And yet, the only actual answer DC has given is:
>Because he'll turn into a genocidal schizo and will gain near-infinite godlike power that threatens to destroy the multiverse!
That's it. THAT'S their best argument.
 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
|
Just make the Joker immortal. Problem solved.
I honestly can't believe that isn't canon already. Like, they could even play with it like "we don't know he's immortal" but he keeps getting "killed" maybe Batman is hallucinating him, maybe he is a meme and people keep "becoming" him "but that doesn't make sense."
Snyder did this during the New 52 and revealed it was all an elaborate scheme by the Joker to troll Batman.
Yes and no.
Joker knows about Lazarus Pits and seems to have had access to one before he and Bruce destroyed it and lost their memories temporarily due to "trauma scars" being "healed over".
This is a pseud question only non comic readers struggle with. Batman is mentally ill and has been characterised as such for decades. His code is not supposed to be objective right and wrong or even be sensible. He’s a schizo.
moon knight is a schizo
batman has plot armor
then stop reading DC comics, or at the very least stop reading batman
Ironic post. No-kill "rule" is not unique to batman or portrayed as crazy or whatever. Most heroes do the same thing simplybecause theyre good people. People like Wolverine are exceptions.
Name one other comic that brings up their lead character’s no kill rule as obsessively as Batman comics do. Writers intentionally draw attention to it and weigh up the pros and cons of it constantly.
It's not a question that should be answered or even asked in the first place. Children know why he doesn't kill. Because he's a super hero. If you make a fuss over batman not killing you're dumber than a child.
That's not what people have been asking
Wait, people still read superhero comics?
>Batman why won't you just kill the Joker? he has probably killed millions and millions more the longer you keep him around
>Because if I start killing, I won't stop :*~~*~~)
Batman is a gay and severely mentally ill, his entire crusade against crime is just to experience eternal thrills and to fulfill his moronic self righteousness. This is also due to writers not wanting to kill off his eternal arch-nemesis, Joker brings in the money and attention, can't have one without the other, it's a sad state of the entire franchise. I would just make Joker an evil spirit at this point, goes around possessing people with the potential to go full society. this way, writers can actually have Joker die often due to someone he pissed off finally taking revenge, and Batman instead of doing the eternal capture-Joker-throw-in-jail-Joker-escape-repeat cycle, can actually be trying to get rid of this evil Joker spirit for good, but he can't find a way to exorcise him entirely, it would be the GREASTEST MYSTERY that the WORLD'S GREATEST DETECTIVE will dedicate his life to trying to solve, this way it won't make Batman seem ignorant of the consequences of keeping Joker alive.
>Batman is ... severely mentally ill
Yes. But he us aware both of this and if the fact, that with his training, mind and money he, should he embrace killing, will quickly turn into most efficient murderer ever existing, worse than Joker - that one, at least, kills randomly, not every night and not as efficient as Batman would.
Worst fricking take.
>I can't put down a rabbid dog because then I'll use my vast resources to hunt down every litter of puppies and drown them.
Alternatively:
>I can't put down a rabbid dog because then I'll start putting down more rabbid dogs.
Congtatulations, you are an exact example of next stage of Batman killing people - you don't even consider criminals to be people anymore.
Shitty projection that doesn't address the point.
the point is that human morality doesn't have a dividing line like having the rabies virus or not
Tell that to the guy who autistically requires Batman to follow this rule that people are clearly growing tired of
if this thread is any indication, the only "people" tired of it are vocal minority idiots like you.
A lack of a dividing line is exactly why he should not kill.
He had to follow that rule because after first kill humans for him would be separated into "to kill" and "not to kill", moving from second category in the first one very fast.
Realistically someone of Bruce Wayne's level of wealth would simply hire someone to have those problematic people killed
If Joker was reinvented into a pedophile, you'd start claiming he's a "MAP" and misunderstood
So whoever saw his movies deserved to die?
Joker raped Jason to death in The Last Crusade, that still does not excuse forcing Batman to commit murder.
What if a version of Robin was terminally ill and begged him to be taken off life support?
I just know you're going to say "no, Batman would view it as more ethical to let that Robin go full Hisashi Ouchi in his decline"
Happened.
Death In The Family is not the same as cancer
Batman would use his money to NoraFries him into cryogenics until solution is found.
Batman is against suicide, so no.
Batman is honestly becoming WBD/DC's scapegoat for all their obsolete creative decisions. I've even had other Batman threads where people claiming to be Warner employees even said it was planned to make Batman into a symbol of right-wing extremism
Thankfully we are dealing with traumatized psycho, who remembers that he is one, not with realistic businessman.
Sure it does, if you're looking at morality through an actual lens that matters such as the legality of killing another human being, assuming laws are just and moral. If you're going to swerve off in to "Never moral to kill" territory, frick off with your metaphysical moral absolutism that means jack shit in any practical discussion.
The law has plenty of rules that define when it is and isn't murder when you use lethal force. Should Bruce be murdering the Joker in his sleep? No. Should he use lethal force in the defense of himself or others? Absolutely, especially in a case where the guy he's fighting has demonstrated over and over that he will continue to kill other people.
The issue is basically every long running Joker story has basically become a metajoke about the whole concept itself. The joker's motivation has basically become "how far do I have to go before someone drops me?" He concocts increasingly elaborate trolley problems with higher stakes just to see if Batman will ever just flip the switch and mow him down.
I mean the not killing thing is fine when the Joker is relatively harmless, or at least not so bad as to not justify putting him down any more than any other dipshit on the street, but when we're talking global threat, chemical/nuclear weapons Joker, we're so far past the bar of "defense of self or others" and having a personal deep aversion to ending someone's life it becomes comical. Maybe that's why they call him the Joker, because its a cosmic fricking joke no one has put him in the ground yet.
>assuming laws are just and moral
Don't assume that, it is already incorrect.
>we're so far past the bar of "defense of self or others" and having a personal deep aversion to ending someone's life it becomes comical
It honestly sometimes comes across as Batman downplaying the trauma of others because they never lost their parents
Batman has met at least two different kids whose parents were murdered by Joker, and he stopped them both.
So it's even worse, he downplays all trauma that is not his own, solely because he did not personally experience those events
At this point I want to see a time traveling Joker killing Thomas and Martha while Batman, being perfectly able to, refuses to stop it. Its honestly hilarious to see how many people talk about some "vague" line that shouldn't be crosses like its a moral absolute and not a writing exercise seeing how stupid we can make Bruce's autistic trauma-phobia look.
He's honestly kind of narcissistic when you take off the fandom glasses. If I needed to be saved, the last person I would trust is someone who needs to downplay the trauma of others for validation
he doesn't downplay it, he just sees that trauma is no excuse to become a murderer
He is downplaying it, because he's expecting his own way of coping to be automatically universal based off his own isolated experience. Other people affected more severely than him will have no confidence in the legal system, it's unlikely for them to adopt a legalist worldview.
they can have that worldview, that doesn't excuse them enacting it. Joker himself only kills people because his worldview is that everyone on earth is as evil as he is
You can't convert everyone to legalism, anon
My hottest take: the no kill rule should have been retired after WWII, because of the notion that Batman let Hitler commit those atrocities and did nothing to prevent them. NGL it kind of paints his writers of that time as Nazi sympathizers
Call it; bait or mental moronation
For your post?
Both
They made a movie named Batman in 1989 where he killed the Joker. Just watch it. They made an adaptation of the movie in comic form, so you can read that if you prefer comics. Make sure to get the adaptation from 1989, not the continution from 2021. You can just read it on repeat
DC has given dozens of answers over the years. It's always underage kids that don't know this.
All of those answers are stupid. Millions of people have to die in horrific ways all the time because of petty and misguided moral beliefs. Bullshit.
Without this beliefs milliards will die in much more horrific ways.
Applying Batman's beliefs to real life is how you get IRL Joker figures like the one in the actual event that I mentioned
Well now we're just getting to the part that very few people want to acknowledge. The indisputable fact that humans are inherently evil. Go ahead and post your fedora memes, you know it's true.
They are not evil, they are egoistic. From results of which evil stems.
No, we're evil. Our entire history as a species is hard proof of this. Everything we know about neurology is hard proof of this("in-group/out-group", anyone?). Humans are monsters, and the only thing keeping our ramshackle civilization vaguely functional is via fake morals and force. And even that is rapidly falling apart. This is just one of the many reasons the superhero genre is fricking stupid.
>diviging into "us" and "them"
No, that is half-egoism and half-survival instincts in uniting with same-looking/smelling/sounding species and not trusting others for the sake of being able to reproduce and not to be eaten on the instincts side and not to be eaten and to be protected on the egoistic side. Through that altruism as a subtype of egoism is born - helping your society is good, others are food, thar helps to survive, or a threat, that prevents your survival, and should be avoided or destroyed for the sake of yourself and your tribe.
Works until there is not enough territory for all, that is when wars and mixing of incompatible groups happens.
Very few are inherently evil, that is more of a mental disease. Most just want to live and live happy, safe, comfortably and without any threats on their territory. As it is impossible - morals are being applied to prevent egoism to apply evil, as this will create further aggression, more evil spreading faster and faster until remaing groups are too far away from each other or until everything dies (because nukes and possibility to wipe out entire planet several times are unnatural and shouldn't have existed at all).
Hence everybody is egoistic, some are insane hence evil, some others are also insane hence altruistic toward groups they don't belong to and have no use of.
>humans are the real monsters
No, we are God's greatest creations, the rightful masters of this planet, as evident by the fact that no other specie can possibly save it from random falling space rocks.
Compare how long dinosaurs had lived to how quickly we have reached the stars.
>b-but
Animalistic traits present in animals, often to a worse extent.
Why doesnt the joker just kill himself then?
That'd be the ultimate satisfaction.
Satan will turn his chair over to the joker
I wouldn't be surprised if the no-kill rule was a change that got permanently added at the request of Kevin Conroy, much like Lisa becoming vegetarian because of Paul McCartney
Most comic book heroes don't murder people. You know, because they're comic book heroes for children.
Only the state can legally kill someone. It's one of the few rights the government has that people do not dispute the legitimacy of. They'll debate the morals and ethics of it to death, sure, but they do not disagree on which organization gets the power to decide who lives and dies.
Batman needs Gotham to execute the Joker.
That just raises further questions. Any state would execute the Joker, regardless of whether he was insane or not they’d find a way to legally do it. This is one of the reasons why giving recurring villains such a huge body count is a problem.
They've tried, Batman stopped them.
Only because the Joker was framed in that particular case and was innocent for once. Batman presumably doesn’t give a shit about the death penalty otherwise.
Could Batman use BatMagic to stop Joker from having a heart attack in the middle of a fight?
Clown bussy is just too strong.
The true reason is that allowing the character (any character) to cross the line into being a murderer then makes every story after that into a story about a character that is doing what is convenient, not what is heroic. STFU.
A hero is supposed to end the suffering of others
Where's the honor in letting someone suffer for as long as possible, unless it's specifically to send some kind of message or prove some arbitrary point
>A hero is supposed to end the suffering of others
>Where's the honor in letting someone suffer for as long as possible, unless it's specifically to send some kind of message or prove some arbitrary point
No a hero does what is right, one of the reasons that a hero in story is or isn't a hero are the standards of the society they exist in, batman's looks down on murder put two and two together.
Shouldn't a true hero be determined and confident in their righteous cause enough to disobey the standards of society or the law if it's corrupt?
Batman's whole modus operandi hinges on a "Just World" fallacy
>Shouldn't a true hero be determined and confident in their righteous cause enough to disobey the standards of society or the law if it's corrupt?
>Batman's whole modus operandi hinges on a "Just World" fallacy
No it operates on an unjust world, the frick are you talking about. Do you need to reread every single story about the death of his parents to understand that batman's rage and pathology are entirely due to the unjust murder of his parents? Do you actually miss this or are you so utterly braindead that you can't even work out simple character traits?
Why would the law be corrupt for killing the Joker? Is it because it destroys the fantasy of stepping in front of his parents to take the bullet?
>Why would the law be corrupt for killing the Joker? Is it because it destroys the fantasy of stepping in front of his parents to take the bullet?
In canon he has lawyers gaming the system to get him off that he pays very well, are you new to batman?
No, I simply choose to look at it with a non-rick-and-morty-fan attitude. I do not apply Sony's concept of "canon events" to DC's lore
Spiderman is Sony's schtick, remember? or did you come from the AU where all companies are vertically integrated under one gigacorporation
>No, I simply choose to look at it with a non-rick-and-morty-fan attitude. I do not apply Sony's concept of "canon events" to DC's lore
>Spiderman is Sony's schtick, remember? or did you come from the AU where all companies are vertically integrated under one gigacorporation
You're sitting here trying to break down a character mythology that cannot end or progress if the company behind it wants to keep making money. You realize why you're stupid?
Are you a representative of this company's financial department? Were you not satisfied with merely one Aurora? I guess not, you need to word things in ways that deliberately breed others into becoming copycats of that because DC profits off "IRL Jokers"
>Are you a representative of this company's financial department? Were you not satisfied with merely one Aurora? I guess not, you need to word things in ways that deliberately breed others into becoming copycats of that because DC profits off "IRL Jokers"
What is this schizo shit?
Stuff you're only pretending to be ignorant about, obviously
>Stuff you're only pretending to be ignorant about, obviously
Right well you obviously live in a world divorced from reality so i'll just let you be.
Aurora refers to mass shooting that happened during a Dark Knight Rises screening in 2012 but I don't really expect a Batman canon event defender to acknowledge anything that's negatively influenced the brand
>No a hero does what is right
>By not doing anything to stop something wrong for good, they rather remain hypocritical in being right than accept doing something about anything that can prevent any consequences in the future
Wonder why anime beats comics?
You know, after the Joker's eight mass murder in a single month, one would think that the guy would end up being shot fifty times at point blank range for "resisting arrest" immediately after being handed to cops by the Batman.
Batman would come after the cop who did it next, if they did. He had a villain solely around that premise: Bad Cop. He knew he had to kill Batman first before he could execute Joker
If I were a cop in Gotham, I would gladly accept a little bit of jail time and being beaten up by a mentally ill rich guy in a fursuit if it meant being the one to finally kill the Joker. Given how high the guy's kill count usually is, there is a decently high chance that I would be pardoned before even having spent a single day in jail.
>the next week the bastard would escape from hell/be resurrected by lazarus pitt leaking into local water supply/a new identical joker would drop in from paralel universe etc. anyway
The Kane and Finger estates are Nazis
Did you really think I just made up that scenario...?
Are you saying that Batman would view the victims of that as deserving it?
This entire thing is the comic world's biggest bullshit.
The "no kill" rule has always been an external thing and has never been properly implemented in a Batman story to this date because when they created the fricking crazy bat costume wearing vigilante, he did kill, and it would have been weird for him not to.
It was something first created because of censorship, and then because of fan legacy. Batman can't just be like any other sane hero and try to not kill and only kill when its necesarry because DC are backed in the biggest writing corner in fictiona human history.
The only thing writers can do about it that isn't god awful is portray Batman as a geniunenly insane psychothic piece of shit that should not be a hero in the first place and portray his no kill as objectively bad.
What about he doesn’t want to kill people becuase he’s aegis parents gunned down in front of him, so maybe he doesn’t like murder so much? What’s wrong with that?
No one likes murder, and almost every single hero avoids murder like the plague. The wrong part is that it is geniunely psychothic mentally unwell behavior to not kill a person for the sake of protecting others. Anyone with an actual functioning brain and psyche would kill most of the people in Batman's villain roster and it would be 100% justified and a good thing.
If you take the movie as canon, he’s his brother, the only family he has left
It is the same reason why Batman doesn't molest people. If he molests his villains then what next? Does he start molesting his robins? The bats in his cave? Alfred? When does it stop? If he crosses that line then he could not stop himself from molesting everyone.
It's honestly kind of disturbing you need a narratively engaging rationalization for someone, much less a hero, choosing not to kill. Either you're struggling to find a reason not to kill, or you believe that is the default state of everyone else. Neither are a good place to be.
Batman can't do the Joker's taxes because if he crosses that line then what is to stop him from doing everyone's taxes?
Because doing any of this will not prevent Joker from killing people, let alone easily and permanently.
Let me put it this way. If there were a pint of Häagen-Dazs® in the fridge and Batman had a bite, what is to stop him from eating all of the Häagen-Dazs® in the fridge?
This action not being useful in stopping Joker and other guys from killing people.
Batman not killing is the same reason why he doesn't do the Joker's taxes or eat Häagen-Dazs® or even molest his robins.
Batman doesn't kill because murder IS a simple and efficient, but morally bad globally way to stop Joker from killing. And because is it such an easy and effective way, Batman would be unable to stop himself from killing first big bad guys, than just bad guys, than potentially bad guys, which is an entire planet. At this point murders by Batman would outweight murders by everyone else and will eventually lead to acceptance of murder as a solution globally, extinction of humanity and, potentially, extinction of everything else Batman would be able to reach to prevent murders being committed by others.
the rule was introduced during Kevin Conroy's run. You're afraid of the last bits of his influence being erased through the replacement of his version's status quo
I don't even know, who this dude is, my Batman is one from BTAS.
He voiced the Batman from BTAS
See Paul McCartney's influence on Lisa Simpson, there's precedent for permanently changing a character based off the wishes of an actor
It wasn't until Conroy's version of the character that the role started to be heavily enforced and become the de-facto standard, the live-action Batman films of the time did not follow this rule which may have contributed to their increasingly negative receptions. The difference is back then the writers and artists were still allowed the freedom to treat this rule as an option instead of a mandate
No, that's absolute bullshit you made up. You unironically know nothing about Batman and are now trying to sabotage his perception when all you actually know about him is shit gossip you must've heard on a spiderman slop thread or something.
You're probably the same idiot in this thread who bought that lie that the Aurora shooting was "inspired by Joker" when that was said multiple times by police to be fake and a gossip magazine rumor.
The no-kill rule became a hardline no-exceptions-allowed rule in Batman 16, in 1943, almost 50 YEARS before btas started. It existed since Batman 1, but the silly panels of Batman sometimes breaking his rule by accidents or throwing people into hazards stopped after Batman 15.
This was because editor Whitney Ellsworth told Finger to stop letting Batman use guns in stories and created a policy that none of the other heroes should be allowed to kill either.
Why is that giant head giving Robin a blowjob?
Sabotaging perception? Why would a "normal fan" like you be worried about an interpretation of a character not following obsolete Hays-Code-era restrictions?
I don't think it was inspired by joker, I brought it up because you view the victims as deserving of it, because of the slim chance that they disagree with the version of Batman you're enforcing
btas stole all of its plots from much better golden and silver age comics, and in those comics batman never killed Joker either. You're moronic.
What was moronic in BTAS is last second censorship in this episodes with assassins and hypnobaron Whatshismame, when snitch, who had falled down from statue was not killed, but "swam away", while two assassins after saying their "glory to arstorska" and gassimg themselves had "erased their personalities". And exatly the same thing by extension in beyond, when deadly blue-skinned arabian female assassin just "erased league of assassins' leaders personalities" insteas of killing them.
Kevin Conroy? The no-kill rule has been a thing since 15 years before Kevin Conroy was BORN.
Killtards like you are legit morons who want to ruin the character, you don't even know anything about Batman.
kevin conroy is a voiceactor
The real question is what the hell is wrong with Gotham’s legal system
Corruption. Bad guys have a lot of money to spend and a lot of knowledge, where cops' families live.
If you killed the Joker then what would stop Batman from doing your taxes, eating your ice cream, and molesting you?
That it wouldn't stop you from killing more.
Exactly which is why Batman should never molest himself with ice cream.
Nobody should do that, shizo anon, but for a slightly different reason.
It feels good but makes a big mess.
There's nothing wrong with having a no kill rule. Batman owes you nothing. Blame the Gotham justice system if you don't like it. They're the ones who fail to keep the Joker incarcerated or execute him.
Also why did you not scream in rage like this when Christian Bale's version committed literal manslaughter on Ra's al Ghul in Batman Begins, or cut off Bane's oxygen supply during TDKR?
they're not Joker so it's fine
Hadn't seen any of it. Director is moronic, just like this anon.
If Batman were put in a situation he couldn't get out of and had to suck a wiener to save people, would he do it?
He would have used Bat-wienersucker from his belt and save people.
He keeps his mouth in his belt?
His only confirmed (through Damian's existence) sex with him using his dick had been with Talia al'Ghul, but his dick is still functional. That means, that he had alreadu figured, that he had to create and always carry with himself his superfleshlight a.k.a. Bat-wienersucker to maintain full functionality of his body. Of course, after that cave, he would have to replace it with clean new Bat-wienersucker 2.0.
All his bat wienersuckers are broken anyway so he'll have to use his mouth. He has nothing against sucking wieners. He just doesn't eat pussy.
>All his bat wienersuckers are broken anyway
That's what author wants readers to think only to pull working Bat-wienersucker at the last moment.
And then that one breaks before he can use it.
There is always Robin.
Robin can help force his head down when he deepthroats. Good thinking.
I didn't say "Jason", he's away killing somebody.
He switched his methods to powerbottoming criminals now. So he won't be much help.
This, once Batman eats pussy then what is stopping him from digging up his mother's corpse and eating her pussy?
Jason, Damian, Stephanie, Cass and Dick are all former murderers. Should Batman kill them too?
Yes. Kill them all, Bruce.
Batman murdered millions of people with Brother Eye. Should Batman kill himself?
Did they ever bring this guy back after the Fortnite comic? For his big his initial push was it's weird to see him unused for actual years.
Wasn't there female batkek after that?
Yeah but it's not him with a sex change, it's a different character.
Only Scott Snyder cares about his OC. No one will use this stupid character or the idiotic ideas from Metal now that Snyder has fricked off to do his own "creator own" crap that isn't selling so he had to shit out some crap for Image, which also isn't selling, so he'll likely be begging DC for some work in a few years, if he can't con Marvel into letting him shit up Hulk or Iron Man.
He sold his miserable soul to the devil for nothing LOL
The Joker has done nothing wrong.
The problem is that western hero comics are made with no end in sight, they just want to keep making stories with the same characters over and over and over. It never reaches a conclusion, and even when it does, some dumbass writer years later just decides to undo everything, ressurecting dead characters and plots for no reason other than to keep the story going with character people recognize.
So, killing joker or any other greater villain would be taking away a major feature from a comic that has no intention of ever ending.
What comics need to learn from mangas is that stories need to have a set end. It might take decades, but it needs to end. After it ends, you can do a reimagining or some shit, but the main story needs to end at some point.
I like how I’ve been a casual DC fan for years and my knowledge only extended from the movies to most of the animated films. I had no idea this discourse or character existed. Shows how dead comics are.
Aren't you tired of this thread, Cinemaphile? You keep making it every couple of days...
Better than ANY cartoon or live-action thread.
Not even. It's the same stupid thread over and over again.
They could at least stop having Batman save him, or give a mandate to tone down the murder.
I don't get why they just have Joker escape the scene or find ways to fake his death.
Why even write it so he gets in a position where killing him off is even on the table?
because saving everyone, including villains, is Batman's thing. He's been famous for it for decades.
How is that a contradiction to Joker escaping capture in the first place?
>He could kill more people while he's at large!
He can do that after her escapes Arkham every time too.
Just remove the part where Batman even has the choice to kill him or not.
Batman kind of deserved to suffer that stroke while fighting Superman in Dark Knight Returns
Batman has saved Joker in every romantic trope there is:
giving him mouth to mouth
princess carrying him out a burning building
hiding him from a murderer by taking him to the batcave
performing surgery on him to remove a bullet
taking a bullet for him
jumping into a river to save him from drowning
except for donating one of his organs to save Joker, he hasn't done that one yet
They're not wrong. Jts the same reason you cant go back in time and kill hitler because a potentially worse one will appear
or you become hitler because otherwise you would cease to exist and thus by doing so you'veensured your own death and close the loop
>a potentially worse one will appear
Stalin already existed around the same time, anon
Stalin is a communist hero.
I wish someone would reimagine him as acute femboy.
Why are people falling for this government propaganda in comic books? There’s no such thing as entertainment, just programming.
if Batman's dad had been packing heat like a responsible husband and father should, Bruce wouldn't have been orphaned.