[ SECRET POST #5007 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5007 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 52 secrets from Secret Submission Post #717.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[meadowphoenix]

I mostly only see it in your counterfactual, where the villain is NOT powered down and so the stance is tantamount to continuing the conflict.
The only time I've seen something like your version is Avatar, and I think it was fair there, mostly because Aang's justification had shit to do with being ~bad~ like the villain but living up to his own principals (which was consistent with his character growth).

Anyway, I don't know where you're getting off that you're not supposed to take it literally. That's patently not true in multiple cases. Give an example OP.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, if the villain isn't effectively neutralised (or at least reasonably thought to be effectively neutralised - Ozai could turn around and start an anti-Avatar political movement, but he's not going to be personally burning the entire Earth Kingdom again) then hell yes, you should be responsible for killing them. The first time Batman catches the Joker and refuses to kill him, that's reasonable, but by now it's dumb.

And I say this as someone who is strongly anti death penalty IRL, because IRL we have ways to effectively contain people.

[meadowphoenix]

yes, that's sorta my bright grey line, death might be necessary for effective neutralization and if so it's odd to forgo death as an option, but i'd be fine with a hero for whom it wasn't on the table before that.

I agree with your last line, but it reminded me of how much fandom was furious about Scarlet Witch's magic dampener collar in MCU: Civil War. like the hole jail raft was def an abuse of power and a violation of civil liberties, but scarlet witch is a character where you can't just hope she doesn't hurt anyone or hope she'll just stay in jail, but the perspective was so pro-Cap that people were like mad about it. So I hope OP knows there are people who complain about the opposite!