Who do you think is right, Superman or Punisher?

[Cassandra]

Superman is the classic "Code Of The Hero" and "Code Versus Killing" superhero, adored by the public, respected by the authorities, but seemingly outdated in the modern world (a perception going back almost half his existence.)  He brings in the villains alive, and uses minimum force necessary.  Above all, he would never kill a villain, regardless of the crimes they have committed.

 

the Punisher is the killer.  He goes after the worst of the worst, driven like Batman, but the loss of his family.  Unlike the Dark Knight who shares The Man of Steel's Code Versus Killing, the Punisher believes justice can be delivered from the barrel of a gun.  A Vigilante, while he's encountered and worked with more traditional superheroes, he is wanted by the authorities, including SHIELD.  The Punisher roams the dark underbelly of society, hunting, and hunted, in a never ending battle for justice as he sees it.

 

If they were in the same Universe, Superman would try and bring him in.

 

So, who's viewpoint do you agree with?

 

 

[Balabanto]

If they were in the same universe, the Punisher would BE brought in. Where can he hide? It doesn't matter what his view is. He goes to jail.

[Cancer]

The two certainly can't exist in the same universe. And I don't think either can exist in ours. Punisher would be hunted down and killed: the law pursues most viciously those who presume to carry out justice rather than law. Superman ... would also be hunted down and destroyed, assuming the means to do that exists, for similar reasons, even if Big Blue had not made an overt act above and beyond the law. It is in the nature of those who reach high positions in the power structure to work implacably to pull down those who are not part of that structure but have power themselves, and they will rationalize their way to go beyond any limitations the law places on them in order to do that.

 

To answer the question as posed: I am laughably naive enough to think Superman's approach is more likely to be better.

[Nadrakas]

Well, in "Injustice: Gods Among Us," this is answered.  When Jimmy (Joker: "I got some Jimmy on my shoe.") & Lois (+1 unborn Son) are murdered the Joker (At least it's the Joker's fault...ultimately), and Metropolis is nuked by the Clown of Crime.  Superman summarily metes out Justice on the Joker...and goes on to implement his own "Super-Rule" with the help of other Supers (Including "Created" Supers...) and the world be damned.

 

So...there is your answer.  Even a Superman can be broken by the death of his family.

 

 

~ M

[Cassandra]

Well, in "Injustice: Gods Among Us," this is answered.  When Jimmy (Joker: "I got some Jimmy on my shoe.") & Lois (+1 unborn Son) are murdered the Joker (At least it's the Joker's fault...ultimately), and Metropolis is nuked by the Clown of Crime.  Superman summarily metes out Justice on the Joker...and goes on to implement his own "Super-Rule" with the help of other Supers (Including "Created" Supers...) and the world be damned.

 

So...there is your answer.  Even a Superman can be broken by the death of his family.

 

 

~ M

 

In one Universe, certainly that is true.

 

He can also be pushed too far by President Luthor ("A Better World").

 

But he stuck to his principles in "Kingdom Come", and versus "The Elite".

 

The Mainline version of Superman would never break.  

 

He's not Harvey Dent, who is he had just shot the Joker and let it go at that would have people saying "Keep up the good work, Governor Dent."

[Cassandra]

The two certainly can't exist in the same universe. And I don't think either can exist in ours. Punisher would be hunted down and killed: the law pursues most viciously those who presume to carry out justice rather than law. Superman ... would also be hunted down and destroyed, assuming the means to do that exists, for similar reasons, even if Big Blue had not made an overt act above and beyond the law. It is in the nature of those who reach high positions in the power structure to work implacably to pull down those who are not part of that structure but have power themselves, and they will rationalize their way to go beyond any limitations the law places on them in order to do that.

 

To answer the question as posed: I am laughably naive enough to think Superman's approach is more likely to be better.

 

I think our universe has had many "would be" Punisher.  They just end up dead.

 

Superman couldn't exist in our universe as far as you know.

[Nadrakas]

In one Universe, certainly that is true.

 

He can also be pushed too far by President Luthor ("A Better World").

 

But he stuck to his principles in "Kingdom Come", and versus "The Elite".

 

The Mainline version of Superman would never break.  

 

He's not Harvey Dent, who is he had just shot the Joker and let it go at that would have people saying "Keep up the good work, Governor Dent."

True.  There are many versions of Superman and the DC'verse (and all Comic'verse's for that matter).

 

Still, I don't know...I think that there are more than a few of the different "versions" of Superman that might break.  As for the Mainline version -- probably not, at least not without someone really messing with him and twisting him (aka: Darkside).  Even then, he might flip back to "normal."

 

 

~ M

[Nadrakas]

I think our universe has had many "would be" Punisher.  They just end up dead.

 

Superman couldn't exist in our universe as far as you know.

Personally, I want neither of them in "Our" Universe.  However, if forced to make a Choice...I'd take the Punisher.  The Punisher can be taken down...if a Superman-like character did go "bad" (or was bad from the beginning), then he'd be nearly impossible to stop (The "Kryptonite" vulnerability not-withstanding...).

 

To be honest, while reading about and playing Supers is cool...living in a world with Supers would be really frightening.  Imagine it for a moment...Super's fighting and leveling entire city block, and governments not able to stop them.  Yeah, the people would feel "real" safe.  Unless you were one of the Supers, you'd just be a Victim waiting to Happen.

 

 

~ M

[Sketchpad]

I believe there are too many shades in-between to honestly discern between the two evenly. It's too black and white. That's one of the reasons why I've always liked the Motivation system from DC Heroes. In fact, I think the next Champions campaign I'll eventually run will have a motivation-like system built in as a Complication.

[Tasha]

The main problem with this discussion is that we are talking about two extremes. Both of which are wrong. I like something in the middle like the Code of the Cinematic Cop. Only escalate violence when the perpetrator does. Try to bring in alive, but if that would cost lives then and only then is Deadly force allowed. Also be aware of Collateral Damage and keep it to a minimum.

Plays right into a normal person’s reluctance to kill. It also gives supers a lot of leeway when it comes to beating the hell out of someone, but makes killing a thing of last resort. It's also the kind of code that law enforcement can get behind esp if the Supers want to become legitimized by working for Law Enforcement.

The Punisher's code only works in very dark street level games. Superman and Batman's Codes vs Killing are really a relic of the comic ages that spawned the characters. Those codes are too ingrained into the characters to change without making the characters feel Wrong. So yes in Silver Age Comics (Golden Age had some killer Heroes), Code Vs Killing. This slides to a strong reluctance to kill in the Bronze and Iron Ages. The Current deconstructionist comics anything goes and many "Heroes" are total homocidal Maniacs.

[Soleil Noir]

I'd prefer to lean towards the Superman philosophy, for one simple reason: the justice system is inherently fallible; and a death sentence, once carried out, cannot be rescinded.  So no matter how convinced I personally may be of an individual's guilt, or how much I think that child molester or serial killer "deserves" to die, as a matter of principle I have a moral duty to grit my teeth and give every last one of them the benefit of the doubt, and to leave room for contrition and rehabilitation -- because I hope someone would extend to me the same consideration if I ever found myself on the stand, guilty or innocent.  That's how you know if your justice system is truly JUST -- if it seems fair and reasonable to you WITHOUT knowing in advance whether you're going to be the accuser or the accused...

[death tribble]

Again I fall into Superman's camp. As the police arrest people so does Superman. The Punisher commits murder however you want to phrase it.

[kahuna's bro]

I'd prefer to lean towards the Superman philosophy, for one simple reason: the justice system is inherently fallible; and a death sentence, once carried out, cannot be rescinded.  So no matter how convinced I personally may be of an individual's guilt, or how much I think that child molester or serial killer "deserves" to die, as a matter of principle I have a moral duty to grit my teeth and give and every last one of them the benefit of the doubt, and to leave room for contrition and rehabilitation -- because I hope someone would extend to me the same consideration if I ever found myself on the stand, guilty or innocent.  That's how you know if your justice system is truly JUST -- if it seems fair and reasonable to you WITHOUT knowing in advance whether you're going to be the accuser or the accused...

well put VERY well put

[Logan D. Hurricanes]

The problem is that they both suffer from "all you have is a hammer" syndrome. They have one solution no matter what the problem is. If I had to choose between the two extremes, I'll go with Superman simply because he doesn't claim absolute authority (discounting non-canon stories, of course) and he wants to use the legal system that the people have put in place.

 

The problem is that sometimes that is a mistake. The Punisher acknowledges that sometimes what he does is the right solution ... if only he didn't think it was always the right solution. "Didn't this guy used to shoot jaywalkers?"

[Doc Shadow]

I believe it was established that he was under the influence of some form of mind control when he did that and unable to judge a crime's severity. Thus all crimes were capital offences.

[BlueCloud2k2]

Let us not forget that canon Superman, if the authorities decided to arrest him, would allow himself to be put in prison.

 

"Your battle with Metallo caused a hundred children to be killed. You are under arrest for manslaughter."

 

Superman: "Then I surrender to the criminal justice system."

 

Not that I can see Superman causing a Stanford incident the way Speedball and his group of glory-seekers did.

 

For those of you who have no idea what I am talking about, look up Marvel's Civil War.

[Hermit]

I'd prefer to lean towards the Superman philosophy, for one simple reason: the justice system is inherently fallible; and a death sentence, once carried out, cannot be rescinded.  So no matter how convinced I personally may be of an individual's guilt, or how much I think that child molester or serial killer "deserves" to die, as a matter of principle I have a moral duty to grit my teeth and give every last one of them the benefit of the doubt, and to leave room for contrition and rehabilitation -- because I hope someone would extend to me the same consideration if I ever found myself on the stand, guilty or innocent.  That's how you know if your justice system is truly JUST -- if it seems fair and reasonable to you WITHOUT knowing in advance whether you're going to be the accuser or the accused...

This. There are, as much as we hate to admit it, innocent people that are wrongfully accused (and sometimes even go to jail) in this world. John Adams once said something akin to the idea that it was better than ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished.

That being the case, I much prefer Superman's approach to Punisher's.

[Hermit]

Let us not forget that canon Superman, if the authorities decided to arrest him, would allow himself to be put in prison.

 

"Your battle with Metallo caused a hundred children to be killed. You are under arrest for manslaughter."

 

Superman: "Then I surrender to the criminal justice system."

 

Not that I can see Superman causing a Stanford incident the way Speedball and his group of glory-seekers did.

 

For those of you who have no idea what I am talking about, look up Marvel's Civil War.

 

I know what you're trying to say, but I find that whole event so very out of character for SO many heroes that I pretty much consider it more of a mark against Marvel than I do the heroes involved.

 

I think a better example from New Warrior's History would be when Vance Astrovik killed his abusive father with telekinsis. His defense team pleaded self defense. The prosecution claimed he had precise control and could have taken the man down without killing him.  He was tried and found guilty though not of FIRST degree murder (IIRC) and...served his time. He came out with renewed purpose and a new name "Justice".

[Lord Liaden]

I tend to look at this issue beyond just what the "right" or "wrong" thing to do is, which I agree can be debated depending on specific circumstances.

 

What the Punisher does is easy. Not physically easy -- clearly it requires great skill and is extremely dangerous -- but emotionally easy. For any of us, the easiest thing to do when faced with injustice, cruelty, greed, is to lash out in anger and hate, to make the perpetrators suffer. If the law impedes you from doing that, ignore the law. It's easy to rationalize as necessary and just, and very satisfying. The Punisher does rationalize his actions, and again, there's something to be said for his arguments. But it's clear from his stories that emotional pain is ultimately what drives him.

 

What Superman does is hard. Here's a man with the power to hurt or kill anyone who offends him, with practically no risk of consequences. In most cases it wouldn't even require much effort; a flick of his finger would kill a normal human. Superman chooses not to do so, to submit himself to the same laws as govern everyone else. In some cases this has come at great emotional cost to him. And his choice is based not on fear of punishment, but purely because he believes it's the right thing to do.

 

Whatever I might think of specific actions these men take, if there has to be someone in the world with the strength to move mountains, I'd rather it be someone with Superman's strength of character.

[Cassandra]

I believe there are too many shades in-between to honestly discern between the two evenly. It's too black and white. That's one of the reasons why I've always liked the Motivation system from DC Heroes. In fact, I think the next Champions campaign I'll eventually run will have a motivation-like system built in as a Complication.

 

Please, tell us more about this motivation system.

[Cassandra]

I tend to look at this issue beyond just what the "right" or "wrong" thing to do is, which I agree can be debated depending on specific circumstances.

 

What the Punisher does is easy. Not physically easy -- clearly it requires great skill and is extremely dangerous -- but emotionally easy. For any of us, the easiest thing to do when faced with injustice, cruelty, greed, is to lash out in anger and hate, to make the perpetrators suffer. If the law impedes you from doing that, ignore the law. It's easy to rationalize as necessary and just, and very satisfying. The Punisher does rationalize his actions, and again, there's something to be said for his arguments. But it's clear from his stories that emotional pain is ultimately what drives him.

 

What Superman does is hard. Here's a man with the power to hurt or kill anyone who offends him, with practically no risk of consequences. In most cases it wouldn't even require much effort; a flick of his finger would kill a normal human. Superman chooses not to do so, to submit himself to the same laws as govern everyone else. In some cases this has come at great emotional cost to him. And his choice is based not on fear of punishment, but purely because he believes it's the right thing to do.

 

Whatever I might think of specific actions these men take, if there has to be someone in the world with the strength to move mountains, I'd rather it be someone with Superman's strength of character.

 

I agree.

[Lord Liaden]

The problem is that they both suffer from "all you have is a hammer" syndrome. They have one solution no matter what the problem is. If I had to choose between the two extremes, I'll go with Superman simply because he doesn't claim absolute authority (discounting non-canon stories, of course) and he wants to use the legal system that the people have put in place.

 

In practical terms, Superman has a lot more than a hammer in his holster, which is one reason why he acts like he does. With the magnitude and variety of his powers, and his resourcefulness in using them, he rarely has to face a situation where he might need to use lethal force to apprehend a criminal or prevent a crime. If anything, he'd probably face a lot of questions and criticism if he did kill or seriously hurt a perpetrator, for just that reason.

 

As to what the justice system does with crooks after he catches them, he accepts, like most of us living in the Western industrialized democracies do, that the system, while it may have flaws, is fundamentally just and fair. And it's up to society as a whole to fix any flaws it has, not him alone.

[Greywind]

...which is why they had him kill Zod in Man of Steel.

[Tasha]

...which is why they had him kill Zod in Man of Steel.

 

NO that was just because they though ending the story by shunting all of the baddies to the Phantom Zone wasn't good enough. They wanted Superman to do something over the top and shocking.

[bigbywolfe]

NO that was just because they though ending the story by shunting all of the baddies to the Phantom Zone wasn't good enough. They wanted Superman to do something over the top and shocking.

Although they have mostly been retconned he has been brought to the point where he was willing to kill and it was usually when other Kryptonians were involved. In the animated series he sent 2 Kryptonians into a black hole. I'm reasonably sure in the comics he left a fellow Kryptonian to die locked in a room with a chunk of kryptonite, though as I said, that has probably been retconned.

It does rub me the wrong way, but the kill was mid-battle, not finishing off an already defeated foe, so it bothers me less than a lot of other people.