Rousing the Animal Mobs

The jokes just write themselves...

Superheroes Committing Homicide

I recently saw the season finale of "Arrow", and the movie "X-Men: Days of Future Past". Both shows involved at least one character faced with the dilemma of killing the villains of the feature. A while ago I posted about what I call "gladiator endings", in which the hero has the villain at their mercy, and then (usually) declines to finish them off. I thought the subject was worth revisiting, particularly in the light of Superman killing Zod, the Arrow now not killing anyone, and Mystique wanting to kill Dr. Trask.

To kill or not to kill, that is the question. Is it nobler to take, or spare the life of a monster?

For me, it depends both on the circumstance, and the players involved. I believe it is justified to kill in situations such as self-defense (or defense of others), as combatant to combatant in wartime, and legal execution of those who are simply too dangerous to ever permit in free society. To kill in defense, you or someone you are with must be under assault. To kill in war the victims must be legitimate targets that advance the war's objective, (civilian deaths must be avoided as much as possible), and executions must be staged in a humane manner by authorized personnel. Any killing outside these rules damages society and, I believe, the soul.

Superman's killing of Zod was justified because there was simply no other way to stop him. He was too strong to be contained, and there was simply no reasoning with him. I realize that this goes against Superman's typical "ultimate good-guy" image, but in this case, it was the "good guy" thing to do. Refusing to kill Zod no matter what would have been selfish. "I don't care how many people suffer or die as long as I don't personally get blood on my hands." They can still have the Man of Steel show forbearance in future episodes, when he may be tempted to take a life because it would so easy (and who would bring him to justice?) but he doesn't because this new scenario would be different.

Zod was a near-invincible conqueror who threatened the entire world, which I think satisfies the wartime requirement, what about more human criminals with a more scaled-down agenda? That would bring us to either defense from imminent harm, or legal execution. For me, any other type of killing wouldn't be right, and shouldn't be sanctioned. In the first season of "Arrow", Oliver Queen tended to drop bad guys right and left. His reasons why are understandable; these people had already escaped legitimate justice, and from what I recall, most everyone who was actually shot was an active threat to the Arrow or others at the time. Others are threatened, but not killed, as Ollie tries to coerce his targets into making amends first. However, I can understand the Starling City PD not liking the Arrow's activities. Even if most deaths are caused in defense of the Arrow's person, the fact remained that they would be threatening him if he hadn't shown to gather evidence or threaten their boss. He basically went looking for trouble, and appointed himself judge, jury and executioner to those who got in his way. At least the show acknowledges the bad precedent this sets when copycats appear which show less restraint than the Arrow. Another good point is where he stops killing by the second season. However, this only shows he had the capacity to do his job without homicide the whole time, but just didn't bother. 

What particularly troubles me about the Arrow's vigilante killing was the mask and hood. When a regular civilian, or even a police officer kills someone, there is an accounting and investigation. The killer is expected to cooperate with authorities, who then verify their version of events. This can't happen with a masked vigilante. If a masked "hero" merely beats a crook up and leaves them for the cops, it's still not exactly proper, since they didn't stick around for a police report (which could hamper the felon's eventual conviction) but at least the felon's alive to reflect and possibly repent, plus the legal system put in place by elected officials gets the last word. No killing is the price the likes of Batman and Green Arrow pay for not having to answer to anyone.

In the season finale of "Arrow" I thought that when Slade's henchmen chose to take the miracuru drug, and go on the rampage, they chose the consequences, to be put down by whatever means necessary. Fortunately the Arrow and his allies got the cure to shoot them with, but absent that, anyone who was capable would have been justified in terminating the member's of Slade's army. Amanda Waller was certainly not justified in the drone strike (I wish they hadn't included that cliche); a few grenades, RPGs, and heavy machine guns could've done the job just as well, particularly when the henchmen were gathered together in the tunnels.

As for Slade himself, I think he would simply be too dangerous, even without the drug, to merely keep locked up. Even in real life criminals in prison don't always stay put, and even if they do, if they're killers they're a danger to anyone who works at the prison, as well as their fellow inmates. However, if I were Oliver, I wouldn't have wanted to put him down either, not before at least giving him the chance for sanity with the cure first. This is because the Arrow was simply too close to the situation. After everything Slade had done up to that point, it would've been too easy to kill him out of hate. Justice would've been better served by some Joe-shmoe executioner just doing his job. We see a similar scenario with Luke Skywalker in "Return of the Jedi". When he finally takes down Darth Vader, he refrains from delivering the killing blow, because he had become dangerously close to doing it just out of hate, rather than justice and saving the galaxy.

So that's my thoughts on justifiable homicide. Do you agree with my musings or disagree? I'd really like to see other people's thoughts on this one.

More Arkham City Combat Challenge Loading Screens

What do you call...

No insult intended to any who actually have these names.

... a boy with no arms and no legs on the open ocean?
Bob.
... a boy with no arms and no legs by a mailbox?
Bill.
... a boy with no arms and no legs on a doorstep?
Matt.
... a girl with one shot leg?
Eileen.
... a girl with no arms and no legs in a cow pasture?
Patty.

Batman: Arkham City Combat Challenge Loading Screens

These are screenshots of the loading graphics of each combat challenge in Batman: Arkham City. Taking these (as well as the title screenshots I featured a while back) was like taking a picture of a bird, I had be fast before the subject went away.

    

Will Graham Profiles a Snowy Owl

I found this picture of a snowy owl nest stocked with lemmings and voles on projectsnowstorm.org, and I thought I'd give it the "Will Graham" treatment.

"I'm flying through the air, gazing at the open tundra. I'm not hunting for myself, I'm hunting for my babies. I see a lemming, I swoop down towards it. The small lump of meat doesn't hear a sound; it has no awareness of me until my talons pierce its sides and I carry it into the sky. It squirms, squeaks, and then grows still. I transfer it to my beak, and fly it on home. I introduce it to its new companions, all laid in a circle around my eggs. My mate arrives bringing a vole, which she lays down next to mine. We've already filled in the circle, but there is still room for more in our family. For that is what they are now, family. In killing them we've adopted them. Their bodies now line the nest whole, and after they are consumed, they will line it in pieces. Our babies will regurgitate the fur and bones, which will mingle with our feathers, and help keep the babies warm. 

In life these creatures served only themselves, death makes them more charitable. In death, they provide food and warmth to those not of their species; in death, we make them into a true circle of life."

"This is our design."

Asking Miss America on a Date

It seems that I am going against the grain here, what with so many defending this kid asking Miss America to the prom at a school assembly, but I think someone ought to make the case for manners and decorum, which I believe the kid did NOT show.

There are plenty of instances of school administrators acting like morons, but this isn't one of them. Instead it's an instance of sensationalist journalism making a martyr out of somebody. The issue isn't that he asked Miss America to prom, the issue they suspended him for was HE DISRUPTED AN ASSEMBLY. If you read the whole story, it shows that he stood up and asked her out in front of the whole school. At first I thought he had got up on stage, but he actually took advantage of a question-answer period. I'll admit it was a bit "cute" but I still think it's attention-whoring. He wanted to look "cool" in front of his friends, and put a famous person on the spot. Yes, she was gracious about it, but did she really have much choice in such a public setting? If he knew he would get in trouble for it, he should take it like a man, and the reports show that he DID know. Asking personal questions in that setting is just bad taste, IMHO.

Also, while I can understand public marriage proposals (when you know she's going to say yes and it's just a formality), I don't agree with public DATE proposals, because it puts the lady in a very awkward position. She has to either say yes, or say no in the most delicate, sweet manner possible to avoid looking like a jerk. It's not courageous, it only makes you LOOK courageous at the lady's expense.

Lastly, if I were a celebrity, I would NEVER date those who only knew me as fans. Sign autographs yes, visit schools and hospitals, yes. But actually spend somebody who merely wanted my aura to rub off on them? No, that kind of shallowness should not be rewarded. While I have not had the experience of everyone on the street knowing my name and face, I've read plenty of stories ranging for silly to scary about fans that just don't know where to draw the line. I also know something of what it is like to feel that everyone wants a piece of you, without regard for what YOU want.

So people, remember that celebrities are human beings also. While they do indeed owe their success and fame to their fans, they are still entitled to some amount of respect. Their time is not merely yours for the asking, and they certainly don't owe you a whole evening just because you want a bit of their star power.