But still, this...
...this is not what we should expect from a man who has FAIR PLAY tattooed on his arms, is it?Yeah, of course, this is a comic book, so the "Tomorrow Thief" probably survives just fine.
Still, Michael Holt is the third-smartest man alive, so if he believes that throwing the guy into a boiling hot subterranean volcanic lake in Iceland will disable his powers, and thus his ability to escape, shouldn't we believe him? And when he says "good luck, you're definitely going to need it" to survive, well, don't we have to believe that "Mister Terrific" believes that there's a good chance the guy will die screaming?
Not so "Terrific," then, in my book. FAIR PLAY my ass.
3 comments:
The idea that good guys never kill, no matter what, is unique to comics, and then only super hero comics. Heroes kill in other media (movies, TV, paperback books) and genres (Westerns, detective stories, war). And real-life heroes (police officers, soldiers) sometimes have to kill in the line of duty. So I don't object to heroes killing as long as it is legally and morally justifiable (e.g., self defense or to protect others). I do object to "heroes" who appoint themselves judge, jury, and executioner and who kill in cold blood. Actually, the only reason for Batman and Captain America (or Mr. Terrific) having stricter rules of engagement than Marshal Dillon or T J Hooker is that "comics are for kids." But a lot of hard core comics fans-including the ones who say that "good guys never kill"-would angrily deny that comics are a childrens' medium.
I would venture that there are large amounts of space between "never kill no matter what, "kill in the line of duty," and "kill because the creators thinks that makes them a badass."
There is certainly room for Wolverine and the Punisher in the comics world. But when they become the norm; when heroes pull the Batman Begins BS of "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you;" when heroes can be mass murderers and never face a single consequence? Clearly something has been lost.
And to suggest that Batman's code against killing is simply because "comics are for kids" completely ignores the valid the in-story reasoning and psychology provided for the character. There's a reason some heroes have a rule against killing, and to dismiss it as childish is to dismiss the inherent moral debate as to the limits of power, the role of vigilante justice, etc.
And someone who wears the FAIR PLAY motto on his body, I would suggest, should have stricter rules of engagement than TJ Hooker or Marshall Dillon.
I haven't read this stuff, so I ask in earnest:
Is his tattoo supposed to be, now ironic?
I wouldn't think so, but as stated I have read none of this nonsense.
Post a Comment