Okay, and this Chad fellow, too. For those of you unwilling to scroll down two entries, I’ll re-post David’s entry in full:
Chad Nevett on New Avengers #58:
Yeah, here’s the thing: not killing bad guys doesn’t make you better than them, it makes you a fucking pussy. It makes you responsible for everything negative they do after that point. No grey areas, no moral questions, no debates about what’s heroic and what’s not. […] I hate superhero comics for pretending that letting villains live is somehow the morally superior thing to do, because it’s not.
If you listened to the Fourcast! this week, and you should have, you’d know that I agree with every word Chad says. I wanted to have a longer excerpt, but it’s a pretty short review. Go read it.
Chad and David both seem to agree that in comics heroes should be able to occasionally kill villains. I agree, with specific exceptions, with this general idea.
Where we differ crucially is what ‘killing’ means. To quote Chad:
Should they kill every mugger ala the Punisher? No. Should they kill Norman Osborn when the chance arises? Um, yeah.
‘Killing’ someone encompases a variety of different concepts, from pre-planned murder to accidental manslaughter to legitimate self-defense. I think that, if the situation were to arise in which a hero had to kill a villain in order to save the life of that villain’s intended victim, they should, morally, kill the villain. That’s killing someone.
Killing Norman Osborn, or the Joker, or whoever else, when ‘the chance arises’ is not just killing someone. That’s an execution. There is a very distinct meaning to that, and there are very different consequences for it. Read the rest of this entry �