"Injustice" - Who is the real monster?

[FishyZombie]

Frankly. I don't think Superman was any less innocent of Joker's survival than Batman. Even if he was in a different city (aren't metropolis and Gotham only like 1 or 2 states apart from each other?) Superman must have, on some level, known who and what the Joker was. All he had to do was take some initiative and fly over to gotham and kill that evil psychopath. Or lock him in the fortress or solitude.... or the phantom zone, whatever. He's fricking Superman, it's not like anyone could have stopped him, but instead he waited until Joker came after him and his city.

[FishyZombie]

Injustice really runs on that inane superhero morality trope that says that killing even once, no matter how justified, will make you just as bad as the worst serial killer and give you an uncontrollable murder addiction.

I always disliked those kinds of stories.

I hate that concept too, but i do like how the comic showed that it wasn't just killing the Joker that made Supes into a monster. It was just what put him on the path to a series of moral compromises and increasing desire for power until he was corrupted to the point where he was in the game.

[Bor]

I still think the worst written character here is Wonderwoman. She is just so different written then her main counterpart, and unlike Superman and Batman there was never that moment for me where a change really starts to happen. It just seems she is ready to go full on facism from the beginning. Atleast with Superman and Batman there were some devolepment taking place, But Diana just seems off from the beginning.

[CentralPower]

Wonder Woman was not pro-fascism. But, she was always the most aggressive of the big three. She supported Superman because it seemed like the best path to peace. But, when she saw Superman working with Sinestro, she called him on it.

Yep, the last issue was this past Tuesday. There's technically still the last Annual left, but eh.

Where was the alternate Superman? The only "other" Superman that I saw was the half-witted clone.

It ends shortly after the game begins (the heroes teleported to Earth-Shit), but there'll be a bridge miniseries coming up covering the events of the game before the Injustice 2 book starts.

Whaaaauuuuut?

(Should I be picking this series up again?)

Injustice really runs on that inane superhero morality trope that says that killing even once, no matter how justified, will make you just as bad as the worst serial killer and give you an uncontrollable murder addiction.

I always disliked those kinds of stories.

I agree that the cliche of "heroes do not kill" is tiresome. And, the assumption that "you cannot stop with one" is not far behind it.

But, in the case of Superman, I am more open to that idea. Superman epitomizes power, and its use. The idea that taking a one-time short-cut opens the door for misuse is appropriate for a Superman (or the right Justice League) story.

And yes, surely some people from Injustice must think that Batman should have killed Superman the moment he crossed the line. But he has no right to complain. Batman could deny it, but he slowly turned Superman into his new nemesis after he killed the Joker. Batman is uncapable of see it, but he tends to turn create monsters with his stupid modus operanti. Just like he turned Harvey Dent into Two-Faces.

Where is it shown that Batman wants/needs Superman as an adversary?



At this point, I am willing to write off the first two years of so of "Injustice" as a fluke. The right writer was on a series that existed in enough of a vacuum. But, after Taylor left, "Injustice" lost its way.

[ImprobableQuestion]

Superman was now one of the thousands of victims that the Joker had suffered because of the Joker's insane existence. A victim of the sins of a madman, an innocent who had to pay the price because the justice's system was completely incompetent at the time of puting an end to the Joker's crimes. But unlike his other victims, Superman had a power no one on Earth could stop. So, feeling like one of the thousands of victims of the Joker, who knew "Justice" won't stop him, that sending him to Arkham would be just a vacation until his next atrocity, and that nothing else would avoid an even bigger disaster, Superman did what anyone would have done; put an end to the insanity once and for all. Yes, Superman attacked a Police Office and everything you say, but the fact is, and there's no argument about it, Superman only did what it had to be done a long time ago. It was clear that the traditional method wouldn't have stopped the Joker for doing something even more horrible. Superman's hands already had the blood of millions of innocent people at his hands, included his family, only now he added the blood of someone who truly deserved to die, without a doubt.

Okay. So Superman is supposed to represent the best of humanity, the ultimate force of good in the world. So if the Joker could "break" him, why couldn't he break Gordon when he had him chained up in that carousel? If Superman broke why didn't Batman in that alley, or when he found Jason's body in the main universe? Superman is held to a higher standard because he's supposed to be better than the rest of us.

[Agent Z]

But, she was always the most aggressive of the big three.

Not really. Prior to her depiction in the New 52 Justice League, she was usually depicted as being more willing to use diplomacy. Yes, she used lethal force but only as a last resort. Superman and Batman killed as well, writers just ignored it to maintain the illusion they had a no kill rule. An example would be when, during the Max Lord incedent, Superman killing the Phantom Zone criminals was ignored.

I'd say Batman is the most aggressive being more prone to use of torture.

But, in the case of Superman, I am more open to that idea. Superman epitomizes power, and its use. The idea that taking a one-time short-cut opens the door for misuse is appropriate for a Superman (or the right Justice League) story.

All superheroes epitomize power. This really isn't unique to superman.

[Draegwolf]

While I do think that Batman should take out the Joker the fact of the matter is that it's not his job to do so, the city of Gotham could have had him executed at any point in time in which the Joker was in their custody but instead they decided to treat him like the victim and try to rehabilitate him. For everything that he does Batman still does believe in the system, at the very least to a point, which is one of the reasons he never sees fit to cross that line. The difference between Batman and Superman is that Batman is accustomed to dealing with loss and has already had his bad day, whereas Superman is neither used to it or psychologically and emotionally equipped to deal with it.
And as for the Joker, regardless of what he was called before the accident he was already around before he met Batman. His creation was caused by decisions he made prior to meeting Batman, regardless of which of his origins you follow. The Joker was always going to surface at some point, Batman is not responsible for him.

You can't blame Batman for how Superman's actions have effected the world of Injustice because they are SUPERMAN's actions. Clark made a choice. He arbitrarily decided that he knew better than everyone which meant that he could use his powers to enforce his will onto the rest of the world and kill anyone that disagreed with him. Batman didn't make him kill Green Arrow. Batman didn't have him murder innocent people for having a different opinion. Batman sure as hell didn't make him fatal injure Connor and banish the Titans to the Negative Zone or wipe out the GLC, threaten Atlantist to force Aquaman to side with him, brainwash Hawkgirl, etc. Superman choose to do all of that on his own, because at the end of the day it wasn't about right or wrong or the greater good but rather just him being in control so no one can ever hurt him again. And that's why anyone defying him sets him off so much, because it's something he can't control and so he can't allow them to exist.

[Carabas]

While I do think that Batman should take out the Joker the fact of the matter is that it's not his job to do so, the city of Gotham could have had him executed at any point in time in which the Joker was in their custody but instead they decided to treat him like the victim and try to rehabilitate him...

Main universe Joker once was convicted and almost executed by the state, but Batman just had to spoil it by rescuing him.

[CentralPower]

Not really. Prior to her depiction in the New 52 Justice League, she was usually depicted as being more willing to use diplomacy. Yes, she used lethal force but only as a last resort. Superman and Batman killed as well, writers just ignored it to maintain the illusion they had a no kill rule. An example would be when, during the Max Lord incedent, Superman killing the Phantom Zone criminals was ignored.

This is a problem with long-running characters that have to stay static.

Superman made a decision to kill the Phantom Zone criminals because they were deliberately and maliciously dangerous. Wonder Woman killed Max Lord for similar reasons. Those situations make sense in "capes and tights" comics. But, after some stuff goes down, things go back to the way they were and will be.

It would make sense for Superman to walk away from killing Zod et al and needing a break. He might even adopt a "only as a last resort, for certain types of threats" rule. But, if one assumes that Zod et al were killed in the same context as Lord, Superman would have had to accept the premise that Lord needed to be killed. (There is a case for saying that Zod et al were not in continuity at that point. Byrne's "Man of Steel" run was published ~20 years before Meltzer's "Identity Crisis". DC was probably assuming that most readers had forgotten or would know to ignore the old content.)

I'd say Batman is the most aggressive being more prone to use of torture.

And, this gets muddy. Are you talking about ur-form Batman, who uses terror as a weapon against criminals? The guy who dangles street thugs from the tops of buildings? The guy who uses a branding iron (A BRANDING IRON oh sweet mercy!) on guys he leaves for the police?

Which Batman are you talking about about? (Not all of that stuff is necessarily in context with other examples.)


And, in general terms, it makes sense that Batman would amp up his fear factor even if he wants more powerful (non-human) characters to be restrained.

All superheroes epitomize power. This really isn't unique to superman.

Superman is a question of scale and concept though. For example, Iron Man is power through technology. Batman is power through skill and exploitation of fear.

Superman is simply power, and on a greater scale than most other characters. That is why "Red Son" works. Superman is recognized by most people as benign power, which is why "Red Son" is so effective as an argument about the moral hazard (an economic theory).

[Agent Z]

This is a problem with long-running characters that have to stay static.

Superman made a decision to kill the Phantom Zone criminals because they were deliberately and maliciously dangerous. Wonder Woman killed Max Lord for similar reasons. Those situations make sense in "capes and tights" comics. But, after some stuff goes down, things go back to the way they were and will be.

It would make sense for Superman to walk away from killing Zod et al and needing a break. He might even adopt a "only as a last resort, for certain types of threats" rule. But, if one assumes that Zod et al were killed in the same context as Lord, Superman would have had to accept the premise that Lord needed to be killed. (There is a case for saying that Zod et al were not in continuity at that point. Byrne's "Man of Steel" run was published ~20 years before Meltzer's "Identity Crisis". DC was probably assuming that most readers had forgotten or would know to ignore the old content.)

Not sure exactly what you're trying to say here.

And, this gets muddy. Are you talking about ur-form Batman, who uses terror as a weapon against criminals? The guy who dangles street thugs from the tops of buildings? The guy who uses a branding iron (A BRANDING IRON oh sweet mercy!) on guys he leaves for the police?

Which Batman are you talking about about? (Not all of that stuff is necessarily in context with other examples.)

The modern version. And why does it matter? You didn't specify which version of WW you were talking about when you said she was always the most violent of the Trinity.

And, in general terms, it makes sense that Batman would amp up his fear factor even if he wants more powerful (non-human) characters to be restrained.

He can amp up his fear factor all he wants. But he can't chew out other characters for being excessively violent when he uses Batarangs that are sharp enough to cut through steel or explode or stacks his vehicles with guns and missiles.

Superman is a question of scale and concept though. For example, Iron Man is power through technology. Batman is power through skill and exploitation of fear.

Superman is simply power, and on a greater scale than most other characters. That is why "Red Son" works. Superman is recognized by most people as benign power, which is why "Red Son" is so effective as an argument about the moral hazard (an economic theory).

This only works when writers forget feats by other characters like Flash, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Captain Atom etc. This is less about plots that make sense and more about Superman's iconic status affecting how he's viewed in universe. Even in Injustice, the only reason he gets away with what he does is because so many high powered heroes take leave of their senses and join him.

[CentralPower]

As I think I pointed out a page or two back, the characters that join Superman are mostly the less human characters. Wonder Woman is functionally a god. Aquaman is the non-human king of an undersea realm. Green Lantern is human, but is also a space cop. Flash is a regular cop. Cyborg is....half machine.

Wonder Woman's reaction to finding out about Metropolis at the beginning is mostly "poor Superman", the way you might react if your friend's tropical fish tank got wiped out. You might like the fish well enough. But, your are mostly worried about how the loss will hurt your buddy. She sees humans as needing to be cared for and controlled.

Wonder Woman and the others trust Superman because he is Superman. ("If Superman has decided violence is okay, then it must be." This is the problem with Superman showing less restraint. He defines normal and deviant behavior.)

Not sure exactly what you're trying to say here.

Citing past comics as precedent (for or againt a current comic) is difficult because the characters are largely static. Either the past events had very little impact. Or, they are irrelevant in context. (For example, "Injustice" Superman never killed a Zod that we know of.)

The characters and settings in comics are more static than they should be. Events have less of an impact on the characters and world than one might reasonably expect because editorial (and the fans) will not allow those changes to stick.

Every so often, old content is forgotten. The example of "Identity Crisis" works. In general terms, Wonder Woman killing Lord is comparable to Superman killing Zod and co in "Man of Steel". But, how relevant is Byrne's "Man of Steel" (1986) to "Identity Crisis" (2005)?

The modern version. And why does it matter? You didn't specify which version of WW you were talking about when you said she was always the most violent of the Trinity.

Fair point, and it illustrates the problem.

He can amp up his fear factor all he wants. But he can't chew out other characters for being excessively violent when he uses Batarangs that are sharp enough to cut through steel or explode or stacks his vehicles with guns and missiles.

Ya know, the more I think about this, Batman is either really good or really bad at his job. For all of the guns and explosives, one would expect Batman to have a body-count to rival the Punisher. But, he has not killed anyone. Is he being careful, or just not trying? (Oh, questions....)

[Crazy Diamond]

Main universe Joker once was convicted and almost executed by the state, but Batman just had to spoil it by rescuing him.

Really?!

Batman shows more mercy to the Joker than to the random thieves he cripples.

[Agent Z]

As I think I pointed out a page or two back, the characters that join Superman are mostly the less human characters. Wonder Woman is functionally a god. Aquaman is the non-human king of an undersea realm. Green Lantern is human, but is also a space cop. Flash is a regular cop. Cyborg is....half machine.

Wonder Woman's reaction to finding out about Metropolis at the beginning is mostly "poor Superman", the way you might react if your friend's tropical fish tank got wiped out. You might like the fish well enough. But, your are mostly worried about how the loss will hurt your buddy. She sees humans as needing to be cared for and controlled.

Wonder Woman and the others trust Superman because he is Superman. ("If Superman has decided violence is okay, then it must be." This is the problem with Superman showing less restraint. He defines normal and deviant behavior.)




Citing past comics as precedent (for or againt a current comic) is difficult because the characters are largely static. Either the past events had very little impact. Or, they are irrelevant in context. (For example, "Injustice" Superman never killed a Zod that we know of.)

The characters and settings in comics are more static than they should be. Events have less of an impact on the characters and world than one might reasonably expect because editorial (and the fans) will not allow those changes to stick.

Every so often, old content is forgotten. The example of "Identity Crisis" works. In general terms, Wonder Woman killing Lord is comparable to Superman killing Zod and co in "Man of Steel". But, how relevant is Byrne's "Man of Steel" (1986) to "Identity Crisis" (2005)?





Fair point, and it illustrates the problem.






Ya know, the more I think about this, Batman is either really good or really bad at his job. For all of the guns and explosives, one would expect Batman to have a body-count to rival the Punisher. But, he has not killed anyone. Is he being careful, or just not trying? (Oh, questions....)

It's more like the writers want to have their cake and eat it too; they want to show his ever-increasing brutality without acknowledging the consequences of such behavior. Even if you pretend the guy's never killed anyone, how many people has he crippled for life? How many are permanently psychologically scarred? How much property damage has he caused? Are we really supposed to believe every crook he sent to the hospital made it their alive? The writers ignore this because then they'd have to admit they've essentially turned him into a villain and given him a far larger body count than heroes who were trying to kill.

And yeah, this is an issue with all superheroes to an extent, but it's especially glaring with Batman. The comics repeatedly show him as more and more vicious in his fighting style but never show the consequences and depict him as a barely-functional, emotionally stunted man-child lashing out over a tragedy from his childhood. Combine this with an infinite bank account, military grade technology, Bourne level training and a cult of personality of impressionable youths and you've got a recipe for disaster. Yet, it's Superman and Wonder Woman who get written as the ones who will jump off the slippery slope.

It's not unlike how over at the House of Ideas, writers actually try to convince us that the Hulk has never killed anyone during his rampages.

[Carabas]

Really?!

Batman shows more mercy to the Joker than to the random thieves he cripples.

Turns out he wasn't guilty of the particular massacre he was actually convivted for, just his other dozens of massacres, so Batman proved his "innocence".

[CentralPower]

It's more like the writers want to have their cake and eat it too; they want to show his ever-increasing brutality without acknowledging the consequences of such behavior.

I always understood it as being a question of editorial (and licensing) not wanting significant changes to the major characters. (This is why Tony Stark always gets his suit back, and usually ends up running a large company. Bruce Wayne has a really strong spine for the same reason.)

Even if you pretend the guy's never killed anyone, how many people has he crippled for life? How many are permanently psychologically scarred? How much property damage has he caused? Are we really supposed to believe every crook he sent to the hospital made it their alive?

Lets take it to the next level.

Assume that Gotham is so broken that a vigilante is needed, and that the police are down with it. Assume that Bruce Wayne finds his nocturnal activities to be helpful in quieting his demons, which allows him to be a functioning adult. And, assume that we simply need not care about the well-being or criminals.

How the hell has Batman never made a mistake and gone after the wrong guy? How has a guy who has made himself an instrument of terror never caused incidental fear, or possibly inspired less restrained vigilantes?

Any of those questions could be answered by some iterations of Batman. But, if you try to reconcile them all, it gets messy and contrary.

Turns out he wasn't guilty of the particular massacre he was actually convivted for, just his other dozens of massacres, so Batman proved his "innocence".

That would work for a character that was supposed to represent the system above all, not a character that is supposed to represent a response to a failed system. It is hard to accept Batman (a vigilante) making a legalistic argument on behalf of a known monster. One would expect Batman to take a more practical approach, and let the Joker die.

Real example:
About 10 years ago, in the metro Boston area, a police officer was shot and killed.

The undisputed facts:
-4 cops were drinking with their wives and girlfriends behind the city's high school. (Yes, you read that right.)
-they had their guns. (This just keeps getting better.)
-one of the cops ended up with a bullet in his head. (Nobody who was there is talking. But, most everybody has a theory about this happened.)
-when the ambulance rolled up, a police union rep commandeered their vehicle for a quick pow-wow with several of the drinking cops. (Yes, the union rep got their before the ambulance.) This little chat took longer than the ambulance crew would normally have taken to load the injured party in to the back.
-cop later dies. (Hey, he got shot in the head. How did you expect this story to end?)


Ultimately, a local drug dealer was convicted of firing the bullet that killed the cop. There were allegations of corruption (credible given the context of the incident and the city it happened in). These allegations included cops extorting local drug dealers. Forensic evidence indicates that the bullet was fired from a police weapon....from the back. (There are still plenty of blanks to fill in. Have fun coming up with your own theories.)

There was credible question about if the alleged (later convicted) gunman was even in the city that night.

But, (and this is the important thing), there are no questions about who and what the drug dealer was. He was a brute. He was a violent criminal of the lowest order. He was a threat to the safety of normal folks.

Even the people who doubt the drug dealer's factual guilt in the shooting were happy to see him go away.

As a friend of mine (who remembered the drug dealer from childhood) put it, "nothing good was lost". The whole situation was a mess. But, a grossly unprofessional (if not corrupt) cop was removed and a dangerous criminal was incarcerated. Not perfect, and full of legal holes. But, also not a total loss.

(One would expect Batman to take a similar view of the Joker.)