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.
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/
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.
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
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 😃
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.
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."
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.
If you kill 1000 killers the number of killers in the world decreases by 999 though.
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.
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 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.
Yep.
The Punisher would have Gotham cleaned up in a week, including 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
What's much more important is the number of victims! If you kill a killer you are reducing the total number of victims.
Not if you kill multiple killers.... Dumbass.
Each time Batman beat, did not kill, and captured the Joker for arrest the judicial system ruled him insane and he was held in a high security psychiatric ward/prison vs killing him. So, using the same measure, you could blame the laws, judges, juries, doctors, etc for all of Jokers future crimes when he broke out agian.
There's a universe where Batman was basically the punisher and goes around killing people.
The Grim Knight kills all the corrupt cops, mob bosses and villains. He also blows up blackgate and Arkham. Gotham ends up super safe, but somehow more of a dystopia than regular Gotham. Everyone lives in fear, and Batman has a 1984 setup where he spies in everyone and uses Waynetech to kill people.
Commissioner Gordon ends up arresting him with the help of info given to him by Alfred.
Would it make sense for someone to kill the Joker? Yes. However Batman is, in addition to being an anally retentive genius perfectionist, somewhat emotionally unstable. Dude isn't the type of person who'd be able to kill the Joker and call it a day.
That being said I'm pretty sure the in universe reason right now is that killing the joker releases a gas that turns whoever is near it into another joker. If Batman killed the Joker, the gas would cause him to turn into a villain who can singlehandedly kill every other hero on earth. He would then continue to pull bullshit out of his ass until he gains the powers of Doctor Manhattan and almost destroys all of existence.
Me, who has killed 2 killers
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
