How many people are too many? Should EVERY villain get killed? Every mugger who has a gun? Should you wait till they already killed someone, or stop them before it happens?
I have a feeling, that if you took a look at all the people Batman has beat up in the alleys.... they would outnumber the people that Joker has killed. If he killed Everyone he fought... he'd be a bigger murderer then Joker!
That's ridiculous, though.
Are you guilty of all the deaths in the world committed by people you haven't murdered to stop them? Because there are a lot of people being killed right now. A lot of people will be killed this week. And, I didn't see you killing those killers before they can do it.
Patsy Walker on TV! Patsy Walker in new comics! Patsy Walker in your brain! And Jessica Jones is the new Nancy! (Oh, and read the Comics Cube.)
Let's use the Punisher as an example. Frank is realistic and practical when it comes to his war on criminals. Basically, he takes care of his own backyard. Although he has been known to venture out of his comfort zone. Occasionally, Nick Fury will sick Frank on the bad guys--and not necessarily in a kill or be killed scenario. Was it in Mother Russia when Fury had Frank rescue a little girl who was carrying a very nasty virus? Frank amassed a high kill rate, but he brought the kid back safe and sound. And the virus harmlessly expired and Fury covered all of the bureaucratic bases and Frank went back to the big apple to resume his war on criminals.
I think u have to seperate the In Universe reasoning which has been flimsy at best....I mean sure random street thugs but come on how many kills should the Joker be allowed to get before you put him down....and the Out of Universe reasoning which has always made perfect logical sense. We need to make money off our popular villains and cant have the heroes offing them.
In modern society, we have law enforcement to keep the safety well, or at least acceptable. But in comic it's not the case, if the killers will come out again and again to commit more crimes, it's going to be totally different.
If the law enforcement has no effect on them, they could come out from jail in short time over and over again, then yes. Were we told that we must not kill terrorists unless they caused harm? No.
It depends on what kind of world are you living. If it's like modern America, sure it's not right. But if there is no real law enforcement to stop the crimes, the villains could go out to kill whenever they want, then it would be dumb to keep the NO KILL code.
Last edited by Slowpokeking; 11-27-2015 at 11:37 PM.
If we were being realistic (and since we're talking about superhero comics, it's probably a fool's errand) I'd never get to the "no-kill" policy before I'd have a huge problem with anonymous self-appointed vigilantes solving the world's problems with violence. I have a problem when the armed forces or police do that and overreach (which happens a lot when you're dealing with using violence to solve a problem), and I elect people who decide these things or can track down and (try to) hold them accountable for their actions.
Luckily it's escapist entertainment, and if they kill it doesn't bump me. And if they do, and it does, I can pick up a Captain America or Shazam book or the like and enjoy those instead. Vote with my dollars.
That kinda reminds me of the graphic novel, Devil's Advocate where Joker was sent to death row, accused of a series of murders he actually didn't commit, and Batman, bless his mystery solving soul, bent over backwards to save ol' crazy clown from the hot squat, much to the chagrin of Commissioner Gordon and Babs (see: The Killing Joke). Oh, sure, Bats was out to find and stop the real culprit, but he didn't have to be so diligent to the point of letting Joker escape being put six feet under where he belonged. And you can bet the citizenry wouldn't be broken up if he were fried.
Avatar: Here's to the late, great Steve Dillon. Best. Punisher. Artist. EVER!
The Joker has actually died, already, even excluding situations where most/all Earth/the universe have died.
And he came back.
He's been shot in the face, dropped in acid, strangled, set on fire, etc... and he comes back.
In the really real world, sure, shoot the bastard, he's done. Beat him with a crowbar for irony.
The DCU ain't - and never had been - the really real world.
Anyone is free to dislike that, but since it has worked very well for DC, I can't see what motive they would have for changing their tactics now.
Patsy Walker on TV! Patsy Walker in new comics! Patsy Walker in your brain! And Jessica Jones is the new Nancy! (Oh, and read the Comics Cube.)
Money. It really comes down to "show me the money." Joker is a cash clown--er--cow. I still say whack him and create another Joker down the road. Buffy eventually has to close the Hell Mouth. Richard Kimble eventually has to find the One Armed Man. Ahab eventually reckonsiles with Moby Dick. Holmes and Moriarty had their final reckong at Reichenbach Falls. You get the picture.
Except for Holmes, all of the characters in your examples were in stories that had ultimate conclusions (I know Buffy went on to comics, but the TV series ended). As for Holmes, the Moriarity example is misused (as is frequently done), appearing only in one story (unless you count a brief flashback), so he doesn't really count as the kind of central focus of the character the way the Hellmouth, the One Armed Man, and Moby Dick do to their adversaries.
Now sure, you can paint up some other lunatic and call him the Joker, but it won't be the same. Like Batman, Joker's an icon. Batman will always need to be the brilliant renaissance-man and orphaned wealthy vigilante Bruce Wayne; that's the legend that sells. Likewise, the Joker will always need to be the mysterious madman who is Batman's polar opposite, rather than an interchangeable franchise of crazies-under-clown-paint.