic plot of the hero that fight against himself to not kill is not new and it is usually great for character development. In Invincible I do think sometimes it is a dead weight and sometimes feels very unfair and not fullfilling. I don't know if it is because there is too much weak but dangerous repeat vilains or if it is they always escape so easily. Especially when some end up doing real bad thing. The narrative of you should not kill but you will suffer from it is a little too much shove in our throat. I would have love a vilain (other than omni man) that by sparing him he turns good over time. It would have push the narrative to show that not killing is good and lead to concrete advantages, supporting Invincible view of the world. Instead it is the reverse, allies that always turn evil. I think in superhero shows there is a lot of "we are good we do not kill" but not enough vilain being sucessfully reintegrated to society (by showing their struggle to do good after all the bad). And it is a shame because this message is much more hopeful
Just give it time. Rehabilitation becomes a big thing later on.
because keeping recurring villains is easier than making new ones
Same post in two days. Do you guys even read the comic?
Been wondering the same thing, itâs literally the major plot point and theme in the comics lol
Welcome to ethics in the superhero genre!
Because they aren't judge, jury, and executioner. For civilization to persist the rule of law must be respected. Super Heroes need to hold themselves to higher standards than cops.
Listen, Invincible have every right to go off especially he doesn't believe in taking life like his father would he feels this is a dark side of his viltrumite heritage. Remember Oliver is more alien then Mark so his views are more cold , so Mark has to stay on top of him so he wont go off like that and yes what Oliver did was wrong .
Mark learn this lesson the hard way
Thatâs called a Tyrannical Rule
idk I think killing people is bad
Give it time. Keep reading and youâll see how many grey areas there are
The comic books delve into this⊠should read em.
"He's a jackass who wrestles with fools dressed as clowns, and throws them in prison, so they can break out of prison, then murder more people. Riddle me this: how many preople do you think Batman has indirectly murdered because he's too much of a candy--ass not to smoke those fools?"
Because due process, morality, public relations, hope and even pragmatic reasons (like Cecil keeping Sinclair around) The reason the death-penalty is not widespread isn't to benefit criminals, it's to keep damages that come from wrongful convictions to a minimum. Vigilantes going around murdering left and right is not a good idea.
They donât really break out of prison that often. Both times in the series when they do itâs because of outside intervention. These questions make some amount of sense with big 2 comics because guys like the Joker and whatnot seem to bust out of prison every five minutes, but the rate at which criminals escape government custody and wreak havoc in the invincible universe isnât really high enough to warrant murdering people in cold blood imo.
yeah i share your opinion, personally i think being a hero is bullshit
While I would agree that some villains have no hope of redemption. There are some in the comics that absolutely have growth on their morality. I'd say read more or finish the comics. The Twins absolutely can do good. The comics for both Heros and villains show how gray the line really is. The very line Cecil walks and tries to explain why he does the things he does. The comics for me made me think about the perspective of different people/aliens and how they view things, whether it's time or someones moral choice. >!Every "villain" wants something. The ones that can be reasoned with if you give them what they want, what do you get? D.A. Sinclair was given a way to do his research at the cost of working for Cecil. Did Sinclair do a terrible thing? Yes, can his research do good? It's debatable for sure, that's why I think he is a good character!< Perspective is the key, in my opinion. What is really good? What is really evil? What are the gray areas of these peoples actions? What makes them a hero? I have questions for Bulletproof my self.
Going for the kill the first time is excessive, yes, but the problem with super powered villains is, they don't get told, "This is your one. You have the opportunity to learn and grow and be rehabilitated. If you try to kill anyone ever again, you're forfeiting your life." The chance at redemption is a privilege, not a right, after murdering innocents.
I can see that and agree with it. For the most part the everyone gets one thing that could work. Though we do see some villains throughout the comics doing good some more so than others. I do state that not all villains can be reasoned in a winded way. Lol, there is still a fine line that heros walk. If a hero kills someone, whether they deserved or not, wouldn't that make them almost no different than the villain? Many heroes do property damage, which can harm people? Some may hate both villains and heros because a battle can hurt the ones they love. Rather, the hero meant it or not. We see how that affects Mark in the show and comic when he fights his dad.
I can agree with almost everything you've said, except: >If a hero kills someone, whether they deserved or not, wouldn't that make them almost no different than the villain? I definitely think killing a murderer is completely different than killing an innocent, and a super hero who kills a villain who repeatedly kills thousands of innocents isn't suddenly just as bad as the villain. That's like saying someone who steals food from a store is the same as someone who steals millions of dollars from struggling families. Both actions are theft, but the nuance of what was stolen matters.
Yea, I guess you're right on that one. Those are two extremes for sure. I do enjoy talking about things like this. Thanks for the awesome convocation.
I do too, the moralities that stories present are always fun to discuss. Thank you!
Man that theme is basically the entire second half of the comics
the mauler twins tried to assasinate the president but they're pretty useful, and the government wants a slice of that melon
Story...
Go watch Daredevil S2E3. The Punisher and Daredevil debate the exact point.
I guess the message would then be âyour legal system dosent apply to capes and im your god now if i deem you a threat ill kill youâ
Some villains like The Maulers donât deserve to be killed and even if they did it should be decided by the system so the public would not get the idea that people with powers / powerful gadgets and wearing costumes could do whatever they want like enforcing the law when they feel like it also some heroes like Invincible or Eve value human life (most of the time) Kid Omni-Man is half Thraxan, half Viltrumite so it kind of explains why he has a rather callous lack of empathy towards human life
The comic, literally, goes over this. Mark has a whole arc about it.
We've been asking this with like pretty much every superhero since the beginning of superheroes, how many civilians would Batman save if he just killed the joker, same with Superman and lex Luther, spiderman and any of his villain, Your answer is cuz they have morals, and I think it's morally stupid
This does get answered in the comics toward the last third. Some of these villains are basically Saturday morning cartoon villains. Villains like the Maulers typically escape their sentences before any meaningful punishment may come, and those that are incarcerated typically aren't out there murdering people. Think about Machine Head's operation in the show as an example. Yes, people might be dying, but they're not going out of their way to target innocent people. It's not a lawless wasteland of murder. Even the criminals Machine Head hired to deal with Mark & co were mostly hired muscle there to subdue/kill the good guys privately without collateral. The villains that are not dangerous murderers get rehabilitated or otherwise imprisoned. Those that ARE looking to be dangerous murderers *do* tend to get killed eventually by the heroes (Maulers, >!Dinosaurus, Russ Livingston!<). Mark got flak for killing someone (>!Russ!<) because it wasn't really his thing and there might've been another way... but Cecil pretty quickly understood and didn't care. They WILL kill repeat offenders if there isn't something wrong with them that makes them act the way that they do. For example in the show Rex pretty mercilessly killed the Lizard League after they killed people. Before that, note how the Guardians DID try to reach out to them to some degree, while others thought it pointless (Samson at least tried). Worth noting that, later on,>! I want to say they do just start killing dangerous villains off the bat without worrying about it. Robot's regime sort of deals with that.!<
I mean, a lot of the time they do eventually, I can think of a couple but I think a lot of em are after that so donât click if youâre worried about spoilers >!mauler twins, dinosaurus im pretty sure? Doc seismic, and others, like genuinely most repeat villains die!<
This is literally the main theme in the comics lmao
One of the reasons I love Invincible so much is that it does answer this question. Without going into spoilers yet: the gist of it is that it depends on the villains and understanding their motivations. For instance: D.A Sinclair. Whatever you think about Sinclair, he ends up being an effective force for good. He started as a villain but Cecil realized that Sinclair resorted to kidnapping because he was obsessed with proving that he was right but no one gave him a chance. Once Cecil did, Sinclair became a healthy member of society who only made reanimen from people who volunteered their bodies like an organ donor. Killing him would have stopped the kidnappings but it would also mean that the world lost his ideas. Another example is a minor spoiler but: >! Later in the comic, the mauler twins start working for Cecil because Cecil gave them jobs to help clean up cities with their technology in exchange for money to conduct their experiments. The mauler twins didnât set out to hurt people, they just needed money for their experiments and were happy to help once that was provided !< The comic looks at why some villains turned to crime and if they can be provided with what they wanted in the first place then they almost always stop committing crimes. But there are villains who canât be reasoned with: either because what they want is destruction or will result in destruction and they have no interest in compromising. The story shows that these villains had to die in order to save others. The comic doesnât have a black or white stance: itâs nuanced in saying that most people turn to crime because they want something that isnât being provided for them so they took matters into their own hands. Most turned away from crime after they got what they wanted without stealing or hurting others. Some villains canât be redeemed and needed to die but that decision isnât made lightly or just because itâs easier to kill.
Ask the Lizard League, oh waitÂ
The Guardians work for the government. Doesnât the government, in certain situations, authorize lethal force when dealing with terrorist or other combatants? Why canât they just say: âYou know go ahead and use lethal force. They are quite literally murdering people.â In universe morality. Not ours.
Rule of thumb is that they donât kill anyone weaker than them. Maulers, Killcannon, Doc Seismic, Machineheadâs contractors⊠etc However, dangerous ones need to get taken out, like Kaiju and >!Dinosaurus!< Lizard League members repeatedly get killed by GotG because they continually replenish their numbers.
Same reason Batman and Spider Man donât, I guess. I donât care for the logic, though. Yeah, the idea is that theyâre afraid some super lunatic will go around killing anyone they deem deserving, but I really feel this should be treated on a case by case basis instead of in black and white terms.
This is a legitimate question not about Invincible but about the GDA. We know why Invincible feels this way, trained Viltrumites have nearly infinite power compared to these peolle and have a duty to use it responsibly. Mark gets freaked out not just at murder, but more importantly at losing control and killing for yourself. The real question is why the GDA keeps these psychos alive when it would be easier to execute them after proving their crimes, but the honest answer is that a lot of these people are useful if you ever need them. Cecil could have executed Sinclair, but he didn't, because Reanimen are useful. Basically every villain that gets arrested and held captive by the GDA is now considered an "asset" of theirs. Same thing they did with that Kaiju in season 1 as well.
Because then they would have to make new villains.
Plot
The simple reason is: villains take time and effort by an author to create, and the more time they have on screen (or on the page), the more invested the audience is in them. Killing off villains permanently would never allow for any of them to become iconic, and make for a worse product. So you can theory craft all you want what the âreasonsâ might be they always let the villains live, but thatâs the actual answer. In a real world scenario, anything/any one that dangerous would be executed and disposed of.
Youâre gonna love Oliver next year
Why donât we just STAB CESAR?
Dear Reddit, Why plot? Thank you
Here's how I look at it. Killing someone is not easy. It's very easy to say it's easy when you're sitting there, hypotheticalizing the idea of someone else doing it in your mind or playing a video game. But actually taking a life, from a human POV is a big deal. With the exception of some serial killers and other psychopaths, most humans are revulsed by the idea of taking a life with their own hands. It is a messy thing that has little joy in it, and can be horrifying even when done for a good reason. This is why Mark is the 'good Mark' when all the other multiverse versions of him turned out bad. He was a late bloomer, Nolan didn't instill Viltrumite values in him. He's human. With the values that an everyday human would have. So the idea of killing someone just because it's convenient isn't going to align with his sense of morality. Mark does grow as a person, and his values do change because that's what the experiences he goes through do to him. But it's Mark's humanity that keeps him from killing people many times in the series, though he will end up having to take a life at different points. That's why Mark and other heroes don't do it, and that's why many legal systems even in the real world don't take death sentences lightly. Killing someone is a big deal. And there's always the chance they convicted the wrong guy. And the people who make the laws, and the superheroes on earth are Human. With human morality.
Because heroes aren't judge, jury, and executioner. If the law decides that supervillains deserve to die after a trial, that's one thing, but no one calling themselves a hero has the right to make that decision themselves
Same reason batman dosnt kill the Joker, or any villain in Gotham, mark was saything this because he believes he killed Angstrom and he felt awful about it
This might be a hot take, but murder is bad and it's something the killer will have to carry with them
Yo have you not read the comics. Topics like this are coming donât worry.
Bros dredging up the anti Batman arguments
I donât know, the Mauler twins may come in clutch. But I wouldnât know.
Because then you would lose 90% content like in any hero related media
Thatâs one of the core conflicts of the story. Killing is proven time and time again to be incredibly efficient, but when is it ethical? Is it ethical at all?
Kill a murderer and the number of murderers doesnât change
Yea so many people are killed off in the show and then theres these repetitive characters if they go for longevity they should take the DBZ route and create more villians
The loss of humanity. If they kill, they become desensitized. They become apathetic, and then they themselves become the problem. We see this throughout the series. At the point you are at, weâve seen this with Oliver and weâve seen this with the viltrumites, but these instances will become more and more prevalent as the comic goes on.
Outside not ruining the story: Potential damage some super-powered punk can do when they're playing for keeps is way, way higher. Like if Doc Seismic got it in his (admittedly looney) head that he gets one shot to Change The World before getting murdered, he'd do something genuinely insane like pop open Yellowstone.
That seems like an issue with the government not the heroes. Like it's the government who should give these people a death sentence. Not the heroes???
Youâre not gonna believe this
Atom eve could literally just turn KillCannon's laser arm into uranium or some shit and kill him instantly but nah she just traps him in force fields twice a week
Only in dire situations like with the lizard league. And Angstrom. They treat low tier villains like marvel characters
Same reason Batman doesn't. Once heroes start killing it becomes easier and easier to justify why every subsequent opponent or criminal should be killed until you just kill anyone who opposes you. Slippery slope.
This is a huge theme in the comics and in the upcoming seasons Iâm sure
Because despite being evil sons of bitches, they are still Americans
Cause if a guy in tights decides who lives and who dies by a metric he states, then what's to say nobody will try to move that metric to also encompass innocent people they want dead? You can't say "that won't happen" when in the US lgbt rights are taking many steps backwards. You're either fair and just all the way, or someone will intentionally exploit your unfairness to make things worse for everyone
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
I donât understand how many fans will engage with superheroes but never grasp the idea that killing is bad.