#the laws and regulations of hero society are too vauge and its annoying

[bibibbon]

One thing that makes me laugh about Hori's world building is the question are heroes allowed to kill, since Hori is a coward who can't decide, it disrupts the world building to an absurd degree. If Izuku had aimed to kill Tomura from the start, then Hori's narrative would have rewarded him. Izuku would still have OFA, possibly Ochako as his girlfriend and applauded as a great hero. The standard hero ending. But Izuku tries to save Tomura and fails miserably and is forgotten by his friends and the public. What is Hori trying to tell us? Kill then ask questions later? Based on the story Izuku should have taken Gran Torino's advice, he would be sad in the short term but he would have been happier and forgotten about the LOV.

Hi @agentterios 👋

MHA'S whole narrative messaging around the subject of "are heroes allowed to kill?" Is presented in an incredibly confusing and unsatisfactory manner.

Horikoshi doesn't directly address the question however, he does indirectly address it by introducing a variety of elements to his story surrounding the question itself.

You have things like:

The development of nomu intelligence. By the nomu's developing basic human intelligence this makes it so that the line between being human and a nomu so incredibly slim that if well developed this plot point could of been tied to heteamorphis discrimation with a side of people taking the route of one has to look human and another side pointing out that humans don't have a specific look in mha. There could also be more development with endings point of the only difference between nomu's and humans is that one is a puppet. This would make civilians question societies expectations for what a human is and would the heroes kill them next because they are comfortable with killing nomu's who are almost like them

Hawks and twice. I have talked about hawks and twice a numerous amount of times but my point still stands hawks could of saved twice instead of killing him. Yes, hawks did try in the beginning of the fight and his mission to semi try and save twice as his intention was to never kill him until dabi intervened and hawks lost it reverting to what the hpsc taught him and taking out the danger infront of him. Now, hawks should of had more introspection on this decision realising that he could of saved twice yet didn't and couldn't because he viewed himself not to be fast or capable enough to stop twice and chose to revert to instincts and the hpsc teachings of killing to dispose of the threat. Hawks could easily link his experiences and give advice to izuku about shigaraki. Hawks also needed more public consequences about killing twice because why the hell is the public more concerned about hawk's villain father then the fact that he killed a man? Was this to show where societies priorities are at? How messed up they are? And if it was why wasn't this brought back up?

Lady nagant. We needed more of lady nagant in general. The way she was used and created to be a killing machine. The way she only killed those who didn't fit the status quo even izuku's own reaction to her killing needs to be studied. The way izuku didn't have much of a reaction to her killing people but he had a huge reaction to finding out that she specifically killed the previous minister of the hpsc makes me think that hero society has a huge belief thay certain lives are much more important than others and that ranking is never fully explained but it seems like the outcasts of society like twice and the people lady nagant killed aren't important and wouldn't evoke a huge reaction to people because they don't care for them and hero society has infulenced that belief.

Izuku and shigaraki . This is the biggest element in the story and the most underdeveloped in my opinion. Why does izuku want to save shigaraki? Why does shigaraki only want destruction? Everyone encouraged izuku to kill shigaraki and believed that his death would be the only way to stop everything and in a way they were right. Shigaraki had to die for this to be over and it just seemed so badly done. Izuku gets labeled as a murder but also praised (barely) for his actions. Its so weird, how am I supposed to expect that society is going to rebuild itself to a better version when it ended in the most repetitive and toxic way by killing and upholding the status quo.

Endeavour and his aggressiveness. Enji has multiple records of flipping attempted murder whether that be him viewing vigilantes and villains as objects to be easily killed like nomu's or the fact that he cannocially has many reports of property damages.

Dabi's fate. My point stands that death would of been mercy for poor dabi. So are there cases when killing should happen or should all villains be forced to live even if it has to be through horrible circumstances like dabi's? At this point it seemed like toga's death was a better ending then dabi's.

In conclusion, mha's status quo was never really broken or rebuilt into a better version and the discussion surrounding the question should heroes kill? Was never properly answered or changed.

The series begins with the answer that Yes! Heroes can kill but they can only kill villains and rejects of society while keeping all of this away from the public eye. However, if it is in the public eye just dehumanise the victim, its not like hero society didn't continually threaten villains with all the graffiti in toga's House or the publics reaction to dabi.

(Ps I do think that izuku was handed the short stick and would of suffered either way. Even with the horrible execution the series make it clear that izuku chose a thorny, hard path but what's worse is that the path doesn't seem to be worth it or hasn't changed anything)

Also izuku's whole arc doesn't depend on him having a love interest and a quirk because he could be a hero without those things it's the execution that sucks