Are The Secret Six The Heroes We Need?

I've never seen the Secret Six as heroes. Occasionally they can be anti-heroes (like when Batman was off doing his death thing or the Amazon breakout) but the Six are essentially mercs for hire. Yeah they turn on their clients if they're total douchebags (which nearly always seems to be the case) but they can't be categorised as heroes since everything they do is nearly always in their own interests. I think that's what makes them so effective as a title since killing is so normal for them which is so different to what you get in the usual DC Heroics. Frankly I'm surprised DC let's Gail Simone get away with half the things she puts the Six up to but I'm glad. It's easily the most unique, violent and sexy masterpiece within the mainstream DCU. 

" @soundbite:  sure, that all works in a perfectly black and white, absolute setting when anybody who does good is a revered hero and anybody who does bad is an evil villain.   "

I like very much The Secret Six but i don't they are the heroes we need.

Secret Six as heroes? That's just silly and lulzy.

The six are at best amoral guns for hire with a past that involves most types of crime:extortion,robbery, assault, blackmail, murder. They only look good in comparision to the other villains because they fight and kill guys who look scummier then they do. They make for a great read and refreshing breath due to their amoral and pragmatic nature. But lets not fool ourselves, they're in it for the money like any other mercenary. They'll kill just about anyone as long as the price as good. It's one for a character to hold some moral cause whether its revenge or believing themselves a necessary evil, that makes me abit more sympathetic to the character.

The Six are not. They're interesting characters and I love them, but they're not even close to the idea of the anti-hero who kills villains. Another thing that drives me up the wall is the idea of adhering to killing villains at every action or saving them even when it's illogical.

It's the "Batman-Punisher Spectrum" debate that still rages even to today.

I adore the members of the Secret Six, in all their insane, messed-up glory, but they are not heroes.  They don't even really qualify as anti-heroes.  They're anti-villains, perhaps?  Regardless, Gail Simone writes them extremely well with wonderful characterization.  They can be very sympathetic characters, written just about as "real" as you're going to get in superhero comics.   
 
The no-kill rule that most heroes follow can be tedious at times, but they would be on extremely murky legal ground if heroes just started executing the villains (besides, they wouldn't be allowed to kill the really big-name, popular villains like the Joker anyway).   And when a hero does kill, it's usually handled very poorly (see the ridiculous reactions of some of her fellow heroes when Wonder Woman killed Max or when Green Arrow was put on trial for a murder he committed in another dimension).  The willingness to kill if necessary shouldn't preclude a character from being considered a hero, but it just doesn't work for all characters.  People always say that Batman should kill the Joker, but of all the heroes that might cross the no-kill line, I think Bruce Wayne would be just about the least likely to do so.  It would go completely against his character.

" @DarkCanuck said:

" @soundbite:  sure, that all works in a perfectly black and white, absolute setting when anybody who does good is a revered hero and anybody who does bad is an evil villain.   "

This is how the world and tales of heroics should be.  Anyone who doesn't get this doesn't understand the role of the villain.  It's a sad commentary on society that we can't be entertained unless someone is being killed.  It's also a sad commentary on creativy.  A scumbag that kills another scumbag is not a hero.   If you want to operate in the darkness and use scumbags then don't refer to them as heroes.  They don't qualify.    "

Interesting discussion I bypassed in haste, I think the title presents an interesting interesting juxtaposition. Remember we as individuals choose our heroes. People who do bad things can be heroes, bad guys can be heroes, its relative, so are the actions of the hero or non hero. So are their individual actions, and what's a good way to judge whether a person is a hero or not, but by their actions? Is it the sum, the most recent, the most consistent or some melted mix of prior?  
 
The interesting this is the addition of we. As in you and me and everyone. Adds a total spin on anything. In simpler eras the guy who stops a bank robber was the hero, but then again, so was the guy who righteously punished his wife when she did something villainous like have an opposing opinion. So you know, me and you (or you and I), and everyone else, we probably won't agree fully when it comes to who are heroes, what is heroism, can heroes have flaws, the differences between doing the right thing, and intending to do the right thing and other plump sociopolitical aspects involved here as well as. There could certainly be a need potentially for heroes like Secret Six, If so, it should be in the same way as we need heroes of many other types and varieties as well, and characters that don't class as heroes either (including potentially Secret Six) 

Heros?  No.  Not heros.  But hella fun to read. 
 
That said, the difference some people have in determining the difference between whether someone should, could, or need to be killed is funny.  But more than anything, I think comes under the pervue of Eminent Threat.  Joker relaxing in his lair and being tracked to it does not, in my mind, constitute an immediate threat to life and limb, unless of course he's relaxing with his finger on the remote that will release a toxic cloud of gas that will kill tens of thousands of people. 
 
Joker standing in the middle of Gotham Square, his fingers wrapped around the throat of an innocent victim and a .44 at their head, yeah, take him out.  He is an immediate threat to innocent civilians.  And the reason I say it would be okay for Batman to (though he never would) kill him is simple, it is the duty of everyone to step in and help save others if possible.  If I saw one of you with a gun pointed at them and I could chuck a brick that would crack the offenders skull wide open, but save you, I would.  The difference in "Its never okay to kill" is simple, the average person will never kill anyone deliberately in their lives.  Someone with a gun pointed at someone, that has proven that they don't hold lives precious under the common societal law, has shown a disregard for the lives of others.  They will kill for their own personal gain or pleasure. 
 
That isn't "lowering themselves" to the criminals standards.  Its saving innocent lives that have committed no crime so that others feel okay about themselves.  It's sorta like the old "violence is never the solution."  Well of course it can be a solution.  It's simply not the preferred solution.  And when other avenues have failed, when a criminal element has shown itself willing to kill innocents, then they have shown the ultimate disregard for human life, and thus, theirs is forfeit in the bargain. 
 
Society must protect itself from violent predators, especially those that would prey on our most innocent, our children.  Argueing government corruption, etc... is another matter.  But yeah, someone kills my kid, or your kid, or someone else's kid, then I think public hanging as a detterent works really well. 
 
And the police is not always the answer.  Just ask those that live in areas even here in the US where the police will not go into at certain times what life is like.  Coffeeville, anyone?

Guy drops a building on 57 people and crushes them.  He has superpowers and the police have no way to stop him, to capture him, or to hold him securely if they did.  What do you do to prevent him from murdering again?

"Heroes like Batman and Superman are the standard by which all other heroes measure themselves. They are pure by nature. It is who they are. Batman, no matter how ruthless he is to enemies, is out to stop the act of crime, not the criminals. He serves as a warning to anyone willing to cross the line of law into criminality that they will meet brutal and severe punishment for their actions. They can reflect on their deeds while in prison. Also, his resistance to killling  the Joker may be irrational, but so is the fact that Bruce Wayne needs to dress up as Batman to combat crime. It's that irrationality that makes Batman a complex character. It also separates him from the criminals he locks up. He serves justice. The law of the land determines if capitol punishment  is justifiable, not Batman.  If Bruce were narcissistic, then he would fight crime pubilicly as Bruce Wayne, not hide in the shadows as Batman. "

"Nope, we need the Thunderbolts. Everything that is useful about the Secret Six with the bonus of having some authoritative control and oversight over their actions. Plus, the modern Thunderbolts are a far more interesting crew of characters, in my opinion. "