*Spoilers for Marvel's Daredevil below*

As is likely obvious from anything I've written, I really, really, very much so like superheroes. A lot. One of the many, many reasons as that superhero stories allow for debates about complex social and philosophical issues. One of the most compelling of those issues, to me, is the nature of killing - more specifically, examining superheroes who do kill and those who don't and why they do or don't. The most recent example of this debates comes to us in the newest season of Marvel's Daredevil (yes, I know it came out in March and it's nowSeptember but I'm just not getting to it and shut up).

The show is centered around Matt Murdock, who was blinded as a young boy in a chemical accident but gains superpowers based around his other four senses along with a sort of super-radar (if there is to ever be a lesson about superhero stories, it's this: Never come into contact with chemicals ever) and uses his abilities to fight crime as a vigilante named Daredevil. The second season of the series, now streaming in its entirety on Netflix, features Daredevil encountering a new vigilante called the Punisher. Born Frank Castle, the Punisher is a military veteran (Vietnam in the comics, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan in the show) who launches a lethal one-man assault against organized crime in the Hell's Kitchen neighborhood of New York after his wife and two children are slaughtered in a gang-related incident. In the series, the two butt heads ideologically – Daredevil sees the Punisher’s actions, even if those who are killed are criminals, to be deplorable, probably placing the Punisher in that basket of deplorables, which I think is next to Romney’s binders full of women – before butting heads literally. After a particularly brutal fight, the Punisher chains Daredevil to a chimney as the two wax philosophical about their different approaches. Though they bond – more like, yell – over their shared Catholicism (aside: Daredevil’s religion is one of my favorite aspects of the character, along with being something that separates him from every other superhero because no one else really grapples with it), no one really comes out of it as “right” – the Punisher insists he kills people who “need killing” and that what he does is more effective because he “hit[s] them and they stay down”, whereas Daredevil insists “People don’t have to be” because “it’s not [his] call. And it ain’t [the Punisher’s] either” and that criminals “deserve another chance . . . to try again”.

Now, this is some pretty heavy stuff, especially for a TV show about a blind guy who wears red underwear armor with horns (because, like, he’s the Devil of Hell’s Kitchen, yeah?). I’m so conflicted about this argument; on one hand, the Punisher clearly gets results in that the streets of Hell’s Kitchen are ostensibly safer because of his actions, but Daredevil’s moralistic pleading and thoughts of second chances appeal to my better angels. The Punisher more efficiently purges Hell’s Kitchen of crime but does so completely outside of the system, effectively being judge, jury, and executioner and evincing the system to be useless, whereas Daredevil works to catch criminals in the act and leave them for the police and justice system to handle, effectively proving to citizens hat the system can still work but sometimes needs a kick in the face. The Punisher is the more pragmatic, short-term choice with Daredevil being the more idealistic, long-term choice. Frankly, I see the merits of both sides, but I think I have to choose Daredevil’s ideology because I’m a sucker for idealism. However, I don’t see this as a matter of better-than and worse-than, and neither does the show – while Daredevil and the Punisher clearly do not like each other, they do come to an understanding, with Daredevil’s alter ego, a lawyer by day, volunteering to defend the Punisher at his trial (I don’t know the verdict because I’ve not yet finished the season, but I’m assuming it won’t be good). Point is: I don’t know who’s right. I have a preference, yeah, but I don’t know who’s right or if there even is a “right.” I just think this discussion is one worth having, and I’m glad it’s being had, even if it is being had in between fisticuffs.