Even on our terrestrial shores, local law enforcement has the ability to respond with deadly force when attacked with same. When the bad guys have heavy weaponary, the Police summon their S.W.AT. Teams to deal with the increased threat.

Why in the hell would the Corps have its hands tied in dealing with a force  concieved, recruited, trained, and highly motivated to kill each and every one of them? This is one of those absolute clear cut cases when a giant green boxing glove isn't going to cut it.

Thoughts?

Quote from: B A D on August 10, 2007, 10:34:06 AM
Even on our terrestrial shores, local law enforcement has the ability to respond with deadly force when attacked with same. When the bad guys have heavy weaponary, the Police summon their S.W.AT. Teams to deal with the increased threat.

Why in the hell would the Corps have its hands tied in dealing with a force  concieved, recruited, trained, and highly motivated to kill each and every one of them? This is one of those absolute clear cut cases when a giant green boxing glove isn't going to cut it.

Thoughts?

Wait a sec; they can't kill because of some code they have, the Guardians won't let them (if they even exist still - I'm not up on current GL lore), or the writers won't let them?

None of it makes sense, since last time I checked, Sinestro was supposed to have been executed by the GLC at some point after he turned evil......

It's possible that the line of thought leading up to a "no lethal force" GL corps goes: "once you let them use lethal force its a slippery slope leading towards Sinestro country".
Or maybe the new post crisis DCU is reverting back towards a "Comics code authority" way of doing things.

Plot, meet Device.

Killing? That's what the Green Lantern Corpse is for. ;)

Last time they were seen, they tried to recruit Guy, but he washed out. Only 2 known members right now though; Von Daggle and R'Amey Hall. Could be more........

Speaking of the Corpse, it would definately be a good time for some of them to be put to work.

I kind of like it. They should play up the idea of homicide being more of a human trait and aliens not being that into it. Of course that would go against thousands of comics of aliens showing up and blasting every human in sight until Superman or whoever's comic it is stops them but you get my drift.

Honestly though when we where thinking up Green Lantern avatars I was thinking how cool it would be to have an earth (or alien) green lantern who is a surgeon. You know... watch him remove one of the enemies fingers, take his ring... and then re attach it with his green surgical devices.

Mmm... given the magnitude of the threat though I wouldent be surprised if a few green lanterns hack a loophole and are latter reprimended.

It's one of those convenient (or inconvenient) plot devices that is just blatantly inconsistent. Jon Stewart clearly killed a member of the Sinestro Corps last month using a ring-made sniper rifle. The only thing I can think of is that it's tied to the morality play.
A Green Lantern feels the force flow. But beware anger, fear, aggression the darks side are they.
Maybe the killing in anger thing will lead to the Red Lanterns... who knows.

I'm new to GL lore (It was one of those books I just skirted around until I read Rebirth) but I'm positive Hal murdered several GLs using the rings when he went nutso... I know they're alive now, but still. Hal killed them, with intent to do so.
I realize it's a plot device, but DC could at least attempt to do something that fits with oh say... any continuity whatsoever

Quote from: yell0w_lantern on August 10, 2007, 03:35:59 PM
It's one of those convenient (or inconvenient) plot devices that is just blatantly inconsistent. Jon Stewart clearly killed a member of the Sinestro Corps last month using a ring-made sniper rifle. The only thing I can think of is that it's tied to the morality play.

Not necessarily.  GLs can easily use the ring to create a simulation of a lethal weapon that isn't lethal.  Kyle used to do it all the time. 

Also don't forget the Guardians had to rebuild the GL Corps from the ground up.  The rings shutting down if the wearer tries to kill is a new addition.  Which is further reinforced by the fact that the GLs themselves are surprised by it.

Anyway, based on the blurb at the end of this weeks issue, the Guardians might be about to remove or suspend the "no killing" rule.  It says they "do something unimaginable."  Obviously, that's just speculation, but if it's true I'll reserve judgement until I see where they're going with it.  It could serve as a source of conflict within the GLC with some GLs being for it and others opposed.  Or what if they made it really specific.  Say, if a GL tries to use lethal force the ring will shut down unless they're trying to kill a member of the Sinestro Corps in which case, go for it.   :P 

That said, I'd prefer they kept it.  It makes sense in light of the GLCs history to me.  Think about it.  I'm sure part of the Guardians reasoning for adding the "no kill" failsafe would be that if it had been in effect during Emerald Twilight the GLC wouldn't have fell and no GLs would have died.  Also, resisting the urge to kill in a dangerous situation would be a good test of willpower.  From the Guardians point of view, a GL who  doesn't have the willpower to resist that emotional response might not be worthy of having a ring.

Except, of course as stated above:

Quote from: Yellow Lantern
Jon Stewart clearly killed a member of the Sinestro Corps last month using a ring-made sniper rifle.

Umm, no.  As I already said, GLs can create non-lethal versions of lethal weapons.  No one in the comic has ever said that John killed Bedovian.

Quote from: Agent on August 10, 2007, 06:07:24 PM
Umm, no.  As I already said, GLs can create non-lethal versions of lethal weapons.  No one in the comic has ever said that John killed Bedovian.

The sequence of panels clearly implies a shot through the head.  Now, you can claim that Bedovian is some weird species where that would only incapacitate, not kill him but thats weak writing.

The best compromise I'm willing to go with is that John was going for a disabling shot, missed and got a kill shot by accident.  Since he wasn't intending to kill, thats why the ring didn't shut down.

Still weak, but acceptible.

I delayed adding GL to my pull list because of some financial problems.  But if their comics-fu is so weak, they pull lame poo like  shutting down the rings, I may forgo adding it at all.


ETA: So no one in the comic actually says John killed Bedovian. So what? A) When would they have time (or for that matter inclination)? and B) Comics are all about show, dont tell and the art shows Bedovian being shot through the head.

I don't know were you're getting the idea John was aiming at Bedovian's head since we're never shown exactly where he's aiming.  All we see is John creating the sniper rifle, aiming it, then firing.And in the very next panel we see a beam of energy much bigger than Bedovian's head (you can see Bedovian's entire body inside the beam being knocked backward) hit the asteroid.    It's the same energy blast we've seen GLs use thousands of times without it being lethal.  Why would that be different now?  Especially since John Stewart has never been known to use lethal force.

It could have to do with their respective states of emotion. John Stewart did it out of protection and duty while Boodika and Soranik Natu attempted to kill out of anger and/or self-preservation. Just a theory; perhaps this is something Johns will touch on in a later issue.

While the "no Kill/kill" rule may be a wonderful thing to debate in Lantern class, it really doesn't help when there's an army hell bent on systematically wiping you out. I can understand and even appreciate the rule in a law enforcement situation, but this is an entirely different situation the Corps is facing here. Again, your're not going to arrest the entire sinestro corps, manhunters, and gods know who else and stick them in science cells.

the way i understood it was, a gl can kill if the situation deems it in self defence. ala john. where as in the latest issue the killing was going to be done out of rage which would not be allowed. the same idea as our police.

Guys, back when these comics were thought to be for kids (before some of you were born), comic book heroes just didn't kill. That was just the way it was. Most of the villains didn't kill either (Joker went YEARS without a single death on Batman's concience).
However, as any student of comic book history knows, that wasn't always so. Batman and Superman killed in the early years. I'm not sure, but probably most of the comic characters did, since a lot of them were based on pulp characters, like The Shadow, Doc Savage (who killed in th early stories, sometimes quite cold bloodedly), or The Spider (YEESH! Talk about body count).  Many heroes killed duing WW II (look at any Atlas Comic), but that was war, and was a different situation.
When I started reading comics, it was just a "given" that heroes don't kill. Very few have any reason behind it, it's just the code they live by. Now, Batman has the reasoning that if he kills he'll be just like them, and he's better than that. Killing is easy.
It's funny, but I've read The Executioner, The Destroyer, The Shadow, Doc Savage, The Spider, The Phantom Detective, The Black Bat, Conan, Captain Future, Tarzan, John Carter, The Avenger, and other adventure series and pulp reprints, and I don't usually have a problem with the killing in those adventures. Jon Sable, Nexus, The Punisher, Nick Fury (any incarnation), The Specter, even Wolverine (has Wolvie actually killed anybody lately?)-I have no trouble with them killing (they usually don't make mistakes). If Superman, Batman, Most of the Avenger, The FF, Spider-Man, Daredevil, Green Lantern, The Flash,  pretty much all other Siver Age characters, start to kill, just because it's the easy solution, it would bother me. All these years of actually using their BRAINS to catch and incarcerate a villain, and they decide it's time to kill all the bad guys. This would bother me a lot.  But then, so does Civil War.
I remember one thing that was discussed on The Doom Patrol (The Original, Original DP) letter pages, was that none of them had a code against killing. They did, however, view killing as a last resort (paraphrasing Asimov: Killing is the last resort for the imcompetent) only to be used in extreme circumstances (H.B. Piper qualified Asimov's quote with something like that). The Challengers of the Unknown even had a special prison for their enemies...
And remember, it's not the heroes who let the villains get away, nor is the the courts who let them off, or the prison boards who put them up for early release, it's the readers who want to see more of that villain. A fight between your favorite hero and a good villain is a good read.
It's also the readers that keep them alive, too, when it would be so much easier for Superman to just pop their little heads off like they were soda bottles and spit down their necks.
Which is only fair, since it's those same readers that keep the hero coming back month after month...

As they like to say, Times Change.
"Funnybooks" as a rule haven't been for kids for decades. We've had defile, murder, more defile,  etc in mainstream comics for years.

And check out "Wolverine - Agent of Shield" . His body count may be in the thousands.

If Geoff Johns is going to present "The Sinestro Corps War" and have one side have its hands tied purely for effect, I'd call that poor writing.

I'd actually question whether killing the SC members is the best move tactically.  I think it's safe to assume their rings work the same way the GLCs do when a member is killed.  If the GLC starts killing them they'll still be replaced fairly quickly.  Granted, they'd be replacing an experienced SC member with a rookie but the SCs numbers would still be the same.  You'd just end up in a stalemate.  On the other hand if they capture or incapacitate them the ring will stay put.  They can confiscate it, destroy it, study it, or whatever they want and the SC is down one member since the ring won't seek out a new recruit.

Quote from: daglob on August 11, 2007, 10:05:16 PM
it would be so much easier for Superman to just pop their little heads off like they were soda bottles and spit down their necks.

That is hilarious!  But I agree, most mainstream comics characters I don't want killing either, and I agree with most of your exceptions to that quasi-rule as well.  I'd actually put Captain America on that list too, though only as a last resort - you can't tell me he fought WWII without killing anyone.

Quote from: B A D on August 12, 2007, 05:11:09 AM
As they like to say, Times Change.
"Funnybooks" as a rule haven't been for kids for decades. We've had defile, murder, more defile,  etc in mainstream comics for years.

And check out "Wolverine - Agent of Shield" . His body count may be in the thousands.

If Geoff Johns is going to present "The Sinestro Corps War" and have one side have its hands tied purely for effect, I'd call that poor writing.

Thing is, Johns probably doesn't have free reign on what he can do. It may be corporate policy that GL Corps members do not kill. It's been that way for nearly 50 years now. It's tradition, and you know how hard it is to go against tradition. I suspect that the specter of the CCA does still haunt the the halls of DC and Marvel. I'm sure they all have some worries that going too far could return them to the dark old days of the 1950s, or even the fear  of what the CCA forstalled: government intervention.
So, maybe it isn't the writer's fault. Or maybe he has an idea of what to do with it that you will like.

I have this crazy idea of what it was like for the Writer to pitch the Marvel character Penance:

"So, after all this he decides that in order to do pennance, he has to dress up in this leather punishment costume with spikes that goad his skin to remind him of his mistakes. The emotional battles will drip from the page, the readers will see a hero get turned spiritually inside out as he plumbs the depths of misery. Now, for this to work, it needs to be someone who has a history at marvel, someone they will care about. I was thinking Spider-Man."
"No."
"Oh c'mon man, Think of the sales."
"We are," remembering the Scarlet Spider fiasco.
"Well then, how about Daredevil?"
"No."
"The Human Torch?"
"No."
"Iceman?"
"No."
"Hawkeye?"
"No."
(much later...)
"The Blazing Skull?"
"No."
"Blue Devil?"
"He isn't ours, but no."
"Dale of the FBI?"
"No."
"Speedball?"
"Okay."
"Woodgod.. wait, what?"

To Talavar:

Cap was covered under the WW II exceptions, and when I mentioned Atlas Covers, I really meant Timely. Some of the WW II covers for Cap, Namor, and especially The Torch were pretty gruesome.

Eliminating the Central Battery would be ideal.

I'm sorry but out of all DC's heavy hitters, the only ones that should logically be able of killing is the gl's, i mean come on there are basically an army/police unit

Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on August 13, 2007, 08:01:47 AM
I'm sorry but out of all DC's heavy hitters, the only ones that should logically be able of killing is the gl's, i mean come on there are basically an army/police unit

I'm going to have to agree with UE there. I think it leaves them to vulnerable due to criminals and villains being able to exploit that.

Yah, it was bad enough you could kill them with a # 2 pencil before Rebirth.

The thing of it is, when you come to look at morality, at what separates the Good from the Bad, a willingness to kill is part of that equation.
GLs are supposed to be "without fear". A fearless man doesnt worry about leaving enemies alive.
They are law officers, not executioners. And not soldiers in an army. And they are especially not Judge, Jury and Executioner rolled into one. I know some feel that trials are some sort of set-up to let bad guys go free, and that summary justice is the best form, but I think the GL corps should value life, and not be above the law.
In extremis, to save their own or the lives of innocents, there may be circumstances where an opponent dies or is killed. But to give them carte blanche to do whatever they want without any form of oversight, responsibility or recrimination is just perverse to the point of evil.
And as for John Stewart's "kill", I saw no yellow ring fly off saying "sinestro lantern of sector XX deceased", but we saw plenty of GREEN rings doing just that.
And for those citing the use of deadly force by police or military, they have a code of practice, and laws, that require that an effort be made to resolve the situation without recourse to deadly force, it is not acceptable as the first and only choice. Given how much more intelligent the rings are than any other weapon, I think it makes sense that their "safety catch" extend to refusal to murder. And killing someone when you have an option not to is murder.

Quote from: B A D on August 12, 2007, 05:11:09 AM
As they like to say, Times Change.
"Funnybooks" as a rule haven't been for kids for decades. We've had defile, murder, more defile,  etc in mainstream comics for years.

So I guess that means we should continue down the spiraling slide of doom? Looking forward to reading the defilement of Little Dot next week.

Quote from: tommyboy on August 13, 2007, 08:21:53 AM
The thing of it is, when you come to look at morality, at what separates the Good from the Bad, a willingness to kill is part of that equation.
GLs are supposed to be "without fear". A fearless man doesnt worry about leaving enemies alive.
They are law officers, not executioners. And not soldiers in an army. And they are especially not Judge, Jury and Executioner rolled into one. I know some feel that trials are some sort of set-up to let bad guys go free, and that summary justice is the best form, but I think the GL corps should value life, and not be above the law.
In extremis, to save their own or the lives of innocents, there may be circumstances where an opponent dies or is killed. But to give them carte blanche to do whatever they want without any form of oversight, responsibility or recrimination is just perverse to the point of evil.
And as for John Stewart's "kill", I saw no yellow ring fly off saying "sinestro lantern of sector XX deceased", but we saw plenty of GREEN rings doing just that.
And for those citing the use of deadly force by police or military, they have a code of practice, and laws, that require that an effort be made to resolve the situation without recourse to deadly force, it is not acceptable as the first and only choice. Given how much more intelligent the rings are than any other weapon, I think it makes sense that their "safety catch" extend to refusal to murder. And killing someone when you have an option not to is murder.

of course they should not be killing left right and centre, they there would be no separation between heroes and villains,which is why i stated that like real life law enforcement, it would all depend on the situation, john in the first part took out the sniper to protect innocents and fellow officers, where as the female lantern was going to do so out of pure vengeance and spite which shouldnt be allowerd

Then we are mostly in agreement.
What I'm not 100% sure of is that John Stewart killed his target. It's not a huge problem either way, as if he did kill, the extreme circumstances could (arguably) justify it, and if he didn't kill, he still got the job done.
But I would have preferred to see the yellow ring fly off if he did kill him(it?).