That was Superman's point.
Superman is the most powerful person on the planet, but he's responsible and doesn't make himself into the law. He doesn't go around deciding what's right. He stops others from imposing their will upon people weaker than them, whether they take the form of just a rampaging asshole killing indiscriminately or people who want to work towards the greater good like the Elite.
Superman shows the Elite in the story that someone with a huge amount of power who decides what the law should be is really fucking scary.
I do think the story is a little strawman-y but the more times I read it the more clearly I see what Superman was intending to convey.>>91661241>I think there's room for stories about both types
Yeah. What Kelly was likely frustrated with at the time was that the sheer popularity of the Authority, Punisher, Spawn, etc. was making a lot of people call characters like Superman outdated for their no-kill policy.
So what I think the intent was with this was less to say "heroes who kill are bad" and more about trying to convey that Superman still absolutely has a place and a valid philosophy in the modern age, but didn't quite get that across. Maybe it would have been more fair if it was more than one issue.
We were having this discussion in the Wonder Woman thread yesterday; Wondie, Superman and Batman don't need to have their values change, because there are other characters that are made specifically to explore the more cynical (for lack of a better word) or maybe pragmatic values, namely most of the WildStorm imprint.