Joker war

[Claude]

You know, it occurs to me - a good way to quantify the overall lack of emotional engagement with this run?

Tynion had the Joker re-animate the rotting corpse of Alfred into a Joker-ised zombie.

Imagine a writer doing that, and no-one caring.

[prepmaster]

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.

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.

Come to think of it, what Batman's villains can appear in a story without killing people? I can see Riddler being one but those with names like Killer Croc, Killer Moth, Deadshot, Poison Ivy, etc... are just who they are.

[Restingvoice]

Come to think of it, what Batman's villains can appear in a story without killing people? I can see Riddler being one but those with names like Killer Croc, Killer Moth, Deadshot, Poison Ivy, etc... are just who they are.

Thankfully with story and character development we don't have to worry about them
Killer Croc stays away as long as his sewer people is safe. He doesn't cannibalize anyone anymore.
Killer Moth is a robber trying to sound more dangerous than he actually is
Deadshot belongs to Amanda Waller. He's not Batman's problem unless their mission cross paths.
Poison Ivy doesn't kill anymore and settle for hypnosis and blackmail when she's not undergoing redemption
The Penguin stays in Iceberg Lounge and smart enough not to attract too much attention

[Gridde]

When Joker told Batman his schtick was getting boring, I was thinking “ironic that you should say that.” Joker is the most overused character in comics. DC needs to shelve him for at least 6 months.

Yeah, this arc added absolutely nothing to Joker and made Batman seem like an idiot.

IMO, Snyder had the right idea; keep Joker completely off the board for as long as possible, and only bring him back when there's a meaningful story to be told. Forget 6 months, I'd be happy not seeing him for a year or more...so when he does come back, the devastation he brings actually means something.

[Dboi2001]

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.

If Batman kills joker another pyschopath would just take his place. On top of that considering how gang territories work without a clear leader Joker's former gang would likely collapse into a power struggle leading to more chaos. Killing a person does not answer the problem

I actually would like there to be a Batman story where Joker or Ra's are killed by Batman and we see what followed them is far worse than anyone could imagine. The devil you know is better than the devil you don't

[Restingvoice]

I actually would like there to be a Batman story where Joker or Ra's are killed by Batman and we see what followed them is far worse than anyone could imagine. The devil you know is better than the devil you don't

They're not killed by Batman but we've seen what happened when both are gone

In Batman Inc the successor for Ra's is Talia and she was worse than Ra's because her goal isn't to fix the world according to their vision but to get Batman's attention without regard to anything else, basically holding the world hostage unless Batman returns to her.

The Arkham series had Harley trying to be successor, but in comics, it would be Punchline, but both end up not taken seriously because of how inexperienced they are.

Then in Arkham Knight, it was Scarecrow and Jason, although I forget why SCarecrow want to poison all of Gotham and the East Coast

In comics, it was Cluemaster, Lincoln March, and Hush working together to screw over Batman and therefore the city as well

Though worse or not is arguable. Gotham in danger is standard, so they have to destroy the Bat fam more thoroughly and permanently than Joker. In that case, those people I mentioned are not worse yet. It has to be an Elseworld though, Fans are bored with grimdark destruction of the family.

[PurpleGlovez]

If Batman kills joker another pyschopath would just take his place.

Yeah, no. I always see people say this but I've yet to be presented with any evidence or real-world precedent. "Should we kill Hitler or Osama bin Laden?" "Nah, someone worse will just take their place." See how dumb that is?

[Baggie_Saiyan]

Just read the spoilers for 100 not even bothered reading anything from this story prior and 100 sounded absolutely terrible. Just sums up problem I have with comics just always building to something with no pay off. Now there is a new ghost face villain lmao.

Batman tells the reader that he knows Joker will live, but this I am sure is better than Batman killing this is how stupid the killing rule is because now every person the Joker kills is on Batman now. Made worse by the writer making Batman acknowledge the fact he knew Joker would survive so him going after Harley doesn't mean anything.

Snyder paved the way for mediocrity on the main Batman book it seems.

[Konja7]

Just read the spoilers for 100 not even bothered reading anything from this story prior and 100 sounded absolutely terrible. Just sums up problem I have with comics just always building to something with no pay off. Now there is a new ghost face villain lmao.

Batman tells the reader that he knows Joker will live, but this I am sure is better than Batman killing this is how stupid the killing rule is because now every person the Joker kills is on Batman now. Made worse by the writer making Batman acknowledge the fact he knew Joker would survive so him going after Harley doesn't mean anything.

Snyder paved the way for mediocrity on the main Batman book it seems.

Batman doesn't tell the reader the Joker will survive. He left Joker (and Alfred's body) with a bomb when he goes to save Harley.

At the end, Batman tells Harley that the Joker has survive, because they don't find the body.

[Dboi2001]

Yeah, no. I always see people say this but I've yet to be presented with any evidence or real-world precedent. "Should we kill Hitler or Osama bin Laden?" "Nah, someone worse will just take their place." See how dumb that is?

And has Bin Laden's death lead to less terrorism? Hell Blair and Bush overthrew Saddam and look what happened to Iraq and arguably worse took over and destabilized it making Iraq even more of a hell. That thinking is precisely why George Sr didn't invade Iraq

[PurpleGlovez]

I'm not pro-war in the Middle East but MANY things have led to the continued conflict there not just bin Laden's death. I'm just saying it's childish lunacy to say "oh, you can't get rid of a bad guy because then another bad guy might exist." Like imagine if we didn't execute prisoners for that reason. It's so dumb.

Now, if you're merely against Batman killing, that's fine. But when we're dealing with modern, 10,000+ body count Joker, I just think DC has never properly had Batman come face to face with the consequences of his code and choices in that context. In real life, anyone who killed the Joker would unequivocally be hailed as a global hero. I dunno.

[DragonPiece]

You know, it occurs to me - a good way to quantify the overall lack of emotional engagement with this run?

Tynion had the Joker re-animate the rotting corpse of Alfred into a Joker-ised zombie.

Imagine a writer doing that, and no-one caring.

Disagree on the lack of emotional engagement. The first issue of his run with Bruce callinf Lucius Alfred and all of the scenes with bruce and alfred in issue 98 were great.

[OopsIdiditagain]

And has Bin Laden's death lead to less terrorism? Hell Blair and Bush overthrew Saddam and look what happened to Iraq and arguably worse took over and destabilized it making Iraq even more of a hell. That thinking is precisely why George Sr didn't invade Iraq

It may not have completely removed terrorism but it definitely helps to take out a major leader/strategizer of an organization. I bet beating terrorism would be x10 harder if someone as smart as Bin Landen was still at the top of Al Qaeda. They are not nearly as devastating as when they first started with Bin Laden leading them.

[prepmaster]

And has Bin Laden's death lead to less terrorism? Hell Blair and Bush overthrew Saddam and look what happened to Iraq and arguably worse took over and destabilized it making Iraq even more of a hell. That thinking is precisely why George Sr didn't invade Iraq

But what you have is a more US friendly Iraqi government instead of an anti American one under Saddam. Its not like a failure as people make it out to be. The argument is whether the cost of overthrowing Saddam's regime was worth it or not because Iraq was never that much of a threat to America in the first place. If Iraq under Saddam was a threat like Nazi Germany under Hitler invading other neighboring countries then its hard to argue for not overthrowing such regime.

Superheroes are supposed to value lives even the lives of villains but at the same time they keep making it look like valuing all lives would mean more death of other innocents. So what kind of message they are sending with such stories? Are they saying that Gotham's justice system, GCPD, Arkham Asylum and Batman's no kill code are all flawed to the point of letting the same guy escape from prison and kill innocent people over and over again? People argue that since the system is corrupted, Batman should just take justice into his own hands and kill the Joker but when Gotham is that rotten then Batman killing the Joker would mean nothing much as the system still has loophole for other criminals to exploit. Its just the Joker being the best at exploiting such loophole. Joker always wins because he knows how to exploit the system while Batman's crusade against crime is only treating the symptoms and not the root of the problems.

[RachelGrey]

If Batman kills joker another pyschopath would just take his place. On top of that considering how gang territories work without a clear leader Joker's former gang would likely collapse into a power struggle leading to more chaos. Killing a person does not answer the problem

I actually would like there to be a Batman story where Joker or Ra's are killed by Batman and we see what followed them is far worse than anyone could imagine. The devil you know is better than the devil you don't

I think there is a way for Batman to keep his code and be rid of the Joker! Ask Superman to put the Joker in the Phantom Zone!