-
[QUOTE=marvelprince;5910629]I mean KG did just shoot his son in the head so I think that’s justifiable. It was meant to further accelerate Bruce down the dark and ruthless path he was on. Still in terms of “letting someone die” I think that’s pretty tame for comic standard. No one really thought he was dead.[/QUOTE]
My problem wasn't about Batman actions being justifiable or not.
The thing that bothered me is the way Tom King tries to mantain the "no kill" rule without actually sticking to it. If KGBeast died in that situation, that would be considered murder just as much as if Batman had shot KGBeast with a gun. In fact, Batman rendering KGBeast totally incapacitated to die in the snow is more cruel.
It somehow makes it seem like Batman follows the "no kill" rule, because he wants to torture his enemies
-
I take it this arose again because of Peacemaker's comments....in which he does make sense.
Think of all the lives he would have saved, if he let the Joker have a one way trip off a building.
The only reason I'm not for Batman killing is because he rivals Spiderman for the best rogues gallery in comics....otherwise he's already a Vigilante, mind as well go the extra step.
-
[QUOTE=phonogram12;5910809]Why not, though? During one of my favorite Detective runs (Rucka's first run), they were practically the co-stars and the book was all the better for it. So many big things happened that only barely peripherally had to do with Batman and it was an absolutely great read.
Also, I don't recall in recent memory a story where Bats has had to take on cops who go out of their way to kill criminals. And the criminal being the Joker? That makes it an even bigger story. If written well, there'd be ripple affects all over Gotham.
I'm actually dying to read that story the more I think about it.[/QUOTE]
Be that as it may, the GCPD isn't normally depicted as co-stars. Whether or not that's a good thing is another argument.
-
[QUOTE=Alan2099;5909176]I don't think he should try to kill, but on occasions, I'm not upset when he does.
I do hate when they make him a hypocrite about it though. The Nolan movies were especially bad about it. He made a point of telling people he didn't kill. Except for all those ninjas that were asleep when he set fire to the building there were in. Those don't count. Also he's fine standing there and letting somebody else kill, like Catwoman. As long as HE doesn't do it physically with his own too hands.
What I REALLY hate is how far some writers take his no killing stance. Batman Damned was frankly insulting in this matter. Batman was being tormented because, while he was dying himself, he didn't go out of his way to save the Joker's life.[/QUOTE]
The Ra's thing still makes no sense to me. I won't kill you but I won't have to save you??? Same thing. He and Gordon were responsible for the train crashing so him letting Ra's stay on there is the same as killing him.
Nolan would've been fine if like Snyder he simply didn't acknowledge Batman having a no kill rule.
-
[QUOTE=Alpha;5909099]The real question is, why the hell hasn't Joker received the death sentence?[/QUOTE]
Surely, having been around here for a long time, you know that the Joker was tried and executed. He went to the chair, but he survived. It all happened in DETECTIVE COMICS 64 (June 1942)--"The Joker Walks the Last Mile" by Bill Finger, Bob Kane and Jerry Robinson. Having paid his debt to society through electric execution, he was no longer held to account for his past crimes. After his revival, the Joker became a non-lethal performance artist which he remained for the next thirty years.
Now, I understand there are multiple Jokers, so it seems like killing one won't work. He's more of an idea than an individual. And killing one just makes the idea that much stronger among his followers. “If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.”
As for the Caped Crusader, I grew up watching Sheriff Andy Taylor who never carried a gun unless he was forced to do so. Heroes were like that, when I was a kid. The good cowboys would shoot the guns out of the hands of the desperados. Being such eagle-eyed shots, they didn't need to kill the black hats to defeat them. They were better than that.
-
Latest issue of Human Target had a rather interesing narrative around the subject of killing bad guys.
On Joker, which I think is a major factor in the debate/question (as evidenced by a number of posters), ultimately it's a problem with DC/Writers who have elevated him to a scale equivalent to a small WMD. Of course due to his status of Batman's greatest villain and marketability (sales perspective) etcetera, he cannot be taken off the board permanently.
DC has essentially painted themselves into a corner and this is one of the (many) things we as readers have to suspend belief of/not apply logic to.
-
[QUOTE=Alpha;5909099]The real question is, why the hell hasn't Joker received the death sentence?[/QUOTE]
I assume Gotham is located in one of the 26 states that currently has no death penalty.
-
[QUOTE=Agent Z;5911252]Be that as it may, the GCPD isn't normally depicted as co-stars. Whether or not that's a good thing is another argument.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. That said, a good chunk of my favorite Batman stories aren't what many would consider "normal."
In re to having a cop kill The Joker, I was thinking something along the lines of "Officer Down," but in reverse. Instead of Commissioner Gordon being shot by a fellow cop and at death's door sending a ripple effect across the city, it would be the death of The Joker by a cop. I'd imagine the entire city would feel both shock and relief as he's been a constant presence and fear in their daily lives. And people would probably look at the GCPD entirely different after that. Hell, they could even become more corrupt given the press they would probably receive and more reckless, thinking they could do whatever they want now. Seeing how Batman would deal with that would be interesting to say the least.
[QUOTE=Mr. White;5912593]DC has essentially painted themselves into a corner and this is one of the (many) things we as readers have to suspend belief of/not apply logic to.[/QUOTE]
I mean, it's one of those things where you just do or you don't. And the thing is, if a villain of Joker's stature is ever taken off the board permanently by editorial, that really doesn't bode well for any other villain out there. At that point, even villains like Luthor and Cheetah would probably be considered expendable.
-
[QUOTE=Mr. White;5912593]Latest issue of Human Target had a rather interesing narrative around the subject of killing bad guys.
On Joker, which I think is a major factor in the debate/question (as evidenced by a number of posters), ultimately it's a problem with DC/Writers who have elevated him to a scale equivalent to a small WMD. Of course due to his status of Batman's greatest villain and marketability (sales perspective) etcetera, he cannot be taken off the board permanently.
DC has essentially painted themselves into a corner and this is one of the (many) things we as readers have to suspend belief of/not apply logic to.[/QUOTE]
That's true about Joker, since he's been elevated from a dangerous but not *too* dangerous clown themed criminal to a "oh **** millions of lives are at risk" every time he escapes level character it creates the question of why nobody has just killed him by now. The real world answer is obviously because he's way too popular to be permanently killed off but his level of in universe menace means realistically somebody would finally have had enough and put a bullet between his eyes.
The no-kill rule exists first and foremost because of the huge popularity of his villains and everyone knows that which is why it's annoying when people ask why Batman doesn't kill them. Same reason he's never slipped and plummeted to his death while swinging from his grappling line. Same reason he's never gonna take a stray bullet to the head while out and about as Bruce Wayne. When you make a company as much money as he and his villains do you're literally bulletproof.
The Peacemaker quote doesn't make sense to me because all of the onus for his rogues actions are 100% put on him. There's no question of what role the state and police play in also not killing them. No question of why Amanda Waller doesn't send in the Suicide Squad to just kill them all and put an end to their crimes. Why other JL members don't go "screw it if Bruce doesn't have the balls to do it we will."
After awhile if it is a well known fact that Gotham is a hellhole with the worst of the worst running around even if you view Bruce as negligent for keeping them alive at what point do other law and vigilante agents start sharing blame for their inaction? Does Peacemaker ever resent Flash, Superman or Wonder Woman for not using their powers to zip into Gotham and kill every villain in a few minutes like they easily could?
-
[QUOTE=Jim Kelly;5911562]
Now, I understand there are multiple Jokers, so it seems like killing one won't work. He's more of an idea than an individual. And killing one just makes the idea that much stronger among his followers. “If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.”
[/QUOTE]
Yup, decades of stories you can tell if Joker is executed by the state. Now Bruce is afraid of taking villains to the GCPD because Catwoman, Mister Freeze or Two Face might be the next ones to be executed. And some random unknown person who looks exactly like Joker comes out of nowhere and you see that this plague will never end.
And it brings back a little bit of sense to Gotham
-
[QUOTE=Mark Trail;5913007]I assume Gotham is located in one of the 26 states that currently has no death penalty.[/QUOTE]
All states have the death penalty. Just ask Epstein.
Nah but seriously, I don't believe a state with a city like Gotham wouldn't bring back the Death Penalty. Not when they have a Joker, Killer Croc, Man-bat, Clayface, etc
-
At least back in the '90s, whatever state Gotham is in had the death penalty. Joker nearly got the chair in a graphic novel called Devil's Advocate by Chuck Dixon and Graham Nolan.
-
That Gotham City is so much worse off than it ever was before, despite or because of Batman, is the big logic problem with the modern take.
I guess most people love this approach to the city and the character and they aren't really invested in the Dark Knight solving anything. They would rather see him bang his head against a brick wall as things get worse and worse.
But rationally, if Bruce saw that he wasn't making things better, you would think he'd realize the whole Batman act isn't working--it's just inspiring more violence and terrorism.
-
[QUOTE=Jim Kelly;5915069]That Gotham City is so much worse off than it ever was before, despite or because of Batman, is the big logic problem with the modern take.
I guess most people love this approach to the city and the character and they aren't really invested in the Dark Knight solving anything. They would rather see him bang his head against a brick wall as things get worse and worse.
But rationally, if Bruce saw that he wasn't making things better, you would think he'd realize the whole Batman act isn't working--it's just inspiring more violence and terrorism.[/QUOTE]
I mean, I think that it's hard to say "things are worse." Stuff like Cataclysm was definitely made better by Batman/Bruce Wayne, and even NML. Snyder, Morrison, King, and Tynion all going to "city destroying threat" (and Orlando in the Monster Men) probably makes it harder, but I really don't think it's Batman's FAULT that Bloom, the Owls, Joker, and Bane are so bad.
-
[QUOTE=Jim Kelly;5915069]That Gotham City is so much worse off than it ever was before, despite or because of Batman, is the big logic problem with the modern take.
I guess most people love this approach to the city and the character and they aren't really invested in the Dark Knight solving anything. They would rather see him bang his head against a brick wall as things get worse and worse.
But rationally, if Bruce saw that he wasn't making things better, you would think he'd realize the whole Batman act isn't working--it's just inspiring more violence and terrorism.[/QUOTE]
Canonically he is making things better. The writing often doesn't reflect that and some of the worse-written stories like War Games unintentionally make him into more of the problem than the solution. But it is likely that there would be many supervillains even if there was no Batman. The nature of the DC universe is that Bruce started crime-fighting right at the start of the meta-human explosion and technological explosion, where many people started developing superpowers and criminals started building or stealing super-advanced tech like freeze rays and powered or flying suits. Maybe there wouldn't be a joker specifically, but there would still be a clayface, a Mr. Freeze, a Scarecrow, and many others without Batman.