• An addendum to Rule 3 regarding fan-translated works of things such as Web Novels has been made. Please see here for details.
  • RIP @Silver Swallow
  • We've issued a clarification on our policy on AI-generated work.
  • QuestionableQuesting has new Moderator positions. To submit your application, please see this thread.
  • Due to issues with external spam filters, QQ is currently unable to send any mail to Microsoft E-mail addresses. This includes any account at live.com, hotmail.com or msn.com. Signing up to the forum with one of these addresses will result in your verification E-mail never arriving. For best results, please use a different E-mail provider for your QQ address.
  • For prospective new members, a word of warning: don't use common names like Dennis, Simon, or Kenny if you decide to create an account. Spammers have used them all before you and gotten those names flagged in the anti-spam databases. Your account registration will be rejected because of it.
  • Since it has happened MULTIPLE times now, I want to be very clear about this. You do not get to abandon an account and create a new one. You do not get to pass an account to someone else and create a new one. If you do so anyway, you will be banned for creating sockpuppets.
  • Due to the actions of particularly persistent spammers and trolls, we will be banning disposable email addresses from today onward.
  • The rules regarding NSFW links have been updated. See here for details.

With This Ring (Young Justice SI) (Thread Fourteen)

Reader mode
Mr Zoat said:
"No. Fine. I could talk about them being mass murderers who I encountered while they were enthusiastically mass murdering thousands of people. If the main concern was legality then I could point to Self Defence and Defence of Another laws both nationally and in the state. But when you get right down to it, as far as I'm concerned, once a person has a body count above a certain level, killing them is just… Common sense."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Actually it wasn't, because you never know what kind of dead man switches bad guys like that might have in place.
 
AmericanNumbers said:
Common Sense Paul has nothing on Paragon Paul doing an orbital bombardment of an inhabited planet.
The problem for people may be the scale being smaller? There's no actual objective scenario where killing people with this level of body count and the intent to continue wouldn't be considered lawful and correct.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The mass destruction he caused to the spider cannibalis when the yellow corpsman kidnapped Paul's student? That's pretty much pulled directly from the playbooks of villains looking to fight a superhero. I'm pretty confident that he's going to do a lot of killing once Dox has determined the galactic alliance against the Reach is done recruiting, and it is time for blitzkrieg. Or the equivalent with DC resources.

I trust the Controllers with technology… with weapons like sun-eaters more than Amanda Waller. More than Common Sense!Paul. And when their perspective is skewed enough, all three misused their available power. Paul could have used his ring to speed up the prep for the military instead. The plan he chose risked his failure, and the same strategy with the support of his team and leaving the munitions to the military could have gone fine. Any troops lost to black Adam would have been worth it in the military's eyes, I reckon.
 
Last edited:
CrazyNoVa said:
Sure, Janissary Paul is pretty normal, but even then, he's a Janissary for an evil alien empire who's married to a homicidal maniac.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Technically, she isn't homicidal. She's never killed a human.
Old Knife said:
Missed opportunity to place the department of common sense logo at the end.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The idea is common sense, but he already had the idea. Having the interrupt here would indicate that telling Batman was common sense.
BoML said:
Bolded should be "Barring".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Thank you, corrected.
Darko said:
Tangseid first injected himself with psycho serum and was later brainwashed by an evil mind control artifact
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
In point of fact, he was not brainwashed by an evil mind control artifact.
 
CrazyNoVa said:
Holy hell, this Paul is unsettling. I don't disagree with him, but he still feels…off.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It is almost certainly because you aren't actually used to people behaving rationally.

Despite what most people say and think, the vast majority of the time the vast majority of people act based on their emotions and then rationalize why they did so after the fact. This leads to certain patterns of irrational behaviour that people come to think of as normal and rational.

Killing other humans is very much one of those areas; humans normally have an instinctive aversion to killing others, even when doing so is entirely reasonable and justified. A person who doesn't have that aversion and who just does the math, realizes that it is morally correct to kill in this situation and then acts on that realization thus comes across as deeply concerning, because on a fundamental level you are subconsciously aware of the fact that this person is not following the normal behavioral patterns that you have come to expect from other people.

The reasons why they aren't following these patterns are irrelevant to your subconscious: All that matters is that they aren't following the patterns, which makes them different, and different means dangerous.
 
Last edited:
Mr Zoat said:
I'm… Glad that you haven't been in this position yet, but with the empathic abilities the ring gives me, it's not that hard to see how… Vile some people are. I imagine that you'll experience something like that with telepathy eventually.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Reminds me a bit of this scene from Dredd.
Mr Zoat said:
In point of fact, he was not brainwashed by an evil mind control artifact.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Wait, so there's another fakeout? I wonder how he ends up as he did, then.
 
Last edited:
Mr Zoat said:
example.com? A timly reminder, sir, but I'm not sure how it relates to our current situation.

It wasn't a fakeout so much as low hanging fruit, and an explanation as to where his brainwashing power came from.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Whoops. I pasted the BBcode and forgot to add the new URL. Should be fixed now.

Ah, I see. I think a fair few people probably assumed that it was cursed. Part of it is probably that it was (I think?) the end of that group of chapters, and personally I assumed that was going to be the last we saw of that universe, from which perspective it makes sense to assume the magic item caused it, rather than something that hasn't been introduced yet or something like him using the evil serum again or naturally changing his mindset.
 
Well, common sense Paul does show up in the time trapper crossover. So he's still active further down his timeline.

Hmm, if we're looking at alternate timeline of this moment, there's bound to be a few where Black Adam smites the whole team in an eye blink and the league deals with the fallout of using sidekicks as canaries. Wonder what those would look like further along.
 
Vaermina said:
Actually it wasn't, because you never know what kind of dead man switches bad guys like that might have in place.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The sooner you kill them, the less dead man switches they have time to set up and the less atrocities they have time to commit. If there is valid concern over their contingencies then that isn't an argument not to kill them, its an argument to torture or brainwash them for information first at best.
 
After this Paul gets a reputation and the Hero's start to question his character something else needs to happen to flip the script. Where being Understanding and Nice save the day when everyone wanted a beat down.
 
Bolo said:
After this Paul gets a reputation and the Hero's start to question his character something else needs to happen to flip the script. Where being Understanding and Nice save the day when everyone wanted a beat down.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Common Sense Paul doesn't really do that kind of stuff. Part of his deal is that he solves issues using his common sense. Because of this, he doesn't take as many risks as the main Paul or the Renegade, so he both avoids potential pitfalls and doesn't get unexpected and/or hard to attain benefits.
 
He was completely correct to do what he did. A lot of comic book villains deserve exactly this treatment. They just get to keep living by being thrown into easily escapable carboard prisons because having recognizable, repeat villains is more profitable for the comic book companies.

It's always been a stupid thing you ignore for the sake of enjoying the story.
 
CrazyNoVa said:
What kind of dead man switches are we talking about here? Because last I checked, there's not really anything that Paul couldn't deactivate that comes to mind.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I doubt any such things existed, but there definitely are things Paul wouldn't be able to trivially deactivate. A bomb hidden in a populated area which will go off if not given a signal once per week. Standing orders for the Vlatavan military to cause trouble if Vertigo dies (though I doubt they'd be loyal enough to follow such orders). Hostages trapped in a remote locale who will die of dehydration or some other means if not tended to.
 
Duke Long said:
I doubt any such things existed, but there definitely are things Paul wouldn't be able to trivially deactivate. A bomb hidden in a populated area which will go off if not given a signal once per week. Standing orders for the Vlatavan military to cause trouble if Vertigo dies (though I doubt they'd be loyal enough to follow such orders). Hostages trapped in a remote locale who will die of dehydration or some other means if not tended to.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

No, that doesn't really add up, because if they had hostages and bombs, wouldn't it have made more sense to use those for the distraction instead of the giant plant monsters? Or at the very least, the villains would have announced the fact that they had hostages over their TV broadcast alongside their giant plant monsters to put extra pressure on both the Justice League and the world governments to distract them even more, because why take hostages if you're not actually going to use those hostages at all? If they actually had hostages, they would have announced it in their broadcast too, because a hostage doesn't work on your enemy if your enemy doesn't know that there's a hostage to begin with. When you take someone hostage, you NEED to let your enemy know that there is a hostage, otherwise they won't do what you want. That'd be like if I tried to blackmail someone into doing what I want without actually telling them that I have blackmail material on them. Kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?
 
Last edited:
I get where Batman is, to a point. Batman, however, is juggling local level criminals and crime families.

Killing will escalate as the other bodies involved see the stakes have been raised. Batman attempts to make crime a Zero Sum game. You can't benefit, you can very actively lose, and take a beating during it.

This code DOESN'T translate to worldwide terrorist strikes.

That said, Sufficient Velocity has a story - Project Gamer V.2. The lead stops a Joker attack, a city wide Smilex attack. When Batman talks to him afterward, the lead has the best 'Pro-Batman' argument I've ever heard.

"It is not Batman's job to make up for the failings of the US Justice System." Any rational system would see Joker executed for his crimes. Why is it Batman's job? He catches them, hands them over, and gets back to work.

Beaten to a pulp by Batman, why doesn't Joker tragically try to escape, fall down some stairs onto some bullets? Why doesn't Joker get an accidentally lethal dose of painkillers from the medical personnel treating him after a 24hr shift of saving his victims?

Why isn't Joker just found guilty of Murder and executed in Texas? He can't be both too crazy to understand his actions and need medical care AND clever enough to consistently break out of and massacre workers at the Asylum set to hold him!

In short? A LOT of other people have a vote in the 'kill Joker' race, and its not Batman's fault that every single one, who has much less skin in the game for keeping him alive, ALSO fail to murder the Joker.
 
What people often fail to realize about Batman is that while he doesn't like killing, he only truly holds himself to the 'no killing' rule.

And the reason why he holds himself to that rule is because he knows the kind of man that he is, and he knows that if he ever started killing he wouldn't stop: Batman knows that if he is willing to kill for a good reason then it is only a matter of time before he is willing to kill for a bad reason, and so he restricts himself entirely.

Batman's 'no killing' rule has nothing to do with morality and ethics and everything to do with self control.
 
Kencord said:
I get where Batman is, to a point. Batman, however, is juggling local level criminals and crime families.

Killing will escalate as the other bodies involved see the stakes have been raised. Batman attempts to make crime a Zero Sum game. You can't benefit, you can very actively lose, and take a beating during it.

This code DOESN'T translate to worldwide terrorist strikes.

That said, Sufficient Velocity has a story - Project Gamer V.2. The lead stops a Joker attack, a city wide Smilex attack. When Batman talks to him afterward, the lead has the best 'Pro-Batman' argument I've ever heard.

"It is not Batman's job to make up for the failings of the US Justice System." Any rational system would see Joker executed for his crimes. Why is it Batman's job? He catches them, hands them over, and gets back to work.

Beaten to a pulp by Batman, why doesn't Joker tragically try to escape, fall down some stairs onto some bullets? Why doesn't Joker get an accidentally lethal dose of painkillers from the medical personnel treating him after a 24hr shift of saving his victims?

Why isn't Joker just found guilty of Murder and executed in Texas? He can't be both too crazy to understand his actions and need medical care AND clever enough to consistently break out of and massacre workers at the Asylum set to hold him!

In short? A LOT of other people have a vote in the 'kill Joker' race, and its not Batman's fault that every single one, who has much less skin in the game for keeping him alive, ALSO fail to murder the Joker.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Neruz said:
What people often fail to realize about Batman is that while he doesn't like killing, he only truly holds himself to the 'no killing' rule.

And the reason why he holds himself to that rule is because he knows the kind of man that he is, and he knows that if he ever started killing he wouldn't stop: Batman knows that if he is willing to kill for a good reason then it is only a matter of time before he is willing to kill for a bad reason, and so he restricts himself entirely.

Batman's 'no killing' rule has nothing to do with morality and ethics and everything to do with self control.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That argument doesn't work in the DC universe. Sure, in real life, it would probably hold more water, but what you fail to realize is that DC's governments are NOT like their real-life counterparts. Sure, if this were real life, I would agree with you, because in real life, people like The Joker would have gotten executed a long time ago, and there would be no need for the endless debate about lethal force.

When the authorities and governments fail to act to protect the people, then the people must act to protect themselves. If the authorities refuse to stop a monster permanently, then the responsibility falls to whoever has the means and power to do so. With great power comes great responsibility, right?

And in this case, that would be people like Batman. Hence why people hold him responsible. Because while it is true that those who fight monsters may become monsters themselves, those who just stand by and let monsters be are no better than willing accomplices. And for all intents and purposes, that's what Batman has become over the years: an accomplice to Joker's crimes. He knows that the authorities will never imprison, rehabilitate or execute The Joker, he knows that The Joker will never change or be rehabilitated, he knows that The Joker will eventually escape and keep killing people over and over again until his last breath, yet he refuses to do what needs to be done.

How many graveyards does the clown have to make before people realize that he needs to die? How widows and orphans does he have to make? How many Jasons and Barbaras does he have to kill or cripple? Batman's answer is that he does not care, because he'll never do anything about it. Putting your personal code above the safety of the people you've sworn to protect doesn't make you noble or good. It proves that you don't care how many people your enemies kill as long you as you get to keep your hands clean.

In other words, it makes you a gutless coward.
 
Last edited:
In a sense you could indeed argue that Batman is a coward; he fears that if he grants himself even the slightest leeway he will become a far greater monster than anything the Joker could ever hope to accomplish, so he allows himself no leeway at all.

And based on the Brother Eye storyline, he may very well be correct in that belief. But it is still arguably true that the origin of his 'no killling' rule is indeed fear.
 
Last edited:
Neruz said:
What people often fail to realize about Batman is that while he doesn't like killing, he only truly holds himself to the 'no killing' rule.

And the reason why he holds himself to that rule is because he knows the kind of man that he is, and he knows that if he ever started killing he wouldn't stop: Batman knows that if he is willing to kill for a good reason then it is only a matter of time before he is willing to kill for a bad reason, and so he restricts himself entirely.

Batman's 'no killing' rule has nothing to do with morality and ethics and everything to do with self control.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Except... Canonically... The one time he said 'you know, this killing thing isn't such a bad idea'... The result was a much better world.
 
I see a lot of people here are disturbed by common sense actions executed by a common-sense-man.

That's because...

Neruz said:
It is almost certainly because you aren't actually used to people behaving rationally.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

...

Ninjaed.

But that's not the whole reason. It's just too sudden. Unlike with Paragon, whose development we saw for years, we don't know how common person become a guy who could kill a man without any emotion, except maybe annoyance. No psyching up hate or "greatergoodness", not even wanting, just killing people like it's Tuesday.

I really want to see how Common Sense Paul became so desensitized.
 
Mr Zoat said:
Except... Canonically... The one time he said 'you know, this killing thing isn't such a bad idea'... The result was a much better world.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

For the uninitiated among us, which continuity are you referring to? It can't be the Justice Lords universe, because that Batman lobotomized all his villains.

topin89 said:
I see a lot of people here are disturbed by common sense actions executed by a common-sense-man.

That's because...



...

Ninjaed.

But that's not the whole reason. It's just too sudden. Unlike with Paragon, whose development we saw for years, we don't know how common person become a guy who could kill a man without any emotion, except maybe annoyance. No psyching up hate or "greatergoodness", not even wanting, just killing people like it's Tuesday.

I really want to see how Common Sense Paul became so desensitized.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah, you're probably right. Up until this point, we never saw this Paul going full lethal, so I guess it's just jarring because of how sudden it is. Again, he wasn't wrong to do what he did, but still.
 
Last edited:
Mr Zoat said:
Except... Canonically... The one time he said 'you know, this killing thing isn't such a bad idea'... The result was a much better world.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, can't expect every author to write every character correctly.

Superhero comic book characters are notorious for changing wildly in depiction from author to author.

I am reminded of a meme:
4jdcvj62ez4.webp
 
CrazyNoVa said:
That argument doesn't work in the DC universe. Sure, in real life, it would probably hold more water, but what you fail to realize is that DC's governments are NOT like their real-life counterparts. Sure, if this were real life, I would agree with you, because in real life, people like The Joker would have gotten executed a long time ago, and there would be no need for the endless debate about lethal force.

When the authorities and governments fail to act to protect the people, then the people must act to protect themselves. If the authorities refuse to stop a monster permanently, then the responsibility falls to whoever has the means and power to do so. With great power comes great responsibility, right?

And in this case, that would be people like Batman. Hence why people hold him responsible. Because while it is true that those who fight monsters may become monsters themselves, those who just stand by and let monsters be are no better than willing accomplices. And for all intents and purposes, that's what Batman has become over the years: an accomplice to Joker's crimes. He knows that the authorities will never imprison, rehabilitate or execute The Joker, he knows that The Joker will never change or be rehabilitated, he knows that The Joker will eventually escape and keep killing people over and over again until his last breath, yet he refuses to do what needs to be done.

How many graveyards does the clown have to make before people realize that he needs to die? How widows and orphans does he have to make? How many Jasons and Barbaras does he have to kill or cripple? Batman's answer is that he does not care, because he'll never do anything about it. Putting your personal code above the safety of the people you've sworn to protect doesn't make you noble or good. It proves that you don't care how many people your enemies kill as long you as you get to keep your hands clean.

In other words, it makes you a gutless coward.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

By the same argument, its the direct fault of the Police, Hospitals, Arkam, Harley Quinn, any hired goon, and every single citizen in the city - especially the victims and hostages, to rise up as one and universally declare Joker an enemy of mankind and attempt his violent death whenever he shows his pale face, even to the death of those attempting.

If people in position to kill Joker, legal or not, fail to then they are at fault for his crimes.

Batman might be the most equipped to catch the Joker, but that argument still holds for every other person in Gotham. Batman's ready and willing to serve the Joker up to the courts every time. The courts fail.

Predictable, but not Batman's fault.

Joker is kept in a barred wall cell during holding, under armed guard. Any guard could draw, fire and kill the Joker. The clever could even make it look like a failed escape plan, self defense, be a 'hero'.

This means someone else is held responsible for not killing Joker, one who has no 'code'.

This is a variation of the 'How does Superman chose who to save?' question.

But we agree on one subject. 'The Joker Will Escape Again'.

You say 'Joker killed, you threw him in jail, how dare you not kill him and prevent the next attack?'

I say 'Joker killed and was caught, thank god he can't keep killing.'

You use the Doylist argument that 'The Law in DC and the Citizens will always fail to serve their own interests properly, leaving Batman to be the only actor to the collective good. He MUST kill.'

If Batman in the narrative believed that, had that lack of hope that Gotham would never get better unless he committed mass murder of the rogues and mafia, then he'd have given up and joined the League of Shadows ages ago.

Keeping the criminals in line is Batman's job. Trying to fix the system is Bruce Wayne's.

I do get your frustration, and if I was a Citizen standing behind police tape - a .38 in my pocket and the Joker, chained to a stretcher in view? I'd shoot. And I'd use most of the rhetoric we've used to justify it.

But that's a personal thing. Besides, no one says Batgirl, any Robin, or any of the other Bat family should pull the trigger on Joker. They are their own people, not tentacles extruding from Batman's Aura. If we're blaming Batman for being the Superhero in place to catch Joker, what about EVERY OTHER HERO IN GOTHAM?! Hell, Huntress would be enthused at the opportunity.

If other superheroes are also guilty of the supposed crime, are they all guilty and suffering from a weirdly focused version of the Bystander effect or is Batman uniquely guilty because his name's on the book?
 
I don't know if Earth 51 is the same one, since I can't be bothered to check the specific universe number, but I know there was an Elseworld that had Batman start killing supervillains. Not common crooks or whatever. Just the supervillains.

And the world was so much better off that the rest of the superhero community was actually really annoyed with him about it. Not because they thought he was wrong to kill off the supervillains, but because they were bored with only ever having to deal with normal criminals.
 
Earth-51 wasn't an elseworld.

Red Hood came to a world in which Batman killed the Joker for killing Jason and he killed every other supervillain for dessert.

Which the DC author had the poor taste to show the result of all that mass murder was a utopia.

Then Superboy Prime showed up and destroyed it in a childish temper tantrum.

Batman's no killing rule is because he really really wants to kill people, DC has played with that several times- Vampire Batman, Paladin who was a Bruce who shot his parent's killer in the back and never stopped shooting criminals, and his fears in that regard I'd say that plays a part in Batman Who Wanks and his dark multiversal league of evil batmen.
 
Kencord said:
By the same argument, its the direct fault of the Police, Hospitals, Arkam, Harley Quinn, any hired goon, and every single citizen in the city - especially the victims and hostages, to rise up as one and universally declare Joker an enemy of mankind and attempt his violent death whenever he shows his pale face, even to the death of those attempting.

If people in position to kill Joker, legal or not, fail to then they are at fault for his crimes.

Batman might be the most equipped to catch the Joker, but that argument still holds for every other person in Gotham. Batman's ready and willing to serve the Joker up to the courts every time. The courts fail.

Predictable, but not Batman's fault.

Joker is kept in a barred wall cell during holding, under armed guard. Any guard could draw, fire and kill the Joker. The clever could even make it look like a failed escape plan, self defense, be a 'hero'.

This means someone else is held responsible for not killing Joker, one who has no 'code'.

This is a variation of the 'How does Superman chose who to save?' question.

But we agree on one subject. 'The Joker Will Escape Again'.

You say 'Joker killed, you threw him in jail, how dare you not kill him and prevent the next attack?'

I say 'Joker killed and was caught, thank god he can't keep killing.'

You use the Doylist argument that 'The Law in DC and the Citizens will always fail to serve their own interests properly, leaving Batman to be the only actor to the collective good. He MUST kill.'

If Batman in the narrative believed that, had that lack of hope that Gotham would never get better unless he committed mass murder of the rogues and mafia, then he'd have given up and joined the League of Shadows ages ago.

Keeping the criminals in line is Batman's job. Trying to fix the system is Bruce Wayne's.

I do get your frustration, and if I was a Citizen standing behind police tape - a .38 in my pocket and the Joker, chained to a stretcher in view? I'd shoot. And I'd use most of the rhetoric we've used to justify it.

But that's a personal thing. Besides, no one says Batgirl, any Robin, or any of the other Bat family should pull the trigger on Joker. They are their own people, not tentacles extruding from Batman's Aura. If we're blaming Batman for being the Superhero in place to catch Joker, what about EVERY OTHER HERO IN GOTHAM?! Hell, Huntress would be enthused at the opportunity.

If other superheroes are also guilty of the supposed crime, are they all guilty and suffering from a weirdly focused version of the Bystander effect or is Batman uniquely guilty because his name's on the book?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. It IS the direct fault of the Police, Hospitals, Arkam, Harley Quinn, any hired goon, and everyone else too. They have the power and the responsibilty to stop him from kill8ng people, yet they choose to do nothing. Again, with great power comes great responsibility, and those who have the power to protect the citizens from the monsters who threaten them have a responsibility to take care of the monsters, The only way to stop The Joker from causing people's deaths, directly or indirectly, is to finish him off once and for all. Yes, people will die if they try to kill The Joker, but they will also die if The Joker lives too, so either way, people are going to die, And if people are going to die no matter what, they might as well make sure that the clown is among the dead bodies rather than the one making the dead bodies.

Also, I call bull on your League of Shadows argument. Even if Batman started killing his villains, he wouldn't join the League of Shadows. For one thing, even for lethal anti-heroes like The Punisher or Red Hood, The League of Shadows is far too extreme by their standards, and Ra's Al Ghul is far too psychotic to be trusted. I'd even go as far as to say that Ra's is just as crazy as the Joker, just a different flavor of craziness. If anything, a murderous Batman would definitely kill Ra's and disintegrate his corpse to ensure he actually stays dead.

And no, I also don't believe that Batman is uniquely guilty of this, I was just using him as an example because he's the most egregious example of the lot. The argument I presented can apply to most superheroes who have this issue too.

Also, when you say "the Joker killed and was caught, thank god he can't keep killing", you're completely missing the point. No, even if you catch the Joker and lock him up, that will not solve the problem. It will NEVER solve the problem. Arkham Asylum cannot hold the Joker to save its life. In fact, we may as well rename it to Arkham Hotel, because at this point, it's more of a place for Batman's rogues to rest and relax between their plans. They can sleep in and are well fed and taken care of, and they can leave whenever they want. Again, like a freaking hotel.

Plus, you say that fixing the system is Bruce Wayne's job, but let me ask you this: In all of Bruce's years that he's spent trying to use his money to fix the system, has that ever actually worked? The answer is a big, fat NOPE. Gotham has proven time and time again that you can't fix the system by throwing a bunch of money and influence at it. It was a corrupt dunghole on the day that Bruce lost his parents, and it's still a corrupt dunghole today.

And lastly, yes, I do believe that almost every other hero should be held responsible for the actions of their recurring villains too, not just Batman. In the Bat-family, Red Hood is the only one who actually makes sense, and the rest of them are crazy. I was just using Batman because he's the most egregious example, but he's not the only one this applies to. I believe that other supervillains like Lex Luthor, Sinestro, Reverse Flash, Black Manta, and the rest of the Legion of Doom should have been slaughtered like cattle a long time ago, and that their respective Nemesises should have executed them. I said it once and I'll say it again: Those who just stand by and let villains do whatever they want are no better than willing accomplices.

That being said, I understand that every rule has its exceptions, and I should also point out that I don't hold all superheroes responsible for this, nor am I always against the heroes adopting a no-killing rule, because there's a few superheroes who, in my opinion, can actually make the no-killing rule work, and usually have very good reasons for not killing their villains. One example I can think of is Miraculous Ladybug, in which the no-killing rule actually makes sense, because almost all the supervillains in that show are innocent civilians who have been empowered and brainwashed against their will, so killing them would be horrifying. Not to mention that a lot of those brainwashed supervillains are close friends and loved ones of the heroes, so expecting the heroes to use lethal force is just unfair and unreasonable. Another example I can think of is Danny Phantom, in which the no-killing rule debate is completely moot, because about 90% of Danny's enemies are ghosts, so they're already dead to begin with.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 13 more.
    • Total: 771 (members: 34, guests: 737)
    Back
    Top