Why does most of Cred Forums want adult badass killer superheroes? Especially when it comes to batman. Lurking around I've seen so many arguments about whether or not batman should or shouldn't kill, and its got me to think: do we really want batman to kill? What does it mean to be a hero? And that does it mean to be a super hero? What separates them? Is batman a vigilante, or a hero? What do we NEED him to be?
I've always thought killing his enemies wasn't the right answer, simply because if you kill them, there is no hope for anyone becoming better. There was once when joker was made sane by some other comicbook character and he cried in front of batman asking him to forgive him. I think about moments like that when it comes to batman killing. Do we want children to look at batman and see him kill his enemies? He is a huge icon, and I get that it's all subjective, but why must batman kill to save the day? Isn't that the challenge? The thing that separates him from other superheros who don't kill from the rest? Sure it's easy to just stay the heart of your enemy, but it takes a fuckton more effort to incapacitate them and stop them without killing them. But that makes him a hero, does it not? As I stated before; what makes a hero? Does him not killing make him a super hero? An icon? A symbol for hope for children who want to see him be batman? I'd rather my children not watch batman slaughter his enemies. Not because it's batman but because hero's don't slaughter people. That's what villains do is it not? If you stand in front of a child who just watched you kill the joker, regardless of whether joker deserved it, that child will look at you as just as much of a murderer as h
Joker was. And when a child looks at you and thinks,"killer" doesn't that mean you've stopped being a hero? And why not send them to prison and then use the system to help them? I know there are some comics where Bruce just throws silly money to the rehabilitation of his rogues.
Why does most of Cred Forums want adult badass killer superheroes? Especially when it comes to batman...
Batman not killing was solely a marketing move.
It helped sell comics that were kid friendly.
Batman works just fine as a more rough and tumble guy.
My dude it's still Batman. Batman will be a crass commercial product for children no matter what.
I'm not reading that wall of text but "most of Cred Forums" doesn't mean jack shit on a board filled with casuals and shitposters and Cred Forums posters who don't even read comics.
I've been here for years and I've been reading comics for over a decade and I don't want "adult badass killer superheroes" where it's not appropriate for the character.
Not really.
Stuff like Batman Returns and Batman Year 100 are definitely not for kids.
I want Batman to kill because he always used to in the very oldest comics that are still the best. He's best as a noir vigilante in the Shadow mold, not Superman in a gray costume.
not sure if bait
Batman does work better as a killer though.
This is what Cred Forums thinks about Batman killing
That's correct, rather it SHOULD be correct.
So what are Batman's ten most important character traits?
I agree with as to killing not being appropriate for the character but with batman his character is flexible enough to go on both sides. But for this character why does killing seem to "work better" as put it? (also nice dubs) batman not killing as a marketing move became a staple of his character which is why we are all concerning about it currently.
This
Not bait. The Greatest Batman Stories Ever Told book should be easy to find, and (at least the edition I have) contains two of them, stories from single-digit issues of the Batman book AFAIK. In one he shoots the piss out of a monk who turns out to be a vampire after making some silver bullets, in the other one he first kills a bunch of insane violent giants created from retards by Hugo Strange, then chucks Strange out a window. Early Batman ain't give a fuck.
>"work better"
Put it this way, if I had a choice between killer Batman and 50's and 60's kiddie Batman, i'd choose kiler Bats everytime.
But the best would be a guy who kills when it's necessary, but doesn't start every fight with the intent to kill.
Like when he killed Darksied. That should happen more often.
You can't have a rogue gallery if the hero kills.
it's just an easy way to shitpost about Batman
most of Cred Forums dislikes the character so they will try everything to make him look worse than he is
You win.
I'm not angry yet roday, and I want to stay that way.
I have no argument, the 60's show is best batman, killing is for edgelords, darkness in any form is immature.
Good day, m'nigger.
Is there seriously no way to just incapacitate niggas like Darkseid forever? I know normal prisons won't work, but fuck. If batman is that smart shouldn't he be able to permanently incapacitate his worst enemies? I am not necessarily against him killing when absolutely necessary, in a fight against Darkseid it is just self defense, but doesn't it make him the superior being to be able to stop ANYONE without resulting to the easiest yet most controversial method? I don't think it's ever been about batman killing. It's been about someone who is at the peak of human potential deciding to kill. It's about whether we are OK with killing. Because he is us. Superman can easily incapacitate anyone. But can a human do so?
I legitimately want to know batman's 10 most defining traits.
>Especially when it comes to batman
Those threads are Batman hate threads, pure bait.
ITT: projecting problems just because of brand loyalty
Capefags have the biggest victim complex.
>I claim to dislike capeshit
>I enter capeshit threads to virtue signal
Autistic devotion to justice
No guns
Putting others people life over his own
Being rich
Dressing like a bat
Trained in martial arts
Obssessed
Trusting issues
Never compromising
being mortal
I guess I haven't been on Cred Forums long enough. Sometimes I don't realize bait when I see it.
>No guns
This is kind of borderline, since a few of Batman's kills have involved guns
If you take fee fees out of the equation it's plainly obvious that a killer Batman would make Gotham a livable city. Crime would plummet immediately and the sheer amount of terror he'd inspire would in the long run save many, many lives and make would-be criminals rethink their life choices.
Why is everyone always adverse to solving problems, both IRL and in Cred Forums media? You can clearly see that not killing criminals doesn't work, and to justify not killing them you have to perform more and more mental gymnastics and chase this or that spook and basically subscribe to utopian idealism. It only makes the problem worse.
I know that this is purely because comics are creatively bankrupt and a cash cow as far as characters property goes, but this same mindset spilled over and is in fact dominant IRL. Migrant crisis? Bullets are cheap - shoot a few dozen and the problem is solved forever. Islam giving the whole world a headache? Outright ban its practice in civilized nations (the Chinese do something of that sort and it works) and nuke their so-called holy places. Poachers killing rare animals? Death squads should be there to BTFO poachers.
Why is pragmatism so foreign to our spirit today? Cred Forums examples came first to mind because they are understandable, I have no intent of arguing about it. But you get where I'm going with this.
>No "MY PARENTS ARE DEEEEEAD"
Trips, bitches. Capeshit is too fucking controversial.
no guns but is OK with killing? So snapping necks is OK because... It feels good?
never been a fan of that, it makes sense as giving the starting push for becoming Batman but by the end he should decide to stay a hero because he wants to help people
also writers shouldn't bring it up at every instance, O'Neils batman didn't and neither did Morrison's and those were some of his best runs
saving and improving the lives of innocents is more important than all of that shit which is why it is righteous to kill bad guys who have taken innocent lives and will take more in the future unless they are killed or permanently incapacitated.
Can any moralfag "hurr battman can't kill !!!1" faggot explain to me why Batman hasn't simply paralysed the joker from the neck down?
Exactly.
There is literally no good reason except DC want to keep whoring out the character like the pimps they are.
And yet you retards keep on eating this shit instead of reading creator-owned series where the plots can actually make sense.
Isn't the utopian idealism what we are trying to strive towards? Finding a better way than resorting to killing which is exactly what your enemies are doing which is why you need to stop them? Stopping murder with murder just creates more murder does it not?
/thread
because if he star killing he won't be Batman !! we will have another Punisher with bat mask.
And that make him special .. he's the only justice league member who didn't kill any one yet .
So after bolstering the case that Batman's code against killing just isn't that important to the character, you admit that you just don't like another prominent trait.
To justify themselves watching a genre that is still viewed by majority of the population as kid stuff.
I wonder in which outer heaven you live, being so far removed from reality and human nature. Killing can solve many a problem, just like war is the daddy of technological progress. There is no Star Trek utopia to be reached. It is harmful to indulge such fantasies. They end in your death. They are also disgustingly sterile.
Simply put as far as I'm concerned you're operating under a slave mentality, and people who follow such delusions inevitably end up as slaves or in the grave. To be even more blunt, the only reason why you can entertain such fantasies is because you are protected by the things you're condemning - the military might of your United States, its police force, its voracious appetite for killing and conquest. Your utopian vision is sustained only by the wars of yesterday and the opulence drawn from every continent and country on this Earth. There is no mercy here, and you'd understand that if you were in any other position but the one you inherited from your far more worthy ancestors.
Thus you are also a hypocrite.
I really blame the government and Arkham Asylum !! if they just executed joker .. I mean his crimes first degree murder ,abuse and theft .
So instead of striving toward a world where we don't need guns, we just go on killing each other because... We just like to murder? I hate the idea of the military. I've never agreed with how the world works and sitting comfy in my level of hell I condemn all of humanity for killing. Just because it solves problems doesn't mean it's the right way to solve those problems. If the United states were a true superpower they would end wars without violence. Truly I blame simple mindedness. "oh we can stop this guy from doing this by shooting him." sure we can stop anyone from doing anything by killing them. But guns can't kill ideals or religions, at least not without killing ourselves in the process. History also shows this. I may be a hypocrite but at least I strive towards a better future than everyone killing eachother.
There is always a better way. And it's people like you who fall into the mindset that there is no other way who have failed.
because Cred Forums consists of man children.
well, this has been a depressing thread, but yeah, the simple answer is that the comics code stripped Batman of his looser moral code and has stuck since.