Whose method of dealing with criminals is better?
Easy - the Punisher.
His solution is permanent.
Who is better at protecting his city?
Easy - Batman.
Whether it is normal goons, predators and/or aliens, Dracula, rogue Kryptonians, murderous white martians, the combined force of corrupted members of the Justice League, the Darkness, Spawn, the outcome from a devastating earthquake, a ravaging pathogen, citizens turned into monsters by alchemy, citizens turned into monsters by Brother Eye technology, ravaging robots, ravaging hellhounds from Apokolips, murderous super-enhanced Batmen from other dimensions, or long-dead gods come alive ...Batman has a plan and can achieve it.
Both men are amazing, but one is a man who can never be stopped, has huge damage soak, ensures any criminal that comes on his radar is PERMANENTLY stopped, can fight better than most, is more intelligent than most, and loves his guns.
The other is a Mary Sue, and is the REAL ‘Super Man’ in DC.
Depends on how one looks at it. Batman definitely accomplishes more in the grand scheme, but he's also responsible for creating/saving several of his rogues so you've got to weigh the lives of those he saves against the blood those badguys spill when you're figuring how much of a positive impact he's having on his city.
Another way of looking at it is.....despite killing, NYC STILL has criminals and the Mafia. Sure, the specific criminals are removed, but their victims aren't - you won't care if you're killed by Henchman A or B....
Who has the better solution? Neither, If we confined it in comics logic. There were always criminals coming back(or to be created for hero) and committing crimes to challenge heroes. So basically, Killing or no killing just a trait for the character to make more conflicts on stories
If we talking about the real world, Then Batman method actually was a better solution, It protecting legal system and will decrease crimes by stopping criminals.
Last edited by qwertyuiop1998 on Nov 10th, 2019 at 09:13 PM
Listen if you had bugs in your house do you want a guy to come and lock them in your closet for a month, only for them to come back, or do you want the guy that aims to permanently remove them? When Frank kills a villain they stay dead, unless by plot they come back to life.
Listen if even after calling exterminators in every week, roaches and fleas etc still infest your house, does it matter if the guy kills them every time?
The crime rate in Marvel NYC is still high. There is still a significant Mafia presence, not to mention the usual supervillains.
This is despite Punisher having literally every single superhero in NYC, lol, whilst Bats has the Batfamily and that's it.
I'm just saying, having 'Punisher kills, it's more permanent' isn't an argument, when criminals still continue to operate. If you get mugged on Monday, the Punisher shoots him dead on Tuesday, then you get mugged by a different person on Wed....who cares that it's a different mugger, you still got mugged.
Yeah, If comics still keeping publish the there wll always criminals running around due to plot,They need creating conflicts to make it continue.So killing is a permanent way to deal with crimes actually didn't work on comics
I'm going with Punisher but I completely see DS's point which is basically " if there is still criminals and crime happening what does it matter if he kills or does not kill".
And this is a tough question but here is my answer for why Punisher wins.
There may still be criminals but at least Frank is trying to end them. Batman does not knowing full well that they will most likely get free and continue to murder. And that's what it boils down to. Batman actively gives villian's a chance to continue doing harm all because of his extremely douchey, emo outtake on life. As long as he operates within his own moral compass, he does not care how many people die, and that is a very selfish outlook on things.
But as far as who is the better protector? Like who could actually stop some big threat? Batman
Yeah but the guy who mugged you on Wed would have been there to mug you either way. On the other hand, the guys who gets murdered on Tue won't be out mugging someone else on Wed and then catch you again on Fri or any other day till his resurrection. Punisher doesn't level of personal attention from sociopaths that Bats does. If Batman flat out got murdered national TV tomorrow, at least some of the guys like the Joker and Riddler would most likely retire or find some other way to pass the time. That's not nearly as true of the Punisher. If Pun gets iced on TV tomorrow Jigsaw and Kingpin aren't going to fade into the background or anything like that, they're going to be more successful than ever and crime's going to skyrocket because he's one of a select few threats to those on the other side of the law that they live in mortal fear of.
Don't get me wrong because I don't mean to suggest that Gotham is going to suddenly become Metropolis, or that New York will become over run if Bruce and Frank go down, I'm only putting forth that from what I've personally seen it seems like there might be less plot worthy crime in Gotham if Bruce were to die openly, but that's not going to be the case for Punisher. Now tbf, even though it's theoretically possible that Gotham itself would have less crime if Bats died, when we zoom out it's fairly apparent that the world as a whole would definitely be worse off without the guy because he's the Justice League's strategist and there's been plenty of instances where they all would have bought it if Bruce weren't there.
__________________
Last edited by darthgoober on Nov 12th, 2019 at 06:34 PM
Wait a sec... it just occurred to me that we need to consider that Batman does more than just act the part of a superhero... he also TRAINS superheroes. So even if his direct impact on crime is up for debate, the fact that he's always making new heroes should count towards his positive impact(even if they don't work out all the time) and net him quite a few bonus points that should put him in the lead for this thread IMO.