Here's page 20, and Fusion gives the Darmarian forces a literal pounding. Since Fusion doesn't know the architecture of the helicopters (and the location of their vital flight systems), she only wants to make stable flight for them impossible to force them out of the air. Plus I'm sure there's a certain visceral satisfaction from delivering blow after blow after blow to the Darmarian forces.
Nice job explaining how she's dealing with them without blowing them out of the sky or possibly killing anyone.
That brings up an interesting debate that's come to mind, of what if a superhero had to deal with a large force of murderous lunatics in another country that either doesn't have the ability or refuses to properly incarcerate these people.
In this case its because they're soldiers of the ruling body of the country she's in, or what if a Superhero were to head into an Insurgent-heavy area like Iraq to try and quell the violence, but could find no way to properly detain them to keep them from just picking up another weapon and going on their merry killing spree.
Would a superhero be able to retain his or her no kill code while dealing with a chaotic situation like that? Its something that sprung to mind given what's going on in the news today and made me wonder what everyone else thought about it.
Definitely a sticky subject. A no-kill hero could go in and defend folks and knock around the murderers in one location for a bit, but it'd ultimately be a losing battle--one person can't be in multiple places or fight forever. This will be touched on a bit next issue.
Brooder is another no-kill hero (and he generally disapproves of heroes who kill). Everyone in SAS (Black Members not included) is a no-kill hero--and it's pretty much mandated in the laws governing Supers in SAS, although, as with police, there are times when lethal force is excusable. The laws governing Supers are for the protection of regular folks (and even villains) as much as they are for Supers. There's a fine line between vigilante and superhero (except your average vigilante generally lacks superpowers that would pose a threat to authorities, hence the need for laws to regulate "superhero" activity).
great issues being discussed. pretty much why i consider superman to be a failure (relative to his power level). in order to stop all evil in the world, one has to meddle in politics. by taking sides you are in fact shaping nations in favor of your own views. thus you end up doing what america does, and act as a world police. given the lack of prison space, that means a decent chunk of the world's population needs to be killed in order to keep the peace. thus a no kill hero can't do anything more than temporary stalemate (and a 'kill all the bad guys' hero results in perpetual violence due to retaliation and rebellion).
That brings up an interesting debate that's come to mind, of what if a superhero had to deal with a large force of murderous lunatics in another country that either doesn't have the ability or refuses to properly incarcerate these people.
In this case its because they're soldiers of the ruling body of the country she's in, or what if a Superhero were to head into an Insurgent-heavy area like Iraq to try and quell the violence, but could find no way to properly detain them to keep them from just picking up another weapon and going on their merry killing spree.
Would a superhero be able to retain his or her no kill code while dealing with a chaotic situation like that? Its something that sprung to mind given what's going on in the news today and made me wonder what everyone else thought about it.
How would Savunn look in a bikini?
Heck,how'd She-Cat look in a bikini as well?