Originally posted by Disappear
BH, i was referring to the civil war "fight," where cap just beats punisher mercilessly for having killed two villains who were trying to join up with the anti-registration underground. i don't have the issues handy, but i believe frank refused to fight back.
I thought you were refferring to that fight they had in the early 90's I believe.
-BH
Originally posted by -Pr-
it's just how he's been portrayed during the whole thing. could i see him forming x-force? sure. but not the way he's done so. he's far too callous about the whole thing, and that doesn't sit right with me.
while i agree it's a drastic shift, i don't necessarily agree that it's an incorrect or out-of-character portrayal. everything the x-men have had to face, especially since m-day, has re-organized the way their threats need to be dealt with. as was said earlier, they couldn't do anything the "heroic" way without it leading to deaths. and with scott's unofficial role as the leader of all mutantkind, especially in wake of utopia, making the tough decisions has to fall on his shoulders. the parallels between what he's doing now and what xavier did regarding the deadly genesis team and with danger are interesting, and hopefully intentional, and when that all comes to a boil it'll be an interesting read.
as far as intent of action goes, i can understand that, but it's a difficult to justify point in-comic. i almost got expelled from military school for having "cheated," in my case a higher-ranking student was copying my homework without my knowledge, and my entire argument in my own defense was that cheating requires both action and intent. while i was blinding performing actions that led to the cheating/plagarism, i didn't know that's what was going on and had no intention of cheating. so i get the whole "based on intent" idea. but how can intent actually be judged or understood, being only a thought process with no actual physical standing? cops and judges have to deal with the nature of intent from day-to-day, such as a justifiable homicide or things done in self-defense. but it's all based on testimony and witnesses and there's never REAL proof. so how can it really be judged? how can someone know the punisher is cleaning up crime, the dirty way, for the greater good and not just because he's a whacko with a mad-on for criminals?
Originally posted by Disappear
while i agree it's a drastic shift, i don't necessarily agree that it's an incorrect or out-of-character portrayal. everything the x-men have had to face, especially since m-day, has re-organized the way their threats need to be dealt with. as was said earlier, they couldn't do anything the "heroic" way without it leading to deaths. and with scott's unofficial role as the leader of all mutantkind, especially in wake of utopia, making the tough decisions has to fall on his shoulders. the parallels between what he's doing now and what xavier did regarding the deadly genesis team and with danger are interesting, and hopefully intentional, and when that all comes to a boil it'll be an interesting read.as far as intent of action goes, i can understand that, but it's a difficult to justify point in-comic. i almost got expelled from military school for having "cheated," in my case a higher-ranking student was copying my homework without my knowledge, and my entire argument in my own defense was that cheating requires both action and intent. while i was blinding performing actions that led to the cheating/plagarism, i didn't know that's what was going on and had no intention of cheating. so i get the whole "based on intent" idea. but how can intent actually be judged or understood, being only a thought process with no actual physical standing? cops and judges have to deal with the nature of intent from day-to-day, such as a justifiable homicide or things done in self-defense. but it's all based on testimony and witnesses and there's never REAL proof. so how can it really be judged? how can someone know the punisher is cleaning up crime, the dirty way, for the greater good and not just because he's a whacko with a mad-on for criminals?
i honestly just mean in terms of regret or guilt. none of which he's shown enough of during his time making these frankly appaling decisions.
Originally posted by Kris Blaze
Batman puts a lot of emphasis on how important it is not to take a life and so on. Naturally, not killing the Joker has already led to countless deaths. That's not Batman's problem though, somehow DC has the most retarded judicial system in the comics-verse.
It's because there is no Death Penalty in Gotham. The minute the writers plant the capital punishment EVERY single left winger nutjob comic book geek would be up in arms with questioning the ethics and all that bullshit.
Killing the Joker isn't about choice...it's about not capable of doing. How many times have Joker survive several attempts in his life just to comeback and be more vicious? I'll spoil it for you guys...many. Joker is practically indestrutible..it's a force...it's an evil being that eventually returns...
There is been the theory of not just one Joker but several Jokers in the history of DC. Which may add juice to the myth...but that is just one more of the many theories sorrunding the character.
Besides, anyone wanting the joker death would be twice hypocritical if someone wanted to kill their beloved villain.
Case in point kill that lame Doctor Doom or Green Goblin for good.....or even overrated Mr. Sinister...how about them?
Originally posted by WickedDynamite?
Besides, anyone wanting the joker death would be twice hypocritical if someone wanted to kill their beloved villain.Case in point kill that lame Doctor Doom or Green Goblin for good.....or even overrated Mr. Sinister...how about them?
These aren't a bunch of marvel fanboys out to get DC villains because they hate them. Joker is an awesome character. He still should have died years ago for his crimes, but it's not because he's not well written or I don't particularly like him. He's my favorite villain.
Originally posted by WickedDynamite
It's because there is no Death Penalty in Gotham. The minute the writers plant the capital punishment EVERY single left winger nutjob comic book geek would be up in arms with questioning the ethics and all that bullshit.Killing the Joker isn't about choice...it's about not capable of doing. How many times have Joker survive several attempts in his life just to comeback and be more vicious? I'll spoil it for you guys...many. Joker is practically indestrutible..it's a force...it's an evil being that eventually returns...
There is been the theory of not just one Joker but several Jokers in the history of DC. Which may add juice to the myth...but that is just one more of the many theories sorrunding the character.
Besides, anyone wanting the joker death would be twice hypocritical if someone wanted to kill their beloved villain.
Case in point kill that lame Doctor Doom or Green Goblin for good.....or even overrated Mr. Sinister...how about them?
Originally posted by WickedDynamiteCase in point kill that lame Doctor Doom or Green Goblin for good.....or even overrated Mr. Sinister...how about them?
They are marvelous villains, especially Doctor Doom.
Joker is awesome too. My second favorite, behind Doom. But while Doom is a powerful wizard, and a genius on almost cosmic scale with a bad ass armor, Joker, while totally being a crazy terrorist/mass murder s.o.b., he's just a man. A man that have been captured many, many times.
U.S., have in some states the death penality, and people have the right to use firearms to self-defense, right? In these conditions, normally, the Joker should have been killed, a long time ago.
true about the Doom bot...squirell girl and luke cage are the only two ppl i cant think of off top that have put hands on dude and beat that ass regally. say what you will about Doom but he is nigh untouchable to the average Joe. Joker on the other hand everytime he goes buck wild Batman swoops in.....break his jaw....bruise a couple of his ribs and other assorted bones. sure from a practical POV the joker needs to be killed but we still need more joker stories so thats not gonna happen but its the fact that Bats and Superman have taken an unmovable stance that they dont kill no matter what...even if it costs THIER lives or the lives of countless others ,as long as they can have one more thing to beat themselves up about.
Originally posted by Disappear
while i agree it's a drastic shift, i don't necessarily agree that it's an incorrect or out-of-character portrayal. everything the x-men have had to face, especially since m-day, has re-organized the way their threats need to be dealt with. as was said earlier, they couldn't do anything the "heroic" way without it leading to deaths. and with scott's unofficial role as the leader of all mutantkind, especially in wake of utopia, making the tough decisions has to fall on his shoulders. the parallels between what he's doing now and what xavier did regarding the deadly genesis team and with danger are interesting, and hopefully intentional, and when that all comes to a boil it'll be an interesting read.as far as intent of action goes, i can understand that, but it's a difficult to justify point in-comic. i almost got expelled from military school for having "cheated," in my case a higher-ranking student was copying my homework without my knowledge, and my entire argument in my own defense was that cheating requires both action and intent. while i was blinding performing actions that led to the cheating/plagarism, i didn't know that's what was going on and had no intention of cheating. so i get the whole "based on intent" idea. but how can intent actually be judged or understood, being only a thought process with no actual physical standing? cops and judges have to deal with the nature of intent from day-to-day, such as a justifiable homicide or things done in self-defense. but it's all based on testimony and witnesses and there's never REAL proof. so how can it really be judged? how can someone know the punisher is cleaning up crime, the dirty way, for the greater good and not just because he's a whacko with a mad-on for criminals?
So the difference between justifying killing for the greater good or all killling being murder is the intent, not the action itself? Even if it all leads to the same consequense?
This question really makes my noggin overheat, especially when you relate it to real life dilemmas like is the death penalty for protection or vengence.
Originally posted by WickedDynamite
It's because there is no Death Penalty in Gotham. The minute the writers plant the capital punishment EVERY single left winger nutjob comic book geek would be up in arms with questioning the ethics and all that bullshit.Killing the Joker isn't about choice...it's about not capable of doing. How many times have Joker survive several attempts in his life just to comeback and be more vicious? I'll spoil it for you guys...many. Joker is practically indestrutible..it's a force...it's an evil being that eventually returns...
There is been the theory of not just one Joker but several Jokers in the history of DC. Which may add juice to the myth...but that is just one more of the many theories sorrunding the character.
Besides, anyone wanting the joker death would be twice hypocritical if someone wanted to kill their beloved villain.
The Joker is not Darkseid, who got remade by the Source when The Spectre destroyed him. He has no powers. This has been discussed heavily in the Batman forum, how it's become increasingly difficult to justify why he should live in gotham. DC has gotten backed into a shrinking corner every since he killed Jason Todd in 1988, with how to handle him.
You just look at out of continuity books like The Dark Knight Returns and Kingdom Come - they have no problems letting Joker get killed off in there.
Originally posted by WickedDynamite
It's because there is no Death Penalty in Gotham. The minute the writers plant the capital punishment EVERY single left winger nutjob comic book geek would be up in arms with questioning the ethics and all that bullshit.Killing the Joker isn't about choice...it's about not capable of doing. How many times have Joker survive several attempts in his life just to comeback and be more vicious? I'll spoil it for you guys...many. Joker is practically indestrutible..it's a force...it's an evil being that eventually returns...
There is been the theory of not just one Joker but several Jokers in the history of DC. Which may add juice to the myth...but that is just one more of the many theories sorrunding the character.
I could buy the multiple Joker theory, because that actually sounds plausible. A cult of some kind, with supernatural elements.
That doesn't change the fact that whoever the Joker is at a current time CAN be killed. If he can't, why is there more than one? Too many contradicting ideas there, though the initial one is good.
Originally posted by WickedDynamite
Case in point kill that lame Doctor Doom or Green Goblin for good.....or even overrated Mr. Sinister...how about them?
How is Sinister overrated? The man is barely in any comics. The height of his appearance was either Mutant Massacre and Inferno. He wasn't used properly in Messiah Complex and now he IS "dead". Last I read, he was "dead".
If anything, he's one of the most underrated and underused villains in comics. If you don't read Marvel, I understand not knowing, but then don't speak matter-of-factly.
Secondly, Green Goblin isn't currently around.
-AC
Originally posted by roughrider
The Joker is not Darkseid, who got remade by the Source when The Spectre destroyed him. He has no powers. This has been discussed heavily in the Batman forum, how it's become increasingly difficult to justify why he should live in gotham. DC has gotten backed into a shrinking corner every since he killed Jason Todd in 1988, with how to handle him.
You just look at out of continuity books like The Dark Knight Returns and Kingdom Come - they have no problems letting Joker get killed off in there.
If you look at the stories closely you will notice the consequences that are trigger if Joker dies. That is why he can never die...even in the future he is reincarnated as a computer virus in Beyond.
He lives in Gotham for the simply reason of his origins and it's basically his base of operations (i.e. Arkham)
Originally posted by Disappear
while i agree it's a drastic shift, i don't necessarily agree that it's an incorrect or out-of-character portrayal. everything the x-men have had to face, especially since m-day, has re-organized the way their threats need to be dealt with. as was said earlier, they couldn't do anything the "heroic" way without it leading to deaths. and with scott's unofficial role as the leader of all mutantkind, especially in wake of utopia, making the tough decisions has to fall on his shoulders. the parallels between what he's doing now and what xavier did regarding the deadly genesis team and with danger are interesting, and hopefully intentional, and when that all comes to a boil it'll be an interesting read.as far as intent of action goes, i can understand that, but it's a difficult to justify point in-comic. i almost got expelled from military school for having "cheated," in my case a higher-ranking student was copying my homework without my knowledge, and my entire argument in my own defense was that cheating requires both action and intent. while i was blinding performing actions that led to the cheating/plagarism, i didn't know that's what was going on and had no intention of cheating. so i get the whole "based on intent" idea. but how can intent actually be judged or understood, being only a thought process with no actual physical standing? cops and judges have to deal with the nature of intent from day-to-day, such as a justifiable homicide or things done in self-defense. but it's all based on testimony and witnesses and there's never REAL proof. so how can it really be judged? how can someone know the punisher is cleaning up crime, the dirty way, for the greater good and not just because he's a whacko with a mad-on for criminals?
There are some brilliant points here but a couple of problems. Firstly we have to remind ourselves that we can't equate comic book logic to real world logic, especially with the justice system. Sometimes our justice system (which I mean the whole world) makes more sense than any kind of comic reality and, unfortunately, sometimes the reverse is true.
But even assuming we were to apply real world logic, we can't undervalue the nature of intent enough here. It may be intangible, unquantifiable and sometimes irreconcilable in its nature. However it is nonetheless vital in both the real world Justice system and a comic one. It affects notoriety, morality and a whole range of other issues. It can quite literally make a world of difference and sometimes become even more important than the action itself. Not to get all philosophical but the question "Why?" for anything is there because of intent.
With all this in mind, intent becomes a haphazard and dangerous thing, but the greater crime in all this would be to ignore it because of its intangible nature.
Originally posted by roughriderThe world the Mutant community lives in is not like any other in DC or Marvel, where there are powerful factions that hate them for simply existing. Theirs is a kill-or-be-killed world of survival.
Interesting one ... Should HUMAN morality even apply to Mutants, and other Super humans who had significantly different genetic make up ? IMO its analogous to applying Morality to the animals on the Savanna, or our old Neanderthal Ancestors ?