Joker war

[PurpleGlovez]

Batman knew Joker would live, which means he just walked away knowing full well Joker would escape and be free to kill more people lol. It's just sad at this point. Batman's moral standards are completely useless if he DOESN'T DO ANYTHING to even attempt to fix the Joker problem. Body count's gotta be what, five digits at least? What coherent moral argument is there for the way Batman treats Joker like an old friend? It's just ridiculous.

[prepmaster]

Batman knew Joker would live, which means he just walked away knowing full well Joker would escape and be free to kill more people lol. It's just sad at this point. Batman's moral standards are completely useless if he DOESN'T DO ANYTHING to even attempt to fix the Joker problem. Body count's gotta be what, five digits at least? What coherent moral argument is there for the way Batman treats Joker like an old friend? It's just ridiculous.

Gotham is just this corrupted city where convicted mass murderers are allowed to be free in a society instead of being hunted down and captured by the police. Don't blame Batman, blame the GCPD & the justice system. Batman is just a vigilante stopping criminals from harming innocent people. That's his job.

[Ursalink]

Gotham is just this corrupted city where convicted mass murderers are allowed to be free in a society instead of being hunted down and captured by the police. Don't blame Batman, blame the GCPD & the justice system. Batman is just a vigilante stopping criminals from harming innocent people. That's his job.

Wake up, pal! Batman has turned regular criminals into monsters that live only to kill and destroy. He has hacked Arkham Assylum many times, which means he could have stopped its inmates to escape anytime, instead he let them escape and keep killing. He let his Robins die or suffer worst fates than death, yet he keeps his enemies in Arkham, away of death penalty, to keep playing his sick game.

[prepmaster]

He has hacked Arkham Assylum many times, which means he could have stopped its inmates to escape anytime, instead he let them escape and keep killing.

I find it funny that you keep blaming everything on Batman like he is an omnipotent god that watches over everything that happens in Gotham.

He let his Robins die or suffer worst fates than death, yet he keeps his enemies in Arkham, away of death penalty, to keep playing his sick game.

Death is not the only option. There are other options like high level security prisons, lobotomization, chip implants as well. Writers don't do that because well, there would be no villains anymore.

IRL you get detained in prison for life for committing major crimes, in fiction famous villains escape all the times. Gotham just happens to have the most useless prisons.

[Ursalink]

I find it funny that you keep blaming everything on Batman like he is an omnipotent god that watches over everything that happens in Gotham.


Death is not the only option. There are other options like high level security prisons, lobotomization, chip implants as well. Writers don't do that because well, there would be no villains anymore.

IRL you get detained in prison for life for committing major crimes, in fiction famous villains escape all the times. Gotham just happens to have the most useless prisons.

1º) Batman surely doesn't have Superman's visions, but he's so obssessed with control and vigilancy, that he has observatory systems of satelites for that. So, yeah, I blame him because I know he's actually constantly watching everything; yet he always fails to do the right thing.

2º) High security prisons don't exist, as they escape from those too. Either by their own or with dirty money (like Lex Luthor). Lobotomization was already tried on Joker, it didn't work either. And Batman wouldn't allow it because he sees it "inhuman". (And what the hell are these freaks?). The same happens with chip implants (did you see the first crossover between Batman and Spider-Man?). And I know the thing about writers, but considering how villains always outnumber the heroes (10 villains for each hero), they would still have material if the heroes at least kill half of those villains, the worst of them.

It's not difficult to have useless prisons in Gotham, considering the city in rotten to the core.

[Mr. White]

Batman knew Joker would live, which means he just walked away knowing full well Joker would escape and be free to kill more people lol. It's just sad at this point. Batman's moral standards are completely useless if he DOESN'T DO ANYTHING to even attempt to fix the Joker problem. Body count's gotta be what, five digits at least? What coherent moral argument is there for the way Batman treats Joker like an old friend? It's just ridiculous.

I'm a 100% with you on this.

People say you can't blame Batman and should instead blame GCPD/Arkham Institution. Well since Bats has made it his mission to fight crime and let the city know, then he should (also) be held accountable. Especially since he's the "only" one that succeeds in catching Joker time and time again.

Think it can be argued that at this point, Bruce is guilty of indirect murder (maybe 6th/7th/10th degree?) of a lot of Gothamites by not killing The Joker. While I get he has a "code", it genuinely doesn't makes sense; even in the context of a comic and what the character stands for. If his mission is to protect Gotham/its citizens, the only rational thing is to eliminate Joker. (Arguably eliminate all the mass murdering villians but that's a separate convo).

Besides if they want to really hold on to this code thing, I'm almost certain Batman can break mutliple bones in Joker's body to leave him paralyzed/ a vegetable without actually killing him.

Point is, Batman's no kill rule is driven more by the need to tell stories with the Villains than based on "realism" (at least to the extent comics allow). End of the day DC is a business and money talks. Any rationale/ excuse about his ability to "rise above it" and be "better than the bad guys" is just chatter at this stage.

[mrswing]

I mean, he knew Joker could get himself out if he actually tried. In the grand scheme of things he didn't really need to bother trying to save Joker in this instance.

Exactly, he told Joker that he had escape tools in his suit and that Joker could use them or had probably taken them. Joker says 'that's not how this works' and then goes on to prove that's exactly how this works. A much smarter move by Harley would be two bomb collars around the neck, thirty seconds timer, you can only disable one in that time, who are you going to save? But nooooooo...

[prepmaster]

Well since Bats has made it his mission to fight crime and let the city know, then he should (also) be held accountable. Especially since he's the "only" one that succeeds in catching Joker time and time again.

Think it can be argued that at this point, Bruce is guilty of indirect murder (maybe 6th/7th/10th degree?) of a lot of Gothamites by not killing The Joker.

Indirect murder? So if Batman just stays at home instead of capturing criminals then he wouldn't be guilty of indirect murder? With your logic then every cops that transported Joker is also guilty of indirect murder. The corrupted justice system is to blame for much more than Batman. Why would you put most of the blame on the cops that put criminals into prisons instead of the authority that let the mass murdering criminals out into the society? Batman is to blame for putting his faith in such a corrupted system and not doing anything significant to help improving it, not because of him not killing mass murdering criminals. If you accuse Batman of letting villains live to kill & destroy then there is a long list of cops, judges & prison guards and people with authority who are guilty of the same thing before it comes to Batman. If Batman kills every criminal that has committed a murder then who would Batman be then? Where do you put the line between which crime would get someone to be killed or not? Besides Batman believes in rehabilitation.

[JBatmanFan05]

Batman knew Joker would live, which means he just walked away knowing full well Joker would escape and be free to kill more people lol. It's just sad at this point. Batman's moral standards are completely useless if he DOESN'T DO ANYTHING to even attempt to fix the Joker problem. Body count's gotta be what, five digits at least? What coherent moral argument is there for the way Batman treats Joker like an old friend? It's just ridiculous.

Yea, Batman didn't even bother to wait around to arrest Joker.
I seriously believe in Batman's code (like Chuck Dixon does), but it's odd that if Batman knows Joker is going to survive so does nothing, he then also is really letting him get away?
You can tell Tynion is trying to have it both ways, but unfortunately for him, you can't because it then makes no sense.

[Konja7]

Yea, Batman didn't even bother to wait around to arrest Joker.
I seriously believe in Batman's code (like Chuck Dixon does), but it's odd that if Batman knows Joker is going to survive so does nothing, he then also is really letting him get away?
You can tell Tynion is trying to have it both ways, but unfortunately for him, you can't because it then makes no sense.

At least, it is better that King's Batman, where Batman says he won't kill Bane, because it would be worse for Bane to break his back (so he won't walk again).

[PurpleGlovez]

I'm a huge proponent of Batman's code against killing, but it was written at a time when the villains didn't kill either. I believe there are two "special case" villains where a skilled writer could have Batman kill them and still be in character: Ra's al Ghul and Joker. If we accept the following facts about Joker:

1. Batman is the only person on Earth who can stop him.
2. No prison or asylum can hold him.
3. He will escape, and when he does, he will kill again.

Then yeah, it really is Batman's fault. I'm blaming Batman because Batman has put the responsibility on his own shoulders. Modern DC would have us believe Bruce would sit by and watch Joker murder every person on Earth and not do anything to stop him because "muh code" and "muh slippery slope".

Screw that. I'm as old-school a fan as they come, but I think Batman should kill the Joker and there is little coherent moral argument otherwise.

[prepmaster]

Screw that. I'm as old-school a fan as they come, but I think Batman should kill the Joker and there is little coherent moral argument otherwise.

Then he should kill all of his rouges. What makes Joker & Ra's so special in comparison to other villains? Those who commit 10 murders are allowed to live while those who commit 100 murders should be killed?

[PurpleGlovez]

Within the context of the stories, no villain on Earth is portrayed as dangerous a killer as the Joker. You could plausibly have a Scarecrow or Mad Hatter story where they don't take a life, but killing comes to the Joker like breathing.

Though, I'm reminded of a scene from Battle for the Cowl where Oracle ejects a girl from the Batmobile while Damian is driving, in the middle of nowhere, and Killer Croc f**cking EATS HER, and afterwards Nightwing shows up and he and Damian quip about it and it's never mentioned again. Like isn't anyone else disgusted by that kind of stuff? What's the point of superheroes if you can commit the most unspeakable atrocities and face no consequences. DC wants to have their cake and eat it by making every A, B, and C list villain be mass murderers. In the 30s they actually thought about this and realised you can't have villains who kill be recurring characters without making the heroes useless.

[Frontier]

1º) Batman surely doesn't have Superman's visions, but he's so obssessed with control and vigilancy, that he has observatory systems of satelites for that. So, yeah, I blame him because I know he's actually constantly watching everything; yet he always fails to do the right thing.

Batman's still human at the end of the day. He can only do so much.

But he would never believe the "right thing" involves killing. That's how he's hardwired.

2º) High security prisons don't exist, as they escape from those too. Either by their own or with dirty money (like Lex Luthor). Lobotomization was already tried on Joker, it didn't work either. And Batman wouldn't allow it because he sees it "inhuman". (And what the hell are these freaks?). The same happens with chip implants (did you see the first crossover between Batman and Spider-Man?). And I know the thing about writers, but considering how villains always outnumber the heroes (10 villains for each hero), they would still have material if the heroes at least kill half of those villains, the worst of them.

Yeah, but the worst of them usually end up being the most popular...

[Frontier]

1º) Batman surely doesn't have Superman's visions, but he's so obssessed with control and vigilancy, that he has observatory systems of satelites for that. So, yeah, I blame him because I know he's actually constantly watching everything; yet he always fails to do the right thing.

Batman's still human at the end of the day. He can only do so much.

But he would never believe the "right thing" involves killing. That's how he's hardwired.

2º) High security prisons don't exist, as they escape from those too. Either by their own or with dirty money (like Lex Luthor). Lobotomization was already tried on Joker, it didn't work either. And Batman wouldn't allow it because he sees it "inhuman". (And what the hell are these freaks?). The same happens with chip implants (did you see the first crossover between Batman and Spider-Man?). And I know the thing about writers, but considering how villains always outnumber the heroes (10 villains for each hero), they would still have material if the heroes at least kill half of those villains, the worst of them.

Yeah, but the worst of them usually end up being the most popular...