Villains outclassed by the hero

[Small White Car]

^They're the good guys, they aren't in to the whole murder thing.

They're bloody idiots.

I mean, what do they honestly expect to happen?

They EXPECT the bad guys to be put in prison and never let out.

The fact that they escape so often is solely due to the weekly comic-book cycle and the need to tell more stories. Expecting the villain to escape is breaking the 4th wall and no different than asking "why does no one recognize Clark Kent?" You can do it, but what's the point? You're playing outside the rules now.

Did Charles Manson escape from prison? Timothy McVeigh? Would YOU expect them to? Of course not. So why should Batman believe any different?

I'll admit that this is not your doing. The comics do it all the time by acknowledging the fact that the Joker escapes every week. In my mind, that's no different than the Clark-glass thing and should just be ignored.

 

[Kelthaz]

If the good guys, like Supes and Bats, start killing people, they'd be no different then the villains they fight. This was the whole point of Batman Begins.

Oh, I don't buy that for a second. Killing someone who can lift 100 tons over his head and shoots lasers out of his eyes who plans to conquer the world hardly makes someone a villain. Soldiers don't risk their lives trying to take down an enemy combatant without killing him, so why should soldiers with super powers behave any differently?

 

[The Mule]

If the good guys, like Supes and Bats, start killing people, they'd be no different then the villains they fight. This was the whole point of Batman Begins.

Oh, I don't buy that for a second. Killing someone who can lift 100 tons over his head and shoots lasers out of his eyes who plans to conquer the world hardly makes someone a villain. Soldiers don't risk their lives trying to take down an enemy combatant without killing him, so why should soldiers with super powers behave any differently?

because they're not soldiers with superpowers. they're superheroes; men and women who have taken it upon themselves to use their greater powers and abilities to fight crime/avert disaster on their own initiative.

the soldier on the battlefield is operating under the aegis of his or her government, and as such has a defined part inside society to, if deemed by that society/government, to combat its designated enemies. without that definition, then the person killing his or her enemies on the battlefield (or criminals in the street) is a vigilante.

killing is the ultimate sancation, and the only ones who can meet that out is the legitimate governing body of the society, and only with clear legalities to it. (and even then it's a whole other moral minefield than we're discussing). and as the Superhero is not officially a part of that governing body (even if he or she is considered and ally), then they do not have that authority. not killing doesn't make them good or evil, but not killing is the most obvious way to tell they they are good.

also, the blame for the Joker's future crimes can be laid on legal system moreso than Batman. the Joker is clearly beyond dangerous, and clearly knows what he is doing is wrong. he should he sentenced to death, not continuously thrown into the same asylum that has not been able to rehabilitate him and seems to have revoloving doors on its cells.

and if Superman were to kill Lex Luthor, that would just prove Lex right, and i'm sure he would consider that worth the sacrifice.

 

[CaptainCanada]

On the kill or not kill front, it depends on the character; Superman and Batman's characterizations have evolved quite strongly towards not killing. For others, it's illogical for them not to consider the use, although unless you're the Punisher it shouldn't be something they do as a first resort; it should be tailored to the characters' personalities (for an example of this done badly, see the time in Gruenwald's Captain America where Cap had to machine-gun some terrorists and then all but cried on national TV about it).

 

[The Old Mixer]

In the mid-70s the Joker briefly had his own comic, an element of which was that the Joker had an entire secret lair (his "Ha-Ha-Hacienda", believe it or not) underneath Arkham. He could leave Arkham whenever he wanted, and often did so only to return to his cell, where he enjoyed the perfect alibi. This made Batman and Gordon look particularly stupid.

 

[JM1776]

The Cobra and Mister Hyde against Thor.

Give me a small break.

 

[A beaker full of death]

 

[Galactus]

People beat me to it. Luthor and Joker, very top of the list.

Old Mixer, let me get this straight. You think that it is ok for Luthor to challenge the most powerful hero on the planet, but not ok for Captain Cold to challenge the Flash, who just runs fast.

 

[CaptainCanada]

Luthor challenges Superman using the resources of a multinational equivalent to a decent-sized country. It's not about slugging it out hand to hand (though he can commission that idiotic battlesuit when he feels like it). Luthor provides the kind of challenge that physical force alone usually won't work against (or has to work overtime, since this is a superhero story).

Captain Cold is a dude with a freeze gun trying to physically fight someone who runs faster than light.

Most of the Flash's Rogues fall into this category (Mirror Master is one of the few who has a power that would actually pose a challenge if used properly; Ethan Van Sciver elaborated on some of the ways he sees that power being used in an interview a while ago); the only ones I really buy as his opponents are guys like Grodd, who is a supergenius with telepathic powers (though it's often hard to see why he would care about the Flash, since he tends to be a "world domination" type rather than robbing banks in Central City), and Zoom, another speedster.

 

[The Old Mixer]

^Exactly. Modern Luthor isn't about confronting Superman physically. He uses plans, schemes, resources, and minions. In the case of the Silver/Bronze Age Flash stories that I reference, we're talking about these guys, as typically depicted, literally standing in the street committing some sort of robbery when the Flash runs along. They not only see him coming, but exchange dialogue with him, and have time to raise, aim, and fire their weapons at him. He could have them disarmed, trussed up, and/or knocked out cold before they know he's there. It created the need for a huge suspension of disbelief in those otherwise fun stories.

 

[Thrall]

The reason the authorities don't go after Batman and Superman for being vigilante's is because they don't kill people. As soon as they do, all that ends. Pretty hard to save the world when the most of the world is trying to hunt you down.

 

[LaxScrutiny]

^They're the good guys, they aren't in to the whole murder thing.

That star spangled Theymiscrian girl they hang around with, not so much.

IMO by NOT killing the Joker who kills, kills and kills again Batman is borderline aiding and abetting him. He should just kill him to save his (inevitable) future victims.

OK, and so is Commissioner Gordon, every judge, jury, psychiatrist, jail guard, nurse, janitor, etc etc who has any opportunity to kill the Joker.

It's great to argue Batman should kill the Joker, but then what? Does he kill every villian that looks like they might kill someone someday? And then what happens the first time he makes a mistake and kills the wrong person? Or kills someone that could easily have been cured?

If you really want to advocate Batman as judge, jury and executioner, then why not advocate that role to every cop on every street in real life, think of how many innocents would be saved? Except we'd be living in worse than, oh excuse me, I was about to invoke Godwin's....

So we could make an exception for the Joker, who has proven time and again that there's no hope for him, he will always escape, he will always kill, and he will kill in a way that hurts the survivors as much as possible. Thing is, that's Bruce's choice, not yours. If you want to put on a stupid black suit, grab a gun and call yourself the Punisher, that's your choice, but for Bruce it's his choice. It's not just a question of how he's written.

For Bruce to suddenly kill, he has to change, he has to decide that he has been wrong all of his life, that his previous reluctance to kill was pointless and wrong. That is not a decision that's as easy as choosing what sandwich to eat.

Bruce is not responsible for any of the Joker's victims, not in any logical, ethical sense. He is under no obligation to kill anyone, any more than you or I are under any obligation to kill anyone. When he puts on the cowl and buckles on the belt, he has to make his own choice on how far he is willing to go and still be able to live with himself. He makes that choice, not you, and it's not up to anyone else to hang the blame for any deaths on his shoulders, any more than I hang the blame for any local gang deaths on the neighbourhood constable's shoulders.

 

[Galactus]

Again, what are Luthor's resources to Superman? I mean Superman could take on the entire world and win, especially historical. Luthor is not a real challenge to him, he is only a challenge because Superman let's him be a challenge. I mean he could take Lex to some barren planet in another galaxy to live out the rest of his life or he could just put him in the Phantom Zone. Superman could do away with him anytime he wants if he wanted. That to me is not a challenge to him at all. Luthor is nothing more than nuisance, a bug that Superman just doesn't squash because he is such a nice guy.

 

[The Old Mixer]

^I'm not sure exactly how they're handling Luthor in the most recent comics, but in modern times he's typically been portrayed as a corrupt businessman who uses minions and always has an alibi. Legally, Superman can't touch him, and Superman observes the law. And if he had something on Lex legally, he'd try to see that Lex was tried and sentenced according to the laws of whatever jurisdiction he's sentenced in. So the options you cite don't apply to the situation. Here Superman's options are limited by his own morality, and that's a strong component of his modern character--he's the example that other heroes aspire to. He will never play judge, jury, and executioner again. He did back in '88, in a story that may or may not now be in continuity, and the consequences to his psyche took some time for him to sort out.

People say Superman has no limits, but his greatest limits are those that he imposes upon himself. People who don't understand that, don't understand Superman. And from some of your earlier comments, I'd like to think that you do understand him that well.

 

[Galactus]

I agree completely with what you said, but that still means that Superman outclasses Luthor in ever way because it is only by Superman's own morals that he does not destroy him.

I like the green armor. Now if he wore that all the time, maybe I would give him more credit. Either way I say he is still a lot better than the Joker.

 

[MeanJoePhaser]

Wonder Woman...how was the Cheetah ever a threat to her?

If you go by the GI JOE comic book, Snake-Eyes could take on anything Cobra could throw at him, especially after Storm Shadow quit Cobra. So why wasn't Cobra Commander's severed head served up to Uncle Sam?

 

[CaptainCanada]

Wonder Woman...how was the Cheetah ever a threat to her?

If you mean the Pre-Crisis Priscilla Rich Cheetah (crazy lady in a cat costume), I completely agree.

The Post-Crisis Barbara Minerva version is a far superior threat (when Will Pfeiffer isn't having her get one-punched by Batman or beaten up by Catwoman).

 

[Derishton]

Defenseless? The man was mind-controlling Superman. Yeah, they were on time-out, but how long was that supposed to last? Either they kill Superman, or they kill Lord. I think Diana made the right choice, but for some reason everyone in the entire world decides to hate her for it?

That whole storyline could barely be read through all the editorial fingerprints all over it.

Come now, what would modern day DC comics be without contrived soap opera melodrama to set up ridiculous interpersonal conflicts between the heroes? First there was Batman being kicked out of the League for having contigency plans to neutralize everyone, then Wonder Woman ostracized for this. I'm sure eventually they'll do some narrative backflips to get Batman and WW pissed at Superman.

I disagree. I might be inclined to accuse DC of taking a page from the X-men's book in doing so, but it seemed clear to me that Wonder Woman murdering Maxwell Lord played into a long-established fear of the "uncontrollable gods among us." That fear was being manipulated for some time by Lord's Checkmate, and then subsequently by Brother Eye. It was neither unheralded nor is public fear of superheros psychologically unrealistic.

And Marvel solved to problem of Spiperman outclassing his enemies by turning him into an idiot who makes deals with the devil in exchange for the return of his fifteen-year old mental self, didn't they?

 

[CaptainCanada]

She killed him; it wasn't murder (so says two separate in-canon courts).

 

[Derishton]

She killed him; it wasn't murder (so says two separate in-canon courts).

I was speaking from the pov of those who initially saw the killing, in an attempt to justify how most people in the DC universe might freak out at the event.

It would be interesting to see how people view Wonder Woman now, but Simone seems to be moving away from that after the semi-disaster of Picoult's run.