Batman's No Kill Rule is Mentally Retarded - A Rant
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- Holy forced narrative device, Batman!
Get your RazörForce Fatigues:
www.teepublic....
Rumble:
rumble.com/c/R...
Bitchute:
www.bitchute.c...
Odysee:
www.odysee.com...
Razör on Unauthorized TV:
unauthorized.t...
DailyMotion:
www.dailymotio...
DLive (For censorship-free Streams!):
www.dlive.tv/r...
Check RazörFist on Twitter: / raz0rfist
Join the RazörFist Force: steamcommunity....
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!
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.
"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.
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
If they refuse rehabilitation and redemption, then they accept execution.
That's not how mental health works. Sometimes it's a life long struggle
@@neilstone3656 If you're too crazy to be around people, and too smart to be contained in an asylum, there's not all that many options left.
@@neilstone3656 You can't struggle if you don't even try.
@@neilstone3656Mental health is a scam.
@@radiokunio3738 tbf from what we know of arkham its not exactly the best place for treatment either
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
"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.
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.
Batman will break his back trying to save Joker. He did the same when every crook was gunning for two face in batman rebirth.
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
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.
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."
When did batman ever said that
Wolverine : Meanwhile 20,000 killers will not ever kill again…
"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.
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.
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.
I mean, I’d say Riddler’s arrogance and his compulsions to leave clues are more or less intertwined. He wants everyone to know he’s the smartest and that he can run intellectual rings around them, to the point he simply can’t not leave clues to try and prove his pursuers can’t beat him in a battle of wits.
@@a_fine_edition2746 Good point. The _need_ for the smug satisfaction is key to what makes him fun.
I suppose what I meant was that he shouldn't be defined by just his madness. Leaves him feeling a little empty in some versions. *coughTheBatmancough*
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
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.
"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)
@@grandcanyon-d4dSo Goku would kill the Joker since he can't be contained in Arkham?
@@Alex_Fahey he most likely would put him in a place he won't hurt anyone
@@grandcanyon-d4d Not true at all. He's more than glad to kill anyone who poses a threat. At least that's how it used to be. Back in the original Dragon Ball, you'd see Goku kill guys left and right. 2 were red ribbon army soldiers who tried to reap Bulma (they could've been easily contained, but hey the better call really was to just kill those s.o.b's) , blew up the helicopters they were riding in, instant death. Afterwards, the body count kept stacking. Exploding vehicles with men still in them, likely instantaneous death from getting their heads thrown at boulders/walls (Goku storming the red ribbon army facilities, and their main base), finishing off General Black while he was still in his robot suit, explosion. Yeah a lot of the deaths were because of explosions but hey, they were always because Goku did so with intent. The moment Krillin died after the tournament had just finished, Goku was out for blood. He didn't care if whomever could "easily be contained", they killed his friend. When Goku learned that it was under orders, he didn't stop at just killing off tambourine, he was out to kill the guy who gave the orders too. No, prior to Super, and especially prior to Z, Goku had no issues with killing anyone who posed a threat to himself or his friends. It's only around the Frieza Saga is when we see this excuse to keep villains alive (the ginyus, who had just beaten his son to near death), that was already going on Batman levels of ridiculous bs, just to say "oh yeah he's different cause he shows mercy to his enemies but fights against his Saiyan blood". That was just Toriyama (no disrespect to him, just criticizing here), making up an excuse to tell the story he was trying to do. The same with letting Vegeta escape "I wanna fight him again cause muh Saiyan genes", Kid Goku would've finished him off without hesitation, the ginyus included.
(prior to this he convincingly killed mercenary Tao despite himself being the stronger fighter, because Tao already killed someone on screen)
@@grandcanyon-d4dAny sane mind would give the joker the death penalty, that’s the point of this video. The no kill rule is insane.
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.
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 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 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.
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."
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
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 title should have been, "Why Tim Burton's Batverse is superior.”
💯
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.
"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
He's ready to kill Superman if Superman is a little angry about something, but he won't kill the Joker.
I mean, there's an episode of Batman Beyond where Old Bruce and Terry find out that Superman "killed" another superhero. I put the killed in parentheses because it's eventually revealed that Superman got some sort of alien parasite attached to him that made him do it.
But legit, Old Bruce without questioning remotely whether his longtime friend that he served alongside in the Justice League might have been infected with such a parasite or any other case of mind-control in a world where he knows that those are in fact THINGS THAT EXIST issued Terry a kryptonite bullet and straight-up advised him to KILL SUPERMAN the first chance he had.
Meanwhile, this same universe version of Batman hesitated to kill Joker after he tortured Tim Drake and turned him into Joker, Jr.! I mean, what is WRONG with Batman!?
He won't give Supes the benefit of the doubt despite all the good he has done over the years and showing EXCELLENT restraint with the powers he has but he will spare a psychopathic mass-murder such as Joker who has tortured his own closest friends and confidants!!!???
Joker blows up a nuclear bomb in Injustice and Batman still thinks Superman is in the wrong for killing the insane wack job who just murdered millions including Superman's wife and child. It's stuff like that that makes Batman a bad character. I'm at the point where I'm fine with how he died in Sushi Squad. He kept giving those people free passes and he fucked around way too much and found out.
@coltonwilkie241 Yeah, I mean that's just ridiculous.
I remember someone made a parody video of Mace Windu killing Palpatine in Revenge of the Sith, and then turning to the Dark Side and it was done as a joke, but someone in the comments made another quip about how if you can't just end the life of an obviously evil dude without turning to the dark side what's the point of the Jedi?
The same logic applies for Batman and really all heroes. Yes, no one obviously thinks that you should just mindlessly kill every criminal, yes, are people who turned to crime in bad circumstances or they just made bad decisions in life and can be reformed. But you also have people such as the Joker or Palpatine in this case who are just evil and make it clear that they do not want to be reformed and will happily do evil again. And in that case it is actually good to just end their lives for the purpose of sparing the world of an evil psychopath.
This is actually why Michael Keaton is my favorite Batman because he isn't afraid of letting hardened criminals die such as the Joker and his minions for the purpose of sparing Gotham of their horror in the future.
There's an obvious clear difference to anyone with even a quarter of a mind between arresting a random punk on the street and killing a genuine psychopath. This is why those who advocate against the death penalty are moronic.
@coltonwilkie241 what is sushi squad btws? Is that like a parody of Suicide Squad or something?
@@twenty-eightrockNo, it's just a funny way of saying Suicide Squad. The UA-cam censors can be cantankerous at times.
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.
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.
batman's no kill rule is basically a plot armor for villains
Its literally the only reason they're still kicking.
If joker were real, his ass would've been executed after the second massacre
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.
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.
The real reason Batman won't kill is we'd very quickly run out of villans for him to fight.
Wolverine doesn’t run out of people to fight, and he has the most kills for a superhero in the Marvel Universe, exceeding even the kill count of The Punisher
@@AdrianFahrenheitTepes
I guess you didn't get the joke.
I was implying that, if Batman killed, he would be so efficient and effective we'd run out of villans. Exaggeration is often a part of humor. That said, I direct you to what the Joker once said about explaining the joke.
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!!!!!
Arkham Asylum has to have the most incompetent security and vetting process in all fiction.
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
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
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.
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.
The main problem with Batmans No killing Rule is that at one point it doesn´t make sense any more.
Joker, Scarecrow, Mr. Zsasz etc. kill and terrorize dozens of people every they escape from Arkham, Batman shows up, beats the living shit out of them and takes them back to Arkham.
It would make more sense if the writers just would come up with a good idea to finally get rid of Joker:
Have him killed by one of his own death traps or have him killed by another new (psychotic) villain.
Why not make some of the more sympathic villains redeem themselves and join Batman to atone for their crimes (Two - Face for example) ?
Give Batman a new big baddie he can fight. Maybe some member of the KKK who has occult powers, a vampire mob boss from italy or maybe a nearly immortal killer a la Michael Myers / Jason Voorhees.
In the trailer for Suicide Squad: Isekai Joker and Harley blow up a dozen of hostages after a bank robbery and I know it should make them probably "cool", "edgy" and "dangerous" but when I saw that my thoughts were: "Why Joker and Harley at this point are still breathing and not beaten to death by a lynch mob or shot by the national guard ?"
The manga / Anime Akame ga kill is about a group of freedom fighters who fight against a corrupt, tyrannical government and the main villains have no tragic backstory why they make countless people suffer.
Prime minister Honest is a greedy degenerate and his main goal is to f++++k a lot of beautiful women, eat delicious food and partake in orgies while the rest of the kingdom is turned in a genocidal dictatorship while General Esdeath, his right hand woman, is obsessed with war and has zero problems to commit atrocities on a daily basis.
The heroes make at one point clear that their killings are not really noble but the people they murder are slave traders, war criminals, serial killers, rapists and other degenerates which make the rest of the kingdoms population suffer (in other words there killings are justified).
Look I have nothing against villains with tragic backstories but there is nothing wrong with villains who are total p++++s of
s++t (as long they are interesting written) which makes the audience want to see them to get punched into a bloody pulp.
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!
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 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.
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.
They’d have Joker find some workaround to survive and come back. He’s fucking unkillable at this point and it’s infuriating.
The tried and true Owen Hart piledriver is a pretty good method to incapacitate someone. Of course it would have to be done a couple more times than just once. Wouldn't want Joker no selling paralysis like Steve Austin.
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 meta evolution of Batman is really weird.
Early Golden Age Batman was A-okay with killing bad guys, but he was gradually softened to be more kid friendly. I don't know if the no-kill rule was a result of the comic code, but it was certainly reinforced by it. Now it has become unbreakable dogma.
Not just the no-kill thing is hugely different. Batman wasn't obscenely wealthy at the beginning. He was a one percenter socialite, but he wasn't one of the richest men alive. His father was just a wealthy doctor who left Bruce with enough money to live comfortably. Then somewhere along the way DC decided Bruce needed to be lizard people rich.
I don't know about now (because comics are so terrible) but when I stopped reading comics about 5 years ago, Batman was the greatest fighter as well as one of the smartest people on Earth. He didn't used to be perfect at everything. Now when Batman and Superman fight, Superman is the underdog for how many times Batman has defeated him. The fanboys who were given the keys to Batman kept on making him better and smarter and now Batman has become god-like, surpassing literal gods in the DC universe. The "Batman is relatable because he's a normal human," argument makes absolutely no sense.
The no killing code is a DC own creaton in the early 40's not the Comics Code.
@@EvandroACruz I suspected as much since they made Batman much more kid friendly during that time.
Agreed. He's OP af
@@fattiger6957 That's because Early Golden Age Batman was a Villain Protagonist at the time, that's why he was able to kill. Once he was no longer the villain, he decided, he didn't want to kill.
@@fattiger6957 And that's why modern incarnations of Batman is a "hero".
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.
@@godfrey4461he's detective not an judge or executioner he believes he doesn't have the right to decide somebody's Life to take it or not. In a messed up city he is trying to fix the system and not to be the god of the system coz that's fascism.
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.
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.
'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...
Villain: "Batman ! Quick i'm sinking in this pool of acid !"
Correct Batman: *smacks lips* "That's a shame what a rotten way to die"
Cue noir ambiance
*And then that villain becomes the Joker because Correct Batman refused to save him, because muh grimdark*
@@orrorsaness5942 And then Correct Batman finishes the job the second the Joker takes another life.
@@kemp9842 Based
Sooo, Batman 89 then ?
This is why Thomas Wayne is my favorite Batman.
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
This is why Yuri Lowell is my favorite JRPG protagonist. If there’s a corrupt politician or kid diddler, he just wastes them, no ifs, no buts, no coconuts.
I just wish Tales of Vesperia's plot wasn't so meandering.
@@MrDevious88 Yeah, and the last second world ending plot twist of almost globally induced tentacle hentai.
That comment alone is gonna make me play Tales of Vesperia.
I misread that as Yuri Lowenthal, the voice actor
@@almalone3282Me too, I was like what he is?
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.
Been saying this for years. Batman’s “no kill” shit is tantamount to cruelty to Gotham. The Joker has filled literal graveyard with corpses, yet Batman is like “well, I can’t possibly kill you…” and just shoves him into Arkham so he can escape two days later and kill hundreds more.
At this point Bob the CCW holder would be a bigger hero than Batman the second he domed the Joker.
Amen
I've actually given thought to what would happen to someone who killed the Joker because they came into Gotham City carrying a gun and were the joker's worst day of his life:
The incredibly corrupt Gotham City court system would throw him in Arkham asylum and drive him insane, making him the next Joker.
And you could do it really well as a story, by having the character Charlie from the animated series episode "joker's favor", and have him become the nice jokey clown that doesn't kill anybody.
Batman: NOOO!!! IF YOU KILL HIM YOU'LL BE JUST LIKE HIM!!!!
Johnny Cage: CLOWN BALLS GO SQUISH!
Yes, i'm Batman, i don't kill because i don't want to be like the villains. I'll rightfully deliver them to the most broken, corrupt and ineffective justice system and police force on the planet. That should help!
Funni
I thought the whole point of being a vigilante was *because* the justice system is broken and ineffective, so you take it into your hands to do the job better.
The no kill rule only works if everyone is following it. Maybe it could stretch for just Batman if the cops and justice system were competent enough to render Batman redundant.
However, if your job is to handle people with a rap sheet more prolific than the whole of Al-Qaeda, be prepared to deliver a Gaddafi farewell.
Based
I really do feel that batman's "No kill rule" could be done right. The movies handled it well. "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you."
Batman is a vigilante and can't legally kill his opponents willy nilly. He does not consider himself above the law and should not. But because he won't this puts the argument on the government and law enforcement's court. Joker has been the strongest argument for the death Sentence in DC and the Writers absolute refusal to even entertain that as a punishment for him is why Batman gets a lot of flak.
Batman has repeatedly, constantly, and consistently delivered this mass slaughtering madman on a silver platter to the law and yet no one there decides to execute him? That it's somehow BATMAN'S responsibility to kill the Joker.
And it's not a question of due process because we've seen him be charged guilty, we've seen him be sentenced. But every time he gets sent to a MENTAL WARD. Forget the cardboard nature of Arkham and remember that it is not even a hard prison. And this isnt exclusive with just the Joker.
At this point, I feel Batman maintains his "No kill policy" to see how many Darwin awards Gotham can earn before they wise up and do their damn job.
I can understand the no kill rule for the first, maybe even the second time someone escapes from Arkham and commits some horrific crime. But the third? At a certain point Batman is responsible in part for the deaths all of these supervillains commit. He had the means to stop them and he’s sent them through the Justice systems multiple times. If anything, all Batman has accomplished is stopping the worst excess of his rogue’s atrocities and proving that the Arkham Justice system is fundamentally broken
@@BR-dy1ie That right there is the stupidest mindset. The only guy accomplishing anything is at fault because Everyone else is content fucking up. Batman has made it clear that he is not above the law. And if he takes it into his own hands, it would make him an effective despot.
The fault lies in the Justice system that flatly refuses to change. And for that matter, if you want people to take action into their own hands, why not ask the cops he hands the criminals to. Why can't joe cap joker in the head once Batman hands him off? In universe, the people in Gotham will have to, at some point, admit that if they won't pressure their government to do their damn job they deserve the joker. Out of universe, it's funny to see that our real life cities mimic this criminal system minus the Batman.
Superhero supposed to preserve life not taken her. The villains life are sacred too. And Batman always believe in redemption.
@@EvandroACruz Tell that to the families of the Joker's victims.
@@kemp9842 The Joker sins don't excuse we do the same thing with him.We need be better.
This is why I'm more of a Punisher fan than a Batman fan. I absolutely loved The Punisher beat em up game from Capcom and the PS2 & Xbox game.
Of course Batman never goes against the ADL.
It's like having the Joker fight against The IRS!
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?
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.
I will never forget Android 16's speech to Gohan in Dragon Ball Z about how some people cannot be reasoned with and that monsters like Cell pretty much deserved a 'Father-son Kamehameha" to the face, you would never see this in western fiction from now, especially Big Two comics that rely on the same two characters because creating new ones is a problem or something so the Green Goblin and the Joker have to keep coming back no matter how little sense it makes to keep those two monsters alive.
Because life is scared and always are hope that can change one day. Killing just make the hero be like the villain in the end of day.
@@EvandroACruz BS. Joker and Green Goblin alone have killed way more people in the process, how many people Batman and Spiderman indirectly killed by allowing those two jokesters to still keep going on their merry way?
@@EvandroACruz , going by your line of reasoning Luffy is a villain too since he's just The Punisher with a Mythical Fruit.
@@RoronoaZoro-ur6hr I mean, Luffy himself states that he is a villain and a thief. He became a pirate TO BE a villain. Luffy doesn't want to be a hero, never has been, and never wanted to be. If he wanted to be a hero (his words not mine) he "would've joined the navy".
@@orrorsaness5942 , Luffy himself at most could be argued to being an anti-villain, but he isn't fully a villain since he saves lives.
the way i see it, batman's no kill rule isn't a well thought out rule made by a paragon of justice and goodness; it's an over-reactive response made by a child that saw his parents get killed. batman blames himself for his parent's death, and cannot bring himself to be responsible for another death.
he doesn't just dislike the idea of killing someone, he fears killing, because he thinks it will turn him into the guy that killed his parents, the guy that destroyed any possibility of him living a decent life.
They tried to frame it as a flaw in Batman’s character. To be fair, superheroes aren’t a gold standard for character flaws.
"Batman killed more people than Pol pot!"
Bro, I'm dying! 😂
It works when he isn’t fighting murderous psychopaths but silly guys in tights because Batman is just as crazy as his rouge gallery, I blame the Gotham water supply.
That water supply has been fucked with so many times I'm surprised it ain't mutagen at this point.
Or glorified thieves like Catwoman or Ragdoll. They don't want trouble, they just want some museum's bauble.
@@1krani Fair
@@illuminossentertainment3253 Yup, so true
He isn't crazy he saves lives and is one of the most logical heroes ever created.
Pretty much any crossover with the Punisher, I'm always on the Punisher's side. Fortunately if Ennis is writing him, he usually wins the debate with bullets.
Never heard of The Shadow until now, but hearing about him as well as watching your vid on Elric makes me sadge that these old pulp stories aren't readily available. I'd love to give them a read.
Also yeah the no kill rule is one of those things that only really works in like the more campy era of batman where Joker was mostly just a bank robber with a gimmick and ya had characters like condiment king. It's even worse considering we very rarely see batman villains turn good and it become a permanent fixture within the canon. It really is just a cheap excuse to reuse characters and maintaining the status quo of the series without any real development.
I think you can find the shadow radio show and books on the IA.
0:20 "a conveniently placed gargoyle" 😂
No wonder people love the likes of the Punisher and why these characters are totally right (in-universe at least).
"Sounds good, dosen't work."
so true mate
Batman's no-kill policy was so sacred, they had Superman kill the Joker instead.
Superman never should kill the Joker. Injustice plot is dumb like hell.
@@EvandroACruz Yup. What a great "UhLtErNeT" universe it was.
Haha you made it jiggle for me 😀
@@EvandroACruzand it should have ONLY been 1 game … injustice 2 is goofy … instead the “other justice league” that left the Injustice universe should have returned to their universe for KINGDOM COME.
In kingdom Come, someone ELSE kills Joker after Joker kills Louis Lane and others.
Instead of INJUSTICE 2, we should have had KINGDOM COME, where JUSTICE LEAGUE that goes back to their universe arrives 10 years later because of time travel/multiverse shenanigans.
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.
Why SHOULD Batman kill anyone? He is someone working to CATCH the bad guys...he is NOT the JUDGE or the EXECUTIONER! The city of Gotham and/or the State should be handling that!
FACTS
Because he took the responsibility of handling villains by virtue of being around them he has indirectly caused suffering. For example a friend telling me he is going to kill a group of people and me not doing anything about it would relatively make me a crappy person and an indirect cause to a group of peoples suffering. Stuff like this would not pass in real life
It's always awkward whenever anyone directly asks Batman about why he doesn't kill because his "best" response is "I dont want to become like them" Im sorry but if his moral compass is so flimsy that he'd turn into a psycho murderer presumably killing good people as well as bad people after only killing a single REALLY bad person, which is where im assuming the fear stems from, then he probably should have just committed himself to getting therapy after a certain point.
That's fair.
Exactly. If that's the only thing separating him from his villains, then he doesn't need to be wearing the cowl at all.
All true, but at the same time, if we go the other direction he turns into the Punisher.
I think the ideal is he refuses to outright kill, buuut, *Those he runs across will wish they were dead* with how much pain they are in and will always be. Thus does agony and humiliation be Batman's weapon. That criminals fear not death but to be broken and lame, to be left handicapped. To be at the mercy of the society they exploited.
THAT is true vengeance, far more severe than a swift death nor a stint in Arkham.
Yup, exactly
That could work pretty well, there's a game called dishonored, it's "morality" system is based on whether you kill a lot or not and it seems at first like it's saying "no killing is wrong! Even against tyrants who killed your innocent wife!!!", but the non lethal solutions to taking out your targets have very severe consequences for the targets and you could argue some are worse than death.
My memory is foggy on the specifics but I remember two of them that are especially severe, one of them you brand a guys face and later on something happens to him (don't remember exactly what) but it ends up with him turning into a weeper which is basically a zombie if I remember right.
The other has you help some masked psycho at a party kidnap the female target who he is obsessed with by boat taking her God knows where and doing things to her.
Yup. It's ridiculous. But it's also almost a moot point, because even more stupid is the fact that whatever state Gotham is in still doesn't have the death penalty. There's no way Batman's rogues gallery wouldn't have gotten the chair by now.
I've always hated the "superheroes shouldn't kill" mantra. It's so childish and shows that those who peddle it have zero understanding of reality nor the maturity to comprehend it.
Even Spidey was ready to kill the Green Goblin after Gobby had killed Gwen (who in my canon is still dead in all universes and never became a spider person or Deadpool or any of the other characters they slapped on her thanks to Antos spreading her legs for the Marvel bullpen).
Oh boy they do understand, comics are to mold young minds in to no killing bad guys. Like ones responsible for 2008 house market crash for example, U did send a message, they can fuck your life up and you will bail them out.
No amount of prep time can allow batman to end crime in gotham
That'll be just Disney land, and bat mythos and is more realistically textured than any other superhero fictional world.
An 18 minute video from Razor? No matter the topic, an absolute fuck yeah ❤
Okay but a story about Batman executing the Joker on Pay Per View sponsored by Wayne Enterprises in order to attract investors so that he could pay for a super weapon to defeat a larger enemy would be a hilarious tale to explore.
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.
The issue is that writers don't handle it properly. Batman could maintain the "no kill" rule if he was able to assist in the application of the legal system on the criminals he faces.
Perhaps this is why Batman Beyond is superior, past and future villains meet their ends and face some form of lasting justice.
Long Halloween’s approach is tangential to this. Batman essentially says he views himself as a super-cop and believes the sentencing should remain with the judge and jury. Joker’s continued existence post-apprehension is on Gotham’s legal system.
@@MilliardoVT Only issue is Batman isn't a cop. He still takes the law into his own hands. He's also a billionaire who can easily pay and fund change. Yet he'd rather hand off his super baddies to the same justice system that not only perpetuates these freaks but lets them free on the innocence of Gotham. He is equally apart of the problem as the horrible justice system.
Reminder that in Injustice, Joker sets off a nuclear bomb, killing millions in the process and Batman still thinks Superman is the bad guy for killing the insane clown.
Growing up is realising Batman is a bad character.
It would be interesting if instead of turning evil, Superman just returns to normal, and we see Batman constantly chastising him.
@@elliotyourarobot yea, and see batman have a homelander like descent into madness.
@@elliotyourarobotKingdom Come, a better story. In fact, the whole point of Kingdom Come is that society hates superheroes for not being like The Punisher
@@johnklein4511 How old is batman?
@@AdrianFahrenheitTepes sounds interesting.
the reason i like spawn is he don't act all high and mighty...he is like you're bad and evil so i'll fuck you up.
The biggest issue I've found with Batman's No Kill rule is that it makes him a self-righteous hypocrite when someone else finally has enough and ends Joker or any other costumed asshole. The Injustice Universe's central conflict could be summed up as "Batman can't accept bad men need to be put down", Superman ends Joker after he made Superman inadvertently nuke Metropolis and kill Lois and his unborn child. Batman cannot and will not believe anyone wouldn't live by his Slippery Slope mindset, where it gets easier and easier to justify extreme measures, and plots to put Superman in prison or down permanently to the point where he lets HARLEY QUINN join his crew. Y'know the one who helped Joker NUKE Metropolis!!
Furthermore, he refuses to end Joker after he kills Jason Todd and gives a really smug sounding explanation when Todd comes back from the dead. Paraphrased "All I've ever wanted to do is kill him... but if I do that, I won't come back", I'm sorry what? Joker kills your ward, essentially your son, and you want to hide behind morals to explain why you wouldn't end the bastard who killed your son?! Then Batman has the gall to get between Joker and Jason, when Jason rightly wants to put two rounds in Joker's head; which isn't the last time he does this. Nightwing beats Joker to death and Batman resuscitates Joker...
At some point one must wonder who Batman actually cares about, his family and city or the psychopathic clown who gleefully fills entire graveyards.
No, because he believe that is possible stop the evil without fall in the same level of the villains.
@@EvandroACruz By letting the villains continue to kill, their victims' blood is on Batman's hands as well. He could have prevented it, yet he chose not to.
@@kemp9842 Is not Batman fault is the law fault.Killing is not the solution. Killing don't will make Gotham a better place. Killing is childshish and a simpleton soluction.
@@EvandroACruz The only thing you have a point on is that the law is clearly failing. Which is why Batman took on the role of vigilante in the first place. Now that he's in that role, it's his responsibility to kill the Joker, since the law won't.
@@EvandroACruz When the law is clearly inadequate, natural justice is expected to take it's place. Batman is a vigilante, not a superhero, who by placing himself in the position to take justice into his own hands should expect to fulfill ALL the requirements needed. Part of upholding the law is to make the choice to put down a clearly dangerous, unrepentant monster; ask any cop who has had to take a life while doing their job.
If Batman cannot do that, he shouldn't wear the tights. Before anyone says that police have accountability, remember that Batman has no accountability. He answers to no member of the Judicial process, he acts outside Due Process and commits acts of brutality towards those he deems guilty. So for him to balk at the thought of putting down a rabid dog like the Joker or Scarecrow reeks of him not being truly committed to his own cause.
Instead it seems like he just wants an excuse to beat the everloving crap out of the "bad guys" and keep his conscience clean when the same "bad guys" rip families apart.
The rule was not for Batman. It is for the writers. Not every villain they create is popular and the didn't want to keep coming up with new villains as Batman mowes them down punisher style.
Though you gotta admit. Batfleck’s branding of the criminals he catches is pretty gangster.
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 only one who finally put this absolutely stupid rule in the dirt was Frank Miller.
A Bruce Wayne that uses an M60 like it's a marksman rifle, a handgun, several grenades and even a tank.
Why would a dude who resides in the fictional equivalent of *Detroit* ever show mercy to people who wouldn't do so in kind and would just reoffend anyways?
Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent, but I guess people forget Bruce Wayne is a mental case.
Bro he isn't supposed to be taking the laws into his own hands, the law is supposed to come over him. Also the fact that he apprehends them doesn't mean he is suddenly above it. What he does has implications and sends messages to people. Whether you like it or not, the truth is the deaths caused by the Joker is not on Batman's hand.
@@Rengokuo4o6he's a vigilante, he literally is taking the Law into his hands every night. You can argue that he only wants to supplant the role of the police, and not the court system, but this excuse Falls flat when the joke as a body count in the thousands and Arkham is shown to be a revolving door.
@@SR-uy9lw no, leaving the actual judgement for those in authority even at his own expense keeps him under the law in some form.
@@Rengokuo4o6idk what this means but the Batman being vigilante and breaking law means he is taking the law into his own hands and he is doing an arguably bad job at it
Contemporary reason: cannot give kiddies (and mankiddies) the wrong idea abour vigilantism being an acceptable option sometimes.
Looks like I need another Ghost of the Badlands shirt, because that T-shirt looks badass.
Batman: I won’t kill the joker
Superman: Hold my cape…
Superman don't kill too.
@@EvandroACruzExcept for when he did in Man of Steel, lol.
Golden Age Superman killed a lot of thugs in the 1930s and 1940s .Kal-L was who was supposed to be that same character killed the Antimonitor.
Silver/Bronze age version killed Mr Mxyptlk in Whattever happened to the man of tomorrow.
Post crisis version killed Zod and other 2 Krypton criminals,Doomsday and Imperiex.
@@GatsbyCioffi Man of Steel is not Superman.Just Zack Snyder twisted vision..
@@carlosaugustodinizgarcia3526That history where he killed Mxypltk never was canon. Just a Elseworld written by Alan Moore.Dc erased your killing of the Zod some years later. Doomsday never can be killed in fact. And he never killed Imperiex. The whole point in that story is about Superman find another way to stop Imperiex and Brainiac 13 without kill them.
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 no kill rule makes no sense as it is. But i could see a order of operations like the police have. The joker and others like him should have had death sentences in the judicial system.
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.