Good luck with this thread, anon. The last time I tried to have this discussion here the DCSlop and Marvelshit enjoyers ganged up on me and started making horrendous slippery slope arguments.
One even went as far as to say that if you allow the heroes to start killing criminals they may as well just murder everyone in the entire world because we're all guilty of something.
These people are braindead. Enjoy your thread.
Maybe they themselves all have guilty consciences, and then remind them that the alternative is "I have No Mouth, And I Must Scream", and that they all view that scenario as pleasurable
The main issue Is that Is really fricking easy to kill someone that didn't do anything wrong, that's why you need trials and shit (and even them you can make mistakes), so It depends on how okay you are with knowing you are going to end up offing some inocent people or not.
The main issue is that you guys always have to invent these moronic scenarios where an innocent person gets killed when we're clearly talking about putting down the sick dogs like the Joker who are KNOWN to have committed mass murder and are likely to kill again.
Frick's sake you people are so fricking annoying, don't reply to me ever again, forget low quality posts, your entire fricking life is low quality. I specifically mentioned moronic slippery slope arguments as why these threads never go anywhere and what do you do? Direct reply to me with a stupid fricking slippery slope argument. Go away.
Yes you can, however his cases always get thrown out because he's crazy and gets sent to Arkham. Lack of evidence is not the issue, he's been tried and sentenced countless times.
You know at this point I don't question that the Joker isn't getting killed, I wonder how all the defense attorneys who keep getting him off on insanity haven't been lynched
You do know that's how real life Is. Sure you can kill the Joker (until he come backs to live and shit) but you do know a sicko like him has made other people pass as him and Is really easy to just shot someone who he used as bait, or that he brainwashed.
This is the irony of the entire thing. And that no one knows who the Joker really Is so you will never know of you kill the "Joker" or a decoy.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
And theoretically any of those dupe Jokers could come back even more DAMAGED than the regular joker meaning Jason would be increasing the joker supply.
except he's talking specifically about the Joker who has zero chance of being innocent >Is that Is really fricking easy to kill someone that didn't do anything wrong, that's why you need trials and shit
Stupid being to quick to judge the situation is why society needs those things not why you as an induvial shouldn't kill an obvious mass murder. There's a difference between acting as a society and as an induvial. Also if you really want to play the slippery slope argument courts get things wrong all the time doesn't mean we can just let all criminal just walk free just in case their innocent, there's a balance to these things.
Again, It ways depends on of you prioritize protecting the inocent or punishig the guilty. Most heroes can stop murderers without resorting to killing, most super criminales like the Joker have a million ways to make you confuse. On of the Joker's objectives is making Batman fall, so making him kill someone by mistake would be his greatest achivement.
>Again, It ways depends on of you prioritize protecting the inocent
No better way to protect the innocent than putting repeated mass murders like Joker down.
You can't apply real world logic to a comic book, are you autistic? There's a million fricking ways killing the Joker doesn't solve your Joker problem.
Is like you guys are purposely moronic on this threads, trying to ignore that Batman doesn't need to kill the joker because he's fricking Batman, he can stop the Joker in a million different ways besides killing him, because he's a superhero. And the joker is a supervillain , even if he gets kill he has a million ways to come back. Is like the irony of Jason, a guy who got magically resurrected and still think killing is the best choice, is lost on you.
Comic books operate in their own logic, they have magic and technology beyond our real world, so normal means don't work here. How are you going to kill Solomon Grundy b***h? He's already dead. Of course this thread have convoluted ways of explaining how killing bad guys doesn't solve the issue, because it;s how comic books work.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>You can't apply real world logic to a comic book, are you autistic
You're the moron the characters aren't going oh and explain using comic book logic, neither batman nor redhood think of their universe as some silly story with no logic. >, he can stop the Joker in a million different ways besides killing him
Yeah stop for until he breaks out of arkham the next day > even if he gets kill he has a million ways to come back
Yeah you have no right to call others autistic when you're using meta out of universe reasoning >Is like the irony of Jason, a guy who got magically resurrected
Notice how nobody treats this as some normal everyday occurrence in their universe it's not something that happens to most people, nobody goes "oh by the way joe died yesterday how long do you think it will be until he comes back". You are a moronic autist.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>neither batman nor redhood think of their universe as some silly story with no logic.
No, you dingus, but they do live in a world where their every day reality is they were trained by an inmortal ninja assassin from the Middle East with a pool of infinite lives. That's part of their logic.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Close the Lazarus Pit with this one weird trick! >League of Shadows HATES this!
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>but they do live in a world where their every day reality is they were trained by an inmortal ninja assassin from the Middle East with a pool of infinite lives
Hey moron, notice how neither Batman or Jason Todd bring that up or show any inclination of that being factored into their arguments. Whether there is point to killing people in a world where people can be resurrected is not the dilemma being posed you giga autist, it is not what either the characters or writers are talking about.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
If everybody who gets killed gets revived anyway that just means all moral qualms against killing don't matter anymore, if anything it makes killing for the sake of a temporary peace even more justified.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
But that's the thing, heroes cherish life, while villains don't care. If the Joker is to be killed it must be by the hand of Gotham's justice system, not by the hands of Batman.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Except if the gotham justice system decided to kill the joker batman would save him, just like he killed jason to save the joker in the original under the red hood comic. Or he would revive the joker himself, like he did in an alternate universe where batman decided that reviving the joker would clear grayson from the crime or murdering the joker.
If there is a reason this plotpoint keeps being brought up is because the comics went above and beyond to make it as moronic as possible, especially because they apply it to a hero that started out using guns to eliminate the villain of the week and that also ends up killing in every live action movie adaptation.
Just about all of Batman's rogues gallery suffers from a genuine mental illness. Harley had her brain scattered but can be a good person despite that. Ivy is an eco activist that went too far. Harvey has DID exacerbated by his disfigurement. Penguin needs to be taught how am actual gentleman in high society is suppose to act. The only genuine evil person is Joker, he is really the only one that must die.
>You can't murder violent recividist criminals because.... BECAUSE YOU JUST CAN'T OKAY?!?!
Batman's application of "I only catch criminals, I'm not the judge, jury, or executioner" falls flat when you realize how utterly corrupt Gotham city is that no justice will ever be served for some of the worst and most heinous criminals in DC's entire universe. Bruce Wayne is not doing the city a service by being Batman, he needs to use his billions to run for Mayor and then overhaul the city's entire court system. Better yet just execute every last supervillain as the evidence of their crimes is undeniable and overwhelming.
I kinda feel like the failings in most of these is the court system and you're supposed to just wholesale not think about how a court would ever release any given super villain. I honestly don't think it's a failing of super heroes but the suspension of disbelief required for a court to just shrug and give light sentences or refuse to execute.
But the major flaw is at one point or another of the very premise of the most atrocious super villains returning again and again is simply unrealistic and emblematic of properties and characters that probably shouldn't go on indefinitely. You can have long running series, but the idea of a recurring villain lasting indefinitely asks these questions with difficult or no answers.
At the end of the day, certain characters need to be retired. If you cannot continue to create new compelling villains consistently, that may be the sign that you have run out of stories and the series needs to end.
In my opinion, the issue isn't making a believable explanation for why the villains keep coming back. It's creating a believable explanation why characters like these continue to be used indefinitely.
I don't want to draw comparisons, but there's other series out there that have a defined beginning and end state and are allowed to reach a conclusion where certain characters have lived, and certain characters have died, and that's just what happened. And I think the big two are particularly lacking in this department. If they need to do one offs stories with the same characters in alternate worlds or settings or what have you, that's fine. But if it begins, then let it end. And I don't mean just a single one comic and done sorta deal. That said, overall - the big two need to simply start making new stories. And corn-holing everything into its own part of a grander multi-verse probably doesn't do them any favors.
I imagine some crooked psychologist is pushing tabula rasa bullshit on Gotham's laws, coddling the criminals as "victims of a failed system" and scapegoating vaguely defined environmental factors rather than ever treating them as agents of their own free will.
>it's a failing of the suspension of disbelief
This. DC created the worst and most moronic universe logic because the company is there to milk an IP through a forever on-going, and hire edgelord fanboys who constantly needs to top each other to write that. All that could be solved by only doing independant elseworld stories from then on, but DC would lose the completionist and the batgays with a stockholm syndrom if they did, so it's not happening.
>Indiscriminately assassinating accused criminals without a trial or even an investigation >"Controlling" the criminal underworld by pushing drugs, robberies and weapons deals all under what you define as "ethical" (like EVERY CRIMINAL GANG EVER) >Executing subdued opponents who aren't a threat anymore just because you hate them
There's literally no moral dilemma here. Red Hood was the bad guy. He doesn't even have the flimsy excuse Punisher does, because he's also a criminal.
>"Controlling" the criminal underworld by pushing drugs, robberies and weapons deals all under what you define as "ethical" (like EVERY CRIMINAL GANG EVER)
You're reading a lot into utrh. His endgoal is not even to control crime but to burn shit down until Bruce catch up to him. Re-read the dialogues where he and Sionis talk face-to-face at the end. He also doesn't pretend to represent any ideals. In fact, Winnick wrote Jason like a guy who can finally be who he was meant to be and utrh only make sense if you accept that Jason is a bad apple.
You're right about there having no moral dilemna, though. Utrh is just a former Robin turned Batman's villain presenting a trolley problem to Batman, and Batman only.
>DC created the worst and most moronic universe logic because the company is there to milk an IP through a forever on-going
No, that's not the problem.
The problem with Batman, that is very unique to Batman, is that the writers drew attention to his no-killing and then tried to justify it in-universe when from the get-go they should have just ignored it. No one asks why after 50 years Wolverine still has recurring villains, because the writers don't try to dedicate entire story arcs to Logan sparing certain villains- who deserve death- while butchering all their henchman. That certain bad guys just conveniently live to be bad another day is left to suspension of disbelief.
Batman's dumb shit is what happens when you have writers who think they're smarter than they really are.
I mean, Batman's whole job is about capturing villains, if he didn't have a no-kill rule it'd be beyond weird that he'd keep capturing them so much and yet somehow never dealt a killing blow in the process
Not only that but that they put depicted many of his villains as mass murderers. Joker is just the main example, but others like Ivy fed living people to man-eating plants just like that. When you have villains that just kept killing and killing and nothing is done eventually readers will get fed with it.
I mean, Batman's whole job is about capturing villains, if he didn't have a no-kill rule it'd be beyond weird that he'd keep capturing them so much and yet somehow never dealt a killing blow in the process
The thing is also the Batman goes out of his way to save them when their lives are actually in risk >rush an injuried Joker to the hospital >forces Alfred to save Joker's life >save Joker from false accusations and free him of going to death row >saves Joker from Punisher
And so forth and forth...
Because it's murder and murder is against the law and if you break the law your a criminal and heroes aren't criminals.
It's really quite simple.
No it’s very subjective. Several arkham crazies have been rehabilitated. Even Joker has at two points. 90% of the batfamily are former villains and criminal murderers. And many arkham crazies are revenge killers just like you’re trying to force Batman to be, such as Black Spider and Freeze and Clayface.
If you want to say Jason should be allowed to kill Joker then Freeze should be allowed to kill Ferris Boyle and Clayface can kill Dagget and Joker can kill all the staff at ACE and then Batman.
Oh wait that last one was already the plot of Man who Laughs.
Frick, Poison Ivy kills people in revenge for plants because to her they are alive and so everyone who ever stepped on grass is a remorseless murderer. That’s the definition of subjective.
anon, murder is illegal, being a vigilante is also illegal but you know...stuff
It's not murder at all though. Murder is defined as an unlawful or unjustified killing. Meaning you can carry out a lawful or justified killing. American courts have been so cut and dry on this issue for centuries, only in recent times with corrupt activist judges has it been any different. But under a non corrupt American court no jury would call you guilty if you shot the joker while he was gassing kids or something. A prosecutor would sound so stupid trying to argue to a jury that you weren't justified.
Yes the first time but not how he came back from the one at the end of UTH. He’s just back I’m guessing because he ended up more popular than they were expecting.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Pretty much.
Judd Winick said the story was supposed to end inconclusively, that you wouldn't know what happens to Jason after the warehouse blew and that for him, his story ended there. Whether he died or survived and disappeared, Bruce would be left with the thoughts of failure.
Dan DiDio liked the response the Jason comeback was getting though, and decided the answer was "survive" and that Dick should die in Infinite Crisis and Jason take over as Nightwing. He got talked down from the idea, but not before some art was drawn up of Jason!Nightwing and the IC scene of Dick getting what was supposed to be the fatal blast.
DC I guess figured that last UTRH issue to be a good way to tie into IC, so there was the final page of all those multiversal Bats screaming for Jason. The purple reality sparkles during the explosion plant some fan theories that ripples during the Crisis stopped the explosion from killing Bruce, Jason, and Joker and just magically healed the Batarang wound or something.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
They never bring up what happened at the end either is it even considered canon now?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I guess Superboy Prime's punch waves get to write characters out of uncomfortable situations like that to keep them from being addressed.
If a murder is unlawful OR unjustified killing, then for it not to be murder it must be both lawful AND justified. Batman is outside the law and is not willing to be tried in court, therefore his actions cannot be lawful.
>making excuses to murder people you think are fricked and deserve to die makes you the same as the psycho who had a bad day then decided the world is fricked and everyone deserves to die
Yes. Bruce rightfully knows the no kill rule is the only thing keeping the bat-loonies out of arkham
>people you think are fricked and deserve to die
This isn't subjective. They are violent recidivists who cannot be rehabilitated. Locking up them clearly doesn't work, so putting them down is the only option for the common good.
No it’s very subjective. Several arkham crazies have been rehabilitated. Even Joker has at two points. 90% of the batfamily are former villains and criminal murderers. And many arkham crazies are revenge killers just like you’re trying to force Batman to be, such as Black Spider and Freeze and Clayface.
If you want to say Jason should be allowed to kill Joker then Freeze should be allowed to kill Ferris Boyle and Clayface can kill Dagget and Joker can kill all the staff at ACE and then Batman.
Oh wait that last one was already the plot of Man who Laughs.
Frick, Poison Ivy kills people in revenge for plants because to her they are alive and so everyone who ever stepped on grass is a remorseless murderer. That’s the definition of subjective.
>Several arkham crazies have been rehabilitated. Even Joker has at two points
You do understand that saying Joker was rehabilitated twice is just "Quitting smoking is easy. I've done it five times just this week" tier cope. If it doesn't stick then he wasn't rehabilitated.
Jason Todd didn't kill the joker when he had the chance.
And he had the chance too but Jason's motivation was always more about revenge on Bruce than stopping killers.
Why? That's a dumb thing to think, why would you ever think that? The argument lacks any sense from the outset and simply boils down to "Oh yeah? Well what about <x>?!" as a counterargument to executing a dangerous criminal.
Because if you kill a killer then the number of killers in the world stays the same. You’ve only taken his place as the new Joker. Hope you like Arkham.
That's moronic. >if you execute Timothy McVeigh then you're just as bad as a truck bomber. Nice job, terrorist!
It doesn't make sense, there isn't an argument in there that works at all.
Where do you draw the line. Cops kill by mistake and accident all the time, and vigilantes have even less accountability.
If you see a guy shooting kids you shoot that guy until he stops. There's nothing grey about some acts. This entire killing Joker thing has become absurdo ad reductum and I reject it as faulty.
Yes you are. Only difference is he used a truck when he committed his murder, murderer. You’ll rot in prison all the same. You don’t get an excuse to commit murder.
>Yes you are.
Yes I am what, correct? Executing a mass murderer is morally just, (you) are incorrect and a bleeding heart loser who'd argue for his mother's rapist's right to life. c**t.
This. If you kill The Joker you become The Joker. That’s the moral lesson from The Batman who Laughs, and why we can never allow ourselves to compromise good or else we will fall into the abyss entirely.
That's inherently a childish and moronic excuse, grow up little boy
Shit like the Batman who Laughs is the exact reason superhero comics will always be for moronic children.
This, sadly. It's "violence isn't the answer!" propaganda from the 80s/90s that colored an entire generation to be touchy feely dorks who fear force of any kind. Pathetic.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
t.Rick and Edgy fan
Still mad that Smiling Friends btfoed you? You’ll never be smart and cutting yourself and being an edgelord doesn’t make you mature.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Swing and a miss on both counts, false smugness doesn't make an argument and neither do strawmen.
Tell me why it was wrong to execute Ed Gein. Go on, tell me how the number of murderers in the world stays the same as if that's some meaningful philosophical point and not merely an immature thought-terminating cliche.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Ed Gein
Not the anon, but Ed Gein was declared insane and spent the rest of his life in insane asylum before dying of cancer as a harmless old man. He's absolutely a wrong example here.
This. If you kill The Joker you become The Joker. That’s the moral lesson from The Batman who Laughs, and why we can never allow ourselves to compromise good or else we will fall into the abyss entirely.
Serial killers that kill other killers are a good thing then. I also look forward to batman beating up and arresting every soldier that took part in live combat or every cop that gunned down a criminal.
>Because if you kill a killer then the number of killers in the world stays the same
Please get a dictionary and learn the difference between "kill" and "murder". >Hope you like Arkham.
I'm sure there are many situations where Batman killing Joker was self-defense.
t.Rick and Edgy fan
Still mad that Smiling Friends btfoed you? You’ll never be smart and cutting yourself and being an edgelord doesn’t make you mature.
>Still mad that Smiling Friends btfoed you?
The episode was about nihilism moron. Killing someone in self-defense is not nihilistic.
No he's not. There's no court in the world that would find Joker not guilty by reason of insanity. He's mentally ill, sure, but he clearly has the clarity to premediate his elaborate crimes. You can only attempt the insanity defense in unhinged crimes of passion.
The entire problem with these stories trying to examine or question Batman's no kill rule is that as time goes on and comics escalate, it looks less and less justifiable.
The question is bad enough for Joker in general, but after shit like Joker War, it becomes incredibly hard to say that Batman would be as bad as he is
At this point heroes are as much criminals as villains due to overstepping law procedure and dismissing policy in favor of making their own methods work. They just don't kill.
It's not just the murder, it's the method.
Never forget he decapitated eight men, shoved their heads in a duffel bag, rigged the duffel bag with explosives, took it to a mob boss meet, and tossed it at them.
This is beyond cringe.
I don’t care who’s right or wrong. What I want to know is how to end this fricking loop and move to the next stage because I’m sick of reading the same story over and over again.
There is no point for good guys to murder bad guys in comic books because death means nothing and they always come back. A good guy "murdering" a bad guy will be nothing but them satisfying their own lust for blood and violence.
>There is no point for good guys to murder bad guys in comic books because death means nothing and they always come back
That's meta out of universe reasoning it's not the characters reasoning. That's simply why the writers shouldn't have brought up the issue in the first place, since the universe runs on silly capeshit comic rules logic just doesn't apply.
People misunderstand the no-kill rule so badly.
It's not about you, and it's not about whether capital punishment is morally acceptable.
It's about Batman and his sidekicks being 3/4s of the way to a padded cell already. It's Batman knowing that if he ever manages to rationalize killing someone then the floodgates are gonna open and he's gonna kill a shitload of people.
that is not the argument batman nor the writers of batman ever present so that's wrong. Batman's no kill rule is precisely because the writers believe that murdering the joker is somehow immoral
>Hmm yes giant mutant crocodile man who just ate somebody right in front of me, I COULD kill you, but then I'd be no better than you, a giant mutated crocodile man who eats people for fun
Just put him in an iron lung, problem solved. What's he going to do, breath menacingly at you? He can't even do that without machine assistance, gg clown.
You're joking but I wouldn't put it past the writers to have the Joker corrupt people just by existing. Joker just lying there, people looking at him, reflecting on his actions and philosophy, going down a rabbit hole and becoming crazed criminals themselves.
That exactly stupid enough to be a thing in comics, yeah I can see it. After the edgy joker batman nonsense there is no theoretical upper limit for how dumb this shit can get.
Batman doesn't kill the Joker because Joe Chill murdered his parents in front of him and that's bad. If he takes a life to save more lives, than that means Joe Chill has saved N-2 lives where N is everyone Batman has ever saved. He can't accept that under any circumstances
Batman going out of his way to save the Joker is fricking moronic though
It's not illegal to kill in self defense. It's not illegal to kill in self defense of others. Up until the 20th century it was common knowledge that the responsobility of enforcing the law was on the heads of the citizenry when the government failed to do so. If the sheriff wasn't doing his job, it was your duty as an American to kill the murderous bandits who were pillaging the town. Batman is an American citizen, Batman has the responisbility to uphold the law when the government fails to do so. The law says that mass murders are sentenced to death.when Batman does not follow through on this, he's breaking the law.
this is possibly the stupidest narrative in batman they've had
everyone knows the real reason he doesn't kill is because its comics and you can't have him kill off his antagonists
a "killer batman" is even more stupid because all he ends up killing are people who don't matter
>I'll bring this repeated mass-murderer to justice... >but only after I've successfully reformed the justice system! >hundreds, maybe thousands will no doubt die horribly in the time it takes to fix our courts >but they're a necessary sacrifice to uphold TRUE justice!
You're obfuscating a relatively simple moral issue. If Jason went after corrupt judges and state attorneys that let blatant murderers and rapists go he would do more good than just killing individual bad guys, because then the court system would be doing it like it's supposed to.
Because Bruce covered his murder to protect his secret identity. Only the "heroes" know the truth. Jason wasn't murdered by Joker as far as Justice is concerned. If Jason goes there, it's not one trial he opens but a lot more.
That makes his anger more understandable if in the eyes of the public he just died randomly. If he really wanted to frick with them he would open that case and watch the chaos unfold.
Is he really mentally incompetent though? He’s not some drooling moron, he’s crazy and psychotic and that hasn’t stopped people from getting the chair.
It's not up to the supreme court to decide who's mentally incompetent though. Joker would have been fried long ago, well more likely he would have been shot by a cop or just a rival antagonist, or the cops could just kneel on his neck for a good hour or so. Or acorn cop could just scream he heard gunshots and mag dump into him.
It doesn't matter because even if they did, the joker has to continue to live forever because DC could never create an antagonist that did as well as he does at selling comics.
The Joker lives because he sells comics, movies, games and cartoons/live action series. Arguably, creating a new animated series with its own continuity separate from others even if with a similar premise is one of the few ways I see DC being able to make something with a defined beginning and end point necessary to make something truly believably great. Not gonna make comparisons, but there's stuff out there where, "ok, this character dies." And that's what happens. They have an ending planned for the series from the start, even if the beats in the middle can sometimes change as it comes out, the ending of who lives and dies is still set and the story still progresses towards that end. What is happening in comics in my smelly popinyot is that the story just progresses to the next storybeat or plot event. It's not moving towards an ending, because they want it to continue forever.
Really wish this was put out there more. A literal moron has a tard-fit and doesn't understand that he killed someone, that's mentally incompetent. Being a counter-culture weirdo who doesn't care that he kills a bunch of people but still understands what killing is and intended to do it is mentally competent, no matter if mommy touched his no no place or he has a brain tumor or his skinned got bleached.
The thing is even if Lenny murders a girl in 2024 because he hugged a girl like he hugs the rabbits until they stop moving, he doesn't get to walk. He gets locked up in a mental hospital for the rest of his life. If, somehow, he escapes, the cops are basically going to put the moron with moron strength down unless he immediately capitulates, which he probably doesn't understand to do given he's a moron.
bro if the joker somehow made it out of prison or arkham 100 times i would be using my batdrones to go monitor some public officials
some is bullshitting us if the joker keeps getting free
In-universe I think the explanation for that was there were actually three Jokers running around at roughly the same time, so 2/3 times he "escaped" Arkham it was actually just one of the other Jokers doing shit.
That might actually not be true at all. It was a really convoluted story and I couldn't keep up with it.
It's supposedly still canon, which means Jason's a cringe simp for Barbara. Next thing you know we'll find out Tim's been harboring a boner too but has to vent his horniness into Bernard.
Wouldn't anyone notice that they have 2-3 Jokers in Arkham at any given moment? Batman wouldn't suspect that he was punching the shit out of 3 different guys despite the clown-makeup face?
yeah I thought about that too. Like, if there were a Joker fricking around in Gotham, but the other Joker hadn't escaped yet, wouldn't people immediately notice? Or like, if they took Joker back into Arkham, wouldn't they see another Joker was still there? Did the other Jokers know to escape right when the other one arose?
I don't have a good memory of the story and I didn't keep track of it at all, so this isn't actually a criticism per se -- even if the concept of three different Jokers is inherently pretty convoluted. The way I'm describing it doesn't really add up.
Someone else who remembers the story better should probably check my work.
I never read 3 Jokers, but it seemed like a really stupid way to address the "problem" of the major changes in the Joker's character over the decades. Johns might as well have created older versions of Batman to fight these different Jokers.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I mean, I actually kinda like the idea of multiple people taking up the Joker mantle. Like, the idea of Joker being an idea, a force of chaos and destruction, not tied down to any one single person, is pretty cool.
I just don't know if you can do it retroactively in the mainline DC universe without it being really convoluted or contrived. Like, isn't Batman the world's greatest detective? Wouldn't he eventually notice that Joker kinda sounds or looks different sometimes? Wouldn't there be photographs or surveillance footage he could compare and say "hey, what the frick is this?"
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Its why the Jokerz worked as a street gang in Beyond. Its not just one dipshit in clown makeup, its a whole street gang/movement with the troubled kids, and moderately worked with their "street performers gone bad" MO.
Instead of blaming fricking Batman for following due process, blame what a shit hole Gotham is for not taking the death penalty on the criminal's asses, or funding for better mental institutions, homosexual.
There's no great moral argument in favor of the Joker living when he always escapes jail and for some reason can't be permanently paralyzed. Just put a bullet in his head and be done with it.
He’s a lesson for him giving criminal scum the benefit of the doubt and welcoming him into his home thinking that he could change. Ungrateful manchild bastard.
Bruce should never take in Crime Alley poors. It's why boys like Tim are more valued, they do good and speak to his class level.
Blonde bimbos who get themselves knocked up like Stephanie are a plague and pox on the Bat-Family house too. They don't need to be putting more unwanted and undoubtedly criminal youth into this world.
Because moronic moralgay authors take it to absurd extremes.
Batman not being an executioner is fine. But going out of his way to save villains or stopping a cop from shooting them is just silly
I agree. Superheros shouldn't murder criminals.
But why doesn't the state? An episode of Superman TAS showed a criminal getting executed in Metropolis, but why doesn't Gotham? I don't care if the Arkham patients are considered insane, an insanity plea will only get you so far when you have the blood of hundreds upon thousands on your hands.
This is just because decades ago homosexuals thought comic books and pulps were too violent so the publishers self-imposed rules to make them softer and nicer.
I like to think that there's an alternate timeline where they did kill the Joker off for good, but now they're trapped in a cycle where there's just an endless stream of psycho supervillains to replace the last so nothing really changes. Over nearly a hundred years, AU Batman has killed countless villains, but editorial forces it so that Gotham can never actually get better. Also the more popular villains simply come back to life over and over.
That or you get the Infinite Joker Crisis. You kill one, and he spawns more clones like a Hydra and they keep populating the Earth until it's overrun by Jokers.
When you compare the city Batman has jurisdiction over compared to literally every single other member of the Justice League, Batman not being willing to kill his villains comes up a lot because Gotham is such a shithole and has the most psychotic and dangerous villains in comparison. Why would you choose to live in Gotham compared to Superman's metropolis? Honestly why? It makes no sense. Batman has failed at his job to keep the city safe because it is so crime ridden.
I've always kinda wanted like a complete Batman serial that details his career from start to finish. In it, Joker would only appear a handful of times. He's not necessarily Batman's most frequent villain, but he's the most unpredictable and potentially the most devastating. In his final appearance, he would appear to perish but as they never find his body, Bruce can never be truly certain.
Every time this thread gets made, I always ask the same question, and every time none of you can ever answer it: if you truly believe in vigilante justice, why don't you buy a gun or a knife right now (or a fricking wrench if you're so broke), look up sexual offenders near your area (which is public information, so you can't even use the excuse of "I don't know where to find criminals"), and go to them right now? What excuse are you going to throw at me now to explain why you won't?
If you aren't going to do it, then either shut up or admit you're a coward expecting someone else to do the hard work for you.
Jesus dude, I just want them to not have joker murdering thousands of people per scheme and be a 10 steps ahead God. I just want an unhinged gangster with a clown theme.
>Every time this thread gets made, I always ask the same question, and every time none of you can ever answer it: if you truly believe in vigilante justice, why don't you buy a gun or a knife right now (or a fricking wrench if you're so broke), look up sexual offenders near your area
moron, because unlike the joker I don't know for sure if they really are guilty
In real life he would have been either gunned down by the cops at one of his many legal escapades or killed by the military after the government declared him a terrorist and national threat. The no-kill rule itself is fine; the problem is the hidden rule that the authorities must behave preposterously and forfeit their literal primary responsibilities.
>the DCSlop and Marvelshit enjoyers ganged up on me
People ganged up on you because it was the 20th motherfricking Red Hood/Batman kills thread we'd had in three days and people were tired of the horseshit.
I just came up with a good argument to not kill Joker. the DC universe is full of crazy supernatural shit and it's better to keep him alive than have him die and potentially become a demon.
Has there been a "What if" where the Joker tries his crimes in a red state and gets the 2nd Amendment from some random with no fanfare and the League has to just accept it?
>Indiscriminately assassinating accused criminals without a trial or even an investigation >"Controlling" the criminal underworld by pushing drugs, robberies and weapons deals all under what you define as "ethical" (like EVERY CRIMINAL GANG EVER) >Executing subdued opponents who aren't a threat anymore just because you hate them
There's literally no moral dilemma here. Red Hood was the bad guy. He doesn't even have the flimsy excuse Punisher does, because he's also a criminal.
>Indiscriminately assassinating accused criminals without a trial or even an investigation >"Controlling" the criminal underworld by pushing drugs, robberies and weapons deals all under what you define as "ethical" (like EVERY CRIMINAL GANG EVER) >Executing subdued opponents who aren't a threat anymore just because you hate them
Sounds based to me.
Frank is a dick and I love him, but he hates crime and does everything he can to shut it down. Jason became a criminal kingpin under the flimsy guise that crime couldn't be destroyed, only controlled to do the least amount of damage. Something Frank would hate because the entire motivating factor for his life is his neverending war on crime. If it actually worked, it would render his life's mission redundant and ruin everything. If it didn't work, Jason would just be another thug.
>no reading comprehension
The gangs subplot is only here to pad the issues until Bruce decid to confront a ghost from his past and Jason only "long-term" plan is to burn down that part of Gotham. I don't know how you guys managed to lose track of such a basic fricking plot.
It's supposedly still canon, which means Jason's a cringe simp for Barbara. Next thing you know we'll find out Tim's been harboring a boner too but has to vent his horniness into Bernard.
No, Damnit! No.... I can't kill him because he's too damn marketable. This might be an alternate timeline, but DC wants the option to make a sequel if we're popular enough and the audience rolls their eyes at that "ghost of Joker" shit. I know we have the Lazarus pits but our writers aren't talented enough to make crazy crazier, they'll probably just do something stupid like say "crazy + crazy = sane." Don't you see what's at stake? I raised you better than this, Jason. I raised you with money.
Jason was never right or genuinely trying to make a point. Everything he does revolves around either pissing off Bruce or trying to make Bruce prove he loves him. He could have killed the Joker or any number of supervillains quietly at any time after his revival when no one in Gotham was expecting him. That’s the actual smart, pragmatic option.
It's as simple as this:
Option A: An idealistic world of heroes where life is always worth saving.
Option B: A realistic world of heroes where killing is permitted.
The choice sets the tone of heroism, and both are fine as long as you don't start mixing them. You can have moralgays and The Punisher in the same universe, but one of them has to be morally right. Marvel and DC generally follow option A, meaning that killers are always on some level wrong. And that is the heroic ideal.
Reminder the no kill rule is applied only because writers don't want to brainstorm new criminals.
It only worked in lighthearted stuff like the Adam West Batman. But when it all got dead serious and kept getting worse with the Joker committing acts of genocide, then leaving him alive is the most brain-dead, moronic and unjust thing in the world.
>Reminder the no kill rule is applied only because writers don't want to brainstorm new criminals.
Not really. The no kill rule was started back in the 40's when they were making new villaisn every month.
Also funny enough- Adam West Batman (accidentally) killed some goons, as well as outright threatened to kill villains for threatening a Catwoman who was in disguise as an Eastern european woman.
>It only worked in lighthearted stuff like the Adam West Batman.
This.
If the joker's jokes weren't always horridly mean-spirited for no reason and didn't always involve 'recreating the Gangi river in Gotham out of pulverized toddlers' levels of senseless violence, then Gotham's continued tolerance of his existence would make more sense.
But no, I guess ungrounded psychotic edge is easier to write than devising humorous, but highly disruptive, ways to troll society at large.
>I may not be able to stop you Joker, as it's against my morales. >OH C'MON BATS, WHERE'S THE FUN IN THIS? FIGHT BACK A LIL! >But I know someone who can >GLASS SHATTERS
I'm kind of surprised they didn't somehow link them up as a duo. Jason would be happy to slay away with a "proper" Batman father figure and Thomas wouldn't be as focused on his autistic crusade to stop Bruce from being Batman.
In this Alt Setting, Joker is his Ex-wife yeah?
How does that work exactly?
Do they go for the whole 'oh, she went crazy so none of her actions need to line up with a coherent motivation, and she gains inexplicable hyper-competence' (aka. Joker but with breasts), or do they actually do something interesting with the character?
So if the Joker was trying to kidnap someone and kill them with laughing gas, but the guy had a CC permit and put 10 in the Joker's chest in self-defense, killing him, would the guy in question become the Joker? Would Batman swoop down and tell him some bullshit about the amount of killers in the world remaining 1?
Because if that is truly the case then Batman singlehandedly dispels any notion that anybody should be permitted to use lethal force to defend themselves, something that is otherwise argued as vital if, for example, some insane man in a clown costume hired a bunch of thugs to kidnap you and chemically lobotomize you. And if that's NOT the case then what Batman should really be doing is running as a right-wing politician who expands gun rights and allows common people to defend themselves against his entire rogue's gallery, as a granny packing a .45 would do more in three seconds than the Batman persona accomplished in 45 years.
How do you people not get tired of whining about one man's autism regarding homocidal geeks for so damn long? Especially considering the argument's coming from an unstable whiny edgelord who shoots people specifically because he's simultaneously trying to rebel against daddy while also demanding his attention and love. How do you not get tired of it all at this point?
I thought he killed people because he thought they deserved to die. Having your life in the hands of an unstable highschool drop out seems unfortunate though.
I liked the Hush movie's answer. Just as Dent is compelled to flip his coin and Riddler is compelled to riddle, Bruce is compelled to save lives. He can't stop himself. If he has the ability to save someone, he has to try. If he can stop someone from taking a life, he has to try.
Lex is way better at the >You can't kill me and remain a hero
Jig. Purely because the system is his b***h and he constantly flees the consequences by playing into the corrupt and broken game. It's way different from Joker who only ever isn't put down because of plot convenience.
Also Superman could gore his entire body by just flying into him at moderate speed whereas Batman struggles a lot with the fights themself so the moral reservations are way more of a challenge here.
I feel like Joker just shouldn't appear so much. I get that this is asking for a lot from an ongoing near-century old comic, but ideally, he shoukd just appear a handful of times throughout Batman's career. Quality over quantity
Good luck with this thread, anon. The last time I tried to have this discussion here the DCSlop and Marvelshit enjoyers ganged up on me and started making horrendous slippery slope arguments.
One even went as far as to say that if you allow the heroes to start killing criminals they may as well just murder everyone in the entire world because we're all guilty of something.
These people are braindead. Enjoy your thread.
Maybe they themselves all have guilty consciences, and then remind them that the alternative is "I have No Mouth, And I Must Scream", and that they all view that scenario as pleasurable
The main issue Is that Is really fricking easy to kill someone that didn't do anything wrong, that's why you need trials and shit (and even them you can make mistakes), so It depends on how okay you are with knowing you are going to end up offing some inocent people or not.
The main issue is that you guys always have to invent these moronic scenarios where an innocent person gets killed when we're clearly talking about putting down the sick dogs like the Joker who are KNOWN to have committed mass murder and are likely to kill again.
Frick's sake you people are so fricking annoying, don't reply to me ever again, forget low quality posts, your entire fricking life is low quality. I specifically mentioned moronic slippery slope arguments as why these threads never go anywhere and what do you do? Direct reply to me with a stupid fricking slippery slope argument. Go away.
You cannot prove Joker has committed a single crime.
Did he not torture and killed a little boy or regularly commits mass murder and terrorism?
Yes you can, however his cases always get thrown out because he's crazy and gets sent to Arkham. Lack of evidence is not the issue, he's been tried and sentenced countless times.
You know at this point I don't question that the Joker isn't getting killed, I wonder how all the defense attorneys who keep getting him off on insanity haven't been lynched
Because Gotham is inherently corrupt.
He sent a video of his crime to the news
You do know that's how real life Is. Sure you can kill the Joker (until he come backs to live and shit) but you do know a sicko like him has made other people pass as him and Is really easy to just shot someone who he used as bait, or that he brainwashed.
>until he come backs to live and shit
That's literally what happened to Jason.
This is the irony of the entire thing. And that no one knows who the Joker really Is so you will never know of you kill the "Joker" or a decoy.
And theoretically any of those dupe Jokers could come back even more DAMAGED than the regular joker meaning Jason would be increasing the joker supply.
I can see Jokerlings becoming the Doombots of DC
except he's talking specifically about the Joker who has zero chance of being innocent
>Is that Is really fricking easy to kill someone that didn't do anything wrong, that's why you need trials and shit
Stupid being to quick to judge the situation is why society needs those things not why you as an induvial shouldn't kill an obvious mass murder. There's a difference between acting as a society and as an induvial. Also if you really want to play the slippery slope argument courts get things wrong all the time doesn't mean we can just let all criminal just walk free just in case their innocent, there's a balance to these things.
Again, It ways depends on of you prioritize protecting the inocent or punishig the guilty. Most heroes can stop murderers without resorting to killing, most super criminales like the Joker have a million ways to make you confuse. On of the Joker's objectives is making Batman fall, so making him kill someone by mistake would be his greatest achivement.
>Again, It ways depends on of you prioritize protecting the inocent
No better way to protect the innocent than putting repeated mass murders like Joker down.
You can't apply real world logic to a comic book, are you autistic? There's a million fricking ways killing the Joker doesn't solve your Joker problem.
Is like you guys are purposely moronic on this threads, trying to ignore that Batman doesn't need to kill the joker because he's fricking Batman, he can stop the Joker in a million different ways besides killing him, because he's a superhero. And the joker is a supervillain , even if he gets kill he has a million ways to come back. Is like the irony of Jason, a guy who got magically resurrected and still think killing is the best choice, is lost on you.
Comic books operate in their own logic, they have magic and technology beyond our real world, so normal means don't work here. How are you going to kill Solomon Grundy b***h? He's already dead. Of course this thread have convoluted ways of explaining how killing bad guys doesn't solve the issue, because it;s how comic books work.
>You can't apply real world logic to a comic book, are you autistic
You're the moron the characters aren't going oh and explain using comic book logic, neither batman nor redhood think of their universe as some silly story with no logic.
>, he can stop the Joker in a million different ways besides killing him
Yeah stop for until he breaks out of arkham the next day
> even if he gets kill he has a million ways to come back
Yeah you have no right to call others autistic when you're using meta out of universe reasoning
>Is like the irony of Jason, a guy who got magically resurrected
Notice how nobody treats this as some normal everyday occurrence in their universe it's not something that happens to most people, nobody goes "oh by the way joe died yesterday how long do you think it will be until he comes back". You are a moronic autist.
>neither batman nor redhood think of their universe as some silly story with no logic.
No, you dingus, but they do live in a world where their every day reality is they were trained by an inmortal ninja assassin from the Middle East with a pool of infinite lives. That's part of their logic.
>Close the Lazarus Pit with this one weird trick!
>League of Shadows HATES this!
>but they do live in a world where their every day reality is they were trained by an inmortal ninja assassin from the Middle East with a pool of infinite lives
Hey moron, notice how neither Batman or Jason Todd bring that up or show any inclination of that being factored into their arguments. Whether there is point to killing people in a world where people can be resurrected is not the dilemma being posed you giga autist, it is not what either the characters or writers are talking about.
If everybody who gets killed gets revived anyway that just means all moral qualms against killing don't matter anymore, if anything it makes killing for the sake of a temporary peace even more justified.
But that's the thing, heroes cherish life, while villains don't care. If the Joker is to be killed it must be by the hand of Gotham's justice system, not by the hands of Batman.
Except if the gotham justice system decided to kill the joker batman would save him, just like he killed jason to save the joker in the original under the red hood comic. Or he would revive the joker himself, like he did in an alternate universe where batman decided that reviving the joker would clear grayson from the crime or murdering the joker.
If there is a reason this plotpoint keeps being brought up is because the comics went above and beyond to make it as moronic as possible, especially because they apply it to a hero that started out using guns to eliminate the villain of the week and that also ends up killing in every live action movie adaptation.
Just about all of Batman's rogues gallery suffers from a genuine mental illness. Harley had her brain scattered but can be a good person despite that. Ivy is an eco activist that went too far. Harvey has DID exacerbated by his disfigurement. Penguin needs to be taught how am actual gentleman in high society is suppose to act. The only genuine evil person is Joker, he is really the only one that must die.
Normally I'd agree with you but you seem like a massive dick-stroking homosexual in this post.
Batman's application of "I only catch criminals, I'm not the judge, jury, or executioner" falls flat when you realize how utterly corrupt Gotham city is that no justice will ever be served for some of the worst and most heinous criminals in DC's entire universe. Bruce Wayne is not doing the city a service by being Batman, he needs to use his billions to run for Mayor and then overhaul the city's entire court system. Better yet just execute every last supervillain as the evidence of their crimes is undeniable and overwhelming.
I kinda feel like the failings in most of these is the court system and you're supposed to just wholesale not think about how a court would ever release any given super villain. I honestly don't think it's a failing of super heroes but the suspension of disbelief required for a court to just shrug and give light sentences or refuse to execute.
But the major flaw is at one point or another of the very premise of the most atrocious super villains returning again and again is simply unrealistic and emblematic of properties and characters that probably shouldn't go on indefinitely. You can have long running series, but the idea of a recurring villain lasting indefinitely asks these questions with difficult or no answers.
At the end of the day, certain characters need to be retired. If you cannot continue to create new compelling villains consistently, that may be the sign that you have run out of stories and the series needs to end.
In my opinion, the issue isn't making a believable explanation for why the villains keep coming back. It's creating a believable explanation why characters like these continue to be used indefinitely.
I don't want to draw comparisons, but there's other series out there that have a defined beginning and end state and are allowed to reach a conclusion where certain characters have lived, and certain characters have died, and that's just what happened. And I think the big two are particularly lacking in this department. If they need to do one offs stories with the same characters in alternate worlds or settings or what have you, that's fine. But if it begins, then let it end. And I don't mean just a single one comic and done sorta deal. That said, overall - the big two need to simply start making new stories. And corn-holing everything into its own part of a grander multi-verse probably doesn't do them any favors.
I imagine some crooked psychologist is pushing tabula rasa bullshit on Gotham's laws, coddling the criminals as "victims of a failed system" and scapegoating vaguely defined environmental factors rather than ever treating them as agents of their own free will.
>it's a failing of the suspension of disbelief
This. DC created the worst and most moronic universe logic because the company is there to milk an IP through a forever on-going, and hire edgelord fanboys who constantly needs to top each other to write that. All that could be solved by only doing independant elseworld stories from then on, but DC would lose the completionist and the batgays with a stockholm syndrom if they did, so it's not happening.
>"Controlling" the criminal underworld by pushing drugs, robberies and weapons deals all under what you define as "ethical" (like EVERY CRIMINAL GANG EVER)
You're reading a lot into utrh. His endgoal is not even to control crime but to burn shit down until Bruce catch up to him. Re-read the dialogues where he and Sionis talk face-to-face at the end. He also doesn't pretend to represent any ideals. In fact, Winnick wrote Jason like a guy who can finally be who he was meant to be and utrh only make sense if you accept that Jason is a bad apple.
You're right about there having no moral dilemna, though. Utrh is just a former Robin turned Batman's villain presenting a trolley problem to Batman, and Batman only.
>DC created the worst and most moronic universe logic because the company is there to milk an IP through a forever on-going
No, that's not the problem.
The problem with Batman, that is very unique to Batman, is that the writers drew attention to his no-killing and then tried to justify it in-universe when from the get-go they should have just ignored it. No one asks why after 50 years Wolverine still has recurring villains, because the writers don't try to dedicate entire story arcs to Logan sparing certain villains- who deserve death- while butchering all their henchman. That certain bad guys just conveniently live to be bad another day is left to suspension of disbelief.
Batman's dumb shit is what happens when you have writers who think they're smarter than they really are.
I mean, Batman's whole job is about capturing villains, if he didn't have a no-kill rule it'd be beyond weird that he'd keep capturing them so much and yet somehow never dealt a killing blow in the process
Not only that but that they put depicted many of his villains as mass murderers. Joker is just the main example, but others like Ivy fed living people to man-eating plants just like that. When you have villains that just kept killing and killing and nothing is done eventually readers will get fed with it.
The thing is also the Batman goes out of his way to save them when their lives are actually in risk
>rush an injuried Joker to the hospital
>forces Alfred to save Joker's life
>save Joker from false accusations and free him of going to death row
>saves Joker from Punisher
And so forth and forth...
Frick off troony
Because that would be murder.
It's not murder at all though. Murder is defined as an unlawful or unjustified killing. Meaning you can carry out a lawful or justified killing. American courts have been so cut and dry on this issue for centuries, only in recent times with corrupt activist judges has it been any different. But under a non corrupt American court no jury would call you guilty if you shot the joker while he was gassing kids or something. A prosecutor would sound so stupid trying to argue to a jury that you weren't justified.
then by that logic Bruce should kill Jason to defend The Joker, moron.
He did. That’s how it ends. He just comes back and they never explain how.
I believe the explanation was superboy prime punching so hard he broke reality.
That story must have been written by the same type of guy that will brag that he punched holes in his wall.
Yes the first time but not how he came back from the one at the end of UTH. He’s just back I’m guessing because he ended up more popular than they were expecting.
Pretty much.
Judd Winick said the story was supposed to end inconclusively, that you wouldn't know what happens to Jason after the warehouse blew and that for him, his story ended there. Whether he died or survived and disappeared, Bruce would be left with the thoughts of failure.
Dan DiDio liked the response the Jason comeback was getting though, and decided the answer was "survive" and that Dick should die in Infinite Crisis and Jason take over as Nightwing. He got talked down from the idea, but not before some art was drawn up of Jason!Nightwing and the IC scene of Dick getting what was supposed to be the fatal blast.
DC I guess figured that last UTRH issue to be a good way to tie into IC, so there was the final page of all those multiversal Bats screaming for Jason. The purple reality sparkles during the explosion plant some fan theories that ripples during the Crisis stopped the explosion from killing Bruce, Jason, and Joker and just magically healed the Batarang wound or something.
They never bring up what happened at the end either is it even considered canon now?
I guess Superboy Prime's punch waves get to write characters out of uncomfortable situations like that to keep them from being addressed.
If a murder is unlawful OR unjustified killing, then for it not to be murder it must be both lawful AND justified. Batman is outside the law and is not willing to be tried in court, therefore his actions cannot be lawful.
If you kill The Joker then you will just as bad as he is.
>putting down a psychopathic mass-murderer means you are le same
kek
>making excuses to murder people you think are fricked and deserve to die makes you the same as the psycho who had a bad day then decided the world is fricked and everyone deserves to die
Yes. Bruce rightfully knows the no kill rule is the only thing keeping the bat-loonies out of arkham
>people you think are fricked and deserve to die
This isn't subjective. They are violent recidivists who cannot be rehabilitated. Locking up them clearly doesn't work, so putting them down is the only option for the common good.
No it’s very subjective. Several arkham crazies have been rehabilitated. Even Joker has at two points. 90% of the batfamily are former villains and criminal murderers. And many arkham crazies are revenge killers just like you’re trying to force Batman to be, such as Black Spider and Freeze and Clayface.
If you want to say Jason should be allowed to kill Joker then Freeze should be allowed to kill Ferris Boyle and Clayface can kill Dagget and Joker can kill all the staff at ACE and then Batman.
Oh wait that last one was already the plot of Man who Laughs.
Frick, Poison Ivy kills people in revenge for plants because to her they are alive and so everyone who ever stepped on grass is a remorseless murderer. That’s the definition of subjective.
>Several arkham crazies have been rehabilitated. Even Joker has at two points
You do understand that saying Joker was rehabilitated twice is just "Quitting smoking is easy. I've done it five times just this week" tier cope. If it doesn't stick then he wasn't rehabilitated.
We're talking about Jason Todd, a guy who came back from the dead so no being killed is not a permanent solution.
So you agree Lex Luthor needs to be killed.
Jason Todd didn't kill the joker when he had the chance.
And he had the chance too but Jason's motivation was always more about revenge on Bruce than stopping killers.
Why? That's a dumb thing to think, why would you ever think that? The argument lacks any sense from the outset and simply boils down to "Oh yeah? Well what about <x>?!" as a counterargument to executing a dangerous criminal.
Because if you kill a killer then the number of killers in the world stays the same. You’ve only taken his place as the new Joker. Hope you like Arkham.
That's moronic.
>if you execute Timothy McVeigh then you're just as bad as a truck bomber. Nice job, terrorist!
It doesn't make sense, there isn't an argument in there that works at all.
If you see a guy shooting kids you shoot that guy until he stops. There's nothing grey about some acts. This entire killing Joker thing has become absurdo ad reductum and I reject it as faulty.
Yes you are. Only difference is he used a truck when he committed his murder, murderer. You’ll rot in prison all the same. You don’t get an excuse to commit murder.
>Yes you are.
Yes I am what, correct? Executing a mass murderer is morally just, (you) are incorrect and a bleeding heart loser who'd argue for his mother's rapist's right to life. c**t.
That's inherently a childish and moronic excuse, grow up little boy
This, sadly. It's "violence isn't the answer!" propaganda from the 80s/90s that colored an entire generation to be touchy feely dorks who fear force of any kind. Pathetic.
t.Rick and Edgy fan
Still mad that Smiling Friends btfoed you? You’ll never be smart and cutting yourself and being an edgelord doesn’t make you mature.
Swing and a miss on both counts, false smugness doesn't make an argument and neither do strawmen.
Tell me why it was wrong to execute Ed Gein. Go on, tell me how the number of murderers in the world stays the same as if that's some meaningful philosophical point and not merely an immature thought-terminating cliche.
>Ed Gein
Not the anon, but Ed Gein was declared insane and spent the rest of his life in insane asylum before dying of cancer as a harmless old man. He's absolutely a wrong example here.
Not him, but Ed Gein was mentioned.
>Shoot him
>It was not the Joker but a civillian under duress
It happen in real life with Brian Wells. Since no one knows the real identity of the Joker you will never know of you kill him.
This. If you kill The Joker you become The Joker. That’s the moral lesson from The Batman who Laughs, and why we can never allow ourselves to compromise good or else we will fall into the abyss entirely.
Shit like the Batman who Laughs is the exact reason superhero comics will always be for moronic children.
You only hate it because wholesome superhero messages btfo you edgy teenage virgins
It isn't wholesome. Its disgusting. Some people need to die. Its a fact of life.
You can never apply real world logic in a world where mind control Is a thing.
>That’s the moral lesson from The Batman who Laughs,
But that was caused by magic joker fart gas he hid in his jugular.
>using unironic black-and-white morality
Bruh
Serial killers that kill other killers are a good thing then. I also look forward to batman beating up and arresting every soldier that took part in live combat or every cop that gunned down a criminal.
>Because if you kill a killer then the number of killers in the world stays the same
Please get a dictionary and learn the difference between "kill" and "murder".
>Hope you like Arkham.
I'm sure there are many situations where Batman killing Joker was self-defense.
>Still mad that Smiling Friends btfoed you?
The episode was about nihilism moron. Killing someone in self-defense is not nihilistic.
But what if I kill two killers?
What about a Soldier protecting his platoon?
Where do you draw the line. Cops kill by mistake and accident all the time, and vigilantes have even less accountability.
The court that sentenced the Joker to death (and any real world court would) would be unlikely to agree
Ummm sorry bro but he’s le CRAZY so Joker pleads insanity
There's nothing wrong with putting down a violent insane person, and in fact it is required for the overall safety of the rest of the populace.
No he's not. There's no court in the world that would find Joker not guilty by reason of insanity. He's mentally ill, sure, but he clearly has the clarity to premediate his elaborate crimes. You can only attempt the insanity defense in unhinged crimes of passion.
The entire problem with these stories trying to examine or question Batman's no kill rule is that as time goes on and comics escalate, it looks less and less justifiable.
The question is bad enough for Joker in general, but after shit like Joker War, it becomes incredibly hard to say that Batman would be as bad as he is
So? That means I get a free bat-daddy who'll enable me and protect me.
ONE.
NOTHING WRONG WITH ME
>rapes him
What now b***h?
I didn't know serial killers operated on Highlander rules.
Because it's murder and murder is against the law and if you break the law your a criminal and heroes aren't criminals.
It's really quite simple.
Nuking a city is worse than murdering one clown.
At this point heroes are as much criminals as villains due to overstepping law procedure and dismissing policy in favor of making their own methods work. They just don't kill.
>the law is the highest moral standard
Absolutely pathetic
Vigilantism is a crime.
It's not just the murder, it's the method.
Never forget he decapitated eight men, shoved their heads in a duffel bag, rigged the duffel bag with explosives, took it to a mob boss meet, and tossed it at them.
This is beyond cringe.
anon, murder is illegal, being a vigilante is also illegal but you know...stuff
Jason is the villain, moron. He’s wrong and Batman is right.
I don’t care who’s right or wrong. What I want to know is how to end this fricking loop and move to the next stage because I’m sick of reading the same story over and over again.
>heavyrain.jpg
>Jason is the villain, moron. He’s wrong and Batman is right.
That's simply the stories intent that doesn't mean the story succeeded in it's intent
If Batman lets go of his one rule then there will be nothing to hold him back anymore
Everyone deserves a second chance.
But no one should be given a third.
There is no point for good guys to murder bad guys in comic books because death means nothing and they always come back. A good guy "murdering" a bad guy will be nothing but them satisfying their own lust for blood and violence.
>There is no point for good guys to murder bad guys in comic books because death means nothing and they always come back
That's meta out of universe reasoning it's not the characters reasoning. That's simply why the writers shouldn't have brought up the issue in the first place, since the universe runs on silly capeshit comic rules logic just doesn't apply.
People misunderstand the no-kill rule so badly.
It's not about you, and it's not about whether capital punishment is morally acceptable.
It's about Batman and his sidekicks being 3/4s of the way to a padded cell already. It's Batman knowing that if he ever manages to rationalize killing someone then the floodgates are gonna open and he's gonna kill a shitload of people.
that is not the argument batman nor the writers of batman ever present so that's wrong. Batman's no kill rule is precisely because the writers believe that murdering the joker is somehow immoral
>I have never read a Batman comic
cool story, homosexual
>Hmm yes giant mutant crocodile man who just ate somebody right in front of me, I COULD kill you, but then I'd be no better than you, a giant mutated crocodile man who eats people for fun
Killer Croc has more good on him than you do, So does Clayface.
I've never eaten/absorbed anyone, so no.
if they keep escaping and killing otherwise (which is the case everytime) it is only logical that they must die as to stop them from killing more
Why doesn't Batman just brutally maim and paralyze the Joker like he does to other lesser criminals?
Just put him in an iron lung, problem solved. What's he going to do, breath menacingly at you? He can't even do that without machine assistance, gg clown.
You're joking but I wouldn't put it past the writers to have the Joker corrupt people just by existing. Joker just lying there, people looking at him, reflecting on his actions and philosophy, going down a rabbit hole and becoming crazed criminals themselves.
That exactly stupid enough to be a thing in comics, yeah I can see it. After the edgy joker batman nonsense there is no theoretical upper limit for how dumb this shit can get.
Batman doesn't kill the Joker because Joe Chill murdered his parents in front of him and that's bad. If he takes a life to save more lives, than that means Joe Chill has saved N-2 lives where N is everyone Batman has ever saved. He can't accept that under any circumstances
Batman going out of his way to save the Joker is fricking moronic though
It's not illegal to kill in self defense. It's not illegal to kill in self defense of others. Up until the 20th century it was common knowledge that the responsobility of enforcing the law was on the heads of the citizenry when the government failed to do so. If the sheriff wasn't doing his job, it was your duty as an American to kill the murderous bandits who were pillaging the town. Batman is an American citizen, Batman has the responisbility to uphold the law when the government fails to do so. The law says that mass murders are sentenced to death.when Batman does not follow through on this, he's breaking the law.
The rich stole my money and I violently took it back. Am I allowed to murder everyone hoarding my money or is this only about the law?
Why doesn’t he just sci-fi lobotomize the really terrible irredeemable ones so that they no longer can kill people?
this is possibly the stupidest narrative in batman they've had
everyone knows the real reason he doesn't kill is because its comics and you can't have him kill off his antagonists
a "killer batman" is even more stupid because all he ends up killing are people who don't matter
>acting as judge, jury, and executioner is okay because… IT JUST IS
Jason should have gone after the courts.
>I'll bring this repeated mass-murderer to justice...
>but only after I've successfully reformed the justice system!
>hundreds, maybe thousands will no doubt die horribly in the time it takes to fix our courts
>but they're a necessary sacrifice to uphold TRUE justice!
You're obfuscating a relatively simple moral issue. If Jason went after corrupt judges and state attorneys that let blatant murderers and rapists go he would do more good than just killing individual bad guys, because then the court system would be doing it like it's supposed to.
Anon there's a lot of money spent making sure people do not think like you do. You will not see a comic about this.
Seems like the system is killing these thousands and will continue killing millions more if this caped crusader only breaks his ankle
Why doesn’t he take the joker to court for torturing and killing him? Is he stupid?
Are you moronic? What do you think happens after he gets turned in? Do you think that he’s thrown straight into jail or Arkham and there is no trial?
Why wouldn’t there be a trial? He should pay for his crimes
I’m not the one who thinks there isn’t you are.
You’re tricking me. There should be a trial.
You said why don’t they take him to trial implying that they didn’t do that already.
As far as I can remember he didn’t do that after he came back. He is stupid and decided to have a murder tantrum instead.
Because Bruce covered his murder to protect his secret identity. Only the "heroes" know the truth. Jason wasn't murdered by Joker as far as Justice is concerned. If Jason goes there, it's not one trial he opens but a lot more.
That makes his anger more understandable if in the eyes of the public he just died randomly. If he really wanted to frick with them he would open that case and watch the chaos unfold.
The responsibility to execute the Joker belongs to the justice system. It isn't like Joker has big mob ties protecting him from riding the lightning.
Supreme Court ruled you can't murder the mentally incompetent. This has been covered a couple times in the comics.
Is he really mentally incompetent though? He’s not some drooling moron, he’s crazy and psychotic and that hasn’t stopped people from getting the chair.
It's not up to the supreme court to decide who's mentally incompetent though. Joker would have been fried long ago, well more likely he would have been shot by a cop or just a rival antagonist, or the cops could just kneel on his neck for a good hour or so. Or acorn cop could just scream he heard gunshots and mag dump into him.
The ability to plan an escape proves the understanding of action and consequence which makes his competency to stand trial self evident.
The people who write the comics don't actually understand how Law works.
Hell the people that write tv shows and movies often don't either.
It doesn't matter because even if they did, the joker has to continue to live forever because DC could never create an antagonist that did as well as he does at selling comics.
The Joker lives because he sells comics, movies, games and cartoons/live action series. Arguably, creating a new animated series with its own continuity separate from others even if with a similar premise is one of the few ways I see DC being able to make something with a defined beginning and end point necessary to make something truly believably great. Not gonna make comparisons, but there's stuff out there where, "ok, this character dies." And that's what happens. They have an ending planned for the series from the start, even if the beats in the middle can sometimes change as it comes out, the ending of who lives and dies is still set and the story still progresses towards that end. What is happening in comics in my smelly popinyot is that the story just progresses to the next storybeat or plot event. It's not moving towards an ending, because they want it to continue forever.
Remember the She Hulk writers coming out and talking how they know 0 about how trials work despite writing a show about an attorney lol
Really wish this was put out there more. A literal moron has a tard-fit and doesn't understand that he killed someone, that's mentally incompetent. Being a counter-culture weirdo who doesn't care that he kills a bunch of people but still understands what killing is and intended to do it is mentally competent, no matter if mommy touched his no no place or he has a brain tumor or his skinned got bleached.
The thing is even if Lenny murders a girl in 2024 because he hugged a girl like he hugs the rabbits until they stop moving, he doesn't get to walk. He gets locked up in a mental hospital for the rest of his life. If, somehow, he escapes, the cops are basically going to put the moron with moron strength down unless he immediately capitulates, which he probably doesn't understand to do given he's a moron.
bro if the joker somehow made it out of prison or arkham 100 times i would be using my batdrones to go monitor some public officials
some is bullshitting us if the joker keeps getting free
In-universe I think the explanation for that was there were actually three Jokers running around at roughly the same time, so 2/3 times he "escaped" Arkham it was actually just one of the other Jokers doing shit.
That might actually not be true at all. It was a really convoluted story and I couldn't keep up with it.
It's supposedly still canon, which means Jason's a cringe simp for Barbara. Next thing you know we'll find out Tim's been harboring a boner too but has to vent his horniness into Bernard.
She’s known him since he was like 12 that janitor was looking out for him that day.
Wouldn't anyone notice that they have 2-3 Jokers in Arkham at any given moment? Batman wouldn't suspect that he was punching the shit out of 3 different guys despite the clown-makeup face?
yeah I thought about that too. Like, if there were a Joker fricking around in Gotham, but the other Joker hadn't escaped yet, wouldn't people immediately notice? Or like, if they took Joker back into Arkham, wouldn't they see another Joker was still there? Did the other Jokers know to escape right when the other one arose?
I don't have a good memory of the story and I didn't keep track of it at all, so this isn't actually a criticism per se -- even if the concept of three different Jokers is inherently pretty convoluted. The way I'm describing it doesn't really add up.
Someone else who remembers the story better should probably check my work.
I never read 3 Jokers, but it seemed like a really stupid way to address the "problem" of the major changes in the Joker's character over the decades. Johns might as well have created older versions of Batman to fight these different Jokers.
I mean, I actually kinda like the idea of multiple people taking up the Joker mantle. Like, the idea of Joker being an idea, a force of chaos and destruction, not tied down to any one single person, is pretty cool.
I just don't know if you can do it retroactively in the mainline DC universe without it being really convoluted or contrived. Like, isn't Batman the world's greatest detective? Wouldn't he eventually notice that Joker kinda sounds or looks different sometimes? Wouldn't there be photographs or surveillance footage he could compare and say "hey, what the frick is this?"
Its why the Jokerz worked as a street gang in Beyond. Its not just one dipshit in clown makeup, its a whole street gang/movement with the troubled kids, and moderately worked with their "street performers gone bad" MO.
Instead of blaming fricking Batman for following due process, blame what a shit hole Gotham is for not taking the death penalty on the criminal's asses, or funding for better mental institutions, homosexual.
If Jason's method is so much better, why hasn't he made any difference idiot?
There's no great moral argument in favor of the Joker living when he always escapes jail and for some reason can't be permanently paralyzed. Just put a bullet in his head and be done with it.
new Spiderman looks like shit
Why didn’t he adopt a not shit kid who wouldn’t do this shit? That was his real mistake.
CAREFUL the illiterate Jasongays will now be on you like a tank of hungry sharks. Arm yourself with a crowbar!
He’s a lesson for him giving criminal scum the benefit of the doubt and welcoming him into his home thinking that he could change. Ungrateful manchild bastard.
Bruce should never take in Crime Alley poors. It's why boys like Tim are more valued, they do good and speak to his class level.
Blonde bimbos who get themselves knocked up like Stephanie are a plague and pox on the Bat-Family house too. They don't need to be putting more unwanted and undoubtedly criminal youth into this world.
If you get them young enough (like Dick) it doesn't matter where they were originally.
Jason is so shit he was already a lost cause at 12
He tried to steal the Bat TIRES man. The tires! If he was that brazen enough, imagine how many cars have gone ruined due to his ways.
How was he even planning to sell them? He’s just a greedy little idiot.
Pure evil. Should’ve been put down
It’s really funny how often he hated Steph for being too similar to his worst son. Stupid little shit ruined everything.
Why is the only thing ever discussed about Batman his "no kill rule". Is that all Batman is anymore?
Because moronic moralgay authors take it to absurd extremes.
Batman not being an executioner is fine. But going out of his way to save villains or stopping a cop from shooting them is just silly
but deadpool kills people all the time
I agree. Superheros shouldn't murder criminals.
But why doesn't the state? An episode of Superman TAS showed a criminal getting executed in Metropolis, but why doesn't Gotham? I don't care if the Arkham patients are considered insane, an insanity plea will only get you so far when you have the blood of hundreds upon thousands on your hands.
This is just because decades ago homosexuals thought comic books and pulps were too violent so the publishers self-imposed rules to make them softer and nicer.
I like to think that there's an alternate timeline where they did kill the Joker off for good, but now they're trapped in a cycle where there's just an endless stream of psycho supervillains to replace the last so nothing really changes. Over nearly a hundred years, AU Batman has killed countless villains, but editorial forces it so that Gotham can never actually get better. Also the more popular villains simply come back to life over and over.
That or you get the Infinite Joker Crisis. You kill one, and he spawns more clones like a Hydra and they keep populating the Earth until it's overrun by Jokers.
This conversation was old when Cinemaphile was still Cinemaphile.net.
>Why can't batman kill?
Here you go
>Nooooooo this isn't what I meant reeeee
When you compare the city Batman has jurisdiction over compared to literally every single other member of the Justice League, Batman not being willing to kill his villains comes up a lot because Gotham is such a shithole and has the most psychotic and dangerous villains in comparison. Why would you choose to live in Gotham compared to Superman's metropolis? Honestly why? It makes no sense. Batman has failed at his job to keep the city safe because it is so crime ridden.
I've always kinda wanted like a complete Batman serial that details his career from start to finish. In it, Joker would only appear a handful of times. He's not necessarily Batman's most frequent villain, but he's the most unpredictable and potentially the most devastating. In his final appearance, he would appear to perish but as they never find his body, Bruce can never be truly certain.
Every time this thread gets made, I always ask the same question, and every time none of you can ever answer it: if you truly believe in vigilante justice, why don't you buy a gun or a knife right now (or a fricking wrench if you're so broke), look up sexual offenders near your area (which is public information, so you can't even use the excuse of "I don't know where to find criminals"), and go to them right now? What excuse are you going to throw at me now to explain why you won't?
If you aren't going to do it, then either shut up or admit you're a coward expecting someone else to do the hard work for you.
Jesus dude, I just want them to not have joker murdering thousands of people per scheme and be a 10 steps ahead God. I just want an unhinged gangster with a clown theme.
>Every time this thread gets made, I always ask the same question, and every time none of you can ever answer it: if you truly believe in vigilante justice, why don't you buy a gun or a knife right now (or a fricking wrench if you're so broke), look up sexual offenders near your area
moron, because unlike the joker I don't know for sure if they really are guilty
>uh well if you think this writing sucks why don't you murder people hmmm
>um bro did you actually believe i had a set of defined values?? xD
>ackshuly if you don't re-enact scenes from the funny pages you're a hypocrite and moral jellyfish
What the hell does this have to do with Batman? Do you believe comic books are real? Are you okay?
In real life all the jokers got the chair. There are no repeat offender mass murdering psychos that break out of prison every thursday.
In real life he would have been either gunned down by the cops at one of his many legal escapades or killed by the military after the government declared him a terrorist and national threat. The no-kill rule itself is fine; the problem is the hidden rule that the authorities must behave preposterously and forfeit their literal primary responsibilities.
You assume that I don't?
Maybe I'm just that good at covering my tracks.
You remember what happened to that Epstein guy?
Yeah.
>the DCSlop and Marvelshit enjoyers ganged up on me
People ganged up on you because it was the 20th motherfricking Red Hood/Batman kills thread we'd had in three days and people were tired of the horseshit.
I just came up with a good argument to not kill Joker. the DC universe is full of crazy supernatural shit and it's better to keep him alive than have him die and potentially become a demon.
These same americans that is defending the moronic no kill rule is also supporting shit like israel bombing civilians in gaza.
D-day
Has there been a "What if" where the Joker tries his crimes in a red state and gets the 2nd Amendment from some random with no fanfare and the League has to just accept it?
>Indiscriminately assassinating accused criminals without a trial or even an investigation
>"Controlling" the criminal underworld by pushing drugs, robberies and weapons deals all under what you define as "ethical" (like EVERY CRIMINAL GANG EVER)
>Executing subdued opponents who aren't a threat anymore just because you hate them
There's literally no moral dilemma here. Red Hood was the bad guy. He doesn't even have the flimsy excuse Punisher does, because he's also a criminal.
I think he knew he was a bad guy but he thought that was the only way. He wanted to prove a point, not be morally right.
>Indiscriminately assassinating accused criminals without a trial or even an investigation
>"Controlling" the criminal underworld by pushing drugs, robberies and weapons deals all under what you define as "ethical" (like EVERY CRIMINAL GANG EVER)
>Executing subdued opponents who aren't a threat anymore just because you hate them
Sounds based to me.
It's based until he comes for you with no evidence and starts shooting.
Damn that's cool.
Frank is a dick and I love him, but he hates crime and does everything he can to shut it down. Jason became a criminal kingpin under the flimsy guise that crime couldn't be destroyed, only controlled to do the least amount of damage. Something Frank would hate because the entire motivating factor for his life is his neverending war on crime. If it actually worked, it would render his life's mission redundant and ruin everything. If it didn't work, Jason would just be another thug.
>no reading comprehension
The gangs subplot is only here to pad the issues until Bruce decid to confront a ghost from his past and Jason only "long-term" plan is to burn down that part of Gotham. I don't know how you guys managed to lose track of such a basic fricking plot.
>3 jokers
>canon
You're just mad because Jason's bad
You have to be more specific he is bad in many ways
> Jason isn't a villain if he is just burning shit down
Okay. You're just more than illiterate.
I don’t see anything wrong with his plan.
No, Damnit! No.... I can't kill him because he's too damn marketable. This might be an alternate timeline, but DC wants the option to make a sequel if we're popular enough and the audience rolls their eyes at that "ghost of Joker" shit. I know we have the Lazarus pits but our writers aren't talented enough to make crazy crazier, they'll probably just do something stupid like say "crazy + crazy = sane." Don't you see what's at stake? I raised you better than this, Jason. I raised you with money.
Jason was never right or genuinely trying to make a point. Everything he does revolves around either pissing off Bruce or trying to make Bruce prove he loves him. He could have killed the Joker or any number of supervillains quietly at any time after his revival when no one in Gotham was expecting him. That’s the actual smart, pragmatic option.
>He could have killed the Joker or any number of supervillains quietly at any time
He almost killed Black Mask if only Batman hadn’t saved him.
It's as simple as this:
Option A: An idealistic world of heroes where life is always worth saving.
Option B: A realistic world of heroes where killing is permitted.
The choice sets the tone of heroism, and both are fine as long as you don't start mixing them. You can have moralgays and The Punisher in the same universe, but one of them has to be morally right. Marvel and DC generally follow option A, meaning that killers are always on some level wrong. And that is the heroic ideal.
Jason is a gayot who only acts tough because he's never seen pussy
Not by his own volition, no.
what do you mean?
See
Didnt he frick talia
She fricked him, but yes.
Wait, so he didn't frick her, but she fricked him?
More like molested really
nice.
He got molested by the Joker in TDKR too but that was technically his happy go lucky Pre-Crisis circus boy self
Reminder the no kill rule is applied only because writers don't want to brainstorm new criminals.
It only worked in lighthearted stuff like the Adam West Batman. But when it all got dead serious and kept getting worse with the Joker committing acts of genocide, then leaving him alive is the most brain-dead, moronic and unjust thing in the world.
>Reminder the no kill rule is applied only because writers don't want to brainstorm new criminals.
Not really. The no kill rule was started back in the 40's when they were making new villaisn every month.
Also funny enough- Adam West Batman (accidentally) killed some goons, as well as outright threatened to kill villains for threatening a Catwoman who was in disguise as an Eastern european woman.
>It only worked in lighthearted stuff like the Adam West Batman.
This.
If the joker's jokes weren't always horridly mean-spirited for no reason and didn't always involve 'recreating the Gangi river in Gotham out of pulverized toddlers' levels of senseless violence, then Gotham's continued tolerance of his existence would make more sense.
But no, I guess ungrounded psychotic edge is easier to write than devising humorous, but highly disruptive, ways to troll society at large.
>I may not be able to stop you Joker, as it's against my morales.
>OH C'MON BATS, WHERE'S THE FUN IN THIS? FIGHT BACK A LIL!
>But I know someone who can
>GLASS SHATTERS
>The father Jason Todd wished he had
I'm kind of surprised they didn't somehow link them up as a duo. Jason would be happy to slay away with a "proper" Batman father figure and Thomas wouldn't be as focused on his autistic crusade to stop Bruce from being Batman.
In this Alt Setting, Joker is his Ex-wife yeah?
How does that work exactly?
Do they go for the whole 'oh, she went crazy so none of her actions need to line up with a coherent motivation, and she gains inexplicable hyper-competence' (aka. Joker but with breasts), or do they actually do something interesting with the character?
I want a "Death of Batman" story, but not just literal death, rather the world learning that Bruce Wayne is Batman.
So if the Joker was trying to kidnap someone and kill them with laughing gas, but the guy had a CC permit and put 10 in the Joker's chest in self-defense, killing him, would the guy in question become the Joker? Would Batman swoop down and tell him some bullshit about the amount of killers in the world remaining 1?
Because if that is truly the case then Batman singlehandedly dispels any notion that anybody should be permitted to use lethal force to defend themselves, something that is otherwise argued as vital if, for example, some insane man in a clown costume hired a bunch of thugs to kidnap you and chemically lobotomize you. And if that's NOT the case then what Batman should really be doing is running as a right-wing politician who expands gun rights and allows common people to defend themselves against his entire rogue's gallery, as a granny packing a .45 would do more in three seconds than the Batman persona accomplished in 45 years.
Jason barely even kills anyone anymore, if ever, he kinda just hangs around being a violent schizo.
They keep slipping experimental medications into his drink when he’s not looking. They are limiting his true power so he can be in their group photos.
How do you people not get tired of whining about one man's autism regarding homocidal geeks for so damn long? Especially considering the argument's coming from an unstable whiny edgelord who shoots people specifically because he's simultaneously trying to rebel against daddy while also demanding his attention and love. How do you not get tired of it all at this point?
I thought he killed people because he thought they deserved to die. Having your life in the hands of an unstable highschool drop out seems unfortunate though.
Just remember, Batman is a hypocrite and insane.
>You can't murder violent recividist criminals because....
>....then you'd be a violent recividist criminal
I liked the Hush movie's answer. Just as Dent is compelled to flip his coin and Riddler is compelled to riddle, Bruce is compelled to save lives. He can't stop himself. If he has the ability to save someone, he has to try. If he can stop someone from taking a life, he has to try.
Lex is way better at the
>You can't kill me and remain a hero
Jig. Purely because the system is his b***h and he constantly flees the consequences by playing into the corrupt and broken game. It's way different from Joker who only ever isn't put down because of plot convenience.
Also Superman could gore his entire body by just flying into him at moderate speed whereas Batman struggles a lot with the fights themself so the moral reservations are way more of a challenge here.
I feel like Joker just shouldn't appear so much. I get that this is asking for a lot from an ongoing near-century old comic, but ideally, he shoukd just appear a handful of times throughout Batman's career. Quality over quantity