Isa wrote:I'm going to have to disagree about Lightbringer undermining the rule of law in Pharos. The way I read the archives, there wasn't much rule of law to undermine. Unless robbery, racketeering, and kidnapping are legally protected activities, anyway.
Actually, that brings me to my only real gripe about this comic: The lack of corrupt cops. I can't imagine an organization as powerful as the Slavers forming if there is a vigilant police force, and even if they did form, I can't imagine them failing to turn at least a few officers over the years. Mind you, cynical as I am, I'd expect most of the police to have been turned at the start of the comic, not just a few.
GabrielWingue wrote:The comic is good Linkara. I'm just saying, this law thing doesn't fit the story.
Lightbringer's morality tale is honouring the memory of his parents while embracing the potential of Violence to do good. After setting the tone with a morality tale like that, and then REINFORCING your tone with the "argument" between him and Hannah (in which she really questions him as a hero) and his morally ambiguous relationship with Sandy from #13: Masks... you've covered all the angles of moral ambiguity you need (at least for now).
Making him morally ambiguous with the law, after establishing a good relationship between The Police and Him... is just... unnecessary. Not trying to sound unoriginal, but vigilanteism by itself has never really been enough to warrant an ambiguous law story in comics.
Now! If the focus of this morality tale were on the police per se (eg: Crane against the mayor, the Police Force against Crane, etc. etc.), then the scenario changes a bit.
That's why allowing vigilantes to act freely is a horrible idea in a realistic universe, and why we need the police in this one. But if you have superhumans...Well, what's the police to do? They can't regulate superheroes unless they have superhumans in their own ranks, or the superheroes are very, very willing to follow the law. And the latter won't happen if vigilantism becomes the norm.
I do believe you are right about society needing laws in order to function. However, there's no denying that law enforcement is limited to the actions that they can take because of said laws. Then, there's also the fact that... pretty much every public institution has policies that limit their actions in order to prevent from being sued. Well... If they're in a particularly sue-happy country... That's another thing, though. Countries. Laws differ from country to country... I mean, obviously, there are laws that are universal, but then sometimes matters of culture or political systems dictate laws that you might not find elsewhere. Also, we cannot forget that corruption exists pretty much everywhere.
I think superheroes, not involved in law enforcement, would be a good thing. Superheroes can work without having their hands tied by all the... well... red tape, if you will. If the superhero really is a hero... Someone who strives to do the right thing... Then, this would actually contribute to making the world a better place because less people would be able to take advantage of the fact that the law operates with one-hand tied behind its back.
Now as for whether or not Lightbringer would succumb to the Light Yagami scenario, I'd say the answer is not likely, even if you ignore the fact that he has a "no killing" policy. The major reason for this is... Lightbringer does not work on a global-scale. Lightbringer doesn't have the capabilities to work on a global-scale (Light Yagami did, which only served to fuel his god complex). He's also very much aware of this fact... which is why he sticks to protecting his city or wherever he happens to be at the time. Being aware of his limits will help to keep him honest.
I read some of that Crossoverlord comic not too long ago... and I can see one clear instance of this. Lightbringer finds out that MindMistress has killed someone in order to save a life. This, of course, goes against all of Lightbringer's principles... and he makes it a point to tell her so... and how if he had known, he would've insisted that she go back to where she came from like she wanted to do in the first place. In this case, he's letting his own philosophy get in the way of doing what is right. They're imprisoned... He needs to be trying to think of a plan to escape (One of the other characters remarks that the arguing isn't helping)... And regardless of how he feels, MindMistress can still be an asset in playing a role in that escape. (Besides, it would not be right to leave her imprisoned, either. That's passing judgement again)
This sort of thing can ultimately lead to Lightbringer's undoing as a hero and to that descent into villainy. If he allows his philosophy to blind him that much, he will become no better than the villains that he fights against. I remember something... vague... It was something from Rurouni Kenshin... it was after the fight with that Shishio character (the one with the burns and whatnot)... Yahiko (I think... the kid) says something about how Shishio's view of the world was evil and that Kenshin's view of the world was good... Kenshin stops him and tells him something along the lines of how it's important not to fall prey to that sort of thinking... Oh, it's been so long since I've seen Rurouni Kenshin. I can't remember hardly anything... I remember that it was deep and meaningful...
At any rate, I hope that sort of thing does not happen to Lightbringer... He's quite a likable character, and I think I would be rather crushed if he fell like that... I dunno about anyone else, but I think Lightbringer is a great hero to look up to...
See, the thing is, all that "red tape" and "limits" don't exist to prevent law enforcement agencies from getting sued (given that they essentially establish what they can get sued for). They exist to prevent the law enforcers from easily taking advantage of their position.
Why do policemen need to read people their rights? Because if the arrested don't know their rights, abuse becomes all too likely.
Why does the police need special warrants to search a place, or to put someone under electronic surveillance? Because otherwise, corrupt policemen could effortlessly ruin people's lives, blackmail almost anyone - either for their own profit, or for the profit of the politicians the police works for.
The "red tape" and "limitations" aren't bugs. They're features, and important ones at that. They're what keeps the police from turning into the ultimate mafia, and to keep democracy from becoming a sham.
We don't trust the police to operate without them, and see no reason to trust superheroes to do so either.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests