I think a vigilante with a no-kill rule is silly.
In the real world, I think the death penalty should be implemented, so at least in extreme cases in comic books, there should be some permanent villain deaths.
What do you think?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Killing vigilantes are pointless in comics. They either don't kill the big villains or if they do they just come back in less than a year.
That's a problem. I understand the hero persisting for decades, but keeping the rogues gallery in circulation makes everyone look bad.
Thats something to ponder.
Maybe since vigilantes are criminals, they should carry executions out themselves. If they are friendly with the law, they should hand the really bad ones over to the state for execution.
> That's a problem. I understand the hero persisting for decades, but keeping the rogues gallery in circulation makes everyone look bad.
Infinite Frontier was 3 years ago, Rebirth was 7, New 52 was 13…
The idea anyone in the Batverse is sticking around for decades is absurd because any iteration of Batman isn’t around for decades.
Nobody wants new villains. People barely want to read comics anymore to begin with, much less ones about some new weirdo no one's heard of.
Wrong and moronic.
In the real world, murdering somebody as a vigilante would land you in a lot more trouble than whatever any sort of villain was reasonably doing. You'd lose any sort of police support and and sort of criminals you attempt to "capture" would just use your known record of murder as an excuse to pin whatever they can on you. It would be better to incapacitate, citizen's arrest, or just act like a PI and report to the police over going in and shooting a bunch of criminals.
Ironically, villains get back out on the streets and commit crimes all over again all the time, so you can't even call that unrealistic.
Also this. Comic book authors invest in the villains, they want them around for more than one issue. It's the real reason there's a no-kill rule in place, either explicitly or implicitly. Don't kill the villains so they can come back for more comics.
Making killing/not killing a part of your personality is moronic. You obviously only kill if it’s beneficial. Likewise refraining from killing just for the sake of taking the moral high ground is peak homosexualry. True, if you can take down the armed terrorists without anyone dying, good for everyone, but why take that risk in the first place?
>TLDR
Batman is moronic for not killing the Joker
No my serialized status quo is A NATURAL LAW SIGNED OFF BY JESUS AND JEFFERSON AND JUDAISM!
>yep those chinese are fried dead
>yep those arabs are fried dead
>yep those thanos aliens are fried dead
>thanks for killing those nazis, Cap!
>thanks for hulking out, hulk!
>who wants shwarma?
BUT DOES IRON MAN AND THE AVENGERS KILL????
UH OH
QUESTIONING?
KIRYU KAZUMA, I PLEAD THE FIFTH
>i ALSO have a NO KILL RULE as the warrior king of an entire nation with a death penalty because Batman Optics uh please buy my BlackMan Begins toys
>uh please buy my BlackMan Begins toys
I read that as "BuckMan", lol
The real question is "Why should vigilantes be the ones to perform these executions?" Why isn't the state doing it?
This. Half the no-kill angst, dumb as it can get, falls under "with this power/responsibility I have to keep in check just how much of the law I take into my own hands. It's not up to me alone to murder indiscriminately, I'll just ensure these villains face justice" but then the bad guy gets his ass beat, gets captured, and never really faces justice besides contrived laughably escapable prison sentences.
>yknow Batman us Gotham police have been using guns but these rogues you have been bringing in ARE TOO CHARMING FOR THAT
>gotham police remember that they can use guns
>"Time to go home and cheat on my wife."
You fiend! Even I'm not THAT evil!
*kills her to protect traditional family values*
The problem with Batman is that he has most likely killed and/or brain damaged someone. The odds are he hit the wrong person and they just collapsed and died
If you got a problem with it then you go be a vigilante and kill villains. Batman ain't doing shit your way. He's doing it his way.
Many have tried and Batman literally goes out of his way to stop other vigilantes from killing any of the seemingly endless supply of murderers and rapists in Gotham.
The idea that Batman hasn’t just taken a step back and let some pissed off cop or whoever waste the Joker after 80 fricking years is the most unbelievable part of the character.
batman has gone out of his way to save the joker multiple times. a good lawyer would absolutely be able to pin that costumed moron as an accessory to a crime. his psychological homolust for the clown has gotten literally hundreds to thousands killed at this point.
>superheroes cant be kings and judges
Fricking gay trope and have to cuck to the POLICIA all the fricking time instead of being seen laying down the law with or for the police
Especially since they're already breaking the law. They're vigilantes. That shit's illegal.
What about a "just one kill per day" rule?
Batman is a facist
>can't even spell it right
Let me explain this as simply as possible.
IF POPULAR VILLAIN IS KILLED OFF FOR GOOD, WRITERS NO CAN USE VILLAIN ANYMORE.
NO CAN PUT VILLAIN ON LUNCHBOXES AND T-SHIRTS AND TOYS.
NO KILL GOOSE THAT LAYS GOLDEN EGGS.
And?
>IF POPULAR VILLAIN IS KILLED OFF FOR GOOD, WRITERS NO CAN USE VILLAIN ANYMORE.
And? Nobody actually reads comics anymore, dude.
>NO CAN PUT VILLAIN ON LUNCHBOXES AND T-SHIRTS AND TOYS.
You absolutely can. Consoomers don't give a frick. They just want to buy merchandise with thing they recognize on it. Doesn't matter if they're alive or dead in some shitty funny pages that they don't even read.
NO KILL GOOSE LAYS GOLD EGGS.
IF THING MAKES MONEY, KEEP DOING THING.
THIS FUNDAMENTALS OF RUNNING BUSINESS.
YOU UNDERSTAND NOW OR SHOULD ME TRY GRUNTING AND GESTURING LIKE CAVEMAN?
The villains can die in the fricking movies. Joker died in the first big budget Batman movie. No one had a problem when action heroes killed the bad guys. In fact, audiences loved that shit. Why is it a problem if Batman does the same shit?
Because the internet has convinced some that the non chronically online cares about this…when they don’t.
>And? Nobody actually reads comics anymore, dude.
Then WHY are you debating this at all you frickhead?
Because OP made a thread, moron.
And if OP jumped off the Empire State building I suppose you'd jump off the Empire State building too?
Because pointing out the fact that nobody reads comics is relevant information, especially when talking to morons like
who stupidly think that a character being alive or dead in the comics somehow means the chink factories that churn out Joker t-shirts are going to get shut down.
>IF POPULAR VILLAIN IS KILLED OFF FOR GOOD, WRITERS NO CAN USE VILLAIN ANYMORE.
Quick question, how much Darth Vader-centric media is there outside of the original movies?
Was actually about to make this point. Vader is dead, and he's on a ton of merchandise. Who else dies in their IP? I'm sure many die. Most of the original Avengers movies cast is dead. Did the merchandise end?
>But thats not canon dead!
But they use the actors' appearances for the merchandise. That character is dead.
Frieza was permanently dead for 20+ years yet was still a consistently iconic and merchandisable villain.
This too.
No-kill rule is always stupid.
If you approach capeshit as realistic media, it's stupid and selfish for these heroes to refuse to kill superpowered villains that humanity can't handle on their own, especially when many of the villains were inspired, attracted, or otherwise cultivated by the mere presence of superheroes on Earth.
If you approach capeshit as idealized escapism, it's still stupid because it's repeatedly proven incorrect; a superhero asserts that all lives should be saved, and that killing will make them just as bad as the villains, and yet their ideaology is never proven. Villains keep killing millions because heroes sit on their hands and foolishly claim that one villain dying is just as bad is if that villain wakes up tomorrow and poisons half the country to death.
Writers' hands are tied when it comes to the no kill rule, because to either truly embrace it and have it seem virtuous, or to completely disown it results in comic books where villains might have to stop being villains thanks to death or rehabilitation, and then your sales go down because characters--not good writing--is what sells capeshit.
NO KILL OFF POPULAR VILLAIN WHO SELLS LOTS OF MERCH.
WHY IS THIS SO FRICKING HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND?
Did you even read what he said?
>"Hmm, it seems that the writer of this comic book that only gets read by 50,000 people each month has killed off (extremely profitable villain). Better stop selling any merchandise with that villain on it. It'll cost us millions in revenue, but it's just the canonical thing to do!"
Said no merchandising executive ever. moron. Nobody reads comics. People will buy whatever.
Then why don't comics embrace the fact that they're not the real world and show that the "no-kill" rule actually is the right choice to make? Why keep frustrating readers who watch villains kill millions and then have supposed heroes sitting on their hands and doing nothing? Why not actually show the heroe's ideology is effect, and have villains rehabilitate? Oh, right, because the net result of that is the same as killing them and then writers wouldn't be able to use them.
The no-kill rule is just an easy, baked-in excuse to keep the same villains in rotation for all eternity.
This, basically. If you want me to accept a no-kill rule, then comics need to go back to embracing the absurdist, rose-tinted world of silver age comics where that mentality actually worked.
>baked-in excuse to keep the same villains in rotation for all eternity
Joker died multiple times in the comics
He comes back anyway
You are a moron
>He comes back anyway
Then why have Batman go out of his way to save him? Even to the point of nearly killing his adopted son?
To upset moronic people that takes comic book seriously
No he hasn't.
Stop getting your information from 4chins morons whining, he's never died.
>4chins
go back you unfunny underage homosexual
>He comes back anyway
DC runs on alternative universe bullshit since day 1 hence the whole golden age Batman/silver age Batman/Arkham Batman/The Batman Who Laughs/etc etc.
Just don't make villains that should be killed. Not every one needs to be a mass murderer.
Some of them do.
>WHY ISN'T COMIC BOOK LIKE REAL WORLD?!
Behead every moron that thinks like this
More like
>Why is comic book too much like the real world, except for this one thing?
Comics have become boring as dirt, and they still withhold closure. Why would they expect people to keep reading them?
>Why is comic book too much like the real world
Yeah, remember when that giant alien showed up on Wall Street last week and all those people died? Or that time one guy made a super virus that transformed half of Miami into weird lizards? Crazy world we live in dude
No kill rule is the worst pathos ever put to print exclusively contrived as business model cynical bullshit
>what if batman punched a man with a peanut allergy and then the man died in the hospital oh noes
>refutes the warner brothers grift
Anime merch also mogs this sappy horseshit goyslop
the only shonenshit anime merch that sells is from series with no-kill rules.
Name them.
Such as?
>naruto: kills everyone but sasuke
>goku: kills Frieza after addressing the no kill as directly as can be framed
Just slap a halo and a dragon ball wish to sell bad guys as rerun return characters
Goku literally gave more chances to killers like Frieza than his own brother.
It's actually pretty great. His brother who had been brainwashed his entire life into thinking killing planets full of sentient beings was good gets unceremoniously killed, but Goku gave Frieza, Cell, Moro, the Androids, and even Buu chances at redemption. He literally can't even be assed when in the afterlife for years to go find his brother or Napa(who may actually just be hiding on Earth), and see if they might actually be able to be redeemed.
Those boards are so dumb, they can't even grasp the difference between killing in action and summary execution.
Superman doesn't need to kill because 99% of the time he can easily contain the villain. Batman doesn't need to kill because 99% of his enemies are just humans who can go to jail.
Raditz was stronger and would have killed everyone on Earth. When goku defeats Frieza, he's much stronger and barely needs to resort to murder.
Goku didn't kill Raditz, Piccolo did. And Piccolo doesn't frick around.
moron, Goku gave Raditz the opportunity to go and he waste it, he couldn't afford to forgive him twice in action.
israeli greed delusion
CONCERNED PARENT: he h-he's not going to k-kill someone with that giant sword is he?
Why do you autists make this thread every day?
If you care so much about superheroes killing, then why don’t you stop being a pussy and go out and do it yourselves.
Then when you get shot by a cop or arrested, Society can be done with you.
>If you care so much about superheroes killing, then why don’t you stop being a pussy and go out and do it yourselves.
The frick kind of logic is this?
Holy moron.
>"frick the fans, alfred"
>"agreed, Master Wayne, frick them and their griftslop addiction. Fools! That's how it starts. The s()y, the ritualized meaninglessness that turns good men into fools"
Honestly I don’t have an issue with the rule, and it wouldn’t be so much of a problem if not for the status quo. I mean in order for Batman to keep going they have to have the villains not just return but ramp up all the fricked up shit they do. Which just makes people think that at this point killing them is the better option in the long run. They should just do a run where they do get the death penalty or have a cop shoot them when they try to escape. I mean it’s going to be grim as frick and boring by the end but it’s what would make the most sense and give some catharsis.
>i dont use guns because my parents were killed by guns
If it's some deep-seated trauma that makes him averse to firearms, that makes sense. But he can still kill with cold weapons or bare hands.
or better yet he doesn't need to kill
He kind of does.
How innocent lives were lost by letting Joker and the rest of rogues gallery live?
The GCPD and the Justice League wouldn't condone his actions if he did kill though. He'd become less efficient if he started killing because he'd suddenly have way more roadblocks.
I'm all for Gotham executing the mass-murdering supervillains.
>no response
good they should do it stop begging batman to do their dirty work
nah he doesn't why doesn't the court do it why aren't you seething at them?
It should be like MGS rules. He shouldn't kill goons and thugs, but even if he tries to tranq the bosses, they still die in the cutscene because they die in the story.
Like a Yakuza has the best shenanigans with the no kill rule
?si=jVDdWFKTVPRSueks
The problem isn’t the killing, the problem is that they present little nuance on the issue, nor do they lay out any standards and even then the standards get ridiculously overly strict. Like how Samurai Jack slaughtered robots and monsters by the legions but somehow never killed a human being for over 50 years of his life.
"It's simple. We kill the bait man" (aka the b***h man INC in film distribution)
I've been watching the animated Batman again lately, and something nobody ever really addresses is HOW Batman knows he isn't killing anyone. He hits people in the head full force, drops them off buildings, throws them into concrete, ect.
Realistically at least 10-20% of the goons Batman fights should die of their injuries, if not more. He hits people HARD.
I don't know why bats doesn't just permanently cripple the clown. he's legitimately the most monstrous of his rogues.
Because then it would either put him out of commission meaning no joker or they would just put him give him new legs or some shit of transfer his brain or soul into a new body. Remember most of the issues here stem from them having to constantly follow a status quo and revert everything.
The only thing that makes Black Panther cool is that he ruffles the panties of the United Nations and international community like a ballsy bad ass
Batman is a one dimensional character. He's extremely limited in the kinds of stories you can tell with him. It's going to revolve around fighting criminals because that's how limited the character. If all you have is a hammer, then all of your problems look like nails. People only bring up the "no kill rule" because superheroes like Batman are incredibly limited in the types of stories that they can tell. No one reads a Scrooge McDuck comic and says "why doesn't Scrooge just blow Flintheart Glomgold's brains out?" because Scrooge is a flexible character and his canvas of stories isn't limited to something as narrow "fighting crime".
The NKR was literally created so that the villains wouldn't die.
>Guts, the 100 Chud slayer! Masaka!
>snyder, why!
Architectbros...
>OI DO YOU HAVE A KILLING LOICENSE?!
All of you edgy wannabe executioners completely miss the point of Batman's no kill rule. It isn't about whether or not killing a villain can be morally justified. Batman doesn't kill because he recognizes that he is an unstable and vengeful person. Batman knows he isn't well. He needs a strict code to avoid becoming a serial killer.
>Batman knows he isn't well. He needs a strict code to avoid becoming a serial killer.
Then why is he pushing that shit on other heroes who aren't mentally fricked like him?
To prevent him from using them as a loophole, obviously. If your code has loopholes, it's not a code.
Normal people get pissed when the hero doesn't kill the bad guy at the end. It's the losers who watch children's cartoons who like that shit.
>normal people are the ones who get mad over children's cartoons
uh-huh
I'm talking about movies, dude. And tv shows.
point still stands
Not at all, dude.
>edgelord homosexual calling anyone a loser
>In the real world
Hey. Guess where these comics aren't? That's right! The real world.
But they're trying to be but still won't kill.
When DC finally fails
What I think it's silly is that they never get the death penalty after Batman brings them to jail, rather than that Batman doesn't kill them.
How many of you whining that Batman should kill, reed and screeched when Rittenhouse shot a pedo dead, who was chasing a minor in a dark alley, and after that he debiceped a felon carrying an illegal firearm?
Bitching about this is like demanding the police arrest wrestlers for assault when Mr. Heel jumps Joe Babyface backstage.
It's how it works within its own genre. If you don't like it go read something else.
>I think a vigilante with a no-kill rule is silly.
you're wrong
Normal humans don’t read DC.
I think it makes perfect sense. A vigilante, by definition, is beholden to nobody. If Batman doesn't wish to kill people for whatever reason he's more than justified because fighting crime in a general. He is risking great risk both physically and financially by doing this Batman shit. He really has no obligation to do anything he doesn't feel he has to or realistically wants to. The real question is why the frick aren't the COURTS killing the criminals? All these villains would get a maximum of 1 stint in Gotham before people start clamoring for the death penalty. Some of whom have such huge body counts they'd bypass the jury all together and just send them straight to the chair. It's a little less justified with Superman since there are villains where realistically he is the only person on earth that can kill them. But in Batman's case I don't know why it's up to him and him alone to commit vigilante homicide.
>The real question is why the frick aren't the COURTS killing the criminals?
I get your reasoning here but legally it would be very hard to press a lot of Batman's villains through for execution. While people with mental illness can and have been sent through to death row, the legal system looks very unfavorably on it. Not really because they give a shit as much as because it doesn't really look good. Thus why all of captured villains are in a mental asylum, rather than an actual straight up prison--I'd imagine insanity pleas are quite common in Gotham.
That doesn't give them any excuse for the Joker, though. Mentally ill people have been put through to execution (as recent as 2015 if I'm to understand right) so there's really no excuse for Joker. Batman still isn't responsible for Gotham's absolute negligence to take care of their own shit, though, you're right about that.
The problem is most of the Gotham villains wouldn't even be able to make the Insanity Plea. Insanity implies the criminal isn't in control and therefore isn't responsible for their actions. If the joker is just out on the town and suddenly gets triggered and chimps out and starts beating people up then that might be an insanity plea. The second joker willingly puts a flower on his lapel that shoots acid or crafts a chemical gas bomb that makes people laugh until they die he basically invalidates the Insanity Plea. It implies a level of awareness of his actions and premeditated intent. Nobody accidentally or haphazardly makes a laughing has bomb. That's just an act of terrorism.
I understand Batman tries not to kill criminals but its unrealistic to think he hasn't killed people on accident. Random guy getting ran over by batmobile in a car chase sort of accident.
EVERYONE KNOWS THIS. THERE IS NO POINT IN EVEN STARTING THIS THREAD.
Clearly not the case.
this feels like the 30th thread in as many days seething about heroes not killing people
ever notice when these edgelord homosexuals begging batman to kill go completely silent when people suggest the legal system or law enforcement authority's execute the villains after batman takes them in?
Except that has been suggested before. There would be no shortage of GCPD cops that would "accidentally" discharge entire magazines into Joker's face for "resisting arrest " after Batman turns him in. It actually makes far less sense for Joker and other Gotham notable to not get summarily executed at this point than it does for Batman to not have killed them himself.
Even putting that aside, Joker's pissed off so many other villains and mob bosses over the decades that the most unrealistic thing about him is that he's still alive.
I've considered Batman's no-kill rule in an alternate light. Batman is a vigilante, a criminal, that prosecutes other criminals to be a hero. An unauthorized executive officer, a self appointed cop. He might justify this to himself by refraining from judicial functions like capital punishment although this wouldn't prevent him from using lethal force when it would be justified for a cop or civilian.
The ONLY reason this is a problem in the first place is because Gotham City suffers from plot incompetence. IRL prison escapes are pretty rare, so capital punishment exists out of a desire for harsher retribution, rather than immediate crime prevention. The Joker only escapes so the story can happen.
Basically it's all contrived, in a bad way, and it's not worth thinking about.
This. You need to turn your brain off to give a frick about Batman because nothing between the characters, their world or the narration hold up under scrutiny. He is a moronic wish-fullfilling fantasy for Burgers who are apparently dumb enough to push that as a role model, or to believe in moral superiority or failing for stanning/hating on X or Y character.
I think a no kill rule is practical for a vigilante. Once you start killing people, then you get the law after you fully and eventually you will get caught.
The no kill rule worked in the past when the Joker wasn't murdering 50 people a day, and cooking newborn orphans, and crucifying grandmas every minute. The rule is fine, the writers are just moronic.
>I think batman is silly.
>In the real world, a grown man dressed as a bat wouldn't last the night, so at least in extreme cases in comic books, he would be permanently dead.
>What do you think?
the problem is not batman refusing to kill joker, but writers writing joker as someone who should've been put down ages ago
The thing is, Batman shouldn't kill the riddler, for example, last I read he reformed. Batman should totally kill the joker. But even more so, Gotham should fry the joker in the electric chair.
Sure.
I'd like to write a batman story in which he uses guns to kill his rogues. But it's not herioc, more like a psycho.
Batman grabs Poison Ivy by the hair dragging her to the middle of the street. She's crying begging for her life Batman puts the gun to her head and *bam*
I wouldn't be surprised if that comic ended up coming out in the future.
>ended up coming out in the future.
Not a chance. No Kill Rule is too ingrained into the franchise.
>I'd like to write a batman story in which he uses guns to kill his rogues
Just read Punisher.
I did. He's great.
>has a full-kill rule
>doesn't kill any major villain
>is a fraud
I think that's worse
He's best outside of a superhero universe, since they won't let him kill any supervillains. There's this Spider-Man comic where he's able to destroy Spidey's webshooters, without harming him, in midair, but he fails to kill Doctor Octopus twice, the second time he hesitated for some contrived reason.
Technically the issue isn't Batman not killing the Joker, it's the courts not execute the Joker after Batman apprehended him.
What should Batman do if Joker keeps escaping then?
No. The issue is still on Batman the franchise because that world is moronic for no good in-universe reasons. And if you with that explaination seriously, it also raises the question as to why Batman the character isn't fighting the corruption where it matters and which basically renders all his hard work and sacrifices pointless. He certainly could do that as both Bruce and Batman if he wasn't satisfied with just being crime alley almighty janitor and throwing 0.1% of his fortune at social programs who are just smokescreen for the blinds. Like a good drop-out surgeon slapping a band-aid on a bleeding artery.
>What do you think?
I think you should talk to a shrink.
Why?
The no kill rule becomes a problem when writers constantly bring attention to it and “test Batman’s heroism” by challenging how far he will go to not kill which just ends up looking ridiculous. It is even worse with interpretations of Batman being mentally ill or having trauma. It’s easier to buy someone like Superman not killing since he’s an ubermensch. If Batman writers stopped focusing on flaws, gritty “realism” and instead focused on the fantastical ideal of Batman not killing wouldn’t be a problem.
Killing is only prevented for corporate reasons, like most things are in this genre largely monopolized by two corporations. The quicker you learn this, the sooner you'll stop caring about superhero comics in general. It's not a soulful genre, not one in which to posit interesting concepts, with rare exceptions, and not one to make decent, honest stories in. It's mostly corporate drivel, and all of the characters are ultimately products.
I think it makes perfect sense for someone like Superman if it has to exist. Because most of the people he encounters on a daily basis are so much weaker than him that going no kill would have no negative impact on his ability to save people. The only reason why villains don't die permanently in comics is because they make too much money to kill off without proper writing.