You're viewing a single thread.
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.