General Batman discussion thread.

[The Romulan Republic]

Granted, you didn't say it was his job to kill the Joker. But I bring up that point because it has a lot of bearing on my position.

As to incarceration being pointless... well, like I said, if he's under lock and key, at least you'll probably get a heads up when he breaks out. Plus, given this is DC, if he resurrects I'd be worried about him coming back with zombie or vampire powers or something (vampire Joker is a thing that has actually happened).

Though he can still torture and kill other inmates and staff. Or corrupt them (see Harley Quinn).

That's actually probably the best argument for killing someone like the Joker in a "realistic" setting, to me. The fucker is so crazy that he's going to be a deadly threat to other inmates and staff anywhere you keep him. The only recourse is likely to be to keep him permanently sedated, or to put him in permanent solitary confinement (which is considered torture).

Killing him might be kinder, if you've written off rehabilitating him (which people generally have).

[Dînadan]

In the comic book world, of course he's going to break out, but the same also applies to him coming back if killed.
...
If you're going to use that for an argument for killing him, then I can just as easily argue that killing him is pointless, because he'll always come back to life.

I may be mistaken, but I believe he was actually killed off in one of the early books back in the 30s/40s, and within like a year they had his goons bring him back to life (sort of like what they've done with him on Gotham come to think of it).

Besides, at this point it wouldn't surprise me that if they did execute him, hell would just send him straight back with a note saying 'No, even we've got standards'.

But all that dodges the point raised above: why is it Batman's job to kill him? Shouldn't that, you know, be the court's job? Or, hell, any of the superheroes/villains who actually are on the government's payroll as spies/assassins/commandoes, and actually have "kill terrorists" as a part of their job description?

Why put it all on one vigilante, who has excellent reasons personal, ethical, and pragmatic not to become an executioner?

Agreed with this. Saying Batman should kill him is just abdicating responsibility; heck, leaving it up to him and other costumed vigilantes to bring criminals in is arguably already abdicating responsibility and realistically a step too far for most criminals (at least with high-level threats like Darkseid or Braniac it's justified in letting the Justice League deal with them as that's outside the scope of law enforcement and conventional military forces aren't up to the task, and as for Batman specific opponents it's justified for threats like Ra's Al Ghul as they operate in a clandestine manner that even intelligence agencies would struggle with outside a Bond film).

[The Romulan Republic]

In the comic book world, of course he's going to break out, but the same also applies to him coming back if killed.
...
If you're going to use that for an argument for killing him, then I can just as easily argue that killing him is pointless, because he'll always come back to life.

I may be mistaken, but I believe he was actually killed off in one of the early books back in the 30s/40s, and within like a year they had his goons bring him back to life (sort of like what they've done with him on Gotham come to think of it).

Besides, at this point it wouldn't surprise me that if they did execute him, hell would just send him straight back with a note saying 'No, even we've got standards'.

That actually raises a very interesting question:

Presuming one believes in Hell, would the Joker go there?

Now, I'm no theologian, but if the Joker is insane, and his crimes and atrocities are a product of insanity (this likely depends somewhat on the version of the character, and one's own interpretation), then can one actually say that he is evil? As opposed to simply sick?

Actually, I think this point was raised in the "I'm a Marvel. And I'm a DC." parody videos- Ghost Rider declines to punish the Joker for precisely this reason.

Agreed with this. Saying Batman should kill him is just abdicating responsibility; heck, leaving it up to him and other costumed vigilantes to bring criminals in is arguably already abdicating responsibility and realistically a step too far for most criminals (at least with high-level threats like Darkseid or Braniac it's justified in letting the Justice League deal with them as that's outside the scope of law enforcement and conventional military forces aren't up to the task, and as for Batman specific opponents it's justified for threats like Ra's Al Ghul as they operate in a clandestine manner that even intelligence agencies would struggle with outside a Bond film).

This, of course, raises the question of why the government can't have its own superhero forces dealing with the problem. There are plenty of superheroes who are members of law enforcement and the military. In addition to shadier shit like Suicide Squad.

I suppose its partly a product of anti-government American political culture, combined with superheroes having grown partly out of the related "lone outlaw hero" archetype.

[Dînadan]

In the comic book world, of course he's going to break out, but the same also applies to him coming back if killed.
...
If you're going to use that for an argument for killing him, then I can just as easily argue that killing him is pointless, because he'll always come back to life.

I may be mistaken, but I believe he was actually killed off in one of the early books back in the 30s/40s, and within like a year they had his goons bring him back to life (sort of like what they've done with him on Gotham come to think of it).

Besides, at this point it wouldn't surprise me that if they did execute him, hell would just send him straight back with a note saying 'No, even we've got standards'.

That actually raises a very interesting question:

Presuming one believes in Hell, would the Joker go there?

Now, I'm no theologian, but if the Joker is insane, and his crimes and atrocities are a product of insanity (this likely depends somewhat on the version of the character, and one's own interpretation), then can one actually say that he is evil? As opposed to simply sick?

Actually, I think this point was raised in the "I'm a Marvel. And I'm a DC." parody videos- Ghost Rider declines to punish the Joker for precisely this reason.

To complicate matters there are some in-universe theories that he's so insane he's looped back around into 'super sanity'*, and if that actually is the case would he still qualify as insane for a theoretic theological insanity plee?



*of course the psychologist that diagnosed him with that was Harlem Quinzelle I believe, so that diagnosis should probably be taken with the entire salt content of the Dead Sea.

Agreed with this. Saying Batman should kill him is just abdicating responsibility; heck, leaving it up to him and other costumed vigilantes to bring criminals in is arguably already abdicating responsibility and realistically a step too far for most criminals (at least with high-level threats like Darkseid or Braniac it's justified in letting the Justice League deal with them as that's outside the scope of law enforcement and conventional military forces aren't up to the task, and as for Batman specific opponents it's justified for threats like Ra's Al Ghul as they operate in a clandestine manner that even intelligence agencies would struggle with outside a Bond film).

This, of course, raises the question of why the government can't have its own superhero forces dealing with the problem. There are plenty of superheroes who are members of law enforcement and the military. In addition to shadier shit like Suicide Squad.

I suppose its partly a product of anti-government American political culture, combined with superheroes having grown partly out of the related "lone outlaw hero" archetype.

Like the problem that Joker won't stay dead I think this is a byproduct of the genre; state sponsored/run teams will either be of dubious nature (such as Suicide Squad), corrupt or be backed by corrupt officials. Remember this we see things like the 'No Man's Land' storyline where the US Government cut off Gotham after it was devastated by an earthquake, or where in Supergirl S1 they wanted to hit National City with a kryptonite bomb to deal with a Kryptonian threat or (to jump company for a minute), the UN tried to nuke New York to deal with the Chittari threat, so invariably any super-team endorsed by the government will end up badly.

[The Romulan Republic]

Which pisses me off, because while their are certainly many problems with misuse of government power (in any country), portraying the government as universally incompetent or corrupt tends to erode public trust in democracy and feed into the "All politicians are just as bad" mindset, which ultimately, ironically, tends to help get the worst politicians into power.

I would like to see a government team that were basically good people trying to do the right thing. But that's hard to do without them going rogue, because the strictures of law and accountability that a government sponsored-team would have to operate under even (perhaps especially) if they weren't corrupt constrain the stories you can tell.

Maybe a half-way compromise would be a sort of modernized version of privateering- the government would issue letters of authorization to superhero teams with a proven track record, giving them legal sanction to operate on the state's behalf, but with limitations as to who they were allowed to operate against (like, domestically, only crimes in progress and people with a warrant out for their arrest, plus countries the government was at war with overseas).

Of course, privateers would work for money, generally- which comes off as less heroic and more mercenary. Maybe have the government contract out to non-profit NGOs though?

But I can't think of any real-world precedent for that when it comes to security, law enforcement, intelligence, or war.

On the other hand, a superhero 'verse really ought to function very differently from the real world. The frequent depiction of such worlds as "contemporary Earth, but with superheros" is lazy world-building, even if I can understand its appeal.

[Dînadan]

Maybe a half-way compromise would be a sort of modernized version of privateering- the government would issue letters of authorization to superhero teams with a proven track record, giving them legal sanction to operate on the state's behalf, but with limitations as to who they were allowed to operate against (like, domestically, only crimes in progress and people with a warrant out for their arrest, plus countries the government was at war with overseas).

I could see the Justice League working like this (albeit with the letter of marque signed by the UN rather than a 'local' government, but unfortunately it wouldn't be long before the writers decided to have them start getting tied up in red tape and chafing under restrictions and going rogue/disbanding when that prevented them doing their job or disagreeing about it and splinteringwith some staying and others going their own way (not sure which way Batman would go; on the one hand his very nature is operating outside the law, but on the other he's probably the one (at least of the core members) that's most conscious of crossing the line - as Chuck has brought up in his JL reviews, while the rest of the League were horrified by how different their Justice Lords counterparts were, Batman realised how little it would take to make him into his counterpart and in later episodes the others were more willing to take extreme measures without realising how close to the line they were becoming whereas Bats did see it)

Of course, privateers would work for money, generally- which comes off as less heroic and more mercenary. Maybe have the government contract out to non-profit NGOs though?

I could see Bats, as Bruce Wayne funding such a thing (maybe being the JL's official sponsor?) as part of his charitable work, but the problem is that he'd probably use it to make sure the 'right' heroes got onto the team, which sounds good, but only because we know he's doing it for the right reasons/out of good intentions, but if Luthor did it then it'd immediately fall into the corruption side of things.

On the other hand, a superhero 'verse really ought to function very differently from the real world. The frequent depiction of such worlds as "contemporary Earth, but with superheros" is lazy world-building, even if I can understand its appeal.

It is unfortunately part of the whole 'comic book time' problem. Personally I'd like to see them actually progress things rather than do a cosmic reboot every few years to keep things the same. We have seen some progression; we've seen Dick Grayson graduate to Nightwing, Jason Todd take over as Robin and die, Tim Drake take over then graduate to Red Robin and Dick take over as Batman. Then the reboot button was hit and Dick was Nightwing again and had never been Batman. It would be far nicer if they kept on the progression. Bruce comes back; fine. Have both Bruce and Dick be Batman, but run with that and keep with that, until it gets to the point where Bruce is getting too old. At that point have him have an experience like he did in Batman Beyond that makes him realise he's to old, but instead of him retiring into a crotchety life of solitude, have him retire to an Alfred-like role, while Damian grows up and becomes either Dick's co-Batman or otherwise graduates from Robin to his own super-identity while someone else becomes Robin. And while that happens have society and technology move on; the various supervillains may be idiots for using their advanced tech to rob banks instead of patenting it and making a fortune by selling it commercially, but surely there's someone working for the police, or S.T.A.R Labs or whoever that could reverse engineer it and put it towards less lethal means to advance society (or at least someone in military intelligence to put it towards revolutionising the armed forces...although put like that maybe it's for the best they don't, otherwise WWIII would happen and look even nastier than it would in real life).

[FaxModem1]

In truth, Batman HAS worked for the government, to 'help stop those evil Japanese'. It was the 1940s.

[The Romulan Republic]

So Batman is canonically a racist?

On the other hand, I don't even known how many times they've rebooted since then.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

It's DC comics. Reboots are kinda their thing.

Also, I'm gonna come out with this:
Batman TAS joker is vastly superior to the Dark Knight joker.

[Dînadan]

Also, I'm gonna come out with this:
Batman TAS joker is vastly superior to the Dark Knight joker.

Agreed, and I’m sure we can all agree both are superior to the DCCU Joker.