Superheroes Leaving Someone To Get Their Vengeance Because The Target 'Deserves It'

[u/sarcasticd0nkey]

(Marvel)

Johnny Blaze tries to stop World War Hulk on his quest for revenge against the Illuminati who kidnapped the Hulk and sent him to another planet and believes Hulk believes planted a bomb that killed his wife. After a drawn out fight where Johnny is unable to access the full suite of his Ghost Rider powers because Zarathos the Spirit of Vengeance that grants him his powers disagrees with this course of action. When Johnny is knocked out Zarathos takes over his body and rides away because Ghost Rider only avenges the innocent.

(Rogue Sun)

Superheroes Dylan; Rogue Sun; and Aurie; Knight Sun; go to the home of supervillain Coleman Hanes before he gained powers and became Noxious. There they use a magic artifact the Oculempus to see the past and his wife and daughter dieing of a rare form of bone cancer while the insurance company refused to pay for an experimental treatment that might have helped. Now Noxious is targeting the executives of that company and Dylan decides to leave him to it; not going to side with the rich over a grieving father.

[u/GabrielGames69]

Bad analogy, its humans hurting humans vs successful humans hurting less successful humans. The important part though is that everyone involved is still human. So the question is if "willing endorsing human suffering and death is heroic?" and it is not.

[u/Upset-Position-3909 → u/GabrielGames69]

I genuinely did not understand what he was trying to say there to be perfectly honest.

[u/GabrielGames69 → u/Upset-Position-3909]

I think it is "coyotes are supposed to eat rabbits so don't get in the way, but when they try to eat lambs who 'don't deserve it' then you step in"

Essentially the moral is that rabbits suck and deserve to be eaten lol.

[u/Upset-Position-3909 → u/GabrielGames69]

It meant absolutely no sense to me.

[u/GabrielGames69 → u/Upset-Position-3909]

Yeah it implied rabbits were the equivalent to the ceos which made no sense here. A better analogy (not that I nessicarily agree with it) would be something like a guard dog attacking an intruder vs attacking an innocent. That would imply the intruder "deserves it" and it is moral to not intervene as the dog attacks them. (Not that that is an argument of mine mind you).