The Picard ManeuverIt's important that he lives by a code
Grammaton ClericYes, but if you kill two or more, it’s all good 👍
Patapon EnjoyerBatman should kill all killers in Gotham, last one being himself, then the number drops to 0
Checkmate, moral compass
MonkCanatellaEthical people hate this one trick!
UrPartnerInCrimeThat would actually be a pretty cool premise. A hero who promises he will kill himself once all evil is defeated, as what he does although for good is evil itself. But people love him too much so they themselves become evil.
I guess kinda like a incredible situation, but more dark because the protagonist just wants to die instead of raise a family.
CoderKatBut evil can never be truly deleted, can it? There will always be new villains. Can you ever truly call yourself done?
No, and that is why his promise is so clever, lol.
That’s actually a dope premise. Is there anything out there like that now?
Idk
One of the bad guys becomes a good guy not because it’s the right thing to do but because he genuinely wants to see if the hero will kill himself but the only way to promise to not be evil again is to be a good guy. Since the bad guy either has to die or stop fighting for the hero to be happy, but he wouldn’t really trust the bad guy if he just stopped. So although he occasionally messes up the bad guys is pretty good now
So would the number of citizens in gotham. Apparently everyone is a killer in that city.
He could always, you know, just break their spine
ivanafterallTIL Batman sucks at math.
spittingimageAm I the only one who finds it reassuring that the well-armed ninja billionaire who lives out a childhood revenge fantasy every night has a set of rules he follows?
I tried to go back and watch the Dark Knight Batman movies because I remembered enjoying them when they first came out.
There’s an early scene where there is a Batman impersonator and he goes “what’s the difference between me and you” and Batman goes “I’m not wearing hockey pads”
It’s supposed to be a real zinger. As I watched it though the realization hit me that what he’s really saying is “because I have money so the rules don’t apply to me” and then I realized that that’s kinda the entire point of Batman. He’s a billionaire that’s decided he’s wealthy enough that silly things like laws don’t apply to him.
Really made me not enjoy the movie and I ended up turning it off.
I think the point is that he wasn’t an amateur and the guy was. He was trying to do a job and they got in his way.
Replace batman with a firefighter and give the guy a water pistol and it’s the same story.
I mean it’s not like you can major in Batman studies or go down to the Batman Trade School and become a professional Batman.
Batman is just as much an amateur as that guy is, he just has more expensive gear.
I mean professional in a skill sense. Batman is very damn good at what he does, and no one comes close.
Batman Trade School
Also known as the Robin Internship Program.
Well, Batman was trained by the League of Assassins.
Now I’m just imagining the ads from the League of Assassins on AM radio and whatnot, and it’s great.
Krafty KactusI think that’s why I like Spiderman so much. He’s a vigilante who genuinely struggles to make ends meet at times and has gone through so much that he arguably deserves to completely stop protecting people and yet, he continues anyway.
I like the idea of a Batman story where it's slowly revealed that he's the villain. There'd be his most sympathetic villains revealed to be people that are fighting the morally correct fight, while Batman is just fighting to maintain the status quo.
The sequel would have the Joker trying to undermine the public trust in the systems that maintain the status quo
The sequel would have the Joker trying to undermine the public trust in the systems that maintain the status quo
ChaoticNeutralCzechSo you’re assuming I’ve never killed anyone?
ComradeChairmanKGBMaybe, but are you smart enough not to hint at it on the internet? No.
Batman’s goal is to create a Gotham where he is not needed.
candyman337Hard to do when he doesn’t fix the other issues in Gotham and he just beats up villains lol, man needs to use his wealth to influence politics for the better
He… does.
This is the “why didn’t the eagles fly to Mordor” of the batman universe.
Yes and there have been other comics in alternate universes that prove that if he did more he could get rid of crime in gotham
The alternate universe stuff muddies the water so much that it really doesn’t have much weight.
And there are stories where Gotham is literally cursed to be evil. You start pulling edge cases and you throw out everything that matters. There’s probably a story where Gotham and Metropolis switched vibes and Superman is an autocrat Spaze Nazi exterminating shoplifters and petty thugs
here’s probably a story where Gotham and Metropolis switched vibes and Superman is an autocrat Spaze Nazi exterminating shoplifters and petty thugs
Ehm… i think the guys at Games Workshop did a pretty decent version of this with the whole Konrad Curze thing…
Like trying to clean up Iraq while openly refusing to kill Osama bin Laden.
Most of the modern stories are, essentially, about a severely neurotic genius athlete billionaire. Especially since the killing joke laid it out.
Why is it Batman’s duty to forfeit his morals and kill the Joker and not on the state of New Jersey for their revolving door of crime in their penitentiaries like blackwater and appalling lack of proper facilities to deal with dangerous and deranged meta humans instead of sticking them in a rotting facility made in the 20’s.
Hell why isn’t this on the federal government after so many years of chronic and sustained neglect. They have what amounts to a nightmare scenario for the department of defense and just let it sit like a festering wound.
Why do we blame a single crazy billionaire, instead of the horrendous circumstances surrounding them.
Yea, it’s always been weird to me that Batman alone is being judged for not using lethal force. If that were part of any consistent values, wouldn’t every person who has had chain of custody of Joker, or even proximity to him, be morally obligated to kill him?
If random cop that has had Joker in handcuffs, or random doctor who has been treating Joker, or even every other super hero on the planet hasn’t extra judiciallly executed Joker, why should Batman bear the obligation to do so?
I was about to make the argument that if batman killed the joker the only consequence for him would be his compromised morals, but if someone else killed the joker while he was in custody then they would at least lose their job and most likely go to jail and that’s not comparable. Then I remembered that if a cop killed him they’d just get paid leave before they were acquitted of the murder and worst case would have to get a job in a different city. So yeah ACAB.
RivalarrivalThen I remembered that if a cop killed him they’d just get paid leave before they were acquitted of the murder and worst case would have to get a job in a different city.
That only became a possibility when they cast Nick Creegan.
Yea, it’s always been weird to me that Batman alone is being judged for not using lethal force.
Batman is the focus of the narrative and the audience. Of course he will be the focus of the criticism. But technically yes, a lot of others in universe do also share responsibility for any further victims of the Joker. After a certain number of escape, spree, capture, escape, spree, etc cycles surely they must have realized he cannot be rehabilitated and will continue the remorseless mass killings until he dies.
or even proximity to him, be morally obligated to kill him?
This is a compelling idea for sure, and could definitely lead to interesting questions in other cases. Let’s say the Joker has a body count of at least 1000 victims, how far back do you have to walk that number before such an obligation is no longer reasonable. Would a serial killer with 40 victims also be such a clear and present danger that they’d represent a moral imperative for their elimination? Or does it have to reach comic book levels of obscene.
Because rather than spending some of his money to change things, he spends it to punch people
But he spends a fuckton of his money to change things, though?
Pretty sure it’s even a point in the comics that he hires a bunch of ex-cons and stuff specifically so they don’t have to resort to a life of crime again.
Bruce Ways is like an extreme philanthropist when it comes to spending money to help others.
Just like we don’t expect the police to be the executioner, and instead have a judge make the verdict. We shouldn’t expect Batman to do so either.
NumbersCanBeFunOkay but what if you took out like a whole group of killers with a bus. That has to be a net negative right?
potoo22Then each of their relatives or families becomes vengeful and likely homicidal. You have to do it right and end their entire bloodlines. Even the innocent ones. Anakin style. Lessons from Queen of Fables. Totally not the evil thing to do. The empire did nothing wrong.
Margot RobbieThey always have excuses in the comics. I think the latest one of “the Joker has a super Joker toxin in his heart that’s released when he dies to turn whomever kills him into an even worse Joker” to be quite forced.
By the way, the Batman Who Laughs really overstayed his welcome.
Is this real?
No more spoilers. Start from Dark Knight: Metal if you want to read the comics.
That’s just what happened in one universe though, right? Neither Batman nor Joker know about that, or did I misunderstood?
In the next series “The Batman Who Laughs”, they showed that the mainstream Joker also had this failsafe too and no spoilers because the plot kinda builds around that.
Ohh I see. Yeah that’s a bit too on the nose then.
joneskindAlso it’s kinda stupid because it’s only true if you stop at the first killer.
No no, if you kill two killers you become a double killer and the count stays the same.
So by your logic… Would you become a triple killer by killing a double killer? Or a serial killer by killing a single serial killer? What about the trolley problem if the single guy is a serial killer then? I need answers
Due to the transitive property of murder, you have valid points.
But you always let the trolley kill the old person instead of the murderer; the murderer can stop murdering, the old person can only be stopped by killing them. In all other cases the murderer gets trolley’d.
By the additive property of killing, you’d be a triple killer if you killed a double. Serial killers get the title by killing people all in a row. If they’re not in a row it doesn’t count.
The trick to the trolley problem is to yank the brake, jackknife the trolley cars, and hit everyone. This would make you a septuple killer, and earn the ‘Badass Moves’ achievement.
Ok, but what if I drive a Time Trolley to run over my own grandpa before he met my own grandma and kill Antoni Gaudi?
I’m pretty sure this was an episode of Futurama, and you end up getting laid. Just don’t ask too many questions.
runeko“Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god.” — Jean Rostand
That only counts if your killings are non-consecutive.
uisIf you kill Putin, number of killers will not grow as fast
chillbo_bagginsJohnathan Wayne has entered the chat