I think this ties in with one of the biggest problems with most superhero comics: being open-ended.Ares wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 4:26 am I've said this before when it comes to Codes Against Killing, but they're something I feel is pretty vital to the superhero genre as a whole.
I definitely understand it from a marketing and storytelling perspective, because if Dr. Doom died in the first story, well, we'd have missed out on some great stories. There's a reason why Darth Vader survived 3 movies and why the Joker has been around for around 80 years. Rather than having to create a new villain each time, really good villains have multiple story potential.
But beyond that, Codes Against Killing make sense for superheroes, so long as it's a more reasonable "I will not kill unless doing so is the only way to save myself or someone else" and not the more silly "I will never kill ever". With Police Officers, it's true that once they draw their guns, they're expected to be prepared to shot, and to shoot to kill. They're trained to aim for the center body mass and put in enough bullets to make the threat not a threat. And then they're going to have to turn in their weapon, submit themselves to a psyche exam, a full investigation and other procedures to make sure the killing is justified.
On one hand it makes perfect sense from a narrator perspective not to reinvent the wheel every time by creating a new "main villain" every time, so it stand to reason that the main character doesn't kill. On the other hand, though, this kind of narrative also imply that every other character abide to the same code as the main hero, which is a bit of a problem.
This here frames the problem pretty well: the main goal of a police officier should be protecting civilians, so the problem is how do you face a supercriminal? Against normal opponents shooting to intimidate might be a viable tactic, but against someone like the Green Goblin or the Joker? I can buy that Batman will never kill the Joker and I can't even imagine what took Jim Gordon not to murder him in cold blood at the end of No Man's Land, but I don't buy even for a minute that every policeman in Gotham would be that merciful.Ares wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 4:26 amBecause police are just normal men and women trying to protect civilians against opponents who are frequently as well armed as themselves. Because hitting someone with a firearm is actually really hard, with supposedly something like 3/4ths of all shots fired in combat missing. Because we don't have reliable non-lethal weapons, so we need to make do with the ones we have.
Putting aside the consideration on why techlogies like Clint and Ollie's trick arrows or Spidey's webshooters aren't avaible to law enforcement agenciesAres wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 4:26 amIf we had an entire police force of people who could fight like Batman or Captain America, move like Nightwing or Daredevil, had access to a variety of effective lethal and non-lethal weapons and could aim with the accuracy of people like Green Arrow or Hawkeye, then police could be expected to use non-lethal force to deal with criminals. Because they guys have the means to take down opponents without killing them. Their lives are not in danger the same way normal police officers are, and in the cases when they are, they have every right to use lethal force. From a moral perspective, a code against killing like this one makes perfect sense.
It makes even more sense in a superhero setting where superheroes are allowed so long as they make every effort to work with law enforcement and not be reckless with lethal force. It's easy to see why someone like Batman would be tolerated and why the Punisher would not. Even the old Pulp novels with heroes like the Spider made it clear that even though he was killing evil men, criminals beyond the shadow of a doubt, the law could not differentiate between what the Spider did and what any other killer did, and thus the Spider was hunted to the full extent of the law. Meanwhile Doc Savage never killed anyone if he could help it, and was given several honorary standings with various police agencies over the world.
I remember a pretty good storyline by David Micheline and Erik Larsen where Spidey and Frank discovered that a splinter group from the C.I.A. and the U.S.Army were stockpiling refined cocaine to finance a series of secret operations. There were a few good exchanges, but the ones I remember most was this one.Ares wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 4:26 amI do like characters like the Punisher, but they should generally be in the minority to show why those codes exist, and to indulge the people who like to see some criminals go down permanently.
Jab isn't wrong about Punisher stories involving other superheroes usually turning one of the party into a strawman. Either the hero is made to look weak or stupid (ie, anytime any other hero appeared in an Ennis book) or the Punisher is portrayed as an unsympathetic lunatic. It's a careful balancing act where the Punisher should be sympathetic, but the heroes should also clearly not be able to condone his actions.
It's why I vastly prefer the rooftop Punisher/Daredevil scene in the Netflix TV series to the Ennis Punisher scene it was based off of. Because when Ennis wrote it, Matt looks like a weakling and Frank gets to make all of the good points and look like a badass. In the Netflix show, both men make equally good points, Matt stands firm in his convictions and makes a decision that is far more in character.
I think that the problem was simply that it would have required some really tough planning, possibly intervowing the two series for a rather extended period of time, not to mention the pretty real possibility of having Frank shot Cap, which I think was a big "No Go".Ares wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 4:26 amI'm honestly kind of surprised they didn't just use the Punisher rather than create the Scourge of the Underworld. I mean, the Punisher is the perfect guy to clean up any jobbers that they want to get rid of, and the conflict between him and Captain America is just perfect. Two people who likely respect each other as soldiers, but Cap feeling that Frank has taken his war to levels he can't condone.
It's interesting though how in some ways Frank's response is absolutely rational. What happened to the Punisher is the same thing that happened to Bruce Wayne, but whereas Bruce responded emotionally using fear as a weapon, Frank Castle did exactly what he was trained to do: he went to war.Ares wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 4:26 amUltimately, I find the best Frank Castle stories do portray him as a tragic figure, rather than one who simply enjoys what he does. He's a broken man with this hole in his soul where his family are suppose to be, and no matter how many criminals he kills, that hole never goes away. He's ultimately a showcase of the futility of revenge, perhaps even realizing it on some level, and deciding to use his own damaged life to do some good.
Castle can be summed up with the famous quote from Colonel Trautman in First Blood: "[...] you're dealing with an expert in guerrilla warfare, with a man who's the best! With guns, with knives, with his bare hands! A man who's been trained to ignore pain! To ignore weather! To live off the land! To eat things that would make a billy goat puke! In Vietnam his job was to dispose of enemy personnel... to kill, period! Win by attrition... well he was THE BEST!"
The Punisher is trying to fill the hole in his soul in a cold and clinical way. He doesn't take pleasure in what he does, for him it's a job.