Batman’s nuts. Like everybody else in Gotham. He’s pathologically obsessed with beating the crap out of criminals with his bare hands because he needs to emotionally. The fact that he’s saving the world is incidental.
That actually makes his “no killing” rule make more sense. A person doing this for moral reasons would grapple with the continuous living trolley problem embodied by The Joker, and would likely eventually do what needs to be done. An otherwise-decent person feeding addiction to violence would draw a hard line in the sand that he will never ever cross no matter the cost. Which sounds more like Bats?
It also makes his choice of weapons make more sense – tazers don’t satisfy him the way his fists do.
Yes he might also do philanthropic things but that’s not what drives him.
A hero driven by dark needs is way more interesting than a boring paragon of virtue.
It also gives his emotional divide from Nightwing a more coherent moral centre than just “Nightwing didn’t like how Batman’s mean”.
Somewhere between (where he actually sits) is more interesting than both. He’s clearly dealing with emotional trauma, but that doesn’t mean he’s not also still human. And trying to be more so.
We all got trauma. Trauma isn’t what makes Batman interesting. Obsession is. The maniacal motivation to make himself into the greatest DCU superhero by sheer force of will.
I keep trying to read the webcomic but I don’t have a good device for it so I make it a few issues past wherever the show is and lose patience with my failing eyes. But if we’re doing that game, Damien Darkblood vs Batman as worlds’ greatest detectives
Both are interesting and both are generally how Batman is. It depends on the run. Sometimes he’s dark and grows into a paragon, and sometimes the reverse is true. Totally depends on the author.
I don’t really like the take that it is solely Batman’s responsibility to kill the Joker. Batman acts as a vigilante, and in order to not take actions that one cannot provide restitution for, he has a strict rule that he cannot kill. He enforces the law but he doesn’t act like he’s the judge, jury, or the executioner. He stops them and he lets the judicial system sentence them. The people he hands over the Joker to every single time has far more ample opportunity to kill him. The police, the judge deciding on capital punishment, prison guards, a random bystander with a gun. None of them carry the same extrajudicial responsibility that the Batman imposes on himself in order to remain accountable or at least not start taking charge of life and death.
The problem wouldn’t be that the Batman kills the Joker. The problem would be when he starts deciding whether others are better off dead than alive.
Idunno, I like the reverse better:
Batman’s nuts. Like everybody else in Gotham. He’s pathologically obsessed with beating the crap out of criminals with his bare hands because he needs to emotionally. The fact that he’s saving the world is incidental.
That actually makes his “no killing” rule make more sense. A person doing this for moral reasons would grapple with the continuous living trolley problem embodied by The Joker, and would likely eventually do what needs to be done. An otherwise-decent person feeding addiction to violence would draw a hard line in the sand that he will never ever cross no matter the cost. Which sounds more like Bats?
It also makes his choice of weapons make more sense – tazers don’t satisfy him the way his fists do.
Yes he might also do philanthropic things but that’s not what drives him.
A hero driven by dark needs is way more interesting than a boring paragon of virtue.
It also gives his emotional divide from Nightwing a more coherent moral centre than just “Nightwing didn’t like how Batman’s mean”.
Somewhere between (where he actually sits) is more interesting than both. He’s clearly dealing with emotional trauma, but that doesn’t mean he’s not also still human. And trying to be more so.
We all got trauma. Trauma isn’t what makes Batman interesting. Obsession is. The maniacal motivation to make himself into the greatest DCU superhero by sheer force of will.
I guess different folks for different folks. Personally I like dimensions to a character and not just a flat stereotype.
Definitely the most interesting one
Excuse me. Aquaman says hello
The Deep has a better story, plus he gets to have complicated relationships with fish.
I keep trying to read the webcomic but I don’t have a good device for it so I make it a few issues past wherever the show is and lose patience with my failing eyes. But if we’re doing that game, Damien Darkblood vs Batman as worlds’ greatest detectives
Both are interesting and both are generally how Batman is. It depends on the run. Sometimes he’s dark and grows into a paragon, and sometimes the reverse is true. Totally depends on the author.
I don’t really like the take that it is solely Batman’s responsibility to kill the Joker. Batman acts as a vigilante, and in order to not take actions that one cannot provide restitution for, he has a strict rule that he cannot kill. He enforces the law but he doesn’t act like he’s the judge, jury, or the executioner. He stops them and he lets the judicial system sentence them. The people he hands over the Joker to every single time has far more ample opportunity to kill him. The police, the judge deciding on capital punishment, prison guards, a random bystander with a gun. None of them carry the same extrajudicial responsibility that the Batman imposes on himself in order to remain accountable or at least not start taking charge of life and death.
The problem wouldn’t be that the Batman kills the Joker. The problem would be when he starts deciding whether others are better off dead than alive.