Batman's No Kill Rule is Mentally Retarded - A Rant
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 май 2024
- Holy forced narrative device, Batman!
Get your RazörForce Fatigues:
www.teepublic.com/user/razorfist
Rumble:
rumble.com/c/RazorFist
Bitchute:
www.bitchute.com/razorfist
Odysee:
www.odysee.com/@RazorFist
Razör on Unauthorized TV:
unauthorized.tv/channel/ragea...
DailyMotion:
www.dailymotion.com/TheRageah...
DLive (For censorship-free Streams!):
www.dlive.tv/razorfist
Check RazörFist on Twitter: / raz0rfist
Join the RazörFist Force: steamcommunity.com/groups/razo... 
Развлечения
The rule worked when it was campy Adam West style Batman. But when the Joker goes from troublemaking miscreant to filling mass graves for a laugh, there's a point where you'd need less Batman, and more Dirty Harry.
Yep. More frank castle.
"If you kill a murderer, the number of murderers in the world doesn't change."
"But what if you kill _two_ murderers?"
Yeah, I there are places where I think it works well, and places it doesn't...
The Lone Ranger using silver bullets to remind himself of the value of human life? Sure, it works somehow.
Spiderman prankishly trapping criminals like flies for confused police to find in a fictional world where the villains are slightly goofy? Sure, it works somehow.
Superman trapping criminals just because he's bulletproof and can afford to show more restraint than an ordinary mortal? Yeah, it works somehow.
Doctor Who, before the show went full-steam "woke", letting the Master live because they were close as children and human beings are, after all, more like pets in the hands of a tormented, mentally ill brother who can't resist pulling wings off of flies? It's nightmarish when you really look at it, but it makes a sort of alien sense. Or, letting daleks and such live because life is precious and the Doctor doesn't believe he has the right to commit genocide, even with a race of cyborgs genetically engineered to be omnicidal maniacs, and because he can respect their genius on a certain level? Again, nightmarish, but it makes a sort of alien sense.
There's the space-western anime "Tri-Gun", where the superhero Vash is basically an alien child in an adult body who genuinely believes in an idealistic human philosophy that holds all life to be too precious to waste, until far past the point where it should have been obvious to any human being that the villains aren't simply beyond redemption in a world that would be better off without them, but actually take advantage of Vash's weakness to cause far more pain and suffering than they ever would have if he'd simply killed them years ago, with that conflict between the value of life versus the cost of evil becoming a big part of the final chapters of the story, and those moments where Vash is forced to resort to deadly force being key moments of character development that were carefully built up overthe course of the story: it works somehow.
Or, the space-western "Firefly", where the heroes are a band of tarnished idealists forced to resort to piracy to survive, who sometimes need to make some difficult choices, but try to avoid violence in a morally grey universe where they understand that things aren't very clear-cut: sometimes, it's heart-warming when the characters choose to do the right thing even when it costs them a little, and spare lives and walk away mostly clean when it would be easier to just go full criminal, but we also see the heroes face moments where some of the villains they allowed to live return later in situations where they've only caused worse problems, and those cynical times when the heroes actually surprise the audience by doing the pragmatic thing and killing off obvious villains, without chewing on any angst first, become that much more refreshing.: even in a morally grey universe, nobody is going to miss a sadistic monster - "See, THAT is why you don't mess around, and just control-alt-delete the clown!" And, it works somehow.
...and so on. Including, as you say, with some of the campier versions of Batman while the criminals are a little less depraved and more campy, and Batman a little less human and limited in what he can do to stop them.
It's some combination of those points where the storylines get darker-and-grittier, the villains get more dangerous, the stakes get higher than petty crime capers, the heroes and heroic idealism get a little less clean-cut and simplistic, that the story needs to "grow a beard" and start taking the violence a little more seriously, as something that has consequences, whether the heroes are resorting to it, or refusing to resort to it while villains cause far more grief with violence of their own than the heroes ever would have with a more judicious and sober use of necessary force.
Batman fell (back) into darker-and-edgier, morally grey territory, but somehow never left the lighter-and-fluffier "no-kill"imperative in place even after it should have been clear to any sane hero that this cynical world is not the sort of place that you pull your punches to leave violent criminal masterminds free to slaughter innocent people, so that you can pat yourself on the back for your heroic moralism: you're NOT making the world a better place by letting mass murderers and psychopathic sadists loose to prey freely on helpless victims in a world where you are just one lone hero in a silly costume against an army of free-range criminals, you can't be everywhere at once, the police are utterly ineffective, the government is corrupt and more likely to arrest you for trying to protect the public than they are to arrest villains for threatening the public, and the cost of your failure to act decisively against the villains can be counted in dozens, hundreds, or thousands of human lives.... Apparently the writers do occasionally make token nods at the fact that Batman must surely recognize the fact that his failure to stop the villains permanently is only wasting human life, but they never seem to follow through with it, or to use it as a plot device for a major character development story arc, or anything like that!
The result is kind of broken, and they either need to back off the dark-and-gritty cynicism and roll with the campy take on things instead, or fully break with the campy take and embrace the darkness and grit with a superhero who has and knows his limitations, and knows when to set aside his well-meaning ideals and seriously start looking down the barrel into the villain's eyes and asking, "Do you feel lucky, punk? Well, do you?"
*Points to Jason Todd* yeah
@@pietrayday9915 7th like, also dang that was long!
Seriously where is the 2nd amendment in Gotham?? One guy with a gun would fuckin END the Joker. Like a fuckin bank teller would have gunned him down in Texas
A deranged policeman shot him in the face and there was a bounty on his head with a She-Bane after him. Jason Todd had him tied, dosed up in gasoline and even Joker himself saying: "Well?". So many times he should have died, but didn't.
He just has the same plot armor than Batman himself. I just wish they didn't spread the credibility of it so thin.
Comic books...
Gotham is based on NYC and Chicago, so the 2A is in the same place as it is in those cities.
Well, Gotham City is located in New Jersey.
It is the story that should be addressed...
That said, there is a comic about a man who reveres Batman so much that his dream is to kill Batman by shooting him, then living a good life that ends with him going to heaven...
I think that one was Grant Morrison's.
Nobody tell Razor about the time Dick Grayson beat the Joker to death and then Batman had him resuscitated
💀💀💀
Are you serious? Dude that’s insane!
@thomasweeden2683 Joker: Last Laugh, by Chuck Dixon and Scott Beatty if you want confirmation
@@shrikebutcherbird If Jason Todd found out about that, I think he would've shot the Joker instantly in the Red Hood storyline.
It's honestly like Batman know's that his universe will end once the joker dies because he knows the writers are so trash that they can't come up with a new compelling villain or story.
Batman's no kill rule was definitely to save the writers a headache of creating new iconic villains.
They weren't particularly creative... Especially Ole' Bobby Kane!
That's really what it all boils down to.
Every FREAKIN' month...!!!
Dick Tracy just had unending brothers and cousins of some of his best baddies.
Even The Simpsons killed Fat Tony and replaced him with an identical cousin lol
"All the people I murdered, by letting you live" - Batman in one of his saner moments
That was Frank Miller batman
Great line, and something Batman should continually struggle with. His obsessive need to rehabilitate vs the realistic consequences of that need in practice.
@@TrimondiusAre you actually trying to argue that the utterly insane mass murderer finding new and inventive ways to raze gotham to the ground is less concerning than a rich man who would kill that mass murderer? I'd tell you to get a grip, but I don't think you've even seen reality before.
For God's sake, an oddly dressed vigilante killing criminals is less concerning than that same vigilante believing that him beating every mugger in town to sleep evey night isn't actually killing anyone.
@Trimondius Joker kills innocents, Batman would only kill others as bad as the Joker, so yeah he would be a lot better. This could not possibly be simpler for you to understand, yet somehow you don't.
@Trimondius Also, considering Gotham's judicial system seems to be completely worthless when it comes to actually punishing criminals, why not let Batman do it at that point? I'd let a billionaire do all the work if it means some insane clown won't butcher my whole family.
I remember a crossover where the Punisher almost kills the Joker ("I've got all the therapy you need right here, comedian.", as he points a pistol at Joker), and Batman stops him and actually tells the Joker to run away. Batman then threatens to put Frank in Arkham after the Joker escapes with Batman's willing help. I remember thinking "If the people of Gotham could have seen that moment, I'm pretty sure almost everyone would have permanently turned against Batman."
I read that one. If I remember correctly, Jigsaw went to Gotham and ended up working with Joker. And I remember the look on Jokers face when he realized Punisher wasn't Batman and he was about to die 🤣
Seriously the worst moment in Batman history. I remember reading that and being like.. he told the Joker to RUN?! WTFFFFF
@@jbellflower83
I liked it because it referenced the previous encounter Frank had with Azbat.
@@OverBenthousandI wonder how many people the Joker killed whilst fleeing...
I also wonder how many people Frank would have killed if he was put in Arkham.
That choice literally would cause the most collateral damage. Way to go Batman
Would love to see a punisher like character step into the cowl for a disabled Wayne. Address the no kill rule by showing that as u kill 5 bad guys, 15 of their friends and family will rise to seek vengeance. The populace will accept policing and justice but not wonton vigilantism.
This rant is why the end of Ras Al Ghul, for his time as the villain in Batman Begins, was actually a good idea. Even if you have a "no-kill rule," for moral or legal purposes, you can have them simply say, "I'm not going to kill you...but I don't have to _save_ you, do I?" And let them meet their demise at the hands of their own attempted doomsday setup.
That's probably the best defense I have for it though, and AFAIK it's only happened in the one movie.
Just one movie
@@l33t007 He killed Ra’s Daughter in Dark Knight Rises, and killed Two-Face in the Dark Knight, and didn’t mind that Selina killed Bane.
I don't hold Two-Face's death against Bats, since Two-Face was psycho enough to shoot a kid and Batman's priority was saving the kid even if it meant Two-Face fell to his death.
And as for Talia, that was more Bats disabling the truck with the bomb they were using to blow up Gotham leading to Talia suffering for mortal wounds as a result of the truck being disabled.
And even though Bats was focused on saving Gotham, I'm pretty sure he would've been annoyed with Selina blasting Bane if they didn't have higher priorities (Selina poked fun at Bats telling her earlier not to kill other criminals).
@@AdrianFahrenheitTepes
@@mikeyua7 He still killed Two Face. He did have good reason to do what he did by pushing him off the building, even though the coin landed good side up. He didn’t know how it would turn out. I don’t mind the fact he killed some people in the Nolan Batman movies given that it was the exception rather than the rule. To be fair when he did kill, he was in a desperate or an exhausted condition
For all of the criticisms that the Bale movies receive, the descaling of the "no kill rule" plays into the urgency of scenarios & emphasizes the sacrifices made in pursuit of one's justice.
“Thou shall not murder” is not the same as “kill,” let alone “execute” - especially if the context is mutual combat or war.
Yes. Murder entails unjustified killing of an innocent. War is a tricky one though. You can argue that two soldiers trying to kill each other on a battlefield are both innocent(or guilty depending on how you look at it), because both could be great people outside of that war. But there is kind of an understanding of war as impersonal to a degree. One is simply fighting for his country, and the other is fighting for his.
And Bats has a war on crime.
Granted, there was a reason Old Testament Israel employed execution by stoning. Given that Yahweh made man in Hus image, human life was made sacred by dint of the fact that taking a human life became an inherently blasphemous act (hence the commandment, "thou shalt not *_murder)._* Even so, even ignoring scenarios like warfare or self-defense, there were certain crimes which were of sufficient gravity that execution was deemed necessary by law. Stoning was a _communal_ repudiation of the criminals' actions that spread out the aforementioned moral burden of taking said criminals' lives. The culture/law deemed it necessary, but this way, everyone's hands were dirtied through this shared effort of removing a social menace.
The Jews even had 2 different words for sanctioned killing (Ha-rog) and sinful killing (Ratsach - pronounce it Rat-sock and you'll be close)
@@Tehz1359 Thats the line Batman won't cross. He won't set himself up as judge of others. He just beats them into submission and dumps them on the courts.
"If you murder a murderer, there's still the same amount of murderers in the world."
That's why you don't stop at one bats.
"Okay. Kill twelve then get back to me" Red Hood
Wolverine : I may be at Marvel : But I terminated 25,000 murderers off the face of planet Earth
@@AdrianFahrenheitTepes
At least before Disney.
He never said that
There's a difference between murder and exacting justice.
Even without the Batmobile, Batman dispenses blunt force trauma like Halloween candy. The idea that he can physically incapacitate hundreds people with punches, kicks, and slams and NONE of them died of internal bleeding is just insane.
Boxers have died in the ring on numerous occasions. A hyper trained roid head like Bruce decked out in the finest tactical gear money can create smashing dudes on hard concrete would have killed at least dozens of dirt bags. Combat sports have a referee for a reason.
@@ProjectLDV The most dangerous part is the fall, and combat sports have a relatively soft, unobstructed place to fall. Falling on whatever hard surface exists out in the world is horrifying.
Any blunt force impact to the head, even a relatively small one, can potentially kill somebody. People die from falling off their beds.
Subdural hematomas, Batman has inflicted a lot of those. Think of all the comas
The Joker in the 89 Batman movie died by a Batman tied gargoyle from 50 stories up
At this point, I want to see a comic where Gotham’s mobs hire a hit on the Joker because they’re sick of his practical jokes and see where that goes.
Against normal humans like mobsters, if they don't take out the Joker by surprise on the first attempt, they're probably not gonna live for very long afterward. If they DO kill him on the first try, then they've just saved everyone in Gotham, though.
The dark knight?
@@PureWaterGuy
I was wondering what happened with Gamble’s bounty, and I believe it’s been called off.
I got to imagine little kids in Gotham would be writing letters to Batman like they would to Santa Clause begging him to kill the monsters that keep murdering all their friends and their parents and neighbors and second cousins...
I have no issue with Batman placing a limit on himself with his No Kill Rule and I understand his reasons for choosing that path, however what always annoyed the hell out of me is that he usually expects everyone else to hold themselves to that very same standard.
For example both Jim Gordon and Jason Todd have EVERY right to personally put that clown in the dirt for good after everything he’s done to them over the years, including the countless horrifically evil actions he has committed against the citizens of Gotham on a daily basis and yet Batman always gets in their way.
Especially Jim Gordon. You could argue that Red Hood is a vigilante so him taking the law into his own hands would be a no-no (which is ironic because Batman is doing the same FUCKING THING) but Jim Gordon has a license to kill and, given reasonable cause, would be able to do so to the Joker. And that clown has given him FAR MORE than reasonable cause.
@@illuminossentertainment3253
Batman's a deputized agent of the law. If he wasn't, pretty sure none of the evidence he obtained while bringing in a supervillain would be admissible on the grounds of being illegally obtained.
Bruce literally killed one of his sons in a hostage situation where said son was holding the joker at gunpoint.
Why does no comic run explore the fact Bruce is a basket case?
Even DC's "vigilante" original run made it clear that Adrian, the dude running around in a costume blowing away muggers with a 44 magnum, was unstable.
Yet apparently Bruce is a sane individual, according to 4 decades of Batman comics.
The thing is... Deep down Batman is just as insane as the villains he fights
Maybe they do have the right, but if Batman stands by and does nothing, then he’s complicit with it. And there’s the connection. 👍
You got characters like the Power Rangers and Sailor Moon killing their foes without blinking an eye but Batman is like "I got to prove I'm better than them" while Gotham City continues to be one of the the most unsafe cities in fiction.
Hell even Yugi "mind crushes" his opponents and they are just playing a children's card game
Lol so you never watched either of those series beyond the first episode
@@charlesman8722I've seen most of both and I'm curious about how you think he's wrong? By end of season nearly every single villain has been smote and the only reason the baddies live as long as they do is because the heroes never know where they are hiding.
@@daviddiggens8841 Season 0 Yugi was more hardcore. Especially when Shadow Realm just meant Hell.
@@chilomine839sending your enemies to de facto hell over a children's card game is pretty badass I must say
If they refuse rehabilitation and redemption, then they accept execution.
That's not how mental health works. Sometimes it's a life long struggle
"you have to kill him now, he is too dangerous, Who knows what will happen if we give him the chance"-goku
Goku kills only when the villain can't be contained (Cell, Buu)
"Why doesn't Batman kill his foes?"
Arm Chair philosopher; "Because *insert 50-page essay on why*
Real world; "Because then they'd have to invent a new villain to kill week after week.
Oh, no! You mean that the creatives in charge at DC Comics would have to be creative for a living?
Perhaps the writers need to stop indulging their darkest fantasies by putting them on paper and putting their hero in an unwinnable situation.
It's really simple. He's traumatized.
@@figlego And through his trauma allows countless others to experience the same trauma he feels by allowing murderers to continue murdering.
"Because insert 50-page essay on why"
who needs a 50 page essay to explain it? It's because then he would just be another criminal, no better than the people he opposses.
I feel like the No-Kill rule works for villains like Two Face or Penguin but SOMEONE should’ve 86’d Joker well before Jason Todd got a cranium rearrangement via clown crowbar
Jason says it better than I could: "I'm not talking about killing Penguin or Dent or Scarecrow! I'm talking about him! Just him."
@@damnedlegionaire Only fault with that story is that he then tries to shoot bats instead of Joker, like... you know, he said he would.
"I thought you said you didn't kill"
"Ya, it's like, my one rule"
"Well you just killed that guy"
"When I fight my foe they often get tired and have to take a nap afterwards because I'm so good"
The No-Kill rule doesn’t even make sense on the other villains. Every villain has become Joker-lite.
the joker didn't kill jason todd, the readers did, they voted for it.
I think Michael Carpenter from the Dresden files is the best version of a "no kill rule" his job as a knight of the cross is to oppose the supernaturally evil and redeem them, but if he is left no option he will bring the sword down and he's a perfectly capable individual to make that choice.
I concur
I'd love to see a Michael Carpenter like character in either Marvel or DC... provided writer handles the faith with genuine interest and care. Lots of stories of Saints and Heroes to pull from in Catholicism.
@@duncanharrell5009 shame that, because getting any writer at DC to handle Christianity, let alone Catholicism with even the slightest amount of fairness is out of the question.
Hence that's the first trait of Nightcrawlers and Daredevil that get's forgotten or flanderized.
A fellow Dresden Files fan, I see.
Yes, I love Michael, as well as many other characters in that series. I grinned when Uriel loaned him his grace so that he could serve again and make Nicodemus eat his lunch.
@@zeevdrifter2707 If the people writing them knew anything about the Faith, these two would be the most chaste men imaginable. Instead they're portrayed as promiscuous.
The title should have been, "Why Tim Burton's Batverse is superior.”
💯
"We don't know how to stop him" said the armed cop in regards to the non super powered psychopath.
lol
To be fair batman does wear bullet proof clothing.
This starts becoming a lot more real when you see the mindset at work in Uvalde.
You would think some civilians would have shot him down by now or the entire criminal underworld would be super pissed off and chase him down like a dog.
To be fair. Joker is very, very intelligent. He was pretty much always like 5 steps ahead of the cops. As unrealistic as that is, that's the case.
Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.
yes
Who is innocent?
@@batman369able definitely not the Joker.
@@batman369able People who don't commit crimes.
@@batman369ablethe innocent people of Gotham.
Thats who.
Even _Dragon Ball Z_ pointed out that some villains (notably Cell and Majin Buu) can _not_ be reasoned with…
Reminds me of a fan animation where Spiderman fights the Joker. He just ends up giving the Joker to the Punisher and lets him do his thing. Even when Daredevil and Captain America show up and find out what Joker did, they were just like, "carry on, Frank."
Bruce Wayne: killing is wrong
Frank Castle: twat...
10th like
what u said was amazing
Just how many punisher movies and TV series are there?
@Dethew 2 seasons of Netflix punisher and 3 films. Personally I didn't like the Netflix series.
Daily reminder. Killing is not a crime. The problem with modern Batman and pacifists are they don't know the difference between killing in defense and murder.
Killing is not murder.
Me..I'm just wondering why folks just keep sending the Joker to Arkham and not just frying him on the electric chair...
Yeah, Gotham's justice system is awful.
@@j.k.4479 da alvin bragg
He's caused so much death and destruction that he could be considered a force of nature. I'm shocked no nurse "got his meds wrong" and no orderlies "accidentally" lost control of his pallet truck on any of his visits.
Another question: why aren't there mass migrations of civilians out of Gotham? Villains on the loose every night and folks still decide to live there?
that insanity plea is carying
The Bushido code states that sometimes, by taking a life you will save many others.
Some people are far too gone for redemption, when a man becomes a monster, there's only one thing for him to do.
The _No Kill Rule_ - as it applies to the Batman franchise currently - truly falls apart when Gotham is in *a permanent Necromunda-level crime epidemic.*
It brings up the bigger problem that Batman writers have been obsessed with the spectacle of a city so entrenched in exaggerated monstrousness for so long that it defeats the stakes entirely. For if the city is so broken, so utterly degenerate, _what is there to save at this point?_ Batman just seems like an irresponsible loon as his villains become more violent, psychotic and irredeemable, but refuses to permanently stop them or let anyone else to do so even when he's not around. That or everyone else is written to be utterly ineffective in order to boost Batman's image as the ultimate winner of everything ever. *Nobody at DC thought this through for the long-term.*
Here's the thing: _I like the NKR,_ but I'm not going it justify it when it clearly damages the storytelling. When long-running, serialised fiction runs in cycles rather than progressing or conclusively ending, the spectacle must become bigger, but also perpetuate said cycle to keep people coming back. The spectacle is bigger than ever, but the stage it's on can't take it.
The Rule _can_ work in lighter circumstances and/or in conjunction with redemption arcs for some of the villains, but when the Joker is racking up a new murder high score with atomic whoopee cushions for the umpteenth time, forget it. *Load the Bat-Bolter and hail the Emperor.*
Also, I mean to get into the *Doc Savage* stories. Gonna hunt those down. Thanks for reminding me.
This is why I think BTAS works better than most of the comics. The fact that the villains aren't killing people makes the No-Kill Rule work better. In BTAS, pretty much every "super"villain except the Joker is a social outcast lashing out at society in some way, and could plausibly be reformed (most every other villain is a corrupt businessman or bona fide mobster). Notably, when they wanted to make an episode criticising excessively harsh justice with the new villain Lockup, they specifically had him mistreat the more sympathetic villains like Ventriloquist, Harley Quinn, and the Scarecrow, rather than the Joker (because he would have deserved it).
@@CantusTropus Well put. This is exactly what I mean. 😁 Not every single criminal has to be a murderer.
Besides, the villains are _way more interesting_ when their motives go beyond and/or exclude "murder everybody". There's so much story variety to get out of it. For example, I always prefer Riddler as a smug, eccentric blackmailer than a Jigsaw-like killer with insane death traps. His arrogance was what made him leave clues, not a weird compulsion.
That and characters to compare and contrast against Batman's methods, e.g. Lock-Up, Hugo Strange, Ra's Al-Ghul or (in some cases) Red Hood, is a great idea. When confronted with the total monsters, that's a great basis for a story.
honestly, his no killing rule works better in say Batman TAS where the Criminals of Gotham are more interested in robbing banks, stealing artifacts or performing some kind of grandiose ego stroking demonstration. Plus the fact plenty of them show they are capable of redemption helps.
In Arkham though, yeah pretty much all of them are unreprentent monsters.
I think you're spot on about the "No-kill" rule. It really works only when stakes aren't as high. When Catwoman tries to steal a diamond, Batman hog-tying her and handing her over the cops is fine. On the other hand, when Joker holds a group of kids hostage there's no reason for kid gloves. The fact that comics got darker over time but Batman remains obstinate to this rule is all the more ridiculous.
And there it is or at least close enough for rock and roll.
Even in Batman TAS (and other DCAU shows), there are tons of vilains who clearly deserve to be killed. Ra's is still a terrorist who operates on an international level and lead a group named the society of shadows (assassins, mercenaries...). Killer Croc... well his name is still Killer Croc so it speaks for itself. You have mob bosses who deal drugs to teenagers and kill people. Even more tragic vilains like Two Face or Freeze kill some people. And the Joker? Oh God... even in this "kid show" he's still a mass murderer.
@@-Zakhiel-Killer Croc and Poison Ivy are both cannibalistic monsters they aren't even human beings.
Yeah man, aside from Mr. Freeze (His freeze ray doesnt kill people, but he was still attempting murder on a guy that also attempted to murder him and his wife) the Arkham rouges gallery are gleeful mass murderers, sadistic serial killers, immoral hitmen, or genocidal megalomaniacs.
Batman's no kill rule is wack in that verse.
"Dobby didn't mean to kill. Only to maim, or seriously injure."
-Batman
This really recontextualizes the old joke meme of "Master has presented Dobby with a Glock! Dobby... is... free..." (*racks slide*)
@@draketheduelist lmao 😜
Vash the Stampede can pull that off (mostly) with guns. Why can't Bruce?
@@draketheduelist
Okay, now I need to screencap this thread.
I feel like just as much blame for this belongs on the Gotham justice system if we're being fair. Batman isn't the one who keeps getting them off on insanity pleas and put in Arkham instead of a life sentence in maximum security or (depending on the year and state) death penalty. I MEAN THEY EXECUTED PENNY PLUNDERER FOR GODS SAKE! PENNY PLUNDERER!
Also it's implied in a couple stories Batman thinks that if he starts killing he'll eventually completely lose control of himself and just start executing muggers and thieves.
Batman should find a way to reform the Justice system.
Arkham Asylum has to have the most incompetent security and vetting process in all fiction.
Remember: even Superman technically doesn’t have a no kill policy.
He _prefers_ not to. But if he recognizes the threat you pose is greater than the potential to be spared, you are going into the sun.
Metallo, Parasite, Zod, Braniac, even Bizarro have learned this lesson, and it’s really not his fault they keep coming back, it’s not for lack of trying.
Not Batman's either Gotham has no death penalty.
@@TheUnseenPath I'm not even sure about that. rather they keep institutionalising criminals rather than sending them to an actual prison.
@@TheUnseenPath
Batman isn't TRYING to kill them and always failing, though.
@@TGPDrunknHick Gotham is in New Jersey
New Jersey has no death penalty
therefore Gotham has no death penalty
@MagnificantSasquatch Hell I would say for Darkseid (and Brainiac), Supes would go from "I will try every method that isn't killing unless its totally and ABSOLUTELY necessary to do so" to "Give me 60 seconds and I'll kill them in 600 ways" pretty quickly.
You know, it's not just about Batman. It's might be understandable if just one guy might not want to kill, but what irritates me is that the government and the people feel the same way. How stupid is that? A vigilante hands over a criminal to the state, the guy is proven guilty, but then they just put him to prison that he escapes from 20 minutes later. And kills like 100 people, again. It may not be a Spider-man's (or Batman's) job to crack heads, but the police and the military can do that just fine. Yet no executions take place, no kills on duty. It's bullshit, comic book's goberments fucking suck.
If the Joker existed in reality, someone would have ventilated him years ago.
And that's the thing, Batman has resolved that he wouldn't act as judge, jury and executioner, that's the job of the authorities, and to be fair, he's delivered some of the most dangerous criminals in Gotham to the police on a silver plate hundreds of times, it's not his fault that they're so incompetent and/or corrupt that they let them get away each time.
The fact that even with Batman being there, these criminals keep thriving in a place like Gotham shows that they're a symptom to a much bigger, much deeper problem with that city in particular that simply starting killing criminals won't solve. I remember hearing this theory that the reason characters like Joker, Two-Face, The Penguin etc. became such prominent criminal bosses was because they took advantage of the power vacuum left after Batman took all the prior most prominent mafia bosses of Gotham to jail, and the fact that they themselves haven't been replaced by the next sociopath waiting in line yet hints that they're aware of this dynamic and have learned to game it so they can stay where they are.
Comic book governments?
Sure, it couldn't possibly happen in real life 🤭
@@inendlesspain4724 With all due respect that's either a cope or a misunderstanding. How can Batman with all of his detective thinking, analytical deductions, and his IQ in general haven't noticed where the problem is if the villains he apprehends and brings to Gotham can escape regularly?
Even a better argument is: if he realized that the Gotham cops aren't able to apprehend criminals for whatever reason and decided to be a vigilante and share their responsibility in a different way, then why wouldn't he apply the same logic to the ineffective and almost corrupt judicial system and share some of their responsibilities as well?
Even if Gotham doesn't have a death sentence for it's murderous and legally sane criminals, you would think some parts of the constitutional laws would have been changed to accommodate that because of people like most of Batman's villains but somehow that isn't the case here ... .
@@dianabarnett6886 tbf only in a free country like America
I'm amazed no cop has just claimed self defense and shot joker in the head. Like, who would question it?
Jim Gordon almost kill him and Batman stopped him. I was ticked over that.
This is why Thomas Wayne is my favorite Batman.
Batman [and the X-Men] is the glaring example of why American Comics permanent second act, indefinite run time mindset is horrible. The Hero can never truly achieve their goals [Batman cleaning up Gotham. X-Men achieving peaceful cohabitation between Humans and Mutants] so we're in endless of cycle of constant restoring the status quo. This probably one of the major reasons sales are dying now. You can only have Batman face Joker so many times before it gets boring. Especially when you know what's going to happen. Joker will emass a Body Count where you can reasonably charge him with genocide at this stage. Batman has him arrested only to have him escape or escape Arkham and the cycle continues [And don't get me started with all the Mutant Holocausts in X-Men].
I fed up of superhéroes, mages and other types of humans with powers being used as props for political lectures about racism and slavery being hammered on my skull non stop.
If that's a reason Western comics are dying, it's a miniscule one. The bigger problem is the corruption and toxicity of the industry at large.
@@DoomRulz that's why I said it's one issue. The ridiculous prices and horrible writing and artwork definitely drove sales into the ground. Multiple events from one end of the year to another also doesn't help.
Cyclops came around eventually, leading to the events of Avengers Vs X-Men.
I feel you, man.
60 IQ: No Bodybag
600 IQ: BRING ME _ALL_ THE BODYBAGS
OMG so true
6000 IQ: Rev up the garbage truck.
60,000 IQ: Bring me the woodchipper!!
60 IQ is better.
Display it, you think ‘oh it’s in a baggie so its safe’ BS?
No, put it on display like the villains are visual learners.
True story: One of my gigs in medicine was making sure that we always had enough bodybags. We had white ones for like natural causes and black ones for the messy stuff, like motorcycle accidents.
Never understood why batman doesn't permanently mane joker. He should have the knowledge to make joker a vegetable. Still alive, technically.
They'd probably just have joker staple on someone else's limbs and get back to gigglin about.
"No more!! All the people I've murdered... by letting you live."
- Batman, The Dark Knight Returns
Frank Miller had the right idea.
For Gotham being so corrupt, why hasn't the Joker been shanked in prison? Let alone Arkham Asylum
Seriously. The second time Joker got busted, the cops would hit a "speed bump" and the Joker would "hit his head" with fatal results.
@@silverblade357 OOF
No kidding. Police offers irl have murdered perps in custody for way less than Joker has ever done.
@@mrscruffles801 Noice
I could see joker being intimidating enough for criminals not to touch but any self righteous vigilante prison guard would just kill him when no one’s looking
Shadow: so anyway, I started blasting…
I... Am... VENGEANCE!
*With only one rule...
Completely antithetical to the idea of vengeance.
No amount of prep time can allow batman to end crime in gotham
I want to see a variation on the "No kill" rule.
"Oh, no, I'm not going to kill you." *gestures to polar bear* "But they might. Goodbye."
You mean the polar bear that most women would rather hang out with than any man?
Interesting
That's why Batman Begins was the best.
@@rich520 "i dont have to save you"
I thought that made for a decent loophole
Chad Aquaman moment.
Picture this: mid 40's. King of Atlantis spots a fistful of goose-stepping, bratwurst eating, siege heilling, Nazis in a boat. Aquaman decides to shotput toss a live polar bear at the krauts in question. And this all happened in the pages of a book calls "More Fun Comics"
@@jiggycalzone8585 IKR
I would understand a "No kill innocent civilians" kind of rule. As in if killing the bad guy would result in innocent lives lost, then yes that is a morally justifiable rule. But no killing at all, especially when many of the criminals he apprehends have killed dozens and will continue to kill more the moment the inevitably escape prison, is the wackiest and unjustifiable thing any super hero could do.
Amen mate
It would make sense if Batman has a KILL RULE and Superman has a NO KILL RULE. It brings more debates to the JUSTICE LEAGUE that should be had.
And he imposes it on others too.
I don't see why everyone is missing the "just build sturdier prisons dumbass" option
If you know for a fact that they're going to escape, you either have a time machine or did absolutely nothing to fix the issue since the last time
he's a vigilante and not a cop. you want to blame someone for the Joker breathing. blame the cops. blame the courts. the people paid to uphold justice. don't blame the guy circumventing the law to keep people safe.
Batman: NOOO!!! IF YOU KILL HIM YOU'LL BE JUST LIKE HIM!!!!
Johnny Cage: CLOWN BALLS GO SQUISH!
Personally, I don't blame Batman as much as I do DCs' government. These villains are mass murderers, monsters, and literal terrorists. Batman hands the Joker to the government on a silver platter with a bowtie, and they decide to just lock him up, knowing he will escape.
I mean, I get blaming Batman for not just doing the right thing, but he's a symptom of the big problem.
I agree. It doesn't mitigate the worst excesses of the "Batman doesn't kill rule" (that he will actively save said monsters from their hard-earned deaths) but if he was simply giving the government ample opportunity to bite the bullet and sentence the Joker to death - or the people to elect a government that will - then I would say he's more than done his part.
Batman is a billionaire. He perpetuates the system and does nothing to stop it despite being able to. He's fully apart of the issue. Instead, he'd rather cosplay a flying rodent, beat people within an inch of their life then turn them in once he's had his fun. Just to do it all over again.
On one hand I get and understand the “no kill rule” to Batman when it applies to characters who are redeemable. Honestly I feel the time it worked the most was with the Animated Universe. But if the Arkham games have been any indication they’ve gotten way too stupid with it to the point of being both ludicrous and hypocritical. Not to mention, how many times does Joker have to kill Eastern European amounts of the population in Gotham until someone on the level of the Shadow finally goes “fine, I’ll throw the clown into the wood chipper myself!”? Like I’m not saying it can’t work but it’s just silly now. Mind you I think deep down we know why DC won’t perma-kill any of his villains, at least the ones that deserve it: Because DC would run out of the same 5 stories to repeat and are incapable of saying “the end” to anything, and when they do kill a villain (until he comes back 2 years later) they can’t create any new ones worth a damn other than multiverse Batclones that are just Joker with a cape or White Rabbit. Say what Razor will about manga, but at least they have a final chapter to build up to.
And they keep on creating other great stories as well.
@@mirceazaharia2094 Based
The lack of permanency or any real stakes is what turned me off from comics at large. I enjoyed World War Hulk, and while comic historians can say this definitely did have an impact on the setting, it was a hell of a lot less than it should've been. Death in comic books are more of a revolving door than soap operas. Or the absolute insistence of using past characters instead of making something new or interesting (I was actually really involved with the mystery behind the Arkham Knight, but DC said "no new characters" and shut that down. Such a waste)
There are great individual stories in comics, but they're just individual stories. For an overall story then even bargain bin manga have bigger stakes and impacts on the setting then the DC/Marvel comics.
The trouble with Batman is that the franchise has lived long enough to have crossed genres several times, from cynically dark-and-gritty pulp, to more optimistic and idealistic fare, to camp silliness, to blockbuster action and adventure, to some sort of dark take bordering on gothic horror, to a darker-and-edgier action revisionist fare, right around to a more extreme, deconstructionist cynicism than it had enjoyed even in its pulp origins, not to mention whatever the franchise was doing in its various side-treks through its animated, video game, and LEGO versions....
Batman has carried a lot of baggage through all those eras, and a lot of it just doesn't seem to fit all those genres equally well when played straight, leaving an uneven tone as it passes hands from one adaptation to another!
The No-Kill rule in a cynical, deconstructionist world where the supervillains are genocidal maniacs and the authorities are corrupt and ineffective is just one of the symptoms of this trouble: the action-supergenius-gadget thing with the batmobile and bat-belt full of bat-gadgets looks vaguely silly in the more cynical or gothic horror incarnations of the story, the idealistic and later campy Boy Wonder sidekick angle never quite seemed to fit the lone-wolf vigilante detective thing even though a squire should have fit a "dark knight" storyline more naturally than it has in practice, the "dark knight" and gothic horror angles seemed to promise something a little more ambitious for internal moral conflict and character development with lurid self-discovery of buried psychological secrets than was ever delivered on by the stories, the campy costumes never really seemed to fit very well very far outside the lighter fantasy and comedy eras of the franchise, and so on:
The franchise is inconsistent in tone and themes, it can't be all those things at once, and it's pretty damned weird when you step back from it and think about it objectively!
In short, one way to summarize the problem (albeit with oversimplification!) is that many of the modern takes on Batman seem to have looked to "The Watchmen" as a model of How To Be Cool, while missing the fact that "The Watchmen" was a satire of superheroes like Batman, and taking all the wrong lessons from that model as a result.
In general, it seems to me that the writers really need to be spending more time than they have been in asking themselves what they are saying and why with baggage like the "No-Kill Rule", and what the consequences would actually be in the world they are envisioning, and whether or not it's past time to drop some of that baggage altogether and move forward without it!
Superman works more with the No Kill Rule. He can run rings around a goon with a gun until he goes away quietly, or repents because he only did it because he needed the money for his sick poodle or whatever. Even when not evil, he seems more willing to end villains that are beyond human capabilities- even while not harming the "world of cardboard."
If Superman is the ideal, then that includes protecting the weak, redeeming the repentant, and destroying the unredeemable.
Deadpool has a much better policy on how to deal with murderers.
And civilians.
Deadpool got pegged for International Women's Day...
@middlesiderrider yeah he got pegged in the movie too.
Deadpool massacred an terrorist army for attempting to kill his daughter. The scariest thing is when a joking hero stops laughing because their enemies stop breathing is right around the corner
And yet most couldn’t even name you one Deadpool villain.
'89 Batman killed The Joker and a bunch of his thugs. Returns Batman killed Penguin and a bunch of the Red Circus gang and let Selina kill Max Shrek. Even Forever Batman killed Two-Face. Batman and Robin is the only film in the 90's series where he doesn't kill anyone.
_Ahh contraire!_ Batman doesn't kill the Joker.. _gravity_ and _poor hand grip strength_ killed the Joker! Sure, Batman shot the bolo that wrapped the Joker's leg to the gargoyle (that weighed 100+ pounds) but _technically_ Batman didn't kill the Joker. Same in *Batman Returns:* _Batman_ didn't push the Penguin through the sky light and into the water 50 feet below.. it was the _bats_ he released from his Batsled thing (? how long were those bats inside that Batboat? What would have happened if Batman pressed the button and nothing happened but stinky dead bat smell came out?). Even in *Buttman Forever* Buttman did not kill Harvey Dent.. it was Harvey's inability to balance on a steel girder that sent him to his doom.. and an unfaltering appreciation for gambling.
Batman didn't 'let' Selina kill Max Schreck, he wasn't in any condition to try and stop her or apprehend him. He'd just been shot by Schreck, his suit saving him but leaving him incapacitated in that scene. Batman in the 89 continuity did straight up kill a few criminals from Joker's gang though, but they were trying to kill him so it was self-defense. Especially with that really strong guy at the top of the Cathedral.
WHAT? It was manslaughter for the Joker, the Joker's fall did him in. Penguin was manslaughter too, the bats made him fall through the window. Batman didnt "let" Selina do anything, Bruce got shot by Max so he was down while Selina got her revenge on Shrek.
Two Face is 2nd degree 😂Batman's intent was Harvey would lose his balance, it not like he pushed him 😜
@@tonts5329 he knew she was after him. He could have stopped her at any time before that.
I just watched Returns last night and he totally kills the thug that he, uh... attaches a bomb to and throws in the sewer...
the woke writers made Superman worse than Batman, because Superman's enemies can kill in the Millions and Superman is afraid to hurt his enemy's fingernails.....
That’s stupid. Even compared to 90s Superman who did kill or try to kill the worst of his villains, including Darkseid and Doomsday
@@AdrianFahrenheitTepes no your idea is stupid, never works
As someone who is against woke stuff, what is Woke about Superman being an unbreakable symbol of hope.
As weird as this sounds, I thought he was more of an optimist who wanted to see criminals rehabilitated. But I've only really seen that side of him in TAS. By killing them he would be giving up on them. And because of that I thought the joker was nihilist and trying to prove Batman wrong.
Basically I thought it was the anime Trigun lol
Huh
You're probably right to an extent. It makes sense, and I'd be all for that idea if Arkham wasn't more corrupt and violent than Gotham itself. Every story involving the place is about the villains taking over, or its disturbing history and more disturbing current practices, or both. Bruce HAS to know that Arkham just makes people worse (or, at best, doesn't help at all) but he keeps sending people there.
And don't tell me that he has nowhere else to take them. One of the richest men in the world could probably find an alternative. He could bribe someone to have them sent to a reputable hospital in another city, or build his own. Arkham is not a state institution, it's privately owned and operated (I think). He tries to rehabilitate the ones that are already receptive, but he doesn't seem to try very hard for the others.
@@ASpooneyBard That's a part about batman that I think even the writers forget. A big aspect of his character is the fact he lives in what's effectively a failed city/state. Part of the reason he fights crime is because the systems currently in place are either:
1. Too corrupt to function
2. Too underfunded
3. Wouldn't be effective even in ideal situations because its just a stupid system
Jim Gordon is the exception and not the rule in many iterations
Due to this they've written themselves into the corner where any logical reader has to ask themselves. "Why is Batman even enforcing this system? Its clearly just a revolving door at best, and the source of the problem at worst".
So many people died due to Vashe's stupid no kill rule so yeah it's kinda similar.
Yes, give up on them, because they’re lost causes, and they keep escaping the prison system. If this was real life, the government would’ve been handled them.
Reminds me of how no bad guy can actually be evil nowadays. They're really just a good yet misguided person with a tragic backstory, please feel bad for them :( They only kill people because they're sad :(( His father abused him so it's okay :(((
Meanwhile there is me making The Spin O Wheelo Litch, who was literally born in a city known as "The Crown City", was raised more or less all right in a privileged life there, and then wanted the world to bow to him and for the world to be his stage, so he made a deal with an abomination to do so, and now does terrible crimes behind the scenes to continue raising his hax level.
Magneto tried to holocaust humanity, but he's been retconned and redeemed a thousand times...
I hate that new norm or humanizing terrible villains
Comrade, don't you know all evil is perpetuated by our evil capitalist society? Jokes aside, for Utopia to be possible there can never be any bad people, only bad societies that make people so. One day they will write a Batman comic where he advocates for universal healthcare and a living wage to bring crime down instead of fighting. They'll quote modern audiences or some shit.
@@CentralFloridaBowHunting IKR!!!!!
No wonder people love the likes of the Punisher and why these characters are totally right (in-universe at least).
The Shadow: bang bang bang bang bang bang.
Batman: No you can not do that.
The Shadow: I can because the shadow knows the criminals without the street again HA HA HA HA.
The actual reason Batman doesn't kill is because his plot armor is linked to his rogues gallery; if they lose their plot armor, he loses his.
Not because Bruce Wayne see all life sacred and need be protected.
@@EvandroACruz Even the Joker's? Man, you see the lengths these costumed psychos are willing to go to, and it's really hard to justify that particular worldview. And if life is sacred, what about the innocents the Joker kills when he gets out of Arkham? Are they _less_ sacred, less deserving of protection than the Joker?
@@MrNickPresley We can't protect people that died but you can stop the killing defeating the Joker and keep him locked.
@@EvandroACruzDo you even READ COMICS?!?!?!
@@theapexfighter8741 Yes, since my eleven years old.
heck even my 84 year old grandma thinks Batman is a fool and the Punisher's approach is the right one
Amen mate
Based grandma
Give your grandma a hug for me … then buy her a whiskey 🥃
@@weswolever7477 she doesn't drink
That speech Frank gave to Daredevil comes to mind, just replace Matt with Bruce.
“No chill on Joe Chill” 🤣
I'm more annoyed with heroes that will happily chew through an army of nameless henchmen (who are probably just hired thugs) and feel nothing but when they get to the leader who is actually responsible for the evil, they get all full of themselves and want to spare him because I guess they know his name. At least Batman treats everyone equally.
Main character: rips and tears through army of nameless, faceless mercenaries.
Gets to final boss.
Main character: YOUR RAIN OF TERROR IS OVER!!! YOUR GOING TO PRISON (or I'M GOING TO KILL YOU)
T.B.M.B.G: WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!? ALL I'VE DONE WAS BUILD INFRASTRUCTURE AND GIVE PEOPLE A CHANCE AT A GOOD LIFE!!!
Main character: YEAH, SO YOU CAN TAKE OVER AS AN EVIL RULER!!!
T.B.M.B.G: WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING?!? IM JUST THE MANAGER OF THIS OPERATION! YOUR THE SOCIOPATH THATS BEEN FKING UP EVERYTHING AND MURDERING GOOD MEN JUST DOING THEY'RE JOBS!!
'Batman treats everyone equally"
Ha! Best joke I've heard all day
The whole "if you kill youre no better then the villians" mentality if fucking dumb. It a slap in the face to the servicemen and women and the cops if Gotham city who also have to kill to protect what they care about.
I'm sure they people who are harmed by said villains would agree. Mercy isn't justice.
@@GibsMeMunny Facts!
Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.
@@Alex_Fahey It really is
Batman: "If you kill a killer the number of killers remains the same."
Punisher: "... Yeah, I've killed a lot more than one Killer."
In the comics, Batman literally slit Robin’s throat to save the Joker from dying.
I repeat, he SLIT Robin’s THROAT to SAVE the Joker.
The no kill rule is stupid.
What? Which one?!
Ever consider that it was a poorly written comic? There’s a Batman that covered himself in yellow to fight green lantern and domestically abused Robin by beating him up and we’d say that was a dumb comic series that didn’t understand the character
@@PoisonedbladeUnder the Red Hood.
Conveniently left out all the crazy shit that Jason was doing INCLUDING SHOOTING TIM AND BLOWING UP BLUDHAVEN TRYING TO KILL NIGHTWING. no sympathy for Jason he had that coming.
@@wesleygriffiths8748 Thanks.
Every person killed by the Joker after his first appearance, where he killed multiple people, is blood on Batman's hands.
Batman: "When you kill a killer, the amount of killers in the world remains the same."
Jason Todd: "Just one? You need to pump those numbers up. Those are rookie numbers."
And the thing is, there are more appropriate substitutes to the No Kill rule that doesn't make Batman into a bipolar tart. He can apply a Judge Dredd type of system where he'll base his judgement on a very strict code of punishments. Maybe even a John Wick style mercy gesture where the bad guys are living but irrevocably crippled so that they're no threat to police. Hell, I'll even accept what Batman: TAS did and make him rehabilitate some of his foes by giving them haunting truths they can't deny (ala Harley, Baby Doll, or Clay Face), showing Batman to be a cold but fair-handed all-knowing spectre than a normal vigilante.
The No Kill rule is an excuse to have the status quo chained and the Rogue's Gallery all present. That's it. A lazy, outdated writing tool propped up to this day because some people *think* it's integral to Batman.
That's... actually amazing!!! I like it.
I know keeping the status quo is a part of it, but I’m not convinced that’s the main reason. Villains die all the time. It’s just that usually they are killed by other villains, and if they want the status quo again then they’ll just make a new run. They’ll always do that because some character dynamics are too iconic
"I'm not going to kill you, but I don't have to save you either."
That's always been my interpretation of how Batman should operate. He's there primarily to stop crimes and deliver criminals to the police to face justice. But if these idiots take a bad fall or fail to pay attention to their surroundings and get themselves killed he shouldn't care. He only goes out of his way to save the innocent. He shouldn't be the Punisher, but he's not Superman either.
This
Nothing wrong with that interpretation.
@@orrorsaness5942 😀
Yeah the best way I've seen the no kill rule written (and I forget which comic line it was but it was an older one) was that the rule is only for himself. He knows he's as crazy as his villains, he knows that HE can't handle the power handing out death and he'd never stop, but he had no problem with other's doing it.
Mouth breathing cope, go touch grass
The thing i love about "The Shadow" radio classics from the 1940s, is the fact that the likes of a young Rod Serling and Billy Friedkin (among 1000s of others) were sat listening.... and learning.
Gotta love how in the Nolan Batman Begins movie, Bruised Wang sobs at the feet of murder ninjas about, "Not killing people, cuz muh corrupt court system", only for Bruce to murder an _ENTIRE NINJA FORTRESS_ 2 minutes later in an explosion filled with more dead Naruto cosplayers to fill a Tijuana casket load.
lmao
Nolan's Batman is a MASSIVE hypocrite.
I can never take Christian Bale's Batman seriously... His ridiculous death metal voice sounds like a 14yo edgelord trying to sound intimidating, it is embarrassing.
@@Stryker98 The Nolan trilogy of Batman movies is already aging itself worse than most will admit as time goes on. They take themselves way too seriously for capeshit that it limited a lot of potential ideas.
@@Stryker98 I still think Keaton was the scariest Batman on screen. Never raised his voice, always unerringly clam. But there was always this hint of unpredictable madness just under the surface; whether he sent a bad guy to the hospital or the morgue seemed to be up to his whims and conveniences.
Credit to the Shadow as a character, though. The entire concept is just so amazingly badass that it even made Alec Baldwin cool for a movie.
Underrated movie of 30 years ago too.
I'll have to check it out, I do like the Shadow
I grew up watching that movie. Still watch it to this day. IMO, it has the coolest backstory for any vigilante in the realm of comics.
The real issue is that Gotham City hasn’t reinstituted the death penalty at this point
You'd think a rouge cop or a prisoner would've done the deed and taken him out.
@@thelordofthelostbraincells My theory is that any random person who shot The Joker would be given an insanity plea, sent to Arkham, and "therapied" into being the next Joker because of the corruption in that city.
The problem isn't just Batman, but also the ineffectual police/judiciary/politicians in Gotham.
@@hariman7727 there's a secret joker program.
I wouldn't be surprised if the owl furry illuminati created the joker.
@@thelordofthelostbraincells ...
Man you chose your name well, lord of the lost brain cells.
@@hariman7727 hm?
In the Arkham games, dude slams peoples heads into the ground harder tf. Many of those thug’s would have died from their injuries later or , at best, been a fkin vegetable the rest of their days.
1. Depending on the depiction, Batman's kinda nuts, and frankly, I've personally always liked the reasoning from the Red Hood movie that Batman knows that if he starts killing, he won't be able to stop himself.
2. Really, it should be on Gotham's judiciary to _sentence_ people to death _after_ Batman captures them, and if they don't, that's on them, not on Batman.
3. I think it's a reasonable explanation that Batman values his relationship with the GCPD, and that they're only barely willing to tolerate his extralegal violence and absolutely would not work with him anymore if he started killing. Maybe they _should_ be willing to accept him killing to defend himself or others, but as a New Yorker, I'm well aware that they might have the mentality of, "He shouldn't have put himself in a situation where he needed to use lethal force, so it's still his fault."
4. We really have more than enough cases of the villains' mantles being taken up by worse replacements. I really don't want Batman to chew through his entire colorful Rogues' Gallery in a month because he decided to bust out the Bat Assault Rifle. We also have more than enough resurrections as-is without needing to resurrect the villains every single time they need to be used.
Or just make a new comic and challenge yourself creatively? Nah, we'll just do more reruns and rehashes of the same few villains.
@@shanekeenaNYC Fair
Well said
This is the best comment!
2.The judiciary cannot sentence them to death, because they are insane. Batman is a vigilante, he should do something about his rogue gallery himself. 3. It's been shown time and time again, that he doesn't need the police. 4. He doesn't need to become the Punisher. He just needs to kill in self defense.
The No-Kill rule fails for the same reason the general concept of Pacifism does; it fails utterly to account for the deaths that will be caused by those allowed to continue to draw breath, and it fails to account for the simple reality that it doesn't work unless EVERYONE holds the same moral standard, which of course is impossible. Every death, every murder, every ruined life caused by the Joker after his very first trip to Arkham are ALL Batman's fault, and the blood of countless people is directly on his hands. The Joker is what the Joker is, and how many hundreds or thousands of times does he have to be sent to Arkham, break out (or sometimes just get let out) and go on another spree before Batman finally realizes "Oh snap, maybe I should kill this fucker?"
As others have pointed out, this is one of the biggest flaws of the Batman character as a whole, and one I've had a huge issue with long before I was old enough to even understand exactly why. It's not that I'm necessarily into something like Snyder's psychotic gun-totting Batman either, and frankly Batman having a very strict anti-gun ideal at least makes some degree of sense, but his No-Kill rule really is just a stupidity-soufflé because of just how often he has to deal with repeat offenders.
Him having something more akin to a 3-strikes rule would make more sense. Him just slaughtering every Joe-Shmo who mugs a little old lady would make him rather psychotic, but him continuing to refuse to shuffle off obvious rampant and unrepenent murderers makes him look moronic. Instead, have Batman give most criminals 3 chances, hell it could even be made badass when each time Batman starts taking on a recurring villain he says something like "Strike Two" or "One Chance Left". And on their third offense... the gloves come off completely and Batman brutally ends them Punisher style. I think it would be a decent compromise and keep him from just being The Punisher with bat ears, but also make it so he's not incredibly moronic by constantly letting criminals live to reoffend time after time
Hell you could even have him do like Snyder Batman and brand them , two brands means next time you're dead , or like if it's something like a terrorist attack just to kill people like joker does. That's all 3 strikes at once
No it's not Batman's fault it's Gotham's for not having a death penalty. Batman's job isn't to kill/. The gun rule makes no sense because cops and americans have the 2a and he's calling all them cowards and enemies. Cops kill but they deal with repeat offenders and not kill them.
Reminds me the fallacy of a lot of Revenge Bad stories. 9 times out of 10, a revenge story can be justified by framing it in the context of ending an existing threat. Rarely ever does the details preclude that argument, at least in my experience
funny story but, false. Bats is a vigillante. as those deaths are on the laughable justice system that cannot contain the Joker no execute him. Batman is not an executioner. it's not his job. if joker is to die it should not be up to one man to make that decision. much like the real world that's up to the court of law.
I mean, even with the no-kill rule, Gotham seems to have never heard of the gas chamber.
The rationale I always had about Batman and, more importantly Superman, not killing their criminals is that a death sentence should be handed down by the courts, not a vigilante.
This, of course, falls apart when the courts also refuse to execute unrepentant mass murderers. Almost as if the courts in the DCU *want* the ludicrous bodycounts.
The one time I actually kind of understood the narrative reason for such a literally criminally stupid choice was I think in death of the family, where batman says that he feels as if there's some dark, murderously evil THING that drives joker, and if he ever actually dies it would mean that that evil would be released into the world come back as something even worse. It still doesnt excuse how literally EVERYONE ELSE IN GOTHAM somehow feels the same way, because everyone from a particularly vigilante arkham guard to another batman rogue that wants him gone to just a fucking nobody prisoner looking to shiv his way to legendary status should be gunning to take him out for any of a number of different reasons.
The idea that someone as disciplined as Batman, who's mastered every martial art and aspect of crime fighting, lacks so much self-control that he can't just kill the Joker and be done with it is mind blowing
Literally most of his self discipline IS so he doesn't become a serial killer. He constanly acknowledged he is near the edge of going insane.
@@Harleyxjokerforever Then he should just kill the joker and kill himself or turn himself in. Afterward. When he was a one man show with one sidekick it was understandable but now there's like 10 members of the bat family to carry on the mission
@@Harleyxjokerforever "near the edge of going insane"
Batman: I killed in self defense. Oh noes! I'm going insane and now must destroy the entire world!
I don't believe that for a second. Batman isn't insane. He's the most logical hero ever made up. He's the last man to go on a crazy murder spree.
@@Harleyxjokerforever It's not a serial killer, it's one dude and justified.
My guy killing the joker would show he has lack of self control. You got the meaning of self control backwards
I can understand a no-kill rule for the first time catching a supervillain.
But after the 100th time they escape from Arkham and nearly destroy Gotham City...it might be time to put a rabid dog down.
After the 2nd time you're no longer a crime fighter, you're an accomplice.
This point is illustrated well in the first Arkham game. Batman saunters through the nuthouse rendering an army of invading thugs unconscious, leaving them free to wake right up and slaughter the badly outnumbered guards as soon as he leaves the room. And as you backtrack through the facility in the second half of the game, you can see that they've DONE EXACTLY THAT, and are now wielding the guards' guns, which were no doubt used to execute their owners. But at least their families can take solace in the fact that Batman has maintained the moral high ground.
Honestly, the "No Kill Rule" makes more sense if you argue that it's Batman's Kryptonite. He's obsessed with saving everyone because he couldn't save his parents, so his enemies always return to wreak havoc.
It is Batman's biggest character flaw. That's what makes him so interesting.
Without it, Batman is basically a rich Punisher that also happens to be the smartest man in the world
Had the Shadow decided to 'purge' Gotham, it would be crime‑free with‑in a year (give or take), and any new bad guy would probably have a week or less in their criminal career. ◽🔴◽
Eh, then he would just be the new big bad, tyrannizing the few that remain.
@orrorsaness5942
Oh boo hoo, tyranizing violent monsters. Anyways...
"Had the Shadow decided to 'purge' Gotham, it would be crime‑free with‑in a year (give or take). "
No, there would be this guy running round murdering people.
@@orrorsaness5942
Oh no, the Shadow terrorizes violent psychopaths while ordinary citizens get to live normal lives.
What ever shall the DEI movement do?
Exactly!
the rule was created so that they can re-use villains.
And the rest is rationalizing reasons for the hero not to kill.
He does have pretty good villians
i thought it was because comic violence was threatening kids in the 40s
It's lazy, it's largely an item of DC's editorial realizing it needed to distance itself and its been for far too long a battering ram for anti gunners to use in Batman themed anti-gun propaganda.
My thoughts exactly.
Human life is seen as disposable if you think a mass murderer is worthy of any kind of redemption. This really speaks volumes to how these writers see other people if they think someone committing massive unimaginable suffering upon others isn't really that big of a deal. Not to mention these writers sit in an ivory gated community with almost zero percent crime.
The no kill rule can still work and can be a good thing, my problem with it is when he goes out of his way to actually save some of his worst villains from something that's completely justified and is on no one but the villains. Like when he actively stopped the punisher from killing the joker even though that would have been completely fine with everyone. A story I would like to see is what batman would do if an actual government and court sanctioned team was put together just to kill the joker and if batman stops them then he would become equally as guilty as the joker or if batman catches the joker before the team kills him then they just execute him anyway. How far would he actually go to save him or would batman finally let the joker actually face the consequences of his actions.
That’s how Batman originally was with people. He wouldn’t generally straight up kill but he would not go out of his way to save the villains. That was back in 1939 anyways
Reasons why I have no Batman collections, and multiple full Punisher collections. RIP Frank Castle, maybe one day the world will be good enough for you to come back.
I think frustration with heroes like Batman are the whole reason the Punisher is even a thing.
They killed off the punisher because they couldn't kill the fans and they couldn't turn him woke so they got rid of his logo, stripped him of his family and then turned him into a nothing character for the sake of trying to kill the use of said character on the right and what he means.
Have a few Punisher comics myself, will probably do myself a favor and keep collecting while I wait for Marvel to inevitably announce it will no longer be printing the character nor reprinting it for the sake of its own backwards politics.
@@thegunslinger8806didn't that already happen when they changed the character and logo??? It's no longer the Punisher.
Do you mean the real Frank that was an honorable soldier and loving husband and father or the retcon Frank that was a homicidal maniac since childhood who beat his wife and kids?
Anyone remember Flashpoint Batman? 🤔
That's why I'm a Punisher fan. The guy did a thousand times more against crime than batman, and he did it on a budget.
Punisher Max run had him keeping criminals so scared at one point that they stopped even going outside or doing illicit deals...while the Punisher was close to turning 60 and on a shoe string budget...
And hell, Punisher doesn’t even kill every time. In the Ennis run he’d let petty crooks get one chance…one.
Punisher is one of the few characters who can make tough decisions that other heroes won't and can't make, especially since he was a former soldier.
@@yassinefarah2423Marine
0:20 "a conveniently placed gargoyle" 😂
the real annoying thing is how many heroes have a strict no kill rule. it's one thing when a character or two have a strict rule against the practice, but when everyone and their mom lives by the concept it's no longer unique character trait.
YES, YES IT IS.
Remember ShadowHawk? The crippler? That character was at least honest about what he was doing - sentencing bastards to the prison of paralysis.
I actually have a couple of those comics on me that I haven’t read, maybe I should give it a shot, thanks for the info
Batman should be more violent like ShadowHawk.
@@HonkHonkler Fair, but at least cripple the supervillains...
@@HonkHonkler Oh no, sweetheart, we ARE doing this shit.
How many people has Joker killed? That number keeps going up whenever Batman decides to put his faith in the clearly insufficient justice system Gotham operates under. You would figure a man that dedicated to cleaning up crime as a vigilante would be willing to get his hands a little dirty and put an end to someone who has admitted- several times - that they will not stop until they are killed. And yet, Batman always stays his hand when the opportunity arises. The point I'm framing is that Batman DOES kill, because he's complicit in whatever evil the Joker gets up to after escaping from Arkham for the 20th time that month. If he's fine with the Joker killing people wholesale, why wouldn't he be fine with snapping the clown's neck directly?
That isn't compelling, it's stupid.
A big problem with Batman is that despite being richer than rich, Arkham Asylum is the same run-down facility in almost every timeline where all the villains easily escape. If he insists on no-killing for criminals, then he’d ought to buy the Asylum and lock in down so hard no one can escape
I always thought it was funny in the Arkham Asylum video game how it's basically the opposite of that, it's like a maximum security sci-fi prison with electric force fields all over the place, and yet somehow Harley Quinn managed to infiltrate and prepare everything for Joker to immediately escape upon arrival. They had like one inside man, that was it.
What happens after that makes enough sense (for Batman anyway) I think, but you first have to get past the fact that the instigating factor for it all is Harley Quinn getting past all of the security, which Batman struggles to navigate past for most of the game, to unlock the cells. They even say the place is on high alert too, because a bunch of Jokers goons all conspicuously just got transferred in from prison. So they fucking KNOW that something is wrong, and Quinn still manages to to pull it off lol.
@@yewtewbstew547Arkham Asylum has so many plot holes.
Everyone ignored it because they just wanted to have a good time.
Story and plot didn't really matter.
so true
@@yewtewbstew547 They had a few. A number of the guards and staff were in on it too, and that's probably how Harley got in like she did. Of course, one wonders why they'd choose to work with Joker, especially considering what happened to them once he got control of the asylum.
I could understand the no kill policy better if it was a condition of Batman's alliance with Commissioner Gordon., if Batman was killing criminals Gordon could not justify to the GCPD or the Mayor's office why he was not arresting Barman no matter how effective he was. But even so, Batman not killing the Joker is ridiculous.
My dad grew up listening to the Shadow on the radio in the 30s, and when I was young, he would go to the library and take out episodes (on cassette tapes!) and we would turn the lights off, light candles and listen to old time radio shows. Not just the Shadow, but the Lone Ranger, the Life of Riley, Inner Sanctum and many others.
Nowadays, my wife and I will put a RUclips fireplace a the TV and listen to scary story podcasts on the Echo. The technology changes, but the essence remains the same.
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? I do, Razörfist. I do.
I prefer the kid friendly versions of Superhero stories, cause the darker you make the villains the sillier the no kill rule becomes. That said the Punisher should not be stuck in the Marvel superhero universe, why wouldn't he off Doc Ock from a mile away with a sniper? His stories should be darker than that world allows. The two stories don't mesh. Same with Blade.
I agree. Making Punisher part of the big events like Civil War was a mistake. He works better in the margins of society than rubbing elbows with Captain America.
he doesn't because he knows the moment he takes down a big fish everyone gets involved. the heroes track him down easier but, it was so obvious and most villains have connections as well. the moment Frank goes after anyone big his crusade ends inside a week.
@@TGPDrunknHick even more reason to remove him from the cape and cowl world
@@Crazyredemu IKR. Not only will Joker and Batman die without him being infected with Joker serum, but Frank goes out in a blaze of Glory in a Final Showdown of Ultimate Destiny against people like Superman and Darkseid and literally everyone in between
Win-Win
@Crazyredemu
would love to see the Punisher killing villains, then a villain he can't shoot comes up to him and brutally kills him.
Honestly the biggest issue with the continued existence of many of Batman's villains chiefly the Joker though is that no one tries to permanently deal with them. The Joker has caused so much chaos that there has not been lynched or otherwise the object of more normal vigilante justice. The Joker has killed enough people that a good portion of the city would be after him. It really hinges on no one other than Batman having any real agency in what is going on with the crazed lunatics in Gotham.
I could see Deadshot getting 1000 contracts on the joker on any given day. Of course there'd be countless people cashing in on the joker's death
If it were me, I'd just pack my bags and get tf outta Gotham. Killer villains on the loose every night and folks STILL WANT TO LIVE THERE?!
@@albatross4920 Remember that Gotham is based on New York City, Chicago, and canonically is stationed in New Jersey
And last time I checked, people live in all 3 areas.
One of the earliest Hitman stories is Tommy getting a (sadly-fake) contract for a million-dollar hit on the Joker. To quote Tommy Monaghan: "All he does is stand there an' turn the air around him to poison, an' looked pleased as punch that he's doin' it. I dunno what I figured I'd feel like when it came to whack him - Not like this. To Hell with him."
That's a guy who literally murders people for money, talking about the Joker and what a stain he is on the world. If Tommy had actually gotten to kill him, the ordinary people of Gotham probably would have thrown him a parade and elected him Mayor-for-life.
@@orrorsaness5942 If that's the case, why aren't any of the eco nuts in those cities as hot as poison ivy?
Joking aside, that's a fair point, but from what I hear, many people are now trying to move from these cities precisely for the reason listed above: there's only so much anyone can take in terms of crime.
That would actually make a decent storyline come to think of it. Imagine a depopulating Gotham where the crime bosses are struggling over shrinking spaces of profitability as people and businesses disapear, some try to expand into other cities and townships only to get rebuffed by local gangs, heroes, or even the odd militia.
The more melodramatic villains would be upset since they have less people to watch them "perform" and stroke their egos and would face the same dilemma, and Batman would have to watch his beloved city go downhill due to the criminality he couldn't stop (with a voice in the back of his head arguing it's because he didn't end many of them when he should have) while Gotham itself deals with increased hostility from other cities, states, and regions as it is viewed as an exporter of crime.
Funny enough, Poison Ivy would probably enjoy this scenario as she could see greenery replace the rotting infrastructure.
Imagine being criminal in gotham and only having a hangover by beaing beat by Batman for commiting the most depraved actions and getting jailed and break from prison anyway as regular occurence since Joker does it and Batman refuses to even kill him and prevents the law from killing him too, why would they care though if they can do whatever as Batman allows them and its just a sick game? Batman is evil for allowing all of this even though they couldve killed the Joker million times over and all the other ones.
I get why he doesn’t kill, to me it was explained pretty well in “under the red hood” where he says something like wanting to put the joker through all the pain he as caused then ending him
But if he goes down that line, he knows there is no coming back. Like it could be that “slipperily slope” argument. Now i get that and I think thats a good explanation, BUT what I don’t get is why hasn’t red hood, Jim gordon, batgirl, ANY OF THE COPS, or the state hasn’t killed him yet, I think after the 300th murder the state would say “screw it” with the insanity plea and just fry him
I remember when Bats carried a piece and used it judiciously. I wish he would return to that old mindset
you were alive in the 1930s?
@Joshcoshbagosh
Smart ass.
@@mrscruffles801 the points is him using a gun hasn't ben relevant in 80 years
@@Joshcoshbagosh And him being an overrated Shadow knockoff will be relevant for the next 80 years.
@@mrscruffles801 lmao what a weird video and thread this is. Gonna peace on outta this dumpster fire
I got booed out of a comics discussion once for posting this:
Don't kid yourself, Batman accomplishes nothing except indulging his weird S&M fetish on a nightly basis. Putting things like the Joker in time-out for ten minutes and then letting him out again to cause more murder and mayhem is not a productive use of his time and money.
If Bruce actually wanted to clean up Gotham instead of letting everyone else live in his toxic playground, he'd put multi-million dollar bounties on all of his rogues, and in a month tops, Deathstroke, Deadshot, and Gotham's favorite son Tommy Monaghan would have put every costumed whackjob in the tri-state into a shallow grave, and Bruce could be sipping Mai-tais in Tahiti.
Bruce thinks he punishing himself for what happened to his parents, with his never-ending quest to roll that rock up the hill, but he's actually punishing the city of Gotham for making him an orphan, by letting the rock roll down into the city, again, and again, and again...
@@HonkHonkler
What you Talkin bout Willis?
@@HonkHonkler it's a great take.
@@HonkHonkler "Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent."
At the end of the day, Batman hasn't made Gotham any safer, because the unrepentent trash he beats the daylights out of are still alive to hurt more people. Despite working outside law (which he admits can't/won't touch the people he normally fights), he refuses to actually take justice into his own hands to save people. He allows them to continue committing their crimes basically unchecked, and relatively unmolested. He even stops other vigilantes from doing what he should have already- how sweet! The why of it doesn't matter, whether he's a coward, or thinks doing it is beneath him is secondary to the fact that he is entirely complicit in what they do because he will neither end it, himself, nor allow it to be ended. If that isn't a punishment for Gotham, I don't know what is.
Basically what I'm saying is that the above take is actually spot-on, and I daresay you don't really have an argument against it.
I think the first I heard this was in an LP series for the Arkham games, in which there was a very good case that Bruce could do more good as Bruce Wayne rather than Batman. Even if adopt the no kill rule still, funding social programs for mentally challenged people (Which many of Batman's villains are) would do a hell of a lot better than hammering them over the dome.
@@Sandact6 It's my understanding that he actually does a lot as Bruce Wayne, through the Wayne foundation. The problem is, a lot of his villains are either career criminals, like Deadshot, Firefly and Penguin, or are ideological villains, like Joker, Hugo Strange and Riddler. Neither group can really be fixed by social programs and mental healthcare.
At a certain point, Batman needs to learn that he can't save everyone, and some people are legitimately better off dead, for everyone's sake.
There is a quote from a book series i love that covers this beautifully. "At some point, mercy towards the guilty becomes cruelty towards the innocent."
To put it another way, the people who comic writers try to pander to instead of their actual audience are not very keen on pacifism themselves, or if they are they are certainly being reserved on expressing that opinion. They'd likely shrug at Batman switching to killing people up until he shoots one of their own, then his series would get canceled because a bunch of people cannot get behind the ironic humor that a vigilante would shoot them if they went too far.
People who call The Shadow or The Punisher harsh should check out The Spider by Norvell Page, that man puts as many criminals in the ground as they themselves do because well the villains in those books are perhaps the most insane villains from the pulp era.
osnap