The Executioner: Part 11

“Are you crazy? Don’t you see a difference between killing a guy because he’s trying to kill you, and killing him when he’s practically dead?”

Sean reddened.

“He was a killer, and I stopped him. You weren’t going to. I did what had to be done. What were you going to do, hand him over to the cops? He’d only escape again.”

“I don’t know what I was going to do. All I know is that you didn’t kill him because you think the system doesn’t work. You were going for revenge.”

“Yeah, well. I don’t see why you weren’t. He was holding a gun to your mom’s head.  If you cared what happened to her–”

I clenched my fists, and stepped toward him.

I don’t know what I planned to do next, but it was probably for the best that I didn’t. For one thing, we’d have been fighting near the downed power line Ray broke.

For another, Sean didn’t have any powers that stopped physical damage that I knew about, and the stealth suit didn’t use any metal that was easily affected by a magnetic field.

In short, I could have really hurt him, and the only thing that stopped me from trying was hearing a crash behind me, followed by more crashes, and a screeching of metal that only grew closer.

I turned around, discovering that the truck Sean had hit Gina with was tumbling down the road toward the two of us.

Well, the two of us plus Ray’s body.

In some universe, Sean knocked the truck out of the way, and between the two of us, we defeated Gina together, laying the groundwork for mutual respect and future friendship.

In my actual universe, a universe that doesn’t work like a Disney movie, I didn’t even have time to jump out of the way before the question of how to avoid the truck became irrelevant.

A brown and purple blur passed me. I felt the wind. Instants later (I didn’t see how it happened), the truck turned, rolling off the road, and hitting a tree.

Only then did Jaclyn slow down enough that I could see her. She stopped in front of Gina, who stood in the middle of the road a couple hundred feet away from us.

I didn’t hear what they said, but I saw Gina throw a punch. Jaclyn dodged it easily, and punched her, knocking Gina backwards.

Then Jaclyn blurred again, moving fast enough to get behind Gina before she fell into the street, hitting her hard enough to knock her back in the other direction.

It went on like that.

By the time they were done, Gina lay on the road, unmoving, and Jaclyn stood next to her, clearly ready to continue if she had to.

“I’m glad that’s over,” Rachel said.

She had floated down to us during the fight.

I turned my head toward her. “Is it over?”

“Completely,” she said. “Once you got away, Gunter told Haley to smash through the floor next to the circle. It didn’t take much to take out the rest of them.  And everyone else took out the mechs Syndicate L sent, and they’re on their way here. That’s why Jaclyn came. Now all we have to look out for are the cops and the press.”

“What about Mom?”

“Shaken up, but unhurt.”

“What about…”

“Her powers? The block?”


“I don’t think she’s got much for powers. It took a lot of effort just to make her hands and feet intangible. The block’s gone though. All of it.”

I thought about that for a moment. “Wow.”

“I know.”

Half-forgotten, Sean’s voice surprised me. “You guys had your telepath mess with your mom’s head? That’s messed up. I thought it was sick when he went into my head, but that’s beyond sick.”

Rachel said, “Shut up, Sean. You don’t know what you’re talking about.”

He opened his mouth to say something, but then he stopped. I assumed he’d just remembered my grandma’s reputation.

Rachel’s eyes drifted toward the “Deer Crossing” sign sticking out of Ray’s chest.

“Were you making some kind of joke with that sign? If you were, it’s not that funny. You know what would have been better,” she said. “Dead end.”

33 thoughts on “The Executioner: Part 11”

  1. Emote Control: I’m pretty sure it says, “The Block’s gone though.” “Though” and “through” are so close that it would be easy to miss.

    That argues that “though” may be a poor word choice on my part.

    Actually, I ought to try to use though, through, and thought in the same sentence and see how many people make it through with my intended meaning intact.

    Belial666: Her thoughts might be a little more complex than that.

    Quambro: Thanks. It amused me.

  2. Awesome chapter, I love the thought of Jaclyn knocking Gina around like one of those self-righting clowns, except of course, she is causing the return action on both sides. Genius, in that it is both comical, and yet the sort of hard action needed to put Gina out of the picture.

    1. This is late but I would also like to point out that that most of the heavy hitters were busy dealing with an attempted alien invasion which kept them from keeping watch on the trial and from going after Ray and his group because they had to save the world.

  3. I still stick with my original assessment. This was a killer who made it a habit to attack the unsuspecting and the helpless, was strong enough to kill a normal man with a flick of his wrist, and who had just eaten enough raw voltage to kill a platoon and was not only still alive but starting to heal. Letting him live another second was just sentencing another innocent person to death. No Joker Immunity here, thank you very much.

    And if the one who killed him got some satisfaction out of it, well since when is it evil to be gratified by killing an evil thing? It’s not only human, it’s only sane.

    1. I’ve got to admit that I find it a complicated situation.

      On the one hand, as I’ve got Ray set up, I can’t imagine he’d stay in any prison very long. Either he’d get out or someone who needed his skills would get him out. And then he’d just start killing people again–probably. I don’t see him as someone who’s likely to reform any time soon.

      On the other hand, I’m not especially wild about living in a society which allows individuals to act as judge, jury, and executioner. The idea that people can defend themselves doesn’t bother me, but there’s a thin line between someone killing because the justice system has a hole, and someone killing because they perceive a hole that isn’t there.

      I’m much more enthusiastic about a system of law that represents the people’s wishes for how things should be handled, however imperfectly.

      That being said, there are always holes in any system, and sometimes working within it won’t work well.

      For stories, I think that’s where things get interesting. You can get a lot of conflict out of it. In life, I hope for as few holes as possible.

      WA_side: Thanks. It amused me too. Jaclyn’s got a lot of power, and it’s seldom that there’s a good reason to show her using it.

  4. I’m with RHJunior – I’m baffled by stories in which it takes the hero getting half the crap kicked out of him/her, the deaths of a bunch of people, and property damage that will cause a small recession…all this before the bad guy is finally defeated.

    And people think that someone that did all that can be handled by dropping him off at the local precinct??? Get real.

    And then they act shocked when the same bad guy bowls over the woefully underprepared cops or simply buys off the courts and then starts a new rampage.

    RH is right, how many lives would be saved if you simply SHOT the bastard?

  5. Here’s my take:

    Ray was down. Nick did what he had to in order to win the fight against an extremely dangerous opponent — he used an appropriate amount of force to win in a volatile situation against a skilled adversary. That’s honourable combat.

    Likewise Gunther/Lee against Prime, sword to sword as immortals — it ended with a decapation because centuries show Prime wasn’t going to turn nice. Honourable combat.

    Sean came in after a fight when the opponent was vulnerable and down, and instead of incarcerating him (which this culture must have some experience with, given the prevalence of Boxes, super teams and villains) Sean put a metal pole through his chest with the intention of killing him. It wasn’t combat.

    By all definitions, that’s murder. It wasn’t a case of two equal opponents facing off, it wasn’t a case of defending oneself against a dangerous perpetrator, it was a case of one person taking sole action to end a human life when there were alternatives. It wasn’t forced on him.

    The death penalty in a democratic society occurs after a trial by one’s peers, with much deliberation and the chance to present a case and defend oneself. It gets decided by society, laws, and the judicial system. Not by one teenager with a grudge, no matter how powerful they are. Sean might have had lots of good reasons to “eliminate evil” — but killing someone who can’t defend themselves is cowardly and just as evil. He wasn’t acting out of pure motives, either.

  6. Police have guns because they have to defend themselves and society against violent, armed offenders. If gunfire is exchanged, sometimes it makes sense that a police officer kill a perpetrator — because of imminent danger to themselves and others, in self-defense and defense of society. But if a cop wounds an opponent, they don’t then get to walk up to a defenseless unarmed wounded man and shoot them in the chest.

    Sean isn’t a cop, he doesn’t work for the government, he hasn’t been empowered by society to enforce justice — and he wasn’t defending himself. I seriously think there need to be story consequences for his actions, and a rare opportunity for the Legion to think about it’s philosopy and what it means to be a hero.

    Yes, the world would be a safer place if Batman would just shoot the Joker, or if Superman dropped Lex Luthor off a cliff. But those guys are heroes because they respect human life and society’s laws. Villains facing them only get killed during fair battles, when there’s no other choice. I think of Superman’s “final” story by Alan Moore in the 80s, where he killed a demonic Mr. Mxyzptlk because there was no other way to deal with a godlike villain out to kill everyone. Superman immediately exposed himself to gold kryptonite and took away his powers. He took the possibility to turn himself into a killing vigilante, or an all-powerful despot, away — because once you start killing opponents, where do you stop?

  7. There are situations wherein fatal violence _can_ be an instrument of justice, and in the real world, someone who demonstrates immunity to our system and continues to kill in spite of it might call for such a response. I don’t see how this situation was clearly _that_ sort of situation; there’s a lot of information Sean and Nick don’t know (for instance, wouldn’t the government respond differently to a repeat escapee? Now that Ray has powers, wouldn’t he be considered even higher priority?). I could even understand (if not condone) if Nick made a pragmatic decision to kill Ray on account of previous failures to contain him (and fear over the threat he posed to his family), but that isn’t what happened here.

    To me, one of the most important pieces of the superhero myth is their reluctance (or straight-out refusal) to kill. I’m not opposed to narratives wherein superheroes kill people out of necessity (depending on the setting, if you’re trying to kill me, fatal violence might be my _only_ recourse), but I find narratives where vengeance and killing is glorified to be boorish (see: “dark” 90s comic books). Not to imply that a narrative where killing Ray was described as the right thing to do would have been just that, but I think it would have been a step in that direction. Having Sean kill Ray in a fit of vengeful anger and rage (and having previously established Sean as someone who “just doesn’t get” superhero-ing) was, to me, the totally right call.

  8. (First line of next chapter) “Maybe then you would have succeeded” Gunther said as he pulled out his sword and sliced Ray’s head off.

    OK, so it’s probably not, but I’m still not sure I trust that he’s dead.

  9. Death penalty is never a simple thing. Killing an unrepentant serial killer may save lives, but does that change the fact you just killed someone, and thus defined yourself as the kind of person who kills people? Is Dexter (from Dexter) a good person? Are war veterans murderers?

    Depending on which school of moral philosophy you buy into, the reason you kill may matter or not. Either way, I’m pretty sure a normal person won’t be the same afterwards.

  10. I don’t see how anyone could call a war veteran a “murderer” unless they actually committed a murder. In war you’re facing off against armed combatants who have every intention of killing you if you don’t kill them. Murder is an unlawful killing with malice aforethought — it’s intentional. Killing civilians, the wounded, or prisoners would be war crimes and murder — because you’re attacking the vulnerable, not combatants.

    Now, whether war is “just” is a whole different debate. But I don’t equate Sean with a war veteran — Nick’s actions are more along those lines than Sean’s. I think Sean’s actions were criminal here.

  11. Different ethical systems would present different views on the subject.

    Utilitarianism would support Sean’s decision as it was ultimately the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In terms of Utilitarianism, Ray was a physical threat to society, often killing others. Since it is likely that no matter what he would probably find a way to kill someone again or cost society quite a lot of money to restrain, killing him could be justified. Unfortunately, if this becomes part of a greater trend where criminals are killed on sight by superheros, it may have been for the worst for the greatest number of people.

    Care ethics would also support the death of Ray, I feel. Since care ethics centers on an individual trying to best conform to the caring individual they wish to be, it does not treat everyone equally. Ray killed someone Sean cared about, and is the kind of guy to go back and try on the rest of Sean’s family. For those he cared for, Sean killed him. There is also the complication though, that since his act is illegal, his going to jail for murder could severely hinder his ability to act as a caring individual.

    Then we come to Kant’s system of deontological ethics. Oh boy. For an action to be good, it must be good for everyone to do without qualification. So this action isn’t “I will kill super-hitmen that society can not contain,” it is “I will kill criminals.” which isn’t all that good in our society. Given the revenge, it is much worse. Under Kant’s way of thinking, an action must be universal. It can be good if everyone can do it without causing a problem, but if expanded so that everyone does it and causing bad things, it can’t be good. Therefore, something like “I will kill criminals” or “I will kill for revenge” is MUCH worse. Laws change, and people who are criminals are not always immoral. Sean can’t just kill every potsmoker he runs into, nor should he kill protestors if he moves to Libya. And if everyone killed for revenge, it’d be the Hatfields versus the McCoys versus the Johnson versus the Joneses versus the Gates versus the Buffetts…

    I can’t remember enough about virtue ethics to really chime in on this, and there are other deontological systems that may disagree with this. Not to mention there could be different interpretations of Utilitarianism and Care ethics others could apply, but I think I did a mostly fair job of covering a few ethical thoughts on the subject.

  12. All these discussions about what Sean did take place from the safe and comfortable place of our keyboards.

    But how many times have we watched the news and heard of some child found murdered by a child molester who was arrested for child molestation three times before??

    How many women have been found with their heads caved in by the same boyfriend/husband who’d been reported to the police a dozen times before??

    How many times do you watch another news report about pirates off Somalia or Mexican drug lords kidnap someone and hold their very lives by a thread??

    GOD knows, I don’t want a world in which we start blowing each others heads off without even the slightest of restraint. That’s called carnage.

    But, I think there’s a part of us that resents how vilde degenerates can hurt innocent people over and over and over again before it finally becomes intolerable enough for “justice to be served”.

    Sometimes, deep down, we want a Vic Mackey or a Jack Bauer who says “Screw this” and serves justice on the spot. Allowing the rest of us to sleep peacefully; not wondering if the bad guys will come for us while we wait on justice to take its time.

  13. Jack Bauer acts as an empowered agent of the federal government, and he shoots at people who are shooting back. He doesn’t shoot wounded men lying on the ground who are no longer combatants.

    Under any ethical, philosophical or legal system, that’s murder. Nick fighting Ray was a case of combat, two powerful individuals going toe-to-toe. Nick was motivated by justice, and defense of himself and his family, and if Ray had tied in those power lines, it would be justice. Sean speared a wounded man lying on the ground with a metal pole — that’s not combat, and it’s not self-defense. He can argue he saved countless lives — but there was no longer an imminent threat and that’s what the rule of law requires for self-defense. The aggressor had been incapacitated, the fight was over.

    There’s a difference between a warrior and a murderer, and Sean crossed that liine. Jack Bauer, the Punisher, the Boondock Saints, these “heroic” killers are usually waging war on dangerous opponents who have every intent to kill. So they die in combat. But Ray was no longer in combat.

  14. All excellent points G.S. But honestly, is there anybody here who truly believed that Ray was out for the count?? The last time we saw these guys, Solar Flare had torched one of them (was it Gina or Ray?) with hot plasma. The ordinary person would’ve reconsidered their life and actions at that point.

    These people promptly escaped from maximum security and picked up where they left off.

    Also, consider the type of “combatant” the Executioner is. They specifically target the weak and the innocent. They specifically go for the families of their targets. They’re not like the Grey Giant or even Syndicate L; those guys get locked up and stay there more or less; or you can plea bargain them into giving up info or even working for the good guys (some former villain was on a talk show in a previous serial). These guys…are terrorists in the most distilled essence of the word.

    I look at them like the Borg or the Terminators, they are beyond reason, beyond reform, beyond negotiating. And the are NEVER down and out. They are never NOT a threat.

    Sean is a douchebag without question, but I can’t shed many tears over a guy who would’ve masscred all of Grand Lake and half of Michigan given the chance.

  15. @Bill
    The disagreement here is less over ends than means. Yes, Ray deserved to die. I think we can all agree that he was murderous scum, and needed to be ended.

    The point GS seems to be making is that one angry, vengeful, shortsighted child, who by a fluke of genetics and a little chemstry happens to have super powers, shouldn’t make that decision on his own.

    Just because his decision lined up with the general consensus this time doesn’t mean he has the right to be judge, jury and executioner. Motive is the difference between Murder and Manslaughter. Consider his before you give him a by.

  16. G.S. Williams, I suppose you stopped watching the Boondock Saints before that scene where they have a guy on his knees and recitate their trademark prayer before shooting the defenseless guy in the head? Just saying since they were one of your examples.

  17. I think maybe everyone might be focusing on only part of the story here, or more importantly, one possibility in the story.

    Sean has, through what is essentially random chance, power. Power enough to stop Ray, which he did. The problem is not that he used his power to stop Ray, it’s how he used it. Sean chose, quite literally, the “brute force” approach to problem solving. But Sean has quite a bit of power, not to mention an influential family and a small measure of wealth — and quite probably a half-decent brain, regardless of how thoughtful he seems to have actually been so far. Since Ray was down for at least a few minutes, if Sean hadn’t been following the reptilian portion of his brain, acting in anger as a scared teenager with a not-fully-formed brain and a crapload of unfamiliar hormones racing through his veins, he could have used his temporary advantage and his significant to incapacitate Ray in any number of ways, such as encasing him in steel. Going forward, Sean could have assured the safety of his family by dedicating his life to making sure that Ray stayed locked up, until such time as he died of natural causes or the justice system decided he should be put to death.

    While Sean would have us think otherwise, it’s all about choices, and Sean had quite a few. What he chose was the simplest, most direct, and least thoughtful path. American society, as defined by its governing laws, pegs that choice as leading to an illegal action. Thus he was wrong.

    Sadly, all of this is complicated by the fact that Sean is a teenager. I’m not going into the specifics of biochemisty and brain development here, but suffice it to say that there’s a reason why people aren’t allowed to vote until they turn 19, and can’t be elected president until at least 30 years old.


  18. Thank you Luke, that was a good summary. I don’t weep for Ray, I just think Sean made a criminal choice.

    @Mazzon — I watched Boondock Saints and liked it a lot — and then I watched the much crummier sequel. I was trying to think of examples of vigilante “heroes” across different media (TV, comics and movies) so that different people would know what I meant even if one was unfamiliar. The Saints are technically criminals in that movie, because they aren’t sanctioned by democratic government institutions — they aren’t police or military.

    Do I cheer when they take out a bad guy? Of course, it’s viscerally satisfying. But I also recognize that it’s a criminal act, and if I was Superman I would bring them in to stand trial. My general point was that Jack Bauer kills terrorists because they’re imminent threats and he’s been empowered by the government, in turn empowered by democracy and society through voting. Sean wasn’t. The Punisher and the Boondock Saints kill combatants, not the vulnerable.

    The Boondock Saints and the Punisher are separate cases from Jack Bauer, but I brought them up as well known vigilantes. The Punisher doesn’t go around shooting shoplifters, so far as I know — he fights killers, and so do the Boondock boys. However, the Punisher’s actions are likewise criminal, and that’s why sometimes he gets into conflict with other heroes.

    However, the Saints and the Punisher can certainly make a better self-reflective argument than Sean regarding their actions. The Punisher is ex-military and saw his family killed by criminals — and set out to wage a more effective war on crime than he saw society doing. He’s targeting killers who the law can’t reach as effectively — it’s not entirely personal. The Saints felt they were chosen by God to mete out divine justice, eliminating sinners with a law above humanity’s. Those “justifications” might be self-serving, but they’re also consistent with their observations of the world and how it functions — they take their missions seriously and aren’t going around killing anyone but killers.

    Sean isn’t that self-reflective. He’s a teen who had more power than responsibility and used it on a vulnerable person because he was angry. I was thinking of the Punisher and the Saints primarily because they kill in combat, but you’re right, sometimes the Saints killed unarmed criminals. I personally find killing an unarmed combatant distasteful and dishonourable — but any killing vigilante is technically a criminal.

  19. (As an aside, I just wanted to be really clear about this — none of my comments above are in any way meant to be negative about this story. I think this was a great chapter, and what happened makes perfect sense for Sean’s character and Nick’s. Jim’s writing and characterization here was superb.)

    (I’m mostly just commenting on the contrast between heroic characters like Nick who do what they have to when there’s no other choice, as warriors in combat, and vigilantes who kill when there are alternatives — Sean’s actions meet criminal definitions. Right and wrong are different than legal or illegal, but that’s a different topic.)

    (This instance reminds me of when Joker killed Lois Lane in Kingdom Come and Magog killed the Joker while he was in police custody — so Superman arrested him for murder even though he could have wanted revenge himself. He stood up for the law.)

  20. I didn’t think you were criticizing the story. I’d have been worried about that if people started to point out inconsistencies in how the characters acted versus how they’ve acted in the past.

    Instead people are working with the same basic assumptions about the characters’ personalities that I’m working with. So that’s okay. I’m happy.

    As for Kingdom Come: I recently bought the graphic novel, and recognized some similar themes in what I’m doing. Not entirely, mind you, but I can say that there will probably be a few more events that remind you of Kingdom Come coming up. Not a lot, but a few.

  21. Actually, Bill, your points about the Borg and the Terminators are not valid.

    The Borg are capable of reform. This was shown in one episode when they captured a Borg child, nicknamed him “Hugh Mann” and wanted to send him back with a virus that would wipe out the Borg. This became problematic when he began to become independent in his time away from the Borg. They couldn’t stand to do that, so in the end, he was returned to the Borg and his independence was supposedly ended when he was reintegrated. Except it didn’t and thanks to the Borg’s communal nature, there was a group of Borg that regained their individuality and emotions. Their ultimate fate is unknown, however.

    There’s also Seven of Nine and Picard himself, who do just fine when given the chance.

    For Terminators, you have Terminator 2, Terminator 3, Terminator Salvation, and the Sarah Connor Chronicles.

    Terminator 2: the terminator learns that for the good of humanity, he must be destroyed. Plus, we learn terminators can be captured and reprogrammed to not be unstoppable killing machines towards humans. In fact, they can fire a minigun into a crowd of cops with no casualties.

    Terminator 3, same point as the reprogramming, plus the terminator resisted a more advanced terminator’s hack to protect John Connor, and lied to keep him safe.

    Salvation, the main character is a kind of special terminator who chooses to save John Connor and even give him his organic heart, dying so he can live.

    Chronicles, a liquid-metal terminator learns to care for the daughter of the woman she replaced and is back in time doing all this to fight Skynet, even making sure to have the AI she creates for that purpose taught morality.

  22. Kingdom Come is really fantastic; one of my favorite comic books dealing with the morality of superheroes (well, okay, Watchmen beats it, but Kingdom Come is still really wonderful, particularly because it manages to draw a positive, uplifting message from so much grimness). I could go on hours and hours about the interplay between its theme and the contrastingly pro-fascism message in Frank Miller’s “The Dark Knight Returns” (for which there is absolutely no sequel, and anyone who says differently needs to SHUT THEIR LYING LIAR’S MOUTH), but I’ll spare you the heaps upon heaps of ruminations.

    Plus, Kingdom Come has my favorite Batman/Superman/Wonderwoman scene /ever/. At the end, when they order their food in the restaurant.



    “Coffee. And keep it coming.”

  23. Robert: I liked that scene a lot too. The bit where Batman finds it impossible to send back his (not well done) steak amused me.

  24. Wow, all of this and no one’s talking legal troubles with Sean?

    I actually prefer it to not be the government, if someone has to act outside the law. That sets a REALLY dangerous precedent. If someone acts outside the law and is not the government, the government can rein them in.

  25. In one sense, I don’t have much to add here. But I’m going to talk outside the story for a moment. I’m usually pretty good at predicting where a plot is going. I mean, I hardly see every twist by every author, but while a bunch do catch me off guard (even here, the bit with Nick’s mom), it’s not often that I’m forced to stop and go “wow, THAT I should have seen coming”. This arc managed that.

    I knew Ray had to die. He was too powered, too dangerous, and worse, he’d steal the spotlight away from any future villain (like he did with Prime, kinda). I also knew Nick couldn’t kill him on purpose. It would change his character too much (bringing to mind how Rachel got shaken up when she pulled that trigger last arc). This left Lee (kudos on Ray doing his research btw), an accident, or something I couldn’t account for (Gina, maybe).

    Sean. I totally should have accounted for him. Narrative genius, Jim. He really is Nick’s counterpoint. Putting his name out in the open, whereas Nick keeps his identity secret. Charging in, whereas Nick analyzes. Believing he knows everything, whereas Nick is constantly questioning. In retrospect, Sean not only killing Ray, but doing it IN THIS WAY (as other comments have said) manages to RAISE THE STAKES (for me) even as you kill off the “Big Bad”! And I was blindsided, still seeing him as the interfering pest he’s been in their other fights.

    Jim, I don’t know when you decided it would be Sean with the killing blow, whether spur of the moment or back before Nick headed for the cabin, but that’s a brilliant hook going forwards. In the end, you really can’t fault Sean or Nick.

    Oh, except Sean (“He opened his mouth to say something, but then he stopped”) did come close to forgetting Rule #1: Do. Not. Mess. With. Rachel.

    1. I don’t remember when I decided Sean would kill Ray, but it was well before he did. Sometimes I come up with things like that in the moment. Other times, I’ve been aiming for a particular event for a long time. If I remember correctly, Ray’s death at Sean’s hands is one of the latter.

  26. I know I am years behind on commenting on this one. I read past it my first time and looked to see how it was resolved in universe. All that said. This does make sense from a writing perspective. Except, that Ray and Gina caused it. There is no explanation as to why they not only let Sean live. But helped mend him a bit.
    How dangerous was Ray? Those before me posted to his skill and ability to get out. But the critical piece missed is he still literally knows who the heroes are. Who their families and friends are. And is fully capable of killing them himself. Or selling the information so it would be open season on the new Heroes League. The only outcome that let’s them live civilian lives is Ray and Gina dying.

    As to a few of the comments of heroes must adhere to what the public wants. Someone called Batman out on not killing the Joker and thus letting the Joker kill again and again. Why is it Batman’s responsibility to end him? Why won’t the people and the state? Could it be because it is easier to have blood on someone else’s hands?
    Sean got his closure by killing Ray. The only thing cleaner than this would be him hurting Daniel’s family and Daniel wiping the man all the way back to a toddler.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *