Yes, but if you kill two or more, it’s all good 👍
Batman could kill all killers in Gotham, last one being himself, then the number drops to 0
Checkmate, moral compass
Ethical people hate this one trick!
That 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 to keep him around.
I guess kinda like a incredible situation, but more dark because the protagonist just wants to die instead of raise a family.
But 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
He could always, you know, just break their spine
So would the number of citizens in gotham. Apparently everyone is a killer in that city.
TIL Batman sucks at math.
Also 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
“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
Source: https://quotepark.com/quotes/1749668-jean-rostand-kill-one-man-and-you-are-a-murderer-kill-million/
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.
That only counts if your killings are non-consecutive.
But if you’re already a killer and you kill a killer, the number of killers in the world is reduced by one.
Exactly, so as soon as you kill one you have a moral obligation to pump your K/D as high as you can.
Hah. Absurdist on the surface, and yet if you were to imagine yourself forced to be a vigilante…
Good writing prompt 🤔
Soooo, I should start killing now in case I find my self in a Batman-situation?
Obviously
Dexter Morgan is a better hero than Batman ever was
deleted by creator
If you kill two killers then the number of killers has been reduced by 1.
The number of killers is always offset by the number of people you kill minus 1. So the real mora is don’t stop at one, thanks Batman 😃
Apparently he’s bad at math.
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 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.
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.
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?
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.
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 Wayne is like an extreme philanthropist when it comes to spending money to help others.
As an old friend of mine once said “If he killed em the writers would have to invent new enemies continuously. With that excuse they can put them in the Asylum and reuse them for new stories whenever they want.”
The more efficient option is rarely the more entertaining option.
Sounds like something the Joker might say.
It does shortcut originality a fair bit. Why come up with a new guy with a new gimmick when they can just throw Condiment King out there.
Prob part of the reason Punisher isn’t that popular. A good rogues gallery makes for a good hero. No rogues and hes just some guy.
It’s funny that Punisher really isn’t all that popular but in the US his skull emblem in a Blue Lives Matter livery is an extremely popular automotive window decal.
deleted by creator
It actually goes way back to the 80s and 90s when Punisher comics took off. It wasn’t as common as you see today, but the Punisher skull was on lunchboxes and tee shirts and tattoos and rifle cases. We didn’t have social media back then, though, so the cops kept their shared psychotic fantasies about unrepentant murder well hidden.
deleted by creator
What’s funny is that, if the Punisher were real, he’d 86 every one of those corrupt cops.
The Punisher’s iconic story is about him executing his coworkers on the police force for killing his family. He’s the most directly anti-cop comic book character. But all the vets-turned-cops just remember how cool the skull looked ironed on to their gear in the military I guess.
Heaven forbid writers be forced to come up with something original or anything
Pretty much why I prefer manga. The convention for manga is creators come up with their own characters and stories rather then remixing preexisting ones. Of course there’s original stuff in the west, but people don’t talk about those nearly as much. There’s also some examples of Japanese characters getting passed about to different writers, but that’s also less common.
If you kill 1000 killers the number of killers in the world decreases by 999 though.
Was just going to say if total number of killers was the only important metric, you could have one person kill the rest of the killers. Then the meta-killer could kill all other people, just in case there are undiscovered killers hiding amongst them.
Light Yagami has left the chat
And if you kill a million killers you’re not a killer anymore so it goes down by a solid million.
deleted by creator
But the amount of serial killers goes up
Not if at least one of the killers was already a serial killer.
At last, the nights will be safe from Count Chocula.
I always think of Batman is a crazy person that he knows he’s a crazy person. Which is why he has to strictly follow rules he set for himself.
If Batman broke his rule against killing, within a few years people of Gotham would have to worry about getting killed by the Batman for jaywalking. Batman knows that he has the potential of going this way so he has to follow his rules to prevent that from happening.
I really like this interpretation
I have felt that way since getting more into it and noticing how every character is broken, mentally, in some way. Bruce over the loss of his parents has been traumatized by death and refuses to acknowledge that some people really need it (Joker). The comics themselves acknowledge this often, with characters pointing out how he’s insane for dressing like a bat and fighting bad guys.
In a world where bad guys routinely obtain super powers and put on costumes to do crime, one guy with a bunch of money fighting crime in a bat suit doesn’t sound so far fetched. I mean his best friend is literally an immortal alien from Kansas, who could, should he fancy it, murder every criminal as they step over some arbitrary benchmark for criminality. Beating them to a pulp and turning them in is just a sick hobby they get away with.
It sounds crazy, even in that world, when you realize Superman exists. The Flash exists. People with actual, bonafide super powers exist. And then there’s Bruce Wayne. A rich playboy with PTSD, no super powers, fighting villains that often do have super powers.
Ah, but Bruce has the strongest power of all: rabid fans who would gladly burn down DC’s headquarters if Batman were ever cancelled.
Batman is the worlds greatest detective since issue #1
Yeah that’s why the Joker is a great nemesis for Batman. They’re both crazy people, they’re both are aware that they’re crazy, only difference is one has rules and the other doesn’t. That’s basically all that separates them.
I feel like portraying Batman as someone does kill people is boring because there’s not psychological aspect to it.
Am 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.
I 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
Yep.
The Punisher would have Gotham cleaned up in a week, including corrupt cops.
Remember, kids, guns and superheroes don’t mix!
Hard to have a police if you kill all the corrupt cops
They 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.
The hyperfixation of modern Batman writers on Joker and the weird homoerotic overtones that come with it has become tiresome. There are much better villains in Batmans rouge gallery than some crazy clown
While there are some awesome Batman villains, I agree.
None of them have the dynamic the Joker does. The Joker is like the complete opposite of Batman. Chaotic, maniac, big smile, kills without a second thought.
All the Joker tries to prove is that anyone, no matter how just they think they are, no matter how steadfast they believe themselves to be, are only a single bad day away from turning into a monster like him.
He wants to push Batman over the edge, because Batman is the biggest challenge in that regard. If he can bend Batman, he can bend anyone. So if he can get Batman to kill him, his point is proven.
deleted by creator
The rest of the rogue’s gallery does in fact have better dynamics with Batman than Joker does.
Joker’s some lame ass loser who views supervillainy as a career while literally everyone else in the rogue’s gallery has better, more interesting reasons to do what they do. Joker’s doing evil for the lulz schtick is boring as fuck. He’s nothing but a boring-ass two dimensional Gary Stu and I am tired of being quiet about it.
The only interesting Joker we’ve had in the past twenty years is the Joaquin Phoenix one.
Wow! Something smart in this thread! Bravo !
I think the reason they focus on it is because it’s really popular. I really enjoy all the stories where they have to fight each other but can’t finish it forever or where the joker gives up because he thinks that batman is gone. I think there’s a lot of room to explore what makes batman different from criminals using the joker and the strong parallels.
Mr Freeze comes to mind.
Yes, this absolutely. But it’s also one of the serious flaws of action films that show good/bad guys- you never see the aftermath.
Take this scene from Dark Knight. Batman is on his ARMED motorcycle thing, Joker’s sitting there shooting at cars driven by innocent people. So at least 3-4 innocent people are now dead because Batman wouldn’t take the shot.
But you don’t see that- the cars windows are blacked out. You don’t see the innocent people torn apart and splattered all over their cars. You don’t see the little kid sitting in the back seat screaming as Mommy is torn to shreds by automatic rifle fire and the car crashes. You don’t see the family that no longer has a mom or dad or son or daughter. And because you don’t see that, our presentation of Batman’s ‘ethics’ is fake.
Ask any one of those families if they’d trade the Joker’s life to get their family member back. You won’t find a single one that says ‘I’m glad the Joker is alive, it was worth my daddy getting shot to avoid killing him’.The fact is- Batman is selfish. He ALLOWS 3-4+ innocent people to die, to save his own conscience
Do you see him thinking about them in bed at night? The people he COULD have saved, that WOULD be alive if he just pulled the trigger? Of course not. Because the writers only show us half the story. They black out the car windows, so we don’t see the consequences.
And if you’re all ‘Batman isn’t a vigilante’, well sure. But even for a civilian, there’s rules of engagement. Even in the anti-gun state of California you’re allowed to use deadly force to save the life of yourself or another from a violent psychopath posing an imminent threat. Especially after Joker shot up the first car and showed he was going to do it again.
Do you know any movies that show more of the aftermath and the “full picture”?
Avengers touched on it a bit, not as much as maybe they should have, but there was a scene where an entire building came down and one of the people who lost family in it confronted them.
Oh wow, really? I kinda fell off watching the Avengers. Which one was this?
(I thought I replied, but it seems to not be here, not sure if I forgot to hit Reply or what but trying this again)
Sadly not really.
Sometimes aftermath is used as a plot device- for example the Avengers series dealt with that a bit and who should be responsible for the actions of superheroes.But for real ‘full picture’ it’s almost never shown because it’s messy and bloody and awful and really really sad. Think opening scene of ‘Saving Private Ryan’ just with a lot more feels. If those cars weren’t blacked out you’d see blood everywhere and the people in them would be either wounded and screaming or gasping for air as their lungs fill with blood or dead and mangled as bullets tore their bodies apart. And if anyone else was in the back seat and survived you’d have the terrified screams of a child who just watched as Mommy get turned into so much hamburger meat and then the driverless car crashed. And then, perhaps hours or days later, you’d have families that break down in panicked screaming-cries when they are told their wife/husband/mother/father/son/daughter is never coming home.
Ask any of THOSE people, and any of them would happily trade Joker’s life to get their loved one back.
The REALITY of serious violence can’t be shown in PG-13 movies and even R movies either can’t or don’t often show it. People go to the movies to have fun and feel good, not see a bloody mess that makes them want to puke and then cry as they experience the pain of a broken family.Perhaps this bothers me more than most because I HAVE seen what the real result is like. I was around for the shock video era in the 2000s and saw some really awful stuff from Chechnya. There’s a bunch of combat footage coming from Ukraine. And closer to this subject, I’ve seen a lot of videos of defensive shooting incidents. It’s not like movies, it’s not fun. It’s just brutal and sad.
The boys?
Oh damn, yea, that is so true
You sound dangerously close to blaming batman for the actions of a serial killer. He could attempt to step in sure, but those deaths are squarely at joker’s door.
Yeah when Batman sees killing Joker as just as bad as him murdering random Innocent civilians of Gotham, he’s stupid.
Same for Two Face and Scarecrow and all the others. Batman by leaving people to escape jail and murder more each time is not helping Gotham.
I can understand Batman and his motivations, but I think he has blood on his hands, and not just from the crooks he leaves with crippling medical debt.
I am blaming Batman for his choice and for his reasoning.
He pulls the trigger, Joker (a psycho who’s killed dozens/hundreds already and will kill even more) dies.
He doesn’t pull the trigger, 3-4 innocent people die now and Joker goes on to kill scores more.I argue Batman can’t just wash his hands of responsibility because he CHOSE to put himself in that position. He decided to be the one with a motorcycle cannon pointed at Joker’s face. If he didn’t want to be responsible for life and death, he should have stayed home and gotten a massage. But no, he chose to be the city’s defender, so there he is.
Perhaps it helps to drop the movie and pick another analogy. Imagine there’s a mass shooter psycho walking around shooting children, and there’s a police officer with weapon drawn and pointed at the psycho. Police officer decides not to shoot the psycho because his conscience says he doesn’t want to kill anybody. And because he doesn’t take the shot, the psycho kills 3-4 more kids.
Do you argue the officer is blameless for those childrens’ deaths?But Batman is ok with killing the henchmen of joker and other villains by dozens
I never got how batman is so popular, he’s just a crazy rich person with the most plot armor of any superhero. Also he could pretty much fix Gotham with his money but he instead spends it on gadgets to beat up mentally ill people.
Bruce Wayne already is pouring in billions into Gotham social services. He is like the billionaire we want but never get in real life. Some things just aren’t solved with money in their universe.
Batman isn’t just some crazy rich person. He is the world greatest detective since issue #1. Better than even Sherlock.
He can not only stand his own next to power houses like Superman, but he also plays an extremely crucial part of the Justice League: the information gatherer.
To say it in gaming terms, Batman isn’t DPS or tank. He is support. And damn good at it.
That’s kinda what I mean as far as suspension of disbelief is, concerned: billions would fix any city unless you aren’t trying to fix anything and no matter how smart you are you won’t stand up to someone with actual superpowers without a metric ton of plot armor. Like a kryptonian, someone with the speed force or even just magic could vaporize batman with barely any effort.
Like the comics and other media where batman is up against just normal humans I can understand though still not my favourites but the ones where he’s against actual superpowers you usually get some bullshittery.
I’m no expert in comics by a long shot but that’s just been my impression when I did read some batman. The one where batman was actually a patient in arkham and all the villains were just doctors, guards and patients was my favourite though.
billions would fix any city
Tell that to Boston, which squandered 22 Billion dollars on a highway project disaster. Boston may have had a huge issue with corruption, but Gotham is literally cartoonishly corrupt and decrepit.
Yea, that’s what I’m implying, batman is either corrupt, stupid or unrealistic when it comes to helping Gotham with money.
I kinda like the depiction of him as an out of touch billionaire(The type that thinks bread costs 50 bucks or doesn’t know people pay for housing) that just builds orphanages or something but has no idea on how to actually fix issues, just believes he does. That would be quite realistic actually.
You just described why it’s popular, no?
It’s the American way
Why spend money fixing a problem when you can spend 5x money responding to it with violence
You don’t get why Batman is popular because you apparently have an Adam West-era perception of Batman
The Dark Knight fits that summation perfectly.
The Adam West Batman was the only good Batman.
What’s much more important is the number of victims! If you kill a killer you are reducing the total number of victims.
This is the greatest part about the latest movie, The Batman. At the beginning you do have the depressive rich boy obsessed with revenge, being brutal and cruel to criminals is sort of his point. But as the movie progresses he starts to shift to realize that he shouldn’t be pursuing revenge against the criminals, for it isn’t bringing him any resolution, but instead should be striving to save and protect the victims. The shift is dramatic, specially with the thematic use of Nirvana’s Something In The Way as musical background, and it’s paired in a holistic way with his public face. Bruce Wayne comes out of the shadows to become the philanthropic playboy. Another facade, but one that fulfills just as an important role, by pushing Gotham rich society to charity and financial aid work for the ones in need, that is of course rarely if ever depicted, because it’s not superhero work. But it is important because is the part of the rich boy actually using his fortune to enact positive change in the world that the superhero persona can’t, just like the superhero does things the regular person can’t, capturing crazy criminals and saving people from over-engineered elaborate terrorist ploys.
