Chloe tells Clark to kill Lex?!

[Alexander III]

Awesome!! :D

[dru-zod2501]

i'm waiting till tomorrow to to judge, but that sounds horribly out of character coming from her... sigh... arresting her, maybe sending her to jail wasn't enough, there needs to be character assassination as well?

[Rizarro]

I'll have to wait till Arctic airs to vote.

[Jory]

i'm waiting till tomorrow to to judge, but that sounds horribly out of character coming from her... sigh... arresting her, maybe sending her to jail wasn't enough, there needs to be character assassination as well?

At first I read that it didn't come out that way, but a lot of other people are also saying that. I agree that's it's very OOC for Chloe, especially since in "Vessel" she told Clark that he, "wasn't a killer" when Jor-el wanted him to kill Lex. It does appear that TPTB are not only writing her ending to be jail , but are also adding some serious character assasination on top of that. What scumbags. I guess they really are giving Chloe fans a huge screw you,in what could be the last season for Chloe.

[Honey45]

I'm pretty disappointed in Chloe. Didn't she just say how Clark isn't a murderer? Then she suggests (basically, tells Clark there's no other option) that he kill Lex? There are a lot of other ways to keep Clark/everyone safe. He doesn't NEED to kill Lex. She made it out to be like there was no choice.

[RepairmanBob]

So, in addition to not giving a crap about losing her dream job and being overjoyed to take back Jimmy after finding he had betrayed her, now Chloe is advocating murder? Hell, if the show is so eager to destroy the character, just kill her off already.

[Ilovebeinglost]

I think she is really worried about this thing that Lex has that will control Clark. One of symbols on the cave walls also mean that he will be sacrificed so I'm sure she doesn't want Clark to die.

[Jory]

So, in addition to not giving a crap about losing her dream job and being overjoyed to take back Jimmy after finding he had betrayed her, now Chloe is advocating murder? Hell, if the show is so eager to destroy the character, just kill her off already.


I guess this is why Allison's not hurrying to resign. If TPTB are doing this much character assasination to Chloe this season, I shudder to think what next season would hold.

[Clana_4ever2005]

Maybe it wasn't Chloe, but Brainiac in disguise???

[krpto]

Maybe it wasn't Chloe, but Brainiac in disguise???

thats possible since brainiac ttryed to trick clark into killing lionel maybe he fears lex too. I mean lex claims to love lana in his twisted way whats to stop him from trying to destroy brainiac and free her from his graspe maybe brainiac fears lex will get to powerful for him to handle much like lionel could destroy copies of brainiac maybe lex can to.

[Jory]

Maybe it wasn't Chloe, but Brainiac in disguise???

Hmmm,that's possible. Someone mentioned that Chloe broke the alter Clark was on.

Can anyone who saw the episode confirm this,did Chloe break the alter Clark was on?

[Twitch]

Hmmm,that's possible. Someone mentioned that Chloe broke the alter Clark was on.

Can anyone who saw the episode confirm this,did Chloe break the alter Clark was on?

Yes she did, but she used a big metal cross and it took a couple of hits.

And it was only the corner of it.

[Jory]

Yes she did, but she used a big metal cross and it took a couple of hits.

And it was only the corner of it.

Shoot. Thanks,it was a good idea though.

I guess it was just straight up character assassination then.

[Mar-El]

Shoot. Thanks,it was a good idea though.

I guess it was just straight up character assassination then.

Yeah, definitely :(

If it were Brainiac, he would have just allowed Kal-El to die.

[AChloeChick]

So, in addition to not giving a crap about losing her dream job and being overjoyed to take back Jimmy after finding he had betrayed her, now Chloe is advocating murder? Hell, if the show is so eager to destroy the character, just kill her off already.

Haven't seen this epi yet (although I've read the recaps), so I cannot comment about Chloe wanting Clark to kill Lex.

However, I don't understand why you're not THRILLED with the 'death' of Chloe. Shouldn't we all be jumping up and down now that Chloe has become Jimmy Bond Olsen's Ho?

Gosh darn it, I've invested seven years into her character and her relationship with Clark that I just can't get enough of the Chimmy. As a Chloe fan, why should I care about a major pay off for Chloe? She's not part of the mythos anyway, so why bother?

PLEASE NOTE: This post is dripping with sarcasm.

Must post this AGAIN, GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

[mctor]

I dont really see the big deal with Chloe telling Clark to kill lex. I think what she meant in the scene was that if it came down to either kill Lex or die, than you kill lex.

BTW I could be wrong but with all the talk about character assassination I dont think this is the first time Chloe has told Clark to kill Lex, In the season 5 finale(Vessel) didn't Chloe tell Clark to kill Lex/Zod?

[Alexander III]

Maybe it wasn't Chloe, but Brainiac in disguise???

I doubt it, Brainiac is too busy [Mod Edit] w/ Kara's mind. Btw, where was Kara the whole time? She could have gave Clark some really big help, superspeed to Montreal to find and save her cousin.

[RedKRules]

Well it´s not like someone hasn´t mentioned it before........ Lionel anyone???

I think it was in Vessel ...

----- Added 1 Minutes later -----


I doubt it, Brainiac is too busy [Mod Edit] w/ Kara's mind. Btw, where was Kara the whole time? .

With a terrible migraine .... :\:\

[Alexander III]

I dont really see the big deal with Chloe telling Clark to kill lex. I think what she meant in the scene was that if it came down to either kill Lex or die, than you kill lex.

BTW I could be wrong but with all the talk about character assassination I dont think this is the first time Chloe has told Clark to kill Lex, In the season 5 finale(Vessel) didn't Chloe tell Clark to kill Lex/Zod?

Well in season 5 Lex was beginning to be possessed by Zod so his body was no longer in Lex's possession, killing ZOD doesn't justify killing Lex coz they presumed he was dead already). At the same time, Lex/Zod was bringing serious threat and was already starting to try to take over the world. So Chloe and both Clark were left w/ no choice but to remark on killing Lex/Zod. However here in season 7 Lex's still Lex and there are still alot of different options, they don't necessary have to kill Lex. Chloe could have just said that he'll be our enemy forever so we should be extra careful from now on, rather, I found it strangely enough that Chloe actually said "either you or Lex..." You have to do it Clark.

That's not Chloe's character, c'mon.

[dru-zod2501]

I dont really see the big deal with Chloe telling Clark to kill lex. I think what she meant in the scene was that if it came down to either kill Lex or die, than you kill lex.

BTW I could be wrong but with all the talk about character assassination I dont think this is the first time Chloe has told Clark to kill Lex, In the season 5 finale(Vessel) didn't Chloe tell Clark to kill Lex/Zod?

Chloe didn't suggest it, Jor-El did and she was just as shocked as clark; chloe suggesting it tonight, even implying it subtlely, is plain wrong. Period!

[RedKRules]

Chloe could have just said that he'll be our enemy forever so we should be extra careful from now on, rather, I found it strangely enough that Chloe actually said "either you or Lex..." You have to do it Clark.

That's not Chloe's character, c'mon.

I agree, something is obviously wrong .... and it looks bad .... real bad :(:\

[Thrill_Seeker]

I dont think that there is anything wrong with clark having to kill lex
I dont think he needs to, but I dont think theres anything wrong with it

[pyroseyes]

I agree, something is obviously wrong .... and it looks bad .... real bad :(:\ I second that. That's WAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY out of her character. :mad:

[finalbahamut]

I second that. That's WAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY out of her character. :mad:

Did Chloe really said that in Quest? if she did they're making a huge mistake!

[Thrill_Seeker]

I think all of those cave wall painting and prophecies really made chloe aware, and maybe this is a one of thing, with her suggesting she has to kill lex, although in a way clark kinda has to, but I dont know if it should happen, we'll have to wait and watch. and I havent seen quest, yet, so maybe its just having to see it to judge it, but Im still super excited for quest !!! i think ive said that like a hundred times :D

[lauraforever]

Ohhh.... I wonder what aqgalaxy's reply will be when she reads/watches this after coming back from vacation...

----

THIS explains it! Lex will be killed by Clark and Chloe takes the fall for it!!

----- Added 3 Minutes later -----


I doubt it, Brainiac is too busy [Mod Edit] w/ Kara's mind. Btw, where was Kara the whole time? She could have gave Clark some really big help, superspeed to Montreal to find and save her cousin.

Now THAT'S an interesting question. She should have totally appeared in this one! Oh well, luckily, she'll be in Arctic, the Season Finale.

[go_clo]

THIS explains it! Lex will be killed by Clark and Chloe takes the fall for it!!
That is an interesting idea! :eek: That also explains the spoiler from TVGuide saying: "The joyride of Season 7 soars to a close with a game-changing cliff-hanger for Clark, Lex and at least one of the ladies in their lives"! However they would have to bring him back to life somehow. ;)

[Kalista]

They are continuing to marginalize her character. No they are butchering her character to the point where she will be beyond recognition. Chloe has always worried about Clark's moral code. In Vengeance, she told Clark that he shouldn't be engaging in the Angel of Vengeance's brand of vigilante justice. Now, all of a sudden she is telling Clark to kill Lex. I don't recognize this Chloe.....This is total crap.:mad:

[GuardianAngel]

^I haven't watched the episode yet because I don't live in Canada, but are you sure it was Chloe and not BRAINIAC impersonating Chloe? Putting Clark at odds with Lex would fit in with BRAINIAC's plan with Lex (the one that can be seen reading the official description for Arctic).

[Kalista]

^I haven't watched the episode yet because I don't live in Canada, but are you sure it was Chloe and not BRAINIAC impersonating Chloe? Putting Clark at odds with Lex would fit with BRAINIAC's plan with Lex (the one that can be seen reading the official description for Arctic).

I haven't seen the episode yet. I read one of the live discussion scene by scene recaps on another site last night. I hope it is Brainiac. Even if it is Brainiac they are continuing to destroy Chloe's character. Like I said, Chloe wouldn't advocate murder. But in the last few episodes we haven't seen her express concern or sadness over being fired from the DP(even though Chloe has been a reporter and associated with the DP for the past 6 year! We had three major saves in which Chloe and Clark are written as being indifferent. Clark realizes Chloe is alive in Bizarro and we don't even see a hug in the morgue scene. Yet they have always been known to embrace one another during a crisis. In Obscura, their reactions when he saves her from the grave stand in stark contrast to the lukewarm reaction between them that we saw in the morgue in Bizarro. Chloe played a pivotal role in saving Clark when she appealed to Jor-El and we didn't see any thanks or follow up to that. In Quest she helps to free him from the altar and there isn't even a hug, WTH! In Siren, we see Clark comforting EDLois over her break up from Oliver. Where was his comforting hug for Chloe in Action over her break up with Jimmy? The writers don't care how bad they make the characters look and I for one am sick of it! Also, Clark has believed in the Kawatche cave legend since Khlya explained the prophecies to him. So it is OOC for him to dismiss Chloe when she tried to talk to him about Numan(sp?) and Sageeth. Also, I am turned off with the religious references and cult like practices. :mad:

[Jory]

In "Vessel" Chloe said that Clark "wasn't a killer" this is character assassination and nothing more. Don't forget Clark's non reaction to Chloe being beaten and tortured in "Sleeper." In what could/will be Allison's last season they are having Chloe go out with a whimper and not a bang.

Someone thought it was a great(sarcasm) idea for Chloe's ending to be jail and for her last few episodes for her to act OOC and to throw in some character assassination on top of that. TPTB suck.

[chlo-el]

I dont really see the big deal with Chloe telling Clark to kill lex. I think what she meant in the scene was that if it came down to either kill Lex or die, than you kill lex.

BTW I could be wrong but with all the talk about character assassination I dont think this is the first time Chloe has told Clark to kill Lex, In the season 5 finale(Vessel) didn't Chloe tell Clark to kill Lex/Zod?

Yeah she did tell Clark to kill Lex after everything saying maybe he really had to that in order to stop Zod from coming to earth and destroying Earth. I haven't seen the ep. but I think if it were between saving the world from Lex controlling Clark or telling Clark to kill Lex Chloe would chose to kill Lex.

[Kalista]

Yeah she did tell Clark to kill Lex after everything saying maybe he really had to that in order to stop Zod from coming to earth and destroying Earth. I haven't seen the ep. but I think if it were between saving the world from Lex controlling Clark or telling Clark to kill Lex Chloe would chose to kill Lex.

I just have to say that it was only after Zod had overtaken Lex's body and the destruction on earth began that Chloe decided to tell Clark that he may need to kill Zod's vessel. She didn't think that Lex would return.

[go_clo]

Well it's kinda understandable that she'd be more supportive of killing Lex.
Sure in S5 she was pretty against it but that was before he hurt Lana, kidnapped her (twice) and kidnapped her mother! Messed with her mothers mental state, killed his father and fired her. She has alot of reasoning to back her up.

I'm not saying that I support the idea! I just don't think Chloe is totally OOC to be saying that. Plus Chloe's reasoning behind it is plausible. If you had to pick between the hero and best friend and the villian, what would you pick?

[Kalista]

go_clo the Chloe that I know wouldn't ask Clark to kill Lex.

[Jade4813]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that scene was incredibly OOC and wrong.

[FiReFTW]

Chloe is smart thats all , if someone is so evil as to murder his own father I think Clark with his powers should stop him , the law won't because Lex is rich , so there would only be Clark to do it , to bad Clark aka. Superman can't kill a living beeing , personaly if I was him I would.

[Twitch]

I can't believe how many people are choosing that Clark should kill Lex! :eek:

[Jade4813]

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeah...Me neither. *sighs*

[Alexander III]

I can't believe how many people are choosing that Clark should kill Lex! :eek:

I'm one of them :D

[Twitch]

I'm one of them :D

But I thought you loved Lex? You really need to bring back that avi of him dancing soon, it's classic. :lol:

[Alexander III]

But I thought you loved Lex? You really need to bring back that avi of him dancing soon, it's classic. :lol:

Yea well, Lex's starting to annoy me, so I need his ex-bf sorry I mean his former best friend to finish him off and get it over with. Yeaaa I liked that avi but I want a little change! U dun like my ...Lois's ...avi? :(

[Twitch]

Yea well, Lex's starting to annoy me, so I need his ex-bf sorry I mean his former best friend to finish him off and get it over with. Yeaaa I liked that avi but I want a little change! U dun like my ...Lois's ...avi? :(

Yeah Lex can be a pain in the ass, but I liked him in Quest I thought he was awesome.

And yes I love your Lois avi, I like watching "the girls" :p The Lex dancing one just always cracks me up. Change is good though. :D

[chlo-el]

I think Clark should only kill Lex if he had no other choice and it was either see the world be destroyed or kill Lex.

[aqgalaxy]

I dont really see the big deal with Chloe telling Clark to kill lex. I think what she meant in the scene was that if it came down to either kill Lex or die, than you kill lex.

BTW I could be wrong but with all the talk about character assassination I dont think this is the first time Chloe has told Clark to kill Lex, In the season 5 finale(Vessel) didn't Chloe tell Clark to kill Lex/Zod?

You are right, Chloe told Clark to kill Lex, or at least hint to it.

"Maybe Jor-El was right. To stop Fine, to stop all of this, you need to destroy that vessel!"

Look, Lex controls the Press, Lex has deals with the government, Lex has already been cleared from his jail sentence and if exposed to Killing Lionel, he may face the same fate as Lionel did in season 4, jail time only to be released later. So the justice system is on Lex's side. He's on the verge of controlling Clark, having the same amount of power as he did in Vessel. Chloe is basically saying, for the world, Lex must be stopped and there is no other way to bring him down.

[chlo-el]

You are right, Chloe told Clark to kill Lex, or at least hint to it.

"Maybe Jor-El was right. To stop Fine, to stop all of this, you need to destroy that vessel!"

Look, Lex controls the Press, Lex has deals with the government, Lex has already been cleared from his jail sentence and if exposed to Killing Lionel, he may face the same fate as Lionel did in season 4, jail time only to be released later. So the justice system is on Lex's side. He's on the verge of controlling Clark, having the same amount of power as he did in Vessel. Chloe is basically saying, for the world, Lex must be stopped and there is no other way to bring him down.

Agreed. you said better then me.

[go_clo]

You are right, Chloe told Clark to kill Lex, or at least hint to it.

"Maybe Jor-El was right. To stop Fine, to stop all of this, you need to destroy that vessel!"

Look, Lex controls the Press, Lex has deals with the government, Lex has already been cleared from his jail sentence and if exposed to Killing Lionel, he may face the same fate as Lionel did in season 4, jail time only to be released later. So the justice system is on Lex's side. He's on the verge of controlling Clark, having the same amount of power as he did in Vessel. Chloe is basically saying, for the world, Lex must be stopped and there is no other way to bring him down.
Totally agree! Thats exactly how I feel! :)

[Jade4813]

But weren't they fighting against killing him when he was to be possessed by Zod? And now they have no problem with the idea?

[go_clo]

But weren't they fighting against killing him when he was to be possessed by Zod? And now they have no problem with the idea?
Yes well that was when Lex still had some good in him. Lex is all out evil now! ;)

[Jade4813]

Right. I get that. I do. But...aren't Chloe and Clark still good? So shouldn't there be at least some sort of token protest at the thought of being driven to kill someone, even someone like Lex? I mean, even if they feel like it might come down to that, shouldn't they be fighting it more?

Because, really, if they reconcile themselves to the idea that they might have to kill for "the greater good" how much of a line really IS there between them and Lex? I'm sure that Lex feels like what he's doing is "for the greater good." And where do you draw the line of who you KILL for the greater good and who just gets defeated on a regular basis?

Kill four people...Chlark says you get to live.
Kill five, you're toast.

I'm sorry, but Clark's supposed to be the hero of the story. And Chloe, I keep hearing, is the major heroine.

So why are they suddenly sounding like bad guys to me? I just don't think that's right. It's sure as heck not the Clark Kent I know, and it's not the Chloe Sullivan I've gotten to know either.

[chlo-el]

Right. I get that. I do. But...aren't Chloe and Clark still good? So shouldn't there be at least some sort of token protest at the thought of being driven to kill someone, even someone like Lex? I mean, even if they feel like it might come down to that, shouldn't they be fighting it more?

Because, really, if they reconcile themselves to the idea that they might have to kill for "the greater good" how much of a line really IS there between them and Lex? I'm sure that Lex feels like what he's doing is "for the greater good." And where do you draw the line of who you KILL for the greater good and who just gets defeated on a regular basis?

Kill four people...Chlark says you get to live.
Kill five, you're toast.

I'm sorry, but Clark's supposed to be the hero of the story. And Chloe, I keep hearing, is the major heroine.

So why are they suddenly sounding like bad guys to me? I just don't think that's right. It's sure as heck not the Clark Kent I know, and it's not the Chloe Sullivan I've gotten to know either.

Wow. I havne't seen it yet. It surprises me that they wouldn't even be conflicted about it. I know what you are saying and I get it. It's something that has been explored in hero/vigalante stories for a long time. And one of the things that always destingushed Superman was his unwillingness to kill.

I'll have to wait and see for myself if Clark and Chloe are conflicted about it and are only doing it as a last resort where there is no other choice and they have to do this to save the world.

[aqgalaxy]

Look, I don't think Chloe meant kill Lex because he's an evil motha... But I think it's more of the greater good. The problem is drawling the line. They don't know what was in that box in Zurick they had their chance to get the keys and they blew it (Clark felt like staying by Lana's bedside and the whole "World would be better off without me" suicidal crap)

Flatline is, they know they are on a verge of Apocalypse, I think Chloe sense that. Brainaic is back, Lex is close to finding the secret and it's all coming back to that Season 5 doom feeling. IMHO, it's their last chance.

She remained quiet when he asked her, IMHO that means she's conflicted but is suggesting that. Lex is on the verge of gaining control of Clark. If he does that, he'll be as powerful as ever. He can use Clark to bring the earth to his knees and make him this overload. Season 5, there was good within Lex, yet in the end Chloe suggested Killing Lex, it's the same thing, just before the chaos happening.

IMHO it's wrong, but still I can understand it.

It's the Zoner mentality all over again. You can't let them live, can't imprison them, so you have no choice but to kill them. It won't be out of cold blood, it would serve the greater good.

But what do I know, I have an Original Character who kills people for fun so, I'm already messed up LOL

[Jade4813]

I'm sure that they're not wholeheartedly embracing it and whipping out a weapons box (conveniently borrowed from the "Supernatural" set ;) ). But there didn't seem to be a lot of protest, either. Clark got that Stare of his.

If they're going to drop an atom bomb like that into the show, IMO, they should devote a minute of time to the two characters actually hashing it out.

Chloe: "Maybe Jor-El was right. To stop Fine, to stop all of this, you need to destroy that vessel!"
Clark: "But...Chloe. That means killing someone. Killing LEX. I know he's become evil, but that's still...it means KILLING someone."
Chloe: "And I don't want you to have to do it. We're going to try to find any other way to bring Lex down. But, at the end of the day, if it comes down to it, you may not have a choice. You may have to do it, even if you're not okay with the thought."
Clark: "I don't know that I'll ever be okay with the thought of killing someone in cold blood, Chloe."
Chloe: "Neither am I. And that's why we're going to do everything in our power to make sure it doesn't come to that."

That's a discussion I would have preferred. Not a stare. I want a discussion that shows that neither character is okay with this idea. Neither character is cool with the thought that it MIGHT even come down to killing Lex.

[aqgalaxy]

Right. I get that. I do. But...aren't Chloe and Clark still good? So shouldn't there be at least some sort of token protest at the thought of being driven to kill someone, even someone like Lex? I mean, even if they feel like it might come down to that, shouldn't they be fighting it more?

Because, really, if they reconcile themselves to the idea that they might have to kill for "the greater good" how much of a line really IS there between them and Lex? I'm sure that Lex feels like what he's doing is "for the greater good." And where do you draw the line of who you KILL for the greater good and who just gets defeated on a regular basis?

Kill four people...Chlark says you get to live.
Kill five, you're toast.

I'm sorry, but Clark's supposed to be the hero of the story. And Chloe, I keep hearing, is the major heroine.

So why are they suddenly sounding like bad guys to me? I just don't think that's right. It's sure as heck not the Clark Kent I know, and it's not the Chloe Sullivan I've gotten to know either.

In a moral issue, i understand Your POV. It's like how many people does it take before it becomes wrong.

I know, it's hard to judge. But we can't say Clark hasn't killed either. Look at all the meteor freaks Clark took out. He did kill some of them. What about them?

----- Added 1 Minutes later -----



That's a discussion I would have preferred. Not a stare. I want a discussion that shows that neither character is okay with this idea. Neither character is cool with the thought that it MIGHT even come down to killing Lex.
I agree, there should have been a discussion, find another way. The problem is... these writers suck.

[Jade4813]

IMHO it's wrong, but still I can understand it.

Don't get me wrong. I understand it. Sure, I understand the fact that people might think the best thing to do would be to kill Lex. I think the question has come up in other media before. In comics, I'm sure that the thought has occurred to Clark that the world might be a better place if Lex were dead. I even understand why he would think so...and he might well be right.

But, even saying I understand where they're coming from with the thought, it's a leap to say that I'm okay with them seeming to be - at least on the surface - okay with it going that far. Hell, Professor X had to switch off Magneto's mind to save Wolverine's life once. It was clear there that what he was doing was "for the greater good." And yet he was conflicted as all hell about it, even while they did it.

Maybe Chloe and Clark still aren't comfortable with the idea. Maybe they are. The point is, if they're going to drop a bomb like that on both characters (apparently taking them in a direction that I never really thought I'd see either of them go), they should take the thirty or ten seconds it would take to show that they're not okay with the thought of murder. There shouldn't be a DOUBT whether they are or aren't okay with the idea of Clark maybe "having" to kill Lex.


It's the Zoner mentality all over again. You can't let them live, can't imprison them, so you have no choice but to kill them. It won't be out of cold blood, it would serve the greater good.

But, again, where's the line? Where is it "for the greater good" to kill someone, and where is it not? Do all bad guys get to die for the greater good? Just murderers? Murderers who have done it more than once? Recidivists? People who might be recidivists? Where's the line?

And whose definition of "for the greater good"? Chloe's? Clark's? Batman's? Punisher's? Lex's? They all act out of their own definition of "for the greater good." I have no doubt that Lex wholeheartedly believes that what he's doing is for the greater good.

So let's say we go with Chloe and Clark. Are they infallible? Have they ever been wrong before? Have they ever been quick to judge? I'd hope not, if they're suddenly to be authorized to act as judge, jury, and executioner. Particularly executioner. But they HAVE been fallible, haven't they? They assumed the worst about Lionel and turned him away when he actually had something to tell them.

So would killing Lionel have been for the greater good? At one point, I have no doubt that Chloe and Clark would have thought so. But would it really have been? Given that Lex's killing Lionel was the breaking point in his transition over to evil, I find it hard to believe. Chloe and Clark deciding he deserved to die = OK. Lex deciding he deserved to die = evil.

And, again...where's the line? Where's it drawn? Who do Chloe and Clark get to decide if they're worth it to let live or die?

As Gandalf said, "Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

Also, incidentally, I was under the impression that many were angry at the idea of Superman being an "angry god" in MoS. I wonder how many of these same people are okay with this Chloe/Clark discussion. Because isn't that what we're talking about here? Clark and Chloe deciding they get to play god, to determine who lives and who dies?

----- Added 2 Minutes later -----



I know, it's hard to judge. But we can't say Clark hasn't killed either. Look at all the meteor freaks Clark took out. He did kill some of them. What about them?


Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm pissed about them, too. I think one of the major things about Superman is that he doesn't kill, even on Valhalla fighting demons. But there's also, I think we can agree, a distinction between killing someone by accident (which arguably he's done to this point) or even getting out of control in the heat of the moment (which I bloody well HATE that they've done in Smallville) and premeditatedly deciding that you should act as judge, jury, and executioner. And that's what it seems that they're having Chloe and Clark do here: decide that they get the right to be judge, jury, and executioner.

[aqgalaxy]

Jade, bella, the writing sucks, it's as simple as that. LOL

[go_clo]

Jade, bella, the writing sucks, it's as simple as that. LOL
lol in shorter terms, definately! End of discussion! :lol:

But in all seriousness, I agree with both of you! I definately see your points and agree with both.

Morally it's wrong and I would never support murder no matter the circumstances and I definately would prefure a conversation like in Vessel where you can clearly see both heroes having trouble with the idea of killing anyone, especially someone they both have a history with but I can just see where they are coming from when they seem to have no hesitation in the matter. All 3 characters have grown alot, both as people and in their relationships with eachother. Sometimes when it comes to the greater good of everyone, the evil one that won't repent needs to go. Maybe if they gave him a chance to change, maybe he would but there is no telling he actually would and that could result in something worse then Vessel.

I think Chloe is just basically worried about what will happen if they wait. They could have another mob scene on their hands as the world slowly falls apart or worse and I think Chloe is really worried about that plus the fact that Clark is at risk as well!

I think they are mostly just freaking out in the heat of the moment and maybe if they calm down and have a chance to think, thats when the hesitancy will kick in! ;)

[Jade4813]

Jade, bella, the writing sucks, it's as simple as that. LOL

I'm certainly not arguing that. :lol: On the other hand, this writing made me vow never to watch another episode of Smallville. Ever. And it's only through the protestations of some friends of mine that I've decided to wait until "Arctic" to see if they redeem themselves.

[LexLuv180]

Clark shouldn't kill Lex because he's superman (and because I luvvvv Lex :rotfl:), but yeah, if they had someone who did what they had to and sacrificed what they must for the better of humanity, killing him would make sense maybe.

[Krypton935]

No.

[RJLCyberPunk]

I'm pretty disappointed in Chloe. Didn't she just say how Clark isn't a murderer? Then she suggests (basically, tells Clark there's no other option) that he kill Lex? There are a lot of other ways to keep Clark/everyone safe. He doesn't NEED to kill Lex. She made it out to be like there was no choice.
Yeah I noticed that pretty much sucked....
I'm no Chloe fan but that was so out of line and character it was not even funny, the show is now obviously completely departing from traditional Superman mithos, he is not to be a superhero in this show but either a ruthless god like dictator or dead...

[msleggie]

I think so too, Chloe of all people should know that murder isn't what Clark is all about.

[ekoo]

Yeah... pod!Chloe has gone AWOL. It's sad to see. I hate it when the writers do character development in a way that's totally OOC and do it in a way where it's unbelievable. The suspension of belief is completely ruined. We watched Lex grow and become who he is over 7 seasons and now all of a sudden Chloe's randomly condoning murder and cares about nothing? Doesn't make sense. Even if she is meteor infected she still died to save Clark via Lex... but save Lex none the less just a few epis ago.

Ugh. They're ruining her.

[AndiGirl]

I'm sorry people....but I think everyone is completely over reacting. :(
I dont think Chloe's character is ruined at all...or anything close. She is trying to look out for the best interest of her friend. Sometimes you have to stop looking at it as Chloe talking to the future superman,...and see it as a girl trying to save her best friend and the man that she loves. Are you all telling me none of you would act the same? I know I would.

I mean..look at what happend tonight. Jimmy (who by the way....did an excellent job tonight!!!) brought her some compelling evidence that pointed to the fact that it was going to come down to good vs. evil or...clark vs. Lex. That one wouldn't walk away. the picture of the man on the slab was accurate...so why shouldn't Chloe believe this could potentially be accurate as well??

I FULLY admitt, I dont want to see superman murder anyone...but it's either one person (lex) or potentially hundreds of people if Lex takes control of him. I actually found myself agreeing with Mr. Teague tonight. He was totally nuts...but right. Clark needs to learn to step up and do whats best for the greater good. He always just looks at the immediate picture. (hence why he was sitting in a hospital with lana instead of trying to help chloe bring down brainiac).

Which is why Chloe is sooooo important to the show. Clark has the view of a child almost...very much black and white. Where Chloe....is the gray area. She was just pointing out the opposite tonight. That if you dont kill lex....and he finds out you are the travellor....then you have to die. Either way....one of you has to go. Of course she would prefer Lex, who wouldnt?

As far as Chloe being with Jimmy still...and the other numerous reasons people feel Chloe's character is going down hill....is simple. It was obvious to me tonight, more then ever...that Chloe uses Jimmy as a release. I know....it's not right for Chloe to use the poor guy, but its not like he's kicking and screaming. The fact that Jimmy had news and Chloe wanted to have sex....kind of shows where Jimmy stands with her. He always comes up with crazy ideas...and chloe just wanted to (for once) take her mind off of that stuff... and thats what jimmy is for her. A brief escape from the daily apocalypse that is her life.

So...I'm sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree. I dont think Chloe's character is ruined or tainted. I honestly think...she just isnt the naive high school girl she was years ago. She knows life isnt fair...and sometimes sacrafices have to be made. Clark is the eternal optomist....he waits for problems to come screaming at his door before he does anything about them. But this problem (him being taken over) is something he cant stop. So chloe is basically telling him....he has options and a way to nip this in the bud before it becomes a problem. Like I said before....she has to play the devils advocate because clark is incapable of seeing anything in the gray area.

Dont yell!! haha. :) Just my thoughts.

[thehenry89]

technically clark has never killed anyone. tina greer impaled herself, and that metalic dude from gone got killed by lois.

lana on the other hand...that girl is a lethal weapon :lol:

[MozartRequiem]

I disagree with those who are disappointed in Chloe for saying this.

I for one don't blame her for considering the possibility. Clark even said "my powers, in the wrong hands, could destroy everything." So if Clark killed Lex it would be out of defense for the entire world.

Hell, even Batman in one comic nearly let Clark kill Lex to put the world out of harm's way.

But this is what makes Clark Superman. You can't have ALL the characters be idealists and purists ALL the time and not even consider the possibility of killing a dangerous murderer like Lex. That wouldn't be realistic. And this isn't out of character at all for Chloe. She was considering letting him die in "Nemesis", remember? I think it's awesome! It only further highlights that Clark=Superman because he's the only character unwilling to even consider the idea.

[Superman of Krypton]

Didnt chloe use her powers to bring Lex back from death a few episodes ago... :/

----- Added 1 Minutes later -----


technically clark has never killed anyone. tina greer impaled herself, and that metalic dude from gone got killed by lois.

He killed Jonathan ;)

Just not intentionally..... he was in BDA mode when he chose Lana over another close to him

[D.M.A.]

I'm sorry people....but I think everyone is completely over reacting. :(
I dont think Chloe's character is ruined at all...or anything close. She is trying to look out for the best interest of her friend. Sometimes you have to stop looking at it as Chloe talking to the future superman,...and see it as a girl trying to save her best friend and the man that she loves. Are you all telling me none of you would act the same? I know I would.

I mean..look at what happend tonight. Jimmy (who by the way....did an excellent job tonight!!!) brought her some compelling evidence that pointed to the fact that it was going to come down to good vs. evil or...clark vs. Lex. That one wouldn't walk away. the picture of the man on the slab was accurate...so why shouldn't Chloe believe this could potentially be accurate as well??

I FULLY admitt, I dont want to see superman murder anyone...but it's either one person (lex) or potentially hundreds of people if Lex takes control of him. I actually found myself agreeing with Mr. Teague tonight. He was totally nuts...but right. Clark needs to learn to step up and do whats best for the greater good. He always just looks at the immediate picture. (hence why he was sitting in a hospital with lana instead of trying to help chloe bring down brainiac).

Which is why Chloe is sooooo important to the show. Clark has the view of a child almost...very much black and white. Where Chloe....is the gray area. She was just pointing out the opposite tonight. That if you dont kill lex....and he finds out you are the travellor....then you have to die. Either way....one of you has to go. Of course she would prefer Lex, who wouldnt?

As far as Chloe being with Jimmy still...and the other numerous reasons people feel Chloe's character is going down hill....is simple. It was obvious to me tonight, more then ever...that Chloe uses Jimmy as a release. I know....it's not right for Chloe to use the poor guy, but its not like he's kicking and screaming. The fact that Jimmy had news and Chloe wanted to have sex....kind of shows where Jimmy stands with her. He always comes up with crazy ideas...and chloe just wanted to (for once) take her mind off of that stuff... and thats what jimmy is for her. A brief escape from the daily apocalypse that is her life.

So...I'm sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree. I dont think Chloe's character is ruined or tainted. I honestly think...she just isnt the naive high school girl she was years ago. She knows life isnt fair...and sometimes sacrafices have to be made. Clark is the eternal optomist....he waits for problems to come screaming at his door before he does anything about them. But this problem (him being taken over) is something he cant stop. So chloe is basically telling him....he has options and a way to nip this in the bud before it becomes a problem. Like I said before....she has to play the devils advocate because clark is incapable of seeing anything in the gray area.

Dont yell!! haha. :) Just my thoughts.
Agreed,plus imo she wasn't sayin he should kill lex but that clark needs to be more realistic.He brushed off chloe's worry at first,askin her if she really believed in the numan/sageeth myth.And chloe tried to point out to him that no matter how cocky he may be about not bein control,it IS a possibility.And if he isnt careful lex could control him,and if push comes to shove lex will use/kill him.

Chloe's speech tonight reminded me of Vessel where she pretty much as clark,what if killin is his only choice...Obviously clark found another way,but chloe was goin off the myths she had jus heard.Which was their will be 1 last battle wit clark/lex and 1 wont survive.

As she pointed out,clark has the power,but at sum point he'll have to choose.Chloe's jus askin if put in that situation can he make the choice thats needed,cause right now clark doesnt even view the warning as a threat.But at sum point he will have to play god wit sumones life,and make a choice.

So I didn't find her actions tonight ooc at all,and I do agree its obvious jimmy is jus a release for her.She definitely doesnt luv him like he wants her 2,but then again he doesnt seem to be complainin either.So idk

[MozartRequiem]

"Maybe Chloe and Clark still aren't comfortable with the idea. Maybe they are. The point is, if they're going to drop a bomb like that on both characters (apparently taking them in a direction that I never really thought I'd see either of them go), they should take the thirty or ten seconds it would take to show that they're not okay with the thought of murder. There shouldn't be a DOUBT whether they are or aren't okay with the idea of Clark maybe "having" to kill Lex."

There is no doubt at all in my mind. Clark made it perfectly, 100% clear: he does not want to kill anyone, even if it's someone as evil as Lex. AM also made it clear through Chloe's facial expression at the mere mention of the idea. We don't need extraneous dialogue to tell us they're not cool with it. Rather, they showed it through emotion, and I prefer that. Just my opinion. :)

"Because, really, if they reconcile themselves to the idea that they might have to kill for "the greater good" how much of a line really IS there between them and Lex? I'm sure that Lex feels like what he's doing is "for the greater good." And where do you draw the line of who you KILL for the greater good and who just gets defeated on a regular basis?"

This analogy is definitely sound, and is the reason why Clark never kills. It's also the reason Bruce Wayne gives in "Batman Begins". Ra's Al Ghul says, "Your compassion is a weakness your enemies will not share." Bruce replies, "That's why it's so important: it's what separates us from them."

HOWEVER, that being said...I don't think you could compare Clark being forced against his own conscience to kill Lex to defend an entire planet, versus Lex killing countless people and using them as means to an end. It's two entirely different ball-parks. Lex kills INNOCENT people if they get in the way. Clark killing Lex would not be the same thing. But I certainly do see where you are coming from, and that is why Clark did not want to even think about doing so. I don't see why so many people are complaining. This was one of the most Superman-esque scenes in the episode! :)

[Emissary of Justice]

chloe suggesting it tonight, even implying it subtlely, is plain wrong. Period!No, it's not. All the good left in Lex Luthor is gone. He threw the child version into the fire. Clark saw what Lex had planned to do without him around. Millions of people will die at Luthor's hand because of this.


Didnt chloe use her powers to bring Lex back from death a few episodes ago...She did it to save Clark as he was in Lex's mind.

[AndiGirl]

I agree with both of you. Chloe didnt want him to do it, she's just pointing out the possible outcome. Which of course, nobody likes....

But, I dont think Clark pushing it off is a good thing. He doesnt want to think about it....at all. What good is that going to do? He says he could never kill someone...and that would make him as bad as lex. Ok...agreed, but then whats your plan? He deflects what she's saying...but has no real input. Thats why Chloe just laid it all out there...if Clark doesnt stop lex, death is inevitable for one of them. Whether he likes it or not.

[Emissary of Justice]

But this is what makes Clark Superman. You can't have ALL the characters be idealists and purists ALL the time and not even consider the possibility of killing a dangerous murderer like Lex. That wouldn't be realistic. And this isn't out of character at all for Chloe. She was considering letting him die in "Nemesis", remember?Which episode are you talking about? Nemesis is when Lex and Clark were trapped together. Being unwilling to kill someone he knows to be so evil is one of the huge problems people have with the character. Things don't always turn out good because of Clark's ideals. These situations are often instead resolved with a Deus Ex Machina.

[aqgalaxy]

I agree with both of you. Chloe didnt want him to do it, she's just pointing out the possible outcome. Which of course, nobody likes....
.

Chloe didn't go, "Clark, go kill Lex NOW!"

All Chloe did was there may be a time where he'll have to play god, meaning decides who lives or who dies. IMHO Chloe is the best person to say that only because, she saved Lex, brought both him and Lois back from the graves. I know weak argument but still.

I don't think it's OOC, because it won't be just for fun or out of cold blood. It seems they are out of options.

[dru-zod2501]

After seeing the epi, I didn't find it as offensive as I was expecting. If I thought about it just right it didn't sound like an implication to kill.

Or maybe I was just so dumbfounded by Clark's epic failiure in that scene whatever the hell Chloe was saying sounded like shakespeare

[MozartRequiem]

"Which episode are you talking about? Nemesis is when Lex and Clark were trapped together. Being unwilling to kill someone he knows to be so evil is one of the huge problems people have with the character. Things don't always turn out good because of Clark's ideals. These situations are often instead resolved with a Deus Ex Machina."

Yeah, I know, and "Nemesis" is also the episode where Chloe says, "You know, Clark, after everything Lex has done to my mother, I'd just as soon let him rot down there, but...being Clark Kent, you can't do that, can you?"

As far as Clark's idealism getting in the way of the world's future and having huge consequences, I agree. That's what I'm saying: Clark is uncompromising. Whether we like it or not, he is a constant. This is part of the Superman character, and it endures for so many years because he holds onto the ideals that sometimes even the best of people are unsure of. Superman sees things in black and white, quite often. Some call it naive. Is it his greatest weakness, or greatest strength? Nobody can say for sure. But what I'm saying is that everyone else will at least consider the possibility, even people as good as Chloe, while Clark will not.

[Kevin24]

Chloe believes having Lex dead is better for the greater good of the world. She wants to protect Clark but she also wants to protect herself and everyone else in the world from what Clark could do under the control of Lex.

In Vengeance she didn't want Clark to kill for revenge because that accomplishes nothing but this time she sees that killing may be the right option because of the consequences of not killing him. She knows Lex won't stop until he finds out who the traveler is ...no matter how many times Clark stops him he will continue to haunt his life.

She doesn't want Clark to kill anyone but right now she sees it as the best option for the world.

[AndiGirl]

Exactly...I mean, think of all those years Lex was obsessed with figuring out clarks secret....all 7 years really...He just isnt the type of man to let up. You cant reason with him..nothing. He will use every resource at his disposal to figure out who the travelor is and from next weeks trailer its obvious he has . So Clark has to stop him, one way or another. Lex wont just be on his merry way....something drastic will have to happen...and thats all Chloe is saying.

[aqgalaxy]

After seeing the epi, I didn't find it as offensive as I was expecting. If I thought about it just right it didn't sound like an implication to kill. She looked away did a semi shake of the head, she seems conflicted too however when in their position what would one suggest?

The justice system won't work for Lex. He can get out of Jail easily (Kara) His 33.1 issue now seems to be joint venture between him and the US Government, so can't use that. Lex owns the paper anyway so there goes the Luthor expose with facts. Lex is on the verge of controling Clark. They don't know if he has the device and just waiting to find the traveler or what, but they are on the verge of defeat. In Sleeper, Chloe said "If Lex finds out what's in that box, it's game over, hello apocalypse"

It isn't far fetched to suggest that, maybe if they off Lex, they will save the day.

----- Added 1 Minutes later -----


Chloe believes having Lex dead is better for the greater good of the world. She wants to protect Clark but she also wants to protect herself and everyone else in the world from what Clark could do under the control of Lex.

In Vengeance she didn't want Clark to kill for revenge because that accomplishes nothing but this time she sees that killing may be the right option because of the consequences of not killing him. She knows Lex won't stop until he finds out who the traveler is ...no matter how many times Clark stops him he will continue to haunt his life.

She doesn't want Clark to kill anyone but right now she sees it as the best option for the world.




exactly!

[gx25236]

During the second world war USA, United Kingdom and the USSR killed MILLONS of german soldiers and german civilians to protect the world from Hitler. Yet everybody agrees that it was the right thing. Sometimes people should be killed for the greater good.

The writers attemp to use a non-killing policy but they do it wrongly. Clark often strikes meteor freeks with enough force to seriously injure any human being. The only reason they don't die is bad writing and the excellent Smallville Medical Centrer. Clark really doesn't do any attempt to stop them without excessive force. Clark has been put in situations where he should kill or be killed (e.g. Static, Lara, Traveler) but another character (Lionel or the Manhunter) did the dirty work for him.

[BWOracle]

I don’t think Clark wants to kill Lex because he doesn’t want to become Lex. And based on the cave symbols, I believe Chloe doesn’t either but doesn’t think Clark will have the choice.

And don't make a big deal about Clark not protesting too loudly about not killing. It's just keeps the suspense for the next episode...will he or won't he?

[Emissary of Justice]

"Because, really, if they reconcile themselves to the idea that they might have to kill for "the greater good" how much of a line really IS there between them and Lex? I'm sure that Lex feels like what he's doing is "for the greater good." And where do you draw the line of who you KILL for the greater good and who just gets defeated on a regular basis?"Oh, come on. That where is the line really stuff is just an excuse not to man up. Lex Luthor doesn't honestly believe he's doing what he does for the greater good. He does it for the power. We saw this just the other week. He was willing to wipe out the planet to restart it simply so he could be in charge of it all instead of just the United States.

In Superman Returns, he stated he wanted people to have "fire", but intended to create another continent, wiping out North America for money since there was no new land left to build on. Even in the 52 comic event, he stated he created the Everyman Project so regular people could have superpowers. The moment he was told the project couldn't give him powers and sought to discredit someone he believed to be Superman, he secretly deactivated all of their powers so that they would plummet to their deaths.

There is nothing noble, heroic, or thoughtful about him. Superman saves people. As for who do you kill? Uh, any evil geniuses and super powered freaks that threaten to destroy the planet would be just fine.

[ginnyfan]

I think Chloe was just trying to raise Clark's sense of urgency. He was practically scoffing at the Kawatche caves. When he finally said what do you want me to do, kill him? Chloe didn't say yes, she just restated the looming threat... Lex having control over Clark.

[Emissary of Justice]

Clark has been put in situations where he should kill or be killed (e.g. Static, Lara, Traveler) but another character (Lionel or the Manhunter) did the dirty work for him.Say hello to Deus Ex Machina. It's about as connected to Superman as the shield on his chest.

[AndiGirl]

Thats the thing that irritates me to no end. When he his faced with life and death situations...someone/something always steps in and takes the responsibility out of his hand. which is exactly why chloe said one day he will have to play God. He will have to finally make a choice and stick with it. But my guess...dear old dad is going to bail him out this time too. So it wont be today clark...rest easy.

[SVsleuth]

Something really stuck with me from this episode. It was when Chloe was trying to basically tell Clark he might have to kill Lex, and Clark says something like, "So I'm supposed to kill him? Then I'd be just like him." To me, this is a critical point. Everyone else keeps wanting Clark to kill Lex. Clark refuses. Maybe he's right, & even those with the best of intentions are wrong. Clark knows in his soul that if he just starts killing people & justifying it, he'll become the monster no one wants him to be. He'll become just like Lex. So then evil wins. Clark is right that his power cannot be used for killing. Everyone else is wrong. But Clark's morals are so strong, the morals taught to him by Jonathan & Martha, that those outweigh all the pleading and attempts to convince him to kill. What if "Edward Teague" was really Brainiac, trying to get Clark to kill, thus turning him to the dark side? What if Brainiac had been manipulating the Fortress too, thus getting "Jor-El" to try to get Clark to kill?

Something just seems wrong, to me, if the whole buildup of 7 seasons is to lead up to a conclusion that the only way for Clark to accept & fulfill his destiny, is for him to have an epic final battle with his enemies & kill them. Just doesn't seem like that's what Superman is all about.

Everyone else sees that if Lex controls Clark, that's bad. Only Clark sees that if Clark deals with the bad guys by killing them, then he will be no better than he would be if Lex were controlling him. In his mind, to kill & justify it makes him just lke them. He knows what he could become - without Lex - & he refuses to take the step that will lead him down that path.

A friend suggested this, & I like the idea:



I wonder if they'll have Clark do the same thing Clark did in Superman 2 - have him change something in the FOS so when Lex gets there and tries to use it against him, it will have the opposite effect


I'd love to see Clark do something like that, proving to everyone that there is always another way. As he's been taught by Jonathan, "you always have a choice." Clark refuses to believe that he has no choice but to kill. I say, good for him. He'll find another way.

[Jade4813]

Oh, come on. That where is the line really stuff is just an excuse not to man up. Lex Luthor doesn't honestly believe he's doing what he does for the greater good. He does it for the power. We saw this just the other week. He was willing to wipe out the planet to restart it simply so he could be in charge of it all instead of just the United States.

In Superman Returns, he stated he wanted people to have "fire", but intended to create another continent, wiping out North America for money since there was no new land left to build on. Even in the 52 comic event, he stated he created the Everyman Project so regular people could have superpowers. The moment he was told the project couldn't give him powers and sought to discredit someone he believed to be Superman, he secretly deactivated all of their powers so that they would plummet to their deaths.

There is nothing noble, heroic, or thoughtful about him. Superman saves people. As for who do you kill? Uh, any evil geniuses and super powered freaks that threaten to destroy the planet would be just fine.

It was actually me who said that, FYI. And you have a pretty skewed definition of "man up," IMO.

In SR, Lex did terrible things. And Superman didn't kill him.
In S1, Lex did terrible things. And Superman didn't kill him.
In S2, Lex did terrible things. And Superman didn't kill him.
In LnC, Lex did terrible things. And Superman didn't kill him.

Okay...so evil geniuses and super powered freaks can bite it. Check. So that takes out...well, any villain in Superman comics. And the entire town of Smallville. Do you think Clark, when he's Superman, should use his heat vision and just burn it down? Or should he NAPALM it, do you think?

Oooooh! OOoooh! How about Belle Reeve? He should definitely just pound that place. After all, I'm sure nobody ever gets locked up there by mistake or some other flaw. I mean, Lex got locked up because he was such an evil...oh...wait...back then he wasn't. Well, that's okay. So Superman kills...hm...well, he's wiping out Smallville. So 2,000 innocent people. Tops. Expendable, I suppose. After all, he's "manning up".

Okay, well, now that he's taken care of Kansas, it's time for him to branch out. Gotham's next. Yeah, Batman'll be pissy that he's getting his territory peed on by another man, but he'll deal. And, you know...Batman's not that nice of a guy. He's a genius and if not watched closely, he could become evil. After all, in the comics, he had plans to take out the JLA if necessary and his friends didn't like it. That was pretty evil.

I think just to be on the safe side, he's toast.

Where next?

Maybe we should just go through the JLA members. After all, if anybody has the potential to either be an "evil genius" or "mutant freak" who's capable of taking over the world, it's definitely them. I think Wonder Woman should bite it, just on principle. Yeah, I don't know that she's tried to take over the world ever...but come on. If anyone could. And why should Superman wait to see that it happens before he wastes her? That just risks a whole bunch of headache that the man just DOES NOT need. One swift jerk of her pretty little neck and she's toast. Let's ice her.

Huntress. Now there's a woman with dubious ethics. Definitely she's crossing some line. Toast her.

Aquaman...well...hm. Eco-terrorist on Smallville. Definitely could cause some damage. And, you know, that whole "save the oceans" thing is a form of trying to take over the world, isn't it? After all, he's trying at least to exercise his control over part of it. The man thinks he's a king, too. And what do kings do? They try to rule. He's clearly next.

Green Arrow. Well, you knew it had to happen. Evil genius...? Well, I suppose that's arguable. Smart, certainly. Dubious ethics. It's not looking good for him. Trying to take over the world...? Hmmm...well, he is forming his own "league" of people. Super powered people. You know, if you look at it that way, his motives are definitely suspect. I think Superman should play on the safe side, don't you? After all, we're trying to make a "man" out of him. And what's more manly than taking care of problems before they can become problems?

Sorry, Ollie. You were hot, but it's clear you just gotta die.

Well, this is a fun game. I think I could play all night. Unfortunately, the DCU is running out of "heroes" (HAH! Whatever...and, come on, all villains do it just for power and aren't at ALL convinced that they're doing what they're doing because it's the right thing to do! I mean, I'm sure Lex doesn't think at ALL that the traveler can be a threat. And if comics are anything to go by, Magneto was a megalomaniac who was just evil for the sake of it. As all bad guys are). Superman's running out of friends.

In fact, by this entire analogy, Chloe's the next to go. Super powered? Definitely. And you know, she's throwing around scary terminology. She's telling him he may have to act as a "god" someday. Doesn't that just give you a chill? I mean, just think! If he lets her live, she could decide to try to encourage him to act like a "god" should! Let some people live. Choose who gets to die. Sorry, Chlo. You've been great. But you've gotta die. It's just safer that way.

Plus, added bonus? By killing you, Clark will finally "be a man." I know it's true, cuz I was told as much on KSite. :p

[MozartRequiem]

Jade4813,

The other examples, though, of villains that Superman has to deal with aren't as consistent a threat as Lex, and they all stand more of fighting chance (physically) than Lex does. It's a trickier and more ambiguous topic when it comes to Lex Luthor, and I can see where people are coming from who say that they can see why it may be essential to kill Lex (even if I don't personally feel that way, I can see the viewpoint for sure).

[Emissary of Justice]

Clark is right that his power cannot be used for killing. Everyone else is wrong.Jor-El sent Clark to Earth to protect it. There comes a point where all the people they kill become his fault. He could've killed Lex Luthor over a billion times by now, but never does. Luthor endangers millions, kills thousands (if not millions), etc., etc. Everytime, he weasels out of hands of the law. Even when Luthor is arrested, he breaks out and does it again. Superman cannot be blamed that Luthor is evil, but he can be blamed that Luthor is still breathing.


Okay...so evil geniuses and super powered freaks can bite it. Check. So that takes out...well, any villain in Superman comics. And the entire town of Smallville. Do you think Clark, when he's Superman, should use his heat vision and just burn it down? Or should he NAPALM it, do you think?You clearly have watched to many episodes of Smallville with such gaps in logic. I stated any evil geniuses and super powered freaks that threaten to destroy the planet would be just fine. Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Green Arrow, and the Huntress do not fit into that category. Furthermore, Clark has killed COUNTLESS freak of the week villains, most notably Wes Keenan, Trent (T-1000), Bizarro (told Lana to do it and how), and Titan.


I'm sure Lex doesn't think at ALL that the traveler can be a threat.Are you even following the show anymore? Lex has made it very evident that he doesn't care anymore. He stated the reasons he had for this search. Not once did protecting the Earth from a threat or anything along those lines even come out of his mouth. In Onyx, he stated, "I am the villain of the story" and that Luthor is now the one we have.

[MountainSniper]

Hi Guys n Girls,

The whole Superman never kills idea is ridiculous along with those silly politically correct “moral equivalence” statements such as 'a Superman that kills makes him no different than Lex Luther etc etc etc'.

Total BS!

On another thread I addressed some issues that both me about Smallville and number 27 was my rant about the “no kill” rule which is as follows:


27. The “Superman never kills” rule is tossed into the dustbin of stupidity where it belongs.

Why are the powers that be are even trying to maintain the façade that on Smallville Clark Kent aka future Superman doesn’t kill?

The no killing rule is stupid in the comics and its beyond stupid to try to maintain the pretence when the simple truth is Clark kills on Smallville and/or has other people kill for him.

Acknowledging the end of the “no killing” facade doesn’t mean that Clark turns into a Rambo with superpowers killing for fun and games. What is does mean is every attempt is made to do the job without killing but when the hard call has to be made, he does it the same way as any number of soldiers, policemen etc have to do every single day around the world.

It makes Clark look like a complete politically correct moron when he wouldn’t kill Lex to save the entire freaking human race. Did anyone understand the freaking logic behind that stupid decision?

Even Martha Kent, Lex’s father Lionel and Lex’s girlfriend Lana Lang showed more moral courage and backbone than Clark when each of them made the tough call that Lex had to be killed to save the world. It is only by shear dump luck rather than decisiveness and courage that fate resulted in Clark escaping the Phantom Zone and acquired the crystal to send Zod back.

Clark being made a politically correct moron who won’t kill Lex being possessed by Zod to save the world instead of making him look all morel it makes Clark directly responsible for the dozens of deaths and injury of innocents due to the virus, riots etc of Black Thursday.

Clark Kent can’t hide behind or use some outdated self righteous “must never kill” excuse to avoid his duty and responsibility to protect the innocent and ultimately save the world.

And why do the powers that be still try to pretend there is “no killing” for Clark when he appears to kill on a regular basis?

In the pilot he dropped a ton of metal on bug boy and later in the first season “kills?” Sean Kelvin in the episode Cool by throwing him into the lake which freezes.

What about Gone when Clark uses his heat vision to kill Trent the kid with the metal blades for arms? Then Clark kills the Gloria in Wither when once again using heat vision he makes a sprinkler burst over the lights in the greenhouse and thus electrocuting Gloria and causing her to vaporize. Then in Combat in a direct hand to hand fight Clark kills Titan.

Also the powers that be sometimes use someone else killing to save Clark as a “get out of jail free card” for Clark killing. The Martian Manhunter twice had to kill sentient beings ie Aliens/Zoners to save Clark’s life.

Then Lana had to kill Bizzaro in order to save Clark. In fact Lana even killed one of Morgan Edge’s henchmen in the barn by kicking him onto a pitchfork in order to save
Jonathan and Martha Kent. Even Chloe has killed on the show when she shoots Gabriel in the missile silo in an attempt to stop the launch of the nuclear missile and thus save Smallville.

The End of my previous rant!



I haven’t seen "Quest" since it doesn’t air in the Middle East so will have to wait for the DVDs but as far as I can tell from the recaps, discussion etc this episode is another example of how everyone from Chloe to Lana to Martha to the Martian Manhunter etc can “man up” and make the call that has to made to save innocents and in some cases even protect the entire world except for Clark Kent.

It really does make Clark Kent look like not only a Big Dumb Alien but an irresponsible, self righteous, politically correct Big Dumb Alien.

Chloe rocks it here like Lana rocked it in Wrath when she rubbed Clark’s face in the harsh truth about Lex Luther mass murderer or when she pulled it together once again some episodes later and killed Bizzaro for him.

The babes on this show have more balls than the “hero”!

Now don’t get me wrong, no one likes to kill for the sake of it but sometimes doing bad things for good reasons is needed and required. Several of the posters on this thread don’t like to admit it or maybe are just oblivious and naïve but there are whole lot of other people in the real world that didn’t duck their responsibility and today or in the past had to make the decision to take human life in order for you to enjoy your life in your comfy chair sitting behind a computer screen in ‘white toast suburbia” expressing your opinion on an message board.

It is time Clark Kent pulls himself together and starts to make the tough calls.

Cheers, Mountain Sniper

PS to the guy that keeps referencing the writing device “Deus ex Machina”. You nailed it mate, the Smallville writers couldn’t last more than a couple of episodes without pulling this “get out of jail free card” season after season after season.

[SVsleuth]

I'd be willing to bet the "Superman doesn't kill on purpose" rule is a DC rule. They get around it by having the people do something during the fights that cause their own death, most of the time. Clark has never DECIDED someone needs to die & planned to go after them and kill them. Lana was there, & now says that Clark "saved her" from descending into that kind of darkness. Whether or not it makes sense, I think DC comics will never let Superman or Clark Kent plan to kill someone, go after them, and do it. That's never been the way it works for Superman. Superman has always had this belief that no one has the right to DECIDE life or death. If someone happens to die unintentionally, they let that slide - like the way Tina Greer died. But I don't think they'll ever change this fact about Superman. This show is supposed to be showing us how Superman got to be the Superman of the future, who handles evil in his own way, not by planning to kill & killing the bad guys.

[MountainSniper]

Hi SVsleuth,


I'd be willing to bet the "Superman doesn't kill on purpose" rule is a DC rule. .


You are probably right since in the Smallville universe even when Clark does kill using heat vision to electrocute Gloria in Wither the powers that be try to play it as circumstance rather than premeditated action.

But circumstance or not it doesn’t change the fact that Clark kills sentient beings/meteor freaks on Smallville no matter how they try to sugar coat it.



They get around it by having the people do something during the fights that cause their own death, most of the time.


Yes but that is just a rationalization since these people/sentient beings such as Tina Greer, Titan, Gloria, Trent would never have died if Clark didn’t decide to seek an “engagement” using superpowers against them in a fight.



Clark has never DECIDED someone needs to die & planned to go after them and kill them.


Yes this is true which is one of the things that makes him a Big Dumb Alien. Clark didn’t step up and make the tough decision regarding Zod & Lex as the vessel. It especially makes him look indecisive, reckless and irresponsible when Martha, Lionel and Lana tough it up and agree that killing Lex is difficult but the only real option when it comes to safeguarding the human race from Zod.



Lana was there, & now says that Clark "saved her" from descending into that kind of darkness.


I think when Lex’s final body count of innocents in added up in the future Lana is really going to regret not blowing Lex’s head off in Shanghai and saving all those people.

I personally don’t see Lana “descending into darkness” like the Luthors for the simple reason that Lana only went after the super villains and never any innocents like the Luthors.

That is a big difference in my opinion and one rationalization I use in my personal experience to justify making that choice.



Whether or not it makes sense, I think DC comics will never let Superman or Clark Kent plan to kill someone, go after them, and do it. That's never been the way it works for Superman. Superman has always had this belief that no one has the right to DECIDE life or death. If someone happens to die unintentionally, they let that slide - like the way Tina Greer died. But I don't think they'll ever change this fact about Superman. This show is supposed to be showing us how Superman got to be the Superman of the future, who handles evil in his own way, not by planning to kill & killing the bad guys.


I agree with your analysis but disagree with DC comics for taking this route with Superman although I would guess that it is a marketing decision i.e. selling comics to kids in the 30s/40s/50s more than a politically correct morality decision.

My problem with such a policy that due to Clark’s apathy Lex keeps adding to his body count.

How many innocents does Lex have to kill before even the most politically correct audience member yell at Clark to stop being self righteous and make the decision to protect the innocent and stop the body count?

As I said above it appears to me that everyone (Lana/Martian Manhunter/Martha/Chloe/Lois etc) has stepped up to the plate had to make the tough call but Clark even with the fate of the world at stake just won’t accept the responsibility that comes with protecting the innocent from a Super Villain that can and does beat the justice system over and over.

I just don’t get why they have the Martian Manhunter killing to save Clark yet they can’t accept that it is moral and logical that Clark must choose to kill one individual to save the world from Zod etc.

It just makes Clark looking weak and irresponsible and a hypocrite that won’t do his own dirty work.

Just my 2 cents.

Cheers Mountain Sniper

[chlo-el]

I'm sorry people....but I think everyone is completely over reacting. :(
I dont think Chloe's character is ruined at all...or anything close. She is trying to look out for the best interest of her friend. Sometimes you have to stop looking at it as Chloe talking to the future superman,...and see it as a girl trying to save her best friend and the man that she loves. Are you all telling me none of you would act the same? I know I would.

I mean..look at what happend tonight. Jimmy (who by the way....did an excellent job tonight!!!) brought her some compelling evidence that pointed to the fact that it was going to come down to good vs. evil or...clark vs. Lex. That one wouldn't walk away. the picture of the man on the slab was accurate...so why shouldn't Chloe believe this could potentially be accurate as well??

I FULLY admitt, I dont want to see superman murder anyone...but it's either one person (lex) or potentially hundreds of people if Lex takes control of him. I actually found myself agreeing with Mr. Teague tonight. He was totally nuts...but right. Clark needs to learn to step up and do whats best for the greater good. He always just looks at the immediate picture. (hence why he was sitting in a hospital with lana instead of trying to help chloe bring down brainiac).

Which is why Chloe is sooooo important to the show. Clark has the view of a child almost...very much black and white. Where Chloe....is the gray area. She was just pointing out the opposite tonight. That if you dont kill lex....and he finds out you are the travellor....then you have to die. Either way....one of you has to go. Of course she would prefer Lex, who wouldnt?

As far as Chloe being with Jimmy still...and the other numerous reasons people feel Chloe's character is going down hill....is simple. It was obvious to me tonight, more then ever...that Chloe uses Jimmy as a release. I know....it's not right for Chloe to use the poor guy, but its not like he's kicking and screaming. The fact that Jimmy had news and Chloe wanted to have sex....kind of shows where Jimmy stands with her. He always comes up with crazy ideas...and chloe just wanted to (for once) take her mind off of that stuff... and thats what jimmy is for her. A brief escape from the daily apocalypse that is her life.

So...I'm sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree. I dont think Chloe's character is ruined or tainted. I honestly think...she just isnt the naive high school girl she was years ago. She knows life isnt fair...and sometimes sacrafices have to be made. Clark is the eternal optomist....he waits for problems to come screaming at his door before he does anything about them. But this problem (him being taken over) is something he cant stop. So chloe is basically telling him....he has options and a way to nip this in the bud before it becomes a problem. Like I said before....she has to play the devils advocate because clark is incapable of seeing anything in the gray area.

Dont yell!! haha. :) Just my thoughts.

Great post and I totally agree. Chloe looked really conflicted about it and freaked out but I think the way she sees it, she sees the Naman and Segeeth Myth coming true and she knows that Clark could be the destroyer if someone like Lex controlled him. And if that happened to save the world Chloe would be left with no other choice then to kill Clark herself. And that's just something she doesn't want to do.

I would agree w/ this being ooc if she wanted to kill Lex for revenge but it's not about that it's about saving the world.

[Kevin24]

Hi SVsleuth,




You are probably right since in the Smallville universe even when Clark does kill using heat vision to electrocute Gloria in Wither the powers that be try to play it as circumstance rather than premeditated action.

But circumstance or not it doesn’t change the fact that Clark kills sentient beings/meteor freaks on Smallville no matter how they try to sugar coat it.





Yes but that is just a rationalization since these people/sentient beings such as Tina Greer, Titan, Gloria, Trent would never have died if Clark didn’t decide to seek an “engagement” using superpowers against them in a fight.





Yes this is true which is one of the things that makes him a Big Dumb Alien. Clark didn’t step up and make the tough decision regarding Zod & Lex as the vessel. It especially makes him look indecisive, reckless and irresponsible when Martha, Lionel and Lana tough it up and agree that killing Lex is difficult but the only real option when it comes to safeguarding the human race from Zod.





I think when Lex’s final body count of innocents in added up in the future Lana is really going to regret not blowing Lex’s head off in Shanghai and saving all those people.

I personally don’t see Lana “descending into darkness” like the Luthors for the simple reason that Lana only went after the super villains and never any innocents like the Luthors.

That is a big difference in my opinion and one rationalization I use in my personal experience to justify making that choice.





I agree with your analysis but disagree with DC comics for taking this route with Superman although I would guess that it is a marketing decision i.e. selling comics to kids in the 30s/40s/50s more than a politically correct morality decision.

My problem with such a policy that due to Clark’s apathy Lex keeps adding to his body count.

How many innocents does Lex have to kill before even the most politically correct audience member yell at Clark to stop being self righteous and make the decision to protect the innocent and stop the body count?

As I said above it appears to me that everyone (Lana/Martian Manhunter/Martha/Chloe/Lois etc) has stepped up to the plate had to make the tough call but Clark even with the fate of the world at stake just won’t accept the responsibility that comes with protecting the innocent from a Super Villain that can and does beat the justice system over and over.

I just don’t get why they have the Martian Manhunter killing to save Clark yet they can’t accept that it is moral and logical that Clark must choose to kill one individual to save the world from Zod etc.

It just makes Clark looking weak and irresponsible and a hypocrite that won’t do his own dirty work.

Just my 2 cents.

Cheers Mountain Sniper


Don't you think the harder decision is to try to find another alternative to killing someone? I think the easy way out is killing someone.

That is what Clark/Superman go through , even in the DC universe people want Superman to kill but he doesn't because he feels he doesn't have a right to decide who lives and who dies.

As people have said that can be his greatest strength or his greatest weakness....

Sometimes it does seem like the best thing to do is kill someone for the greater good but Clark/Superman doesn't see that as an option. You can see that as a good thing or as a bad thing....

He doesn't have to kill Lex he is like a god among men.....now if this was the real world then .......Lex might take a bullet.

[Jade4813]

Jade4813,

The other examples, though, of villains that Superman has to deal with aren't as consistent a threat as Lex, and they all stand more of fighting chance (physically) than Lex does. It's a trickier and more ambiguous topic when it comes to Lex Luthor, and I can see where people are coming from who say that they can see why it may be essential to kill Lex (even if I don't personally feel that way, I can see the viewpoint for sure).

Sure, I see that it's an ambiguous problem. But I have a problem with the idea that he's got to kill Lex as a way to "man up." Is it possible that he may have to wrestle with the choice to kill Lex to save the world in some way? Absolutely. But it isn't an easy topic, so to say that "to ask where the line is drawn is just an excuse to not get him to man up" is simplifying matters on the other side, too.

It is a complicated issue. But to say we shouldn't worry about the lines a hero should draw in deciding who he gets to kill and who he lets live is also pretty absurd. And, I'm sorry, I don't see suggesting that this line is important is just an excuse to let him not "man up."

I fully recognize that it's a complicated issue, and I see both sides of it. I think Superman would have a much easier life without Lex, just as I think Batman would have an easier life without the Joker. I was a huge fan of the Age of Apocalypse story arc that Marvel did because I like that they decided to explore the idea of someone going back in time to wipe out Professor X's arch enemy - and what went wrong.

The point is, though, that it's complicated. And if you say it's okay for Superman to kill Lex, the question remains, who else is it okay for him to kill? We could make a list of DC villains and start separating them into groups based on whether we think they should be on Superman's hit list and whether they shouldn't, using whatever arbitrary system we want to use.

But I think Superman stands against killing because he's a character who has generally understood that he doesn't get the right to just kill certain people that he deems the world would be better without. And I think part of that is because of this whole pesky "line excuse" problem. Because where do you draw the line?

My examples, while somewhat facetious, were meant to point out the fundamental flaw in the statement I was quoting. Even DC Heroes sometimes act in ways that could threaten the world. Superman himself would be the world's greatest threat, and while I hardly have an encyclopedic memory of every Superman issue, I'm pretty sure that there have been occasions when, either due to his own actions or some sort of "possession" he's been a threat to the world. (Hell, in about a hundred covers on superdickery.com, you'd think he was the greatest threat the world has ever seen.)

So my examples show that if that's what we decide Superman can do - if we decide that he can just unilaterally decide to kill some people for the betterment of the world, then that can't be just a black-and-white decision either. It HAS to be complicated.

Asking where we draw the line isn't "excusing him from manning up." It's saying that it's complicated. Because even if you say he can kill people who threaten the world, then at some point, every single member of the JLA is going to be on the chopping block. So it has to be a complicated issue. And I don't think wondering where the line is is excusing anything.

Nor do I think Superman HAS to kill in order to "man up." But that's me.

[FiReFTW]

I already said it before , if I was Clark I WOULD kill Lex , for god sakes its better to kill a evil guy than let him kill 100000000 people or even control or kill me , seems alot of people here are against death penalty no matter how many people someone kills or rapes.

[Jade4813]

You clearly have watched to many episodes of Smallville with such gaps in logic. I stated any evil geniuses and super powered freaks that threaten to destroy the planet would be just fine. Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Green Arrow, and the Huntress do not fit into that category. Furthermore, Clark has killed COUNTLESS freak of the week villains, most notably Wes Keenan, Trent (T-1000), Bizarro (told Lana to do it and how), and Titan.

Not at all. I've read enough comic books to see that heroes occasionally threaten the world for one reason or another. In fact, comics seem to like doing this to their heroes every so often. Again, on superdickery.com, you'd think Superman himself was one of the greatest threats to the world. ;)

Does it happen all the time? No. But if that's the standard, that Superman can kill anyone who threatens the world, then at the FIRST instance that one of his friends does so, he'd have to kill that friend. It makes sense, to keep them from doing it again. First time Wonder Woman threatens the world, she has to die.

And that does happen.

----- Added 3 Minutes later -----


I already said it before , if I was Clark I WOULD kill Lex , for god sakes its better to kill a evil guy than let him kill 100000000 people or even control or kill me , seems alot of people here are against death penalty no matter how many people someone kills or rapes.

Actually, you're wrong. I'm ALL FOR the death penalty. There are two people on death row right now that I not only want to die, I want to be the one to pull the lever. Then I want them to be brought back to life. And executed again. And again. And again. Until they've been so fried that their bodies actually set on fire and they burn until there is nothing left of them but ash.

And then I want a miracle to bring them back to life so we can do it all over again.

Because when you tie up three teenagers and slit their throats for 20 bucks and change...when you do to them what these guys did to people I knew...then I not only want you to die. I want you to die as repeatedly and painfully as possible.

You shouldn't assume that just because people are arguing that Superman shouldn't kill - or that this is a complicated issue - they're against the death penalty.

----- Added 11 Minutes later -----



Are you even following the show anymore? Lex has made it very evident that he doesn't care anymore. He stated the reasons he had for this search. Not once did protecting the Earth from a threat or anything along those lines even come out of his mouth. In Onyx, he stated, "I am the villain of the story" and that Luthor is now the one we have.

Up to this point, I have. Past this point, maybe not.

Yes, I recognize that Lex wants power. He loves power. But I think that Lex is a complicated character. I don't think he does what he's doing just to be an evil sonova****. I think he also genuinely thinks that him being in power is the best thing that could ever happen.

Sure, you have to nuke the planet to start over. And then, when you're reset, with Lex in charge, he can make the world the place he wants it to be. Which, in his mind, is the best thing that could happen.

He's not pushing the button and laughing with childish glee at watching the planet burn. For absolutely no reason than because "fire is purty." I think he wanted to start all over again to fix those mistakes (that sometimes get so out of hand, you have to just start over). And that him ruling the world, shaping the world in his world image, will be best.

In his distorted world view, I think he thinks many of his plans are for the "betterment" of the world.

YMMV, but I think Lex is slightly more complicated of a character than just a psychopath who kills without thought or because he likes the color of blood.

[RichardMarx]

Jade, Superman isn't that great of a guy, he looks like he enjoys killing people :) Lois too.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jUORL-bvwA0

[Jade4813]

RichardMarx, you could just go here: http://www.superdickery.com/dick/1.html and click on all succeeding links, too. ;)

[Emissary of Justice]

Don't you think the harder decision is to try to find another alternative to killing someone? I think the easy way out is killing someone.Clark has been trying alternatives to killing Lex since 1938. Time to try another approach. Killing Luthor isn't the easy way out. It's taking responsibility and being a man. Clark doesn't kill him because he's child like and refuses anything that isn't black and white. This is why Jor-El CONSTANTLY punishes him.


He doesn't have to kill Lex he is like a god among men.....now if this was the real world then .......Lex might take a bullet.This is true which is what makes the argument against it so more flawed.

[MetroGirl06]

I say Clark should kill Lex. It will save him a lot of trouble in the future, not to mention a lot of lives.

But, oh well, it won't happen.

[MountainSniper]

Hi Kevin24,


Don't you think the harder decision is to try to find another alternative to killing someone? I think the easy way out is killing someone.


Great idea Kevin and one I am sure makes sense in catching rays in California and now all you have to do it tell us (like every freaking one of us in the Sandbox) what exactly is the alternative when they come to kill you?????

But hey forget the real life example instead just tell me what Clark should have done to avoid risking the entire planet when he refused to “man up and neutralize the vessel” to stop Zod?

Because from my perspective Jor-el, Lionel, Martha and Lana were right and Clark was wrong.

It sure wasn’t an alternative plan that Clark came up with but only through dumb luck that Clark was GIVEN the weapon to fight Zod and GIVEN a way to escape the phantom zone.

It is the fate of the planet mate and sometimes that means doing bad things for good reasons.



That is what Clark/Superman go through , even in the DC universe people want Superman to kill but he doesn't because he feels he doesn't have a right to decide who lives and who dies.

Does Superman as protector of the innocent and having means and motive at his disposal have the right to allow a mass murder like Lex Luther to continue to beat the justice system and kill innocents over and over and over?



As people have said that can be his greatest strength or his greatest weakness....


I don’t know how everyone else feels about all the murder victims but looking at Lex Luthor’s body count personally I see it as a weakness.

It especially looks like a weakness when you see Lana kill Bizzaro to save Clark, the Martian Manhunter kills two sentient being to save Clark, Martha accepting Jor-el’s advice to kill Lex to save the world etc.

For some guy that doesn’t kill Clark Kent sure gets lucky with all his friends/lovers etc killing for him.



Sometimes it does seem like the best thing to do is kill someone for the greater good but Clark/Superman doesn't see that as an option. You can see that as a good thing or as a bad thing....


Ok Kevin, simply tell me how many people does Lex Luther have to kill and get away with it before you decide it is a good thing to once and for all slot the power mad sociopath killer?



now if this was the real world then .......Lex might take a bullet.

Once Lex catches his super villain stride and jumps from killing dozens and dozens to thousands and thousands and finally millions and millions one of the great regrets of Lana Lang's life is she didn't put a bullet into his brain in Shanghai.

Her decision to pass on pulling that trigger is going to end up as a life long guilt trip haunted by the deaths of millions of innocent victims of Lex Luther.

All the best, gotta crash, later.

Cheers Mountain Sniper

[smallvillefreak24]

ya know with how many people in the smallville universe dying everyday you would have thought clark just would've taken some out by now.. but at least he has some moral fiber left... anyway tho it would be soooo easy to just take lex out since he is the one who is bringing evil down among them.. so clark should do it esp. since a self defense scenario seems to be coming up... but of course he cant cause of the mythology so we're gonna have to live with sageeth

[Deana]

Chloe, here's a thought. If Lex needs to die, why don't you do it! It is your idea, you kill the monster. You are Clark's brain, mom, savior, dad, financial advisor, home decorator . . .

Adding assassin to the list, won't be a stretch for you.

[All about Clark]

I don't fault Chloe for suggesting that Clark kill Lex to keep him from ruling Clark with all his power. She is thinking one life to save a planet. And it does seem reasonable. And she is scared as well.

However, that's not necessarily Clark's way, and that's OK too, however, when he doesn't kill, it means he will have to suffer some for that choice. As long as he sees it through to a result that stops Lex from using him. And it will probably again be against what Jor-el wants as well. It appears that Chloe and Jor-el are at least on a similar page.

----- Added 4 Minutes later -----


We watched Lex grow and become who he is over 7 seasons and now all of a sudden Chloe's randomly condoning murder and cares about nothing?

You've missed the point. It is because Chloe has seen what Lex has become over 7 years that she is scared for the entire world.

[RJLCyberPunk]

I disagree with those who are disappointed in Chloe for saying this.

I for one don't blame her for considering the possibility. Clark even said "my powers, in the wrong hands, could destroy everything." So if Clark killed Lex it would be out of defense for the entire world.

Hell, even Batman in one comic nearly let Clark kill Lex to put the world out of harm's way.

But this is what makes Clark Superman. You can't have ALL the characters be idealists and purists ALL the time and not even consider the possibility of killing a dangerous murderer like Lex. That wouldn't be realistic. And this isn't out of character at all for Chloe. She was considering letting him die in "Nemesis", remember? I think it's awesome! It only further highlights that Clark=Superman because he's the only character unwilling to even consider the idea.
Probably because he knows himself to well and he does not want to embrace the dark side. But Smallville seem to be headed not a for Superman/Justice League but to that of Superman the Supreme dictator of Earht along with his Justice lords...

[4CHLicks]

I haven't seen the episode yet. I read one of the live discussion scene by scene recaps on another site last night. I hope it is Brainiac. Even if it is Brainiac they are continuing to destroy Chloe's character. Like I said, Chloe wouldn't advocate murder. But in the last few episodes we haven't seen her express concern or sadness over being fired from the DP(even though Chloe has been a reporter and associated with the DP for the past 6 year! We had three major saves in which Chloe and Clark are written as being indifferent. Clark realizes Chloe is alive in Bizarro and we don't even see a hug in the morgue scene. Yet they have always been known to embrace one another during a crisis. In Obscura, their reactions when he saves her from the grave stand in stark contrast to the lukewarm reaction between them that we saw in the morgue in Bizarro. Chloe played a pivotal role in saving Clark when she appealed to Jor-El and we didn't see any thanks or follow up to that. In Quest she helps to free him from the altar and there isn't even a hug, WTH! In Siren, we see Clark comforting EDLois over her break up from Oliver. Where was his comforting hug for Chloe in Action over her break up with Jimmy? The writers don't care how bad they make the characters look and I for one am sick of it! Also, Clark has believed in the Kawatche cave legend since Khlya explained the prophecies to him. So it is OOC for him to dismiss Chloe when she tried to talk to him about Numan(sp?) and Sageeth. Also, I am turned off with the religious references and cult like practices. :mad:
WORD!!! To your post! With one correction. Chloe has advocated killing Lex in Vessel. I'll quote Chloe, "Maybe the only way to stop Zod and stop Fine and stop all of this, is just to destroy that Vessel (Lex)!" The consequences of not killing Lex resulted in the murderous Phantom Zoners being released. Has Clark learned nothing from this?!!??!!!

As the consequences of not killing Lex AGAIN could lead to Lex gaining world domination through Clark's superpowers, I'm on Chloe's side with this one. If it comes down to a final confrontation and the choice is Lex or Clark, everyone has the right to defend their own life and free will. Superman has killed before in the comics - once - and assumed the burden of taking a life in exchange for saving billions of lives. Clark needs to man up and finish Lex off himself, or I have the feeling Chloe's going to have to save Clark again by fulfilling his destiny on the K-Caves wall for him in the Season Finale. Cluperman to the rescue! AGAIN! That's right. Clark's going to let a little girl do his job for him. :mad: And it would turn out that Chloe was Lex's arch-enemy, not Clark Kent. Chloe will probably assume the karma burden of taking a life anyway, and go into some kind of coma according to the teaser at the end of Quest, whether Chloe or Clark finishes Lex off, so why shouldn't she take the credit of doing the job on Lex herself and saving the world herself?! Clark, you're a wuss! Chloe is worth ten of you! Prove me wrong. :p

[DreadShamus]

Yes. He'll be tortured (no more than the last 7 seasons though) and use it to become a great Superman. Especially when Lex shows up later.

[Hopefulsuicide]

superman/clark kent does not 'play god'

period

awful, awful writing... that's not something Chloe would say... and tbh, i'm sick of her treating him like a god

[monet]

do u believe this girl. What a hypocrite. When Lana wanted to kill Lex, she had a lot of bull**** to say but now it is ok for Clark to do the job. She made me sick this week.

[Kevin24]

do u believe this girl. What a hypocrite. When Lana wanted to kill Lex, she had a lot of bull**** to say but now it is ok for Clark to do the job. She made me sick this week.

She did? I don't remember that. How did that scene go?

[4CHLicks]

do u believe this girl. What a hypocrite. When Lana wanted to kill Lex, she had a lot of bull**** to say but now it is ok for Clark to do the job. She made me sick this week.
There's a huge difference between defending your own life and freedom from an attacker or rapist who would take control of your body, Lex in this case, and seeking someone out to do murder. It's the ocean of difference between self-defense and assasination. Clark would be defending himself, which he has the right to do, and Chloe reminded him of this fact in Quest. But Lana just wanted to seek out revenge instead of leaving it alone. So Chloe wasn't being a hypocrite. She was just validating Clark's right to protect himself, and, thus, the world at large.

[ox007]

We can see that Chloe is beginning to be obsessed about Clark, if the things keep going that way, she will become evil Chloe (like the evil Lana was created) :) man, Clark can really change a girl :) :)

[Kirstycol]

I think there should be an undecided button. One one hand if he kills Lex he may be saving hundreds of lives. Even thousands. But on the other, if he gives up on Lex and kills him, then he's really no better than Lex. Part of what makes lex the bad guy is that he plays god. He thinks he can do whatever he wants no matter who he hurts as long as he gets what he wants. And in some twisted way he may think that he's saveing the world in a way. Sacrifice the few to save the many. If Clark did that to Lex he would be doing the same thing as Lex..... yet... he would at the same time prevent a lot of pain for other people.
However at the same time even if he killed Lex there would be a power vaccume for someone else to take his place. So he may not really be helping anyone by killing lex.

[MetropolisGirl4SV]

I wasn't that surprised when she said it, if it came down to killing Lex to save the world ,then it makes logical sense but we all know that Superman isn't that type of Super hero thats what makes him so complex and unique.

Yes it doesn't really fit Chlo's character but after all the stuff that Chloe has endured with Clark and also Lex and his obsession, it took a tole on the girl. And if did come down to BDA'S life I think she would rather have Clark kill Lex who is the Villain of the Story.

----- Added 1 Minutes later -----


There's a huge difference between defending your own life and freedom from an attacker or rapist who would take control of your body, Lex in this case, and seeking someone out to do murder. It's the ocean of difference between self-defense and assasination. Clark would be defending himself, which he has the right to do, and Chloe reminded him of this fact in Quest. But Lana just wanted to seek out revenge instead of leaving it alone. So Chloe wasn't being a hypocrite. She was just validating Clark's right to protect himself, and, thus, the world at large.

Yeah I agree

----- Added 3 Minutes later -----


WORD!!! To your post! With one correction. Chloe has advocated killing Lex in Vessel. I'll quote Chloe, "Maybe the only way to stop Zod and stop Fine and stop all of this, is just to destroy that Vessel (Lex)!" The consequences of not killing Lex resulted in the murderous Phantom Zoners being released. Has Clark learned nothing from this?!!??!!!

As the consequences of not killing Lex AGAIN could lead to Lex gaining world domination through Clark's superpowers, I'm on Chloe's side with this one. If it comes down to a final confrontation and the choice is Lex or Clark, everyone has the right to defend their own life and free will. Superman has killed before in the comics - once - and assumed the burden of taking a life in exchange for saving billions of lives. Clark needs to man up and finish Lex off himself, or I have the feeling Chloe's going to have to save Clark again by fulfilling his destiny on the K-Caves wall for him in the Season Finale. Cluperman to the rescue! AGAIN! That's right. Clark's going to let a little girl do his job for him. :mad: And it would turn out that Chloe was Lex's arch-enemy, not Clark Kent. Chloe will probably assume the karma burden of taking a life anyway, and go into some kind of coma according to the teaser at the end of Quest, whether Chloe or Clark finishes Lex off, so why shouldn't she take the credit of doing the job on Lex herself and saving the world herself?! Clark, you're a wuss! Chloe is worth ten of you! Prove me wrong. :p

Great points!

[Lazy Boy]

As Gandalf said, "Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


I love that line - Lord of the Rings is my favourite book/movie:D.
But back to the topic thread, I think Chloe was basically saying that if Clark is to accept his destiny as Superman, he will face moral dilemmas like this in the future if he was to protect humanity against evil. I don't think that either if them are too comfortable with the idea but they (or rather Clark) need to mentally prepare themselves to exercise that option if it comes to it. Hence with great powers, comes greater responsibility.
Mind you I agree with others that the dialogue could have been handled in a better way as it does not suit Chloe's character.

[wolverine316]

I am so glad Chloe is getting attacked here. For so long this board treated her like an angel. I think she is pathetic. Clark rightly so does not see himself as a god despite her wishes. Chloe you idiot. You don't have the right or the power to decide who lives and who dies. And people say Lana is the one who is screwed up in the head.

[AndrewVDk]

I was so proud of Chloe in Quest!
Everything she did and said in this episode was on point!
Great stuff!! Look at my avi!

[ox007]

I am so glad Chloe is getting attacked here. For so long this board treated her like an angel. I think she is pathetic. Clark rightly so does not see himself as a god despite her wishes. Chloe you idiot. You don't have the right or the power to decide who lives and who dies. And people say Lana is the one who is screwed up in the head.

Yeah I don't know why Chloe is so loved by everyone, frankly IMO I think she should be out of the show now, she's done her role I think and she's not in the future of CK/Supes. Sorry, but there is not enough place for Lois and Chloe at the same time for Clark!

[haltoe]

I doubt it, Brainiac is too busy [Mod Edit] w/ Kara's mind. Btw, where was Kara the whole time? She could have gave Clark some really big help, superspeed to Montreal to find and save her cousin.

Excellent point but as usual Kara is underused. Of course Clark is the star but Kara could be his invaluable sidekick. Her action scenes are great as are the occasions when she and Clark work together as partners but we see all too little of that.

[Darth Pipes]

Clark should kill Lex. Keeping Lex alive guarentees many people will die each and every time. Kind of like when Batman keeps the Joker alive.

[adromidon]

I think that Chloe was ethier one of two things that would make her act so OOC

1) She was as everyone has said being destroyed as a charecter to pave the way for her removal from SV

or

2) She was pushed so far into a state of desperation that she was acting irrationaly. As much as you may want to deny it every single person has a breaking point at which they would turn from their original path and choose a darker or less understood one. Lex had his a while back Chloe may very well have hers now beliving that what she is suggesting is the only way that the world will not be robbed of their saviour A.K.A Superman. judgement becomes clouded when you go into desperation and she is now learning that the world needs Clark more now then ever and the thought of Lex controlling him and using him to destroy the world scares her to the point of thinking irrationaly.

[silverfist]

I voted yes since I'd consider him too dangerous to be left alive. Alternative Clark could first try to sniff up some real solid evidence connecting Lex to a really serious crime he's commited that can send him to prison for a lifetime. With Lex's resources though, finding that evidence AND ensuring that he's kept locked behind bars forever might prove to be quite a challange even for Clark.

[adromidon]

I voted yes since I'd consider him too dangerous to be left alive. Alternative Clark could first try to sniff up some real solid evidence connecting Lex to a really serious crime he's commited that can send him to prison for a lifetime. With Lex's resources though, finding that evidence AND ensuring that he's kept locked behind bars forever might prove to be quite a challange even for Clark.
Which is exactly why Superman has a hard time keeping him in jail later on

[ginnyfan]

Great post silverfist. But although it would be difficult to keep Lex behind bars, I think that it validates the justice system. Superman, in killing Lex would be sending out a message that if you're powerful enough, laws don't apply to you. Though I suppose Superman breaks a few laws anyway... but I like that he doesn't kill... he leaves criminals at the mercy of justice.

[adromidon]

Great post silverfist. But although it would be difficult to keep Lex behind bars, I think that it validates the justice system. Superman, in killing Lex would be sending out a message that if you're powerful enough, laws don't apply to you. Though I suppose Superman breaks a few laws anyway... but I like that he doesn't kill... he leaves criminals at the mercy of justice.
This is not to say that he never was tempted to kill.

I can recall a few times Superman wanted to kill Lex to rid himself of Lex for good. In the end he allways decided that if he killed Lex it would solve nothing and 5 more Lex's would pop up in his place

[Kyogre]

Chloe is stupid

[ox007]

Chloe is stupid

:rotfl: let's not hide it anymore!

[4CHLicks]

I can tell you exactly what I don’t want to see. Someone else having to come in and save the Hero from the villain. Clark Kent is supposed to be the freakin’ “Hero” of the story, not some helpless nitwit who needs saving from Lex Luthor. So he better be prepared to play the Hero at the FOS or he’s lost all my respect…again.

Now many of you have made a dangerous, even deadly, assumption for Clark. Without even witnessing the confrontation, you’ve made the probably false assumption that Clark is going to have the luxury of having the upper hand with Lex. You’ve assumed that, because he has those superpowers, he can afford to play “nicey-nice” in a deadly confrontation with his attacker. Chloe isn’t making that ridiculous assumption. She told Clark to be prepared for the confrontation and, if he had to use deadly force, he’d better be prepared to use it. But he damn well better come home. As Clark Kent, not Lex’s mind-bot. You all seem to be forgetting that Lex can “kill” Clark’s mind, obliterating the real Clark Kent from existence. Clark’s going to the FOS for a deadly encounter from which he may not return. And he may not have, probably will not have, the luxury of pulling his punches.

There’s a reason the police are authorized to use deadly force when confronted with a lethal weapon (like the one Lex is going to use against Clark without hesitation, to annihilate Clark’s mind and assume control of his superpowers to use against humanity). In such confrontations, a cop may have just ONE SHOT at self-preservation. JUST ONE. And he better not hesitate, shrinking from the consequences, if he’s to save himself. If Clark hesitates with Lex, he may not be able to save himself and all will be lost, for Clark and the world. Even though neither of them, Clark nor Chloe, is truly comfortable with deadly force, Chloe doesn’t want Clark to hesitate - because Lex won’t. So, in essence, Chloe told Clark she’d still love him, even if he had to kill Lex in the confrontation, just so long as he came home. Good one on you, Chloe! That’s my girl!!!

Chloe was made to be a cop's wife, AU!Apocalypse revealed that to us. And she will be the Hero's wife, too. Chloe's the ideal.

[adromidon]

Chloe is my favorite charecter next to Clark. So this hurts them degrading her

[All about Clark]

I don't think Clark needs to kill in order to stop Lex. Clark could use freeze breath or fry/target part of Lex's brain. Being that Clark's been studying the brain to help Lana, I think it would be cool to fry his memories if that's possible.

I don't fault Chloe, she's just making Clark understand that he may have to do something he doesn't want to do in order to protect the world and himself from Lex. Chloe only makes statements like this when she is really scared, and she knows what's at stake.

[Jack-El49]

How will Clark ever really know what's a stake next season when Chloe isn't around anymore?

Clark shouldn't kill any human being.

[MountainSniper]

Hi Guys n Girls,


Chloe, here's a thought. If Lex needs to die, why don't you do it! It is your idea, you kill the monster. You are Clark's brain, mom, savior, dad, financial advisor, home decorator . . . Adding assassin to the list, won't be a stretch for you.

Why should Chloe do it? She is just human and Lex is a billionaire surrounded by bodyguards, a top notch security system (hey everybody stop laughing). Well at least evil billionaires trying to take over the world are supposed to be surrounded by security etc.

You always use the best weapon for the job and in this case that is Super powered Clark.

Also for once we could see Clark doing it himself rather than relying on the Martin Manhunter killing the Phantoms or Lana saving him by taking out Bizzaro etc.

Cheers Mountain Sniper



Probably because he knows himself to well and he does not want to embrace the dark side.

Your explanation doesn’t make sense. What is darker than risking falling under the control of Lex Luther and being used as a pawn to take over the world?

The better option that will stop the body count is to kill the mass murdering super villain that has proven time and time again that Luthors can beat the justice system.

Cheers Mountain Sniper



superman/clark kent does not 'play god' period awful, awful writing... that's not something Chloe would say... and tbh, i'm sick of her treating him like a god


How is Clark playing God?

If Clark is playing God then there are thousands and thousands (maybe millions) of human beings playing God every day on earth. Soldiers and police men every day in the world have to make decisions regarding whose life to take in order to save other life. Superman is no different from soldiers/police etc everyday that have to make the choice to take human life to save innocent human life.

It is not playing God but instead choosing to live up to responsibilities etc.

Lex has killed, tortured, kidnapped etc dozens and dozens of people. The Luthors have proven they can beat the justice system. Clark’s own powers are now under threat due to Lex Luther to be used to conquer the world.

Killing that psycho mass murderer is not playing God but simple common sense in protecting the world.

Cheers Mountain Sniper



do u believe this girl. What a hypocrite. When Lana wanted to kill Lex, she had a lot of bull**** to say but now it is ok for Clark to do the job. She made me sick this week.


Chloe playing the self righteous card with Lana regarding Lex was not Chloe’s finest moment on Smallville but at least finally Chloe after being scared to go after Lex since the episode where she finds out Lex kidnapped and tortured her mother has seen the light and realized that Lex has to be taken out.

That is better than remaining scared and always counseling people not to try to take on the Luthers.

Chloe like anyone is allowed to change her mind but especially when I agree with her.

Cheers Mountain Sniper



There's a huge difference between defending your own life and freedom from an attacker or rapist who would take control of your body, Lex in this case, and seeking someone out to do murder. It's the ocean of difference between self-defense and assasination.....

No there isn’t. Even if you are not personally under threat that does not mean you do not come to the aid of someone else that is being attacked etc.

It does not matter if Lex is seeking to attack Clark or some other innocent person Clark should still do something about it.

Haven’t you ever heard the Edmund Burke quote: "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.”



But Lana just wanted to seek out revenge instead of leaving it alone.


No Lana just before anyone else decided to man up and take out Lex for the good of everyone on earth and not just herself.

Proof episode Wrath: Lana Quote: “how many people would still be alive if you’d have had the guts to take care of Lex a long time ago?”

Lana might want Lex dead but as the above quote proves it is not just for herself but everyone Lex has killed and will kill.

Lana has it all in focus and finally this episode Chloe clued in.

Cheers Mountain Sniper


One one hand if he kills Lex he may be saving hundreds of lives. Even thousands. But on the other, if he gives up on Lex and kills him, then he's really no better than Lex.



WTF? Why do people keep saying this? Lex kills everyone and anyone while Clark, Lana and Chloe only go after the Supervillain Luthors. That is a huge difference and it doesn’t make any of them like Lex.




Sacrifice the few to save the many. If Clark did that to Lex he would be doing the same thing as Lex..... yet... he would at the same time prevent a lot of pain for other people.

No you are wrong. Lex kills indiscriminately as evil means to dominate the world while Clark only goes after the villain/bad guy etc.

There is a huge difference and you really can’t try to portray it as morally equivalent.



However at the same time even if he killed Lex there would be a power vaccume for someone else to take his place. So he may not really be helping anyone by killing lex


What kind of logic is this? Then why take out Hitler if someone else will just take his place?

Using your logic why even waste time catching criminals, fighting dictators etc if someone is just going to take their place?

Actually in the real world occasionally taking out the bad guy is a good result. Germany along with the rest of the world is a lot better off today because the good guys decided to take out Hitler.

Cheers Mountain Sniper



I am so glad Chloe is getting attacked here. For so long this board treated her like an angel. I think she is pathetic..... And people say Lana is the one who is screwed up in the head.

I disagree. Chloe is getting attacked by some but most see her reasons for finally getting over her fears and advocating the ultimate solution to the Super villain.

That understanding something the vast majority on the Kryptonsite board never gave Lana when she figured this out at the first of the season.

It is ironic that Lana was demonized by the K-site Lana bashers for using Iris to spy on Lex, advocating killing Lex to save innocents etc and now the golden girl Chloe has come fill circle and it on currently on the Lana page.

Cheers Mountain Sniper


Clark should kill Lex. Keeping Lex alive guarentees many people will die each and every time. Kind of like when Batman keeps the Joker alive.

100% agree.

BTW Batman keeps the Joker alive to sell comic books. In “real life” the Batman would kill the Joker in a second to save innocent lives.

Cheers Mountain Sniper



She was pushed so far into a state of desperation that she was acting irrationaly........ judgement becomes clouded when you go into desperation and she is now learning that the world needs Clark more now then ever and the thought of Lex controlling him and using him to destroy the world scares her to the point of thinking irrationaly.

What is irrational about Chloe finally getting that Lana got from the first of the season ie When it comes to super villains killing them is a good thing to do and actually saves innocent lives?

I think Chloe has finally grown a pair and “FOUND THE LIGHT” after being the dark due to her fear of Lex when he threatened her to stop her from writing the story about him kidnapping and holding her mother prisoner etc.

Cheers Mountain Sniper


I voted yes since I'd consider him too dangerous to be left alive. Alternative Clark could first try to sniff up some real solid evidence connecting Lex to a really serious crime he's commited that can send him to prison for a lifetime.

100% agree with the first sentence but have to say the second is not an realistic option since it has been shown on Smallville that the Luthors can and will beat the American justice system.

Cheers Mountain Sniper


Great post silverfist. But although it would be difficult to keep Lex behind bars, I think that it validates the justice system.

How? The fact is on Smallville the Luthors can and will beat the justice system over and over so it does not validate the justice system but instead prove that the Justice system can’t handle Lex.


Superman, in killing Lex would be sending out a message that if you're powerful enough, laws don't apply to you.

No his message to the criminals of the world is even if you are big enough to beat the American justice system that doesn’t mean you will be able to continue to kill with impunity.

Cheers Mountain Sniper



Clark shouldn't kill any human being.

No one is talking about Clark killing just any human being but instead killing the sociopath mass murder Lex Luther than can beat the US justice system.

Like Lana said: ““how many people would still be alive if you’d have had the guts to take care of Lex a long time ago?”

So how many people does Lex have to kill and how many times do you have to watch him get away with it before you vote to permanently take him out?

Cheers Mountain Sniper

PS As an aside when I read this board I get the impression that I am the only member of the audience that loves all three of Smallville’s leading ladies?

[Kirstycol]

What kind of logic is this? Then why take out Hitler if someone else will just take his place?

Using your logic why even waste time catching criminals, fighting dictators etc if someone is just going to take their place?

Actually in the real world occasionally taking out the bad guy is a good result. Germany along with the rest of the world is a lot better off today because the good guys decided to take out Hitler.

Cheers Mountain Sniper

Anyone can tell you that power vaccumes exist. Yes there may be a quite period after they are gone but an almost exact same type of power will re assert itself later on. First it was germany, next it was america. etc... etc... In afghanistan the russians were taken out of power so the taliban filled in that spot instead. Now they are gone, the americans and insurgents are both rivalling for that power. That is the downfall of the power hungry. They all want it.

[MountainSniper]

Hi Kirstycol,


Anyone can tell you that power vaccumes exist. .


On really, so that is why everyone in the Sandbox is shooting at each other. Thanks for the heads up so now I know to keep my head down.



Yes there may be a quite period after they are gone but an almost exact same type of power will re assert itself later on. First it was germany, next it was america. etc... etc...


Huh? Have you ever read anything about Nazi Germany? Believe me, the America of today is nothing like Nazi Germany and in fact Germany today is nothing like Nazi Germany.



In afghanistan the russians were taken out of power so the taliban filled in that spot instead.


No they didn’t, the fighting had been going on for years and years both before and after the Russians got involved. The Russians left and the communist Afghan government fell (1991) long before the long before the Taliban (1996) showed up.

There is a perception that the Taliban fought the Russians but this is wrong. The Afghan Mujahideen fought the Russians while the Taliban came out of Pakistan in the mid 90s (after the Russians were long gone).

However there were some former Mujahideen commanders that joined the Taliban when they come into Afghanistan from Pakistan since they were of the same ethnic group Pashtun. Most of the Mujahideen fighters were made up of Tajik, Uzbec and Hazaras which later formed the core of the Northern alliance.

The greatest Mujahideen leader was the Lion of Pansjir, Ahamd Shah Masood a non Pashtun and later the leader of the anti Taliban Northern alliance. He was assassinated just days before 9/11 by Al Quaida/Taliban.

Bottom line is it is not as simple as you are trying to portray.

Back to the topic of Smallville fear of the unknown or of a power vacuum etc should not be an excuse for apathy.

The fact is Lex Luther is a mass murderer and can beat the US justice system so someone has to man up and take him out.

The excuse that “there will be a power vacuum” is not a valid excuse for doing nothing.

Remember the above Edmund Burke quote: “All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.”

Cheers Mountain Sniper

[Kirstycol]

I never said it was an excuse for doing nothing. What i was trying to say is that maybe killing lex isn't the answer. Perhaps compassion may actually change lex, or not. Who knows. All I'm saying is, everyone is doing things the same way over and over again throughout the years and it hasn't made the world a better place. It's time to do things a different way. Since Clark is supposed to be the so called savior, perhaps it is because he does things a different way. With compassion. I mean when it comes right down to it if he has to kill lex he has to kill lex. But it's very short sighted to think that is the only answer. Especially without exploring other alternatives first.
LOL you know what... nevermind. It wouldn't matter if what I said made sense to you or not. You want to belive what you want to belive. So go right ahead. I am entitled to my opinion just as much as you are yours. I'm not going to argue about it anymore. I'm not some mindless atomaton that has to agree with everyone else. You seem to have a problem with everyone's opinons if they are not the same as yours. This is my opinon whether you like it or not. Just accept it. I'm done.

[ox007]

Clark/Superman doesn't kill! Period. Just like in many countries there is no such thing as death penalty, in Clark's mind there is no such thing either. And that's a good thing, because if he did kill people when things got tough, he would be a scary hero, people would know what he is capable of (killing) and would fear him. The situation might be of the kind in JL TAS, where people feared JL because it was so powerful, if they wanted, they could rule so some organization wanted them destroyed.

What's cool about Supes is that despite his all abilities, he doesn't play God like it was said, he doesn't push it too far. But frankly this subject is very philosophical and controversal, because we can assume that there can occur situations when taking away another life could be maybe, I said maybe, justified, for example, when a person's life is in danger and he does it in self-defence but he wasn't planning on killing in the first place.

[jimmyolsenblues]

clark doesn't kill people guilty or innocent....hence the nickname Boyscout.

[MountainSniper]

Hi Kirstycol,


I never said it was an excuse for doing nothing.

Oh I thought you said the following:


However at the same time even if he killed Lex there would be a power vacuum for someone else to take his place. So he may not really be helping anyone by killing lex

So if you don’t want to kill Lex because of the possibilities of a power vacuum then what is it exactly you want to do to stop Lex Luther as an alternative to killing him?

I would love to hear your plan because a lot of posters are uncomfortable with killing Lex but haven’t come up with an alternative plan to keep the bodies from stacking up.


What i was trying to say is that maybe killing lex isn't the answer.

Then what is your answer? On Smallville Clark doesn’t have any ideas and the American justice system can’t stop Lex so what is your plan?


Perhaps compassion may actually change lex, or not. Who knows.

Huh? Have you been watching the show?

Didn’t Clark try this for years i.e. giving Lex the benefit of the doubt? Lex even had Lana fall in love with him but instead of being honest with her shot her full of drugs, deceived and manipulated her and turned her love for him into hate.

I would say the fact is compassion hasn’t stopped Lex from committing evil acts so it’s time to go to plan B.


It wouldn't matter if what I said made sense to you or not.


You are jumping to conclusions because you have not presented your idea for stopping Lex Luther let alone one that makes sense. If you have an idea that makes sense not only I will agree with you but if practical I will start using it in real life in the land of bad things.


But it's very short sighted to think that is the only answer. Especially without exploring other alternatives first.

What are these alternatives of which you speak that will stop Lex Luther from killing/kidnapping/blackmailing/exploiting innocent people?


Cheers Mountain Sniper


Hi ox007,


Clark/Superman doesn't kill! Period. .

Maybe not in the comics but in Smallville he has killed sentient beings across the spectrum from meteor freaks to phantoms/aliens.

And when he hasn’t killed other people have done the killing for him like the Martian Manhunter and Lana Lang and even Lois helped him kill the ginzu knife meteor freak Trevor by shocking him while Clark fried him with heat vision.


Just like in many countries there is no such thing as death penalty, in Clark's mind there is no such thing either.

Not a relevant point. In my home country there isn’t any death penalty either. I would be perfectly happy if Lex Luther could be put away for life instead of being killed but as it has been shown on Smallville the Luthors can beat the Justice system at will so that is not an option.

Anyone given the choice ie an viable alternative to killing would be happy to take it but in the case of Lex Luther there is simply no practical alternative.

I think the reason you don’t see Superman killing more is simply because he has super powers.

I will try to explain my point with a real world analogy:

You are at a check point and there is a line up civilians; men, women and children and you notice the skinny young guy in a dishdash with a strange pear shape and that glassy eyed look that sends up the red flag of a mind that is already in paradise.

You have a few seconds to make a decision regarding lethal force and it usually ends up in tears and violence but it is better than a whole lot of dead civilians.

However if you are Superman you X-Ray the glassy eyed guy and see the 8 kilos of PE9 explosive attached to the 4 kilos of nails smeared with rat poison around his waist. You super speed over and tear off the belt with super strength and throw it into space. Then you take the bomber into custody and hand him over to the justice system that runs the trial and generally takes care of the bomber in the civilized way that also protects the public.

Now Superman trying to stop Lex Luther is in the same position as the soldier at a check point facing a bomber. The super powers and the justice system in Lex Luther’s case won’t stop him so Superman if he wishes to protect innocent civilians is forced to make the same decision that the above soldier faces.

Superman is not just killing randomly or without regard to the situation or as a tool to be used on a regular basis.

Lethal force is only used when there is no viable alternative and innocent lives are at risk and there is nothing wrong with that for anyone including Superman.

In such a situation Superman taking life is not the moral equivalent as Lex Luther taking life.

Cheers Mountain Sniper


Hi jimmyolsenblues,


clark doesn't kill people guilty or innocent....hence the nickname Boyscout.

Please see above explanation and analogy in response to Mr ox007’s comments.

BTW if Clark allows Lex to live and continue to continue to kill innocents at what point will there be enough bodies piled up that his nickname changes from Boyscout to apathetic big dumb alien?

Cheers Mountain Sniper

[adromidon]

I do not think that the writters were implicating Clark capable of murder just that at this point due to his lack of enthusiasm to embrace his powers that the only alternative would be murder. Kind of like saying hurry up and become superman allready

[Kirstycol]

Wow... you are an angry angry little man. You have way too much pent up rage to vent on this forum. I'm not going to waist my breath on you any more. You have your opinions. I have mine. End of Story.

[TheANIMAL (marcus)]

Well maybe if Clark ripped off Lex's ****ing legs, it would atleast slow him down, maybe if he partially blinded and partially deafend Lex that would work as well, harder to plot the worlds destruction from a wheelchair with bad eyesight and bad hearing.

Hey, you havent killed him have you?



Problem.


Solved.

[cole_jossart]

I find it disgusting what they're doing to Chloe... First of all, I hate Jimmy with a passion, always been a Chlark fan, and everything she's been doing lately has been out of character.

[ox007]

Besides all points, if Clark kills Lex now, he will never be in the future as Superman's greatest adversary, so it won't make sense anyway, Smallville would be too far off!

[All about Clark]

I find it disgusting what they're doing to Chloe... First of all, I hate Jimmy with a passion, always been a Chlark fan, and everything she's been doing lately has been out of character.

I really don't follow how Chloe has been out of character. She's still Clark's sidekick, helping him any way she can, she still has interest in the going's on at the DP, even though she was fired by Lex. She still heavily involved with investigative computer work. She still is concerned that Lex might destroy or take over the world. She still is trying to have a normal relationship with Jimmy because she knows she can't have Clark and that being his sidekick is her best way to be a part of Clark's life.

I really wish when someone says OOC they have something to back it up with.

[SteveS]

Hi Kirstycol,



Oh I thought you said the following:



So if you don’t want to kill Lex because of the possibilities of a power vacuum then what is it exactly you want to do to stop Lex Luther as an alternative to killing him?

I would love to hear your plan because a lot of posters are uncomfortable with killing Lex but haven’t come up with an alternative plan to keep the bodies from stacking up.



Then what is your answer? On Smallville Clark doesn’t have any ideas and the American justice system can’t stop Lex so what is your plan?



Huh? Have you been watching the show?

Didn’t Clark try this for years i.e. giving Lex the benefit of the doubt? Lex even had Lana fall in love with him but instead of being honest with her shot her full of drugs, deceived and manipulated her and turned her love for him into hate.

I would say the fact is compassion hasn’t stopped Lex from committing evil acts so it’s time to go to plan B.



You are jumping to conclusions because you have not presented your idea for stopping Lex Luther let alone one that makes sense. If you have an idea that makes sense not only I will agree with you but if practical I will start using it in real life in the land of bad things.



What are these alternatives of which you speak that will stop Lex Luther from killing/kidnapping/blackmailing/exploiting innocent people?


Cheers Mountain Sniper


Hi ox007,



Maybe not in the comics but in Smallville he has killed sentient beings across the spectrum from meteor freaks to phantoms/aliens.

And when he hasn’t killed other people have done the killing for him like the Martian Manhunter and Lana Lang and even Lois helped him kill the ginzu knife meteor freak Trevor by shocking him while Clark fried him with heat vision.



Not a relevant point. In my home country there isn’t any death penalty either. I would be perfectly happy if Lex Luther could be put away for life instead of being killed but as it has been shown on Smallville the Luthors can beat the Justice system at will so that is not an option.

Anyone given the choice ie an viable alternative to killing would be happy to take it but in the case of Lex Luther there is simply no practical alternative.

I think the reason you don’t see Superman killing more is simply because he has super powers.

I will try to explain my point with a real world analogy:

You are at a check point and there is a line up civilians; men, women and children and you notice the skinny young guy in a dishdash with a strange pear shape and that glassy eyed look that sends up the red flag of a mind that is already in paradise.

You have a few seconds to make a decision regarding lethal force and it usually ends up in tears and violence but it is better than a whole lot of dead civilians.

However if you are Superman you X-Ray the glassy eyed guy and see the 8 kilos of PE9 explosive attached to the 4 kilos of nails smeared with rat poison around his waist. You super speed over and tear off the belt with super strength and throw it into space. Then you take the bomber into custody and hand him over to the justice system that runs the trial and generally takes care of the bomber in the civilized way that also protects the public.

Now Superman trying to stop Lex Luther is in the same position as the soldier at a check point facing a bomber. The super powers and the justice system in Lex Luther’s case won’t stop him so Superman if he wishes to protect innocent civilians is forced to make the same decision that the above soldier faces.

Superman is not just killing randomly or without regard to the situation or as a tool to be used on a regular basis.

Lethal force is only used when there is no viable alternative and innocent lives are at risk and there is nothing wrong with that for anyone including Superman.

In such a situation Superman taking life is not the moral equivalent as Lex Luther taking life.

Cheers Mountain Sniper


Hi jimmyolsenblues,



Please see above explanation and analogy in response to Mr ox007’s comments.

BTW if Clark allows Lex to live and continue to continue to kill innocents at what point will there be enough bodies piled up that his nickname changes from Boyscout to apathetic big dumb alien?

Cheers Mountain Sniper


Well done, a dose of reality that someone couldn't deal with, hence the 'angry little man' comment? I guess the latter was done with 'compassion'.

[kp1984]

I got one. Put Lex in the Phantom Zone. Problem sloved

[adromidon]

Nah the Phantom Zone is to good for Lex he needs to be taken into space by SUperman and then film him imploding from the vacum of space

[9-SOSIHTWB]

Clark really should have killed Lex!!!