>Villain's entire argument is that the strong dictate the rules.
>Hero beats them up, thus proving the villain's point.
>This isn't brought up, and in fact the story never questions this irony and instead presents the hero as being in the right.
Why do so many superhero stories do this?
Well it's either that or the heroes talk and redeem the villain into not being evil anymore and I'd rather watch a hero make a "might makes right" villain eat their words in a one sided curbstomp.
I mean realistically, literally what else is supposed to happen...they're supposed to NOT try and beat the villain just to prove a philosophical point?
We have constant "why doesn't Batman just kill the Joker" threads, and you think it would make more sense if heroes just didn't fight villains in the first place?
>they're supposed to NOT try and beat the villain just to prove a philosophical point?
They could acknowledge the fact that he's literally right and the only reason the hero stopped the villain is because of might
Don't make a story about how might makes right = bad because the person with might said so.
I kind of understand your idea, but I don't think the idea is that those with might shouldn't use it to defend. The heroes aren't using their might to force the world to do anything, they're defending the status quo of the world. Which, you could argue about in itself, but that's a different argument.
I think the idea is "might makes right" as a societal worldview is bad, since the villains would create a world where the weak are vanquished on a whim. Basically saying using might to protect people isn't bad, using might to subjugate or destroy people is. Might itself is not the thing being villainized, it's the idea that the weak should be victimized.
This, tards seem to keep forgetting that the villains who spout that shit are usually espousing an edgy pop-anarchy model for society and the heroes are usually just shutting down their nuisance so that regular people can carry on as normal, not the heroes setting policy themselves
Indeed. Otherwise it's usually Squadron Supreme type stories.
But that's the problem, while yes the heroes are using it to defend people, the core of the argument - that might dictates right - is just proven. Sure, the hero is saving the weak, but he only does so because he is mightier, thus proving the argument.
I don't think that proves that might makes right, I think it just proves that he who is mightier will win. It just so happens, because of the conventions of super hero comics being in favor of the heroes, that they usually win.
If the villain won, would that mean whatever villainous plan they unleash upon the world is "right"? Only if that's what you believe, which the heroes don't.
Have you ever considered that the hero may be mighty BECAUSE he is righteous and not the other way around?
Typically the hero isn't dictating the rules. They operate as normal in society. They take off the costume and go home and pay their taxes as decided on by normal humans and go to their jobs where they take orders from normal humans, etc. The full law-breaking vigilantes live in constant resistance of the rules, but do not determine them, they are pursued, they a forced to hide.
The villain's point is "I'm strong, so everyone must answer to me." generally the hero's is "I'm stronger, so you're going to answer to the law, or conventional morality."
A random cop should just shoot joker in the head and every one in Gotham would be relieved.
'cept batman
>yes, i COULD finally kill this lunatic that's responsible for the deaths of hundreds and shows zero signs of remorse or any intentions to stop and regularly escapes confinement... but then i'd be just like him!
id fucking hate batman
The Joker has said before that bullets don’t work on him, at least long term.
might makes right is the bare minimum for a society to function, and most people want to live in a society above bare minimum of civilization
everybody knows the laws and rules of society are a mask over the implicit violence of the state, but it's still preferable to have a state that relies on power rather than force to get what it wants
I actually liked that bit in the Killing Joke.
If there's a way to win at something without using force either physical, mental or emotional, I'd like to hear it.
Joker arguably wins in TDK.
It would be highly retarded to let the villain win and fuck everything just for the sake of a point.
Also, the hero beats him up for the sake of letting other live free, not to dictate the rules in place of the villain.
An isolated incident can never become a direct rigorous proof of some universal truth. Furthermore, an outcome of a battle is typically dictated by chance or by narrative causality much more than by this mythical "might". You're right about the most important part here being not the winning but the original acceptance of the rules by the hero, but where you see complicity, what really happens is a self-sacrifice in descending from comfortable and chaotic rules of reality into cold and unforgiving rules of a game (and also complicity). Because that's what it is: a game with arbitrary rules, a ritual, a pocket reality, a playful pagan mystery that only relates to universal truth through weak and whimsical correspondences that I dare not to discuss directly. It proves the villain, or the hero, right not more than winning in an ordalic duel proves somebody's innocence - that is to say, it does prove a fucking lot, but not in the way you put it.
Good point Ralph
>Villains shouldn't be stopped because of 5th grade philosophy
Just fucking have a nice day.
Cuz its fun
cuz
>villain has some sophomoric philosophy
>hero disregards it and beats him up
This is in fact kino.
>Hero beats them up, thus proving the villain's point.
And?
because they can't quote Mao about history being determined by the barrel of a gun
>Villain's entire argument is that the strong dictate the rules.
>Hero beats them up, thus proving the villain's point.
so why should the villain be upset that the hero proved their point, just because they lost?
>Villain's entire argument is that the strong dictate the rules.
>Hero beats them up, using his superior might to defend the established laws based order.
>Villain's starts bitching and moaning about actually being the righteous oppressed underdog and the hero being a evil imperialist that wants to subjugate everyone.
>Go to anon's house and beat him to a bloody pulp
>Anon's father comes down ready to stop me
>Tell him "Might Makes Right!"
>The father falls in the ground crying because he realizes I am now unstoppable since he doesn't want to prove me right
>The mother kills herself on the spot because she can't deal with reality
>The local police disbands because they can't force me to go to jail
>Go to the next house
's entire argument is that the strong dictate the rules.
>>Hero beats them up, thus proving the villain's point.
>>This isn't brought up, and in fact the story never questions this irony and instead presents the hero as being in the right.
>Why do so many superhero stories do this?
Provide Examples.
>Villain thinks they should rule because they think they're the strongest
>Hero beats them up, there by proving them wrong
I don't see the problem.
Thats basically WW2
>Villain's entire argument is that the strong dictate the rules.
>Ergo, the hero must not beat up the villain because he'll get gotcha'd by the villain.
A true hero doesn't let a dopey gotcha get in the way of saving people.
Yeah the hero should just let the villain go on their killing spree so they can keep the moral high ground. Idiot
>I'm right because you beat me
What the fuck is this Canadian tier logic?
There is a difference between “might makes right” and just being mighty and also right.
Subjective vs Objective morality.
>Why do so many superhero stories do this?
Name 5.