rossatdi said:
From what I recall Superman doesn't lose in Kingdom Come, they're just smacking each other around when the 'peacemakers' arrive.
Cannon is a pretty bizarre term anyway, just basically avoiding 'what if' type events like Red Son, Marvel Zombies, etc.
On a specific point 'moral ability to kill'? Re-cap Rebirth for me? When under the control of Parallax could Hal be defined as a hero?
That's a fair enough assessment of Kingdom Come. They didn't actually finish, and Captain Marvel was under a mind control effect. It's a question of Marvel's ability to kill Superman, regardless of success or failure. He had the battle in-hand, and Superman's words were enough to break the mind control. Does that mean Superman is more powerful? What if the mind control technique was more powerful?
Parallax is a similar mind control effect. It essentially lives inside Hal's body, providing influence on his actions by psychological manipulation. Hal actually chooses to kill, take rings, and use them. His morals are not compromised internally, but externally. Such is the way of most mind control schemes, like hypnosis - you can't make a person do something directly. Hence, Hal is still a hero, with externally compromised morals, as is Captain Marvel in KC.
Perhaps canon isn't the best term, but rather I mean for you to include all sources or only specific ones in this debate. Animated series can be considered a form of "what if" to the written works. Is this thread a question of "what makes a hero?" or "who is the most powerful 'good guy'?" If it is the latter, your thread already is asking a big "what if" by assuming the characters would be able to provide an example of how much more powerful they are than their competitors, which assumes the ability to use their powers beyond their deeply engrained moral values.
