Originally posted by srankmissingninNot that Lucy either.
I just guessed which Lucy based on Collet and my assumption you liked catgirls. lol If it is Lucy from Fairy Tail, that would be better than Elfen Lied. 😎
The lucy I'm thinking of is alot more obscure, and you'd have had to have read pretty far into the story to meet her.
I'll give you a hint its a manga that has not been turned into an anime.
Also, while I do like catgirls, Collet is not a catgirl.
I strongly doubt that you've read negima based on a number of factors such as incorrectly identifing the species/race of the character in question as well as accusations that it is unmanly coupled with your previously stated aversion toward shojo manga (Negima is not a shojou manga it runs in weekly shonen magazine in japan. The same magazine that runs Fairy Tail.
I can't think of any more Lucy's from any manga that hasn't been turned into an anime. Is she a completely ancillary character?
As far as I'm concerned any sort of animal ears = catgirl. 😎
I haven't read any Negima, but I have seen a few episodes of the anime when hanging out with my sister. It was pretty terrible, maybe the manga is better but nothing in the anime inspired me to check it out.
Originally posted by srankmissingninI don't think so. She at one point in time saves the life of the main character.
I can't think of any more Lucy's from any manga that hasn't been turned into an anime. Is she a completely ancillary character?
Originally posted by srankmissingninWhile catgirls are the most prolific of the moe anthropomorphism of kemonomimi and my favorite they are not the only ones that exist.
As far as I'm concerned any sort of animal ears = catgirl. 😎
Originally posted by srankmissingninThe manga is much better than either of the anime, at least in my opinion.
I haven't read any Negima, but I have seen a few episodes of the anime when hanging out with my sister. It was pretty terrible, maybe the manga is better but nothing in the anime inspired me to check it out.
Also I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss all shojo out of hand, have you read magic knight rayearth?
Originally posted by srankmissingnin
I guess the sarcasm of my post was lost.
It's actually the other way around. 😉
If you are going to bring up a character to test someones knowledge of anime / manga, maybe there is a better choice than arguably the most famous villain from the most popular anime / manga of all time? Seriously, that's like asking me someone if they've ever heard of this character called the Joker. [/B]
And it appears that you're incapable of answering simple questions. 😐
Do you think it's probable that when you turn on your TV to watch the newest episode of Dragon Ball Z tomorrow, the story is going to be about Goku fighting Frieza?
A yes or no will suffice... I'm trying to make a point to you in a manner that will make you go: "Oooooooohhh... I see what you're saying." Let's see how successful I am.
Originally posted by Deadline
Of course they are. They are sentient, intelligent and they feel pain. Just because there different from humans doesn't make it any different.
read what you wrote again. that last sentence.
vampires aren't alive. at best, they're undead. that's not alive.
Well why can't Joker be an exception millions of lives isn't enough?
the last time joker threatened the multiverse, they beat him without having to kill him.
P Nightwing is part of the Bat-family. Im talking about a situation where Nightwing and others got killed.
i never said nightwing wasnt a part of the bat-family. my point was that killing dick is not the same as killing tim or cassie or stephanie. dick is probably the person bruce loves most in the world, and even when he thought he was dead, he was able to stop himself from killing alex luthor.
Sure it does. Nightwing got badly injured Batman almost killed him, therefore a worse situation could push him over the edge.
based on what?
I don't know about that, there were events that started to slowly piss Cyclops off eg crucifying mutants on the X-lawn.
he was fine when the crucifying happened. he was fine when jean died. he was fine on the breakworld.
cyclops has gone through MUCH worse trauma than he has in recent years and been fine. losing jean more than once, losing maddie, what happened at genosha, house of m and decimation, and he still kept his head in the game. messiah complex just doesn't compare.
Originally posted by Creshosk
I'll admit that I haven't really read the arc, but is it possible that its a little of column A and a little of column B?
honestly, and i don't mean to be short, but no.
That there was the initial desicion to do this based on the messiah complex, but after that he began to calculate what needed to be done?It would be a little difficult for me to see someone I veiw as being so strategically brilliant to just give in to a knee-jerk reaction and that be the end of it.
actually, surprisingly scott has been governed by his emotions more than once. it's just usually the case that he can reign them in at the time, or that his idea turns out to be the right one anyway. he's not as cold and detached a leader as some might think (not you, but some people).
Now you're still the expert and perhaps I'm not really seeing cyclops the way he is and am over looking some of the character flaws in regards to strategy.
to be perfectly honest, my problem isn't even that he set up x-force. it's that he plays such a large role. if he had told wolverine "i'm setting up a team to go out and deal with threats before they happen. you're the trained killer, you're in charge", i would have been fine. But that, coupled with the willfull (almost) murder of thousands of skrulls using a mutated strain of the legacy virus and a couple of other decisions truly make me believe that cyclops has gone off the deep end.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Thanks for... complimenting my point? I love you PR.It doesn't give me a lot of hope though, if people would prefer that Batman is consistently stupid. *sighs* Fans...
not everyone considers him stupid, though...
For Batman in general, there was a scene in the Red Hood series where Batman explained why he doesn't kill. I thought it was brilliantly written tbh. If anyone has it (it's the part where Jason confronts Bruce and asks him why he hasn't killed Joker), i'd appreciate them posting it.
I'm sure DC did their absolute very best to create some sort of justification for him constantly doing something as lame as putting someone in jail knowing that the person is going to break out and kill a bunch of people on the way. I am kind of curious to see said justification myself, for the sake of humor at least.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I'm sure DC did their absolute very best to create some sort of justification for him constantly doing something as lame as putting someone in jail knowing that the person is going to break out and kill a bunch of people on the way. I am kind of curious to see said justification myself, for the sake of humor at least.
it's his justification for not killing. even if i don't agree with it, and in his place would more than likely kill the joker, his reasons are his reasons. he's not responsible for the prison system in gotham being useless compared to say, metropolis.
DC isn't burying their head in the sand on this one. Bruce has been called on it more than once by other characters including Jason Todd and Damian, iirc.
Bruce admitted that he DOES WANT to kill Joker, and how tempting it was, but he has his reasons for not doing it. Even though i don't agree with them, i still respect that they're his beliefs.
Originally posted by -Pr-Personally, it would depend on the undead as to how I'd treat them. If they're not a threat or can be managed I wouldn't treat them any different from the living. It may be my true neutral nature but the same goes for demons and things that are traditionally evil.
read what you wrote again. that last sentence.vampires aren't alive. at best, they're undead. that's not alive.
Batman might see things differently. but then again batman covers the entire scale of the alignment chart.
http://punxter.com/pics/G/RPL.jpg
Originally posted by -Pr-I for one am in the boat that would be willing to kill Joker. They managed to stop him that time, but what about next time? Or the time after that? How many lives are worth the Joker's?
the last time joker threatened the multiverse, they beat him without having to kill him.
but the decision is not mine to make. and like I said before there are outside factors that determine these things.
Originally posted by -Pr-I didn't know about those events after setting up X-Force.
he was fine when the crucifying happened. he was fine when jean died. he was fine on the breakworld.cyclops has gone through MUCH worse trauma than he has in recent years and been fine. losing jean more than once, losing maddie, what happened at genosha, house of m and decimation, and he still kept his head in the game. messiah complex just doesn't compare.
honestly, and i don't mean to be short, but no.
actually, surprisingly scott has been governed by his emotions more than once. it's just usually the case that he can reign them in at the time, or that his idea turns out to be the right one anyway. he's not as cold and detached a leader as some might think (not you, but some people).
to be perfectly honest, my problem isn't even that he set up x-force. it's that he plays such a large role. if he had told wolverine "i'm setting up a team to go out and deal with threats before they happen. you're the trained killer, you're in charge", i would have been fine. But that, coupled with the willfull (almost) murder of thousands of skrulls using a mutated strain of the legacy virus and a couple of other decisions truly make me believe that cyclops has gone off the deep end.
Originally posted by -Pr-I haven't read it but I imagine that its something along the lines of the slippery slope. You kill off one villian, it makes it easier to do it again, because hey you did it before. And then the next one, and then next one. then after that you've become a serial killer yourself. Which ultimately means that you've become that which you hunt.
not everyone considers him stupid, though...For Batman in general, there was a scene in the Red Hood series where Batman explained why he doesn't kill. I thought it was brilliantly written tbh. If anyone has it (it's the part where Jason confronts Bruce and asks him why he hasn't killed Joker), i'd appreciate them posting it.
Factoring in the human psyche the adreniline that I imagine it would cause to perform such an act. Before long you might get addicted to that adreniline rush. Then you'd have to fight against yourself to keep from seeking out that ruch in other places. On lesser criminals. Those that aren't a true threat to society. and then when you're done with them what's to stop you from the petty stuff such as jaywalking and littering? And then the innocent people. Before long you've become a monster that needs to be stopped.
People like the "angels of mercy" type odf serial killers are an example of this occurence. They take pity on the patients that are suffering all the time and they ease their pain. The slippery slope I mentioned before occurs and they become fallen angels.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Personally, it would depend on the undead as to how I'd treat them. If they're not a threat or can be managed I wouldn't treat them any different from the living. It may be my true neutral nature but the same goes for demons and things that are traditionally evil.Batman might see things differently. but then again batman covers the entire scale of the alignment chart.
😂
and i'd be of the camp that if they're vamps and evil, then they need to be put down.
I for one am in the boat that would be willing to kill Joker. They managed to stop him that time, but what about next time? Or the time after that? How many lives are worth the Joker's?but the decision is not mine to make. and like I said before there are outside factors that determine these things.
that's exactly what i'm saying. I'd kill Joker in a heartbeat, but just because i don't agree with Batman's POV doesn't mean i think it's wrong.
I didn't know about those events after setting up X-Force.
np. tbh stuff like that is why i don't read x-men anymore. cyclops is corrupt, and willing to do anything to further his goals. that's not a superhero in my book.
I haven't read it but I imagine that its something along the lines of the slippery slope. You kill off one villian, it makes it easier to do it again, because hey you did it before. And then the next one, and then next one. then after that you've become a serial killer yourself. Which ultimately means that you've become that which you hunt.Factoring in the human psyche the adreniline that I imagine it would cause to perform such an act. Before long you might get addicted to that adreniline rush. Then you'd have to fight against yourself to keep from seeking out that ruch in other places. On lesser criminals. Those that aren't a true threat to society. and then when you're done with them what's to stop you from the petty stuff such as jaywalking and littering? And then the innocent people. Before long you've become a monster that needs to be stopped.
People like the "angels of mercy" type odf serial killers are an example of this occurence. They take pity on the patients that are suffering all the time and they ease their pain. The slippery slope I mentioned before occurs and they become fallen angels.
iirc it's something along those lines. Bruce wouldn't be the first to kill even within the League, or even the first to be willing (people like Wally and Hal have come awful close and were only stopped by outside events). Even Superman has had to do it as a last resort. Then you have guys like Green Arrow and Barry Allen that have actually killed people and it was in character, and they were still heroes. Bruce wouldn't.
If Bruce went rogue, he'd be hunted by his own family friends. We're talking about people who trusted him implicitly before (Superman, Nightwing etc) because Batman had become the one thing he always said he wouldn't.
Batman was once ready to kill Joker and Jim Gordon had to talk him down. It's not like he doesn't think about it. How easy it would be to kill Joker and be done with it. If he does take that step, though? Gotham loses Batman, which in itself is unacceptable imo.
Originally posted by -Pr-To be honest there are very few vampires I like. I hate most vampires. Not because they're evil, but because of how much my friends like them, gets irritating with them always going on about them.
😂and i'd be of the camp that if they're vamps and evil, then they need to be put down.
But like I said I'm a true neutral alignment. Simply being evil isn't enough for me. I'll admit there were times when I could understand where Magneto was coming from and was tempted to cheer him on.
Originally posted by -Pr-Yeah I agree. Some people just shouldn't kill, they should turn it over to those that won't fall on the slope.
that's exactly what i'm saying. I'd kill Joker in a heartbeat, but just because i don't agree with Batman's POV doesn't mean i think it's wrong.
Originally posted by -Pr-I only just started again because Jubilee is back.
np. tbh stuff like that is why i don't read x-men anymore. cyclops is corrupt, and willing to do anything to further his goals. that's not a superhero in my book.
Originally posted by -Pr-Agreed. Its just not part of who he is. Though I remember that one interrogation while batman was wearing the lasso. So its a strong character on his part to not give into what he wants to do.
iirc it's something along those lines. Bruce wouldn't be the first to kill even within the League, or even the first to be willing (people like Wally and Hal have come awful close and were only stopped by outside events). Even Superman has had to do it as a last resort. Then you have guys like Green Arrow and Barry Allen that have actually killed people and it was in character, and they were still heroes. Bruce wouldn't.If Bruce went rogue, he'd be hunted by his own family friends. We're talking about people who trusted him implicitly before (Superman, Nightwing etc) because Batman had become the one thing he always said he wouldn't.
Batman was once ready to kill Joker and Jim Gordon had to talk him down. It's not like he doesn't think about it. How easy it would be to kill Joker and be done with it. If he does take that step, though? Gotham loses Batman, which in itself is unacceptable imo.
You can't put the blame on batman's feet anymore than you can on the government that keeps sending him to arkham, why hay they never sought to do something more permenant to with the joker? It's not like Bats is the only one to know how dangerous he is. It'd certainly be easy enough for someone to take the joker out and then "misplace" the file.
Originally posted by srankmissingninhttp://dragonball.wikia.com/wiki/Dragon_Ball_Z_Kai
Well... I guess I'll say no considering DBZ has been off the air for years?
Originally posted by -Pr-
it's his justification for not killing. even if i don't agree with it, and in his place would more than likely kill the joker, his reasons are his reasons. he's not responsible for the prison system in gotham being useless compared to say, metropolis.DC isn't burying their head in the sand on this one. Bruce has been called on it more than once by other characters including Jason Todd and Damian, iirc.
Bruce admitted that he DOES WANT to kill Joker, and how tempting it was, but he has his reasons for not doing it. Even though i don't agree with them, i still respect that they're his beliefs.
Absolutely right.
I would also add, the issue is with the quality of the prison service or P.I.S. Batman's "not killing rule" is in no way absurd regardless of other opinions, what is absurd is that how a maximum security criminal like the Joker should ever be able to escape. He should be watched around the clock by multiple guards in the most high tech prison available. He shouldn't be behind a glass screen at Arkham.
In fact I think a great Joker centric story could be in the making there, regarding not Batman's no killing rule, rather Prison life for the Clown Prince of Crime. Why a prison and not a mental insitution or vice versa? Exploring these aspects would make a great character study for a good Batman storyline.
Originally posted by Bentley
They're a bunch of murderers, Scott will be drinking wine with the Red Skull soon enough.
Originally posted by Martian_mind
That would be the single greatest plot development and scene in the history of the X-men.
I might even start buying X-Men if they did that.
I'll even start the dialogue rolling. It's a rough draft but it should give the writers some ideas:
Cyclops: Excellent wine, herr Skull.
Red Skull: I see that our tastes are similar, herr Summers. Including, dare I say, a taste for... murder?
Cyclops: HA HA HA HA HAA HAHAAAA!
Red Skull: HA HA HA HAAA HAHAAAA!
Cyclops: HA HA HAA!
Red Skull: More wine, herr Summers?
Cyclops: Please.
Dude, if you think killing vampires because they're undead is an excuse to kill senitent life I don't want to know what you would do to a race of intelligent cows.
Originally posted by basilisk
I might even start buying X-Men if they did that.I'll even start the dialogue rolling. It's a rough draft but it should give the writers some ideas:
[B]Cyclops
: Excellent wine, herr Skull.
Red Skull: I see that our tastes are similar, herr Summers. Including, dare I say, a taste for... murder?
Cyclops: HA HA HA HA HAA HAHAAAA!
Red Skull: HA HA HA HAAA HAHAAAA!
Cyclops: HA HA HAA!
Red Skull: More wine, herr Summers?
Cyclops: Please. [/B]
That just rocks.
Originally posted by willRulesI agree its not absurd but he is pretty stupid though for the worlds greatest detective. Maybe its me but shouldn't a real hero sacrifice their own morality for whats best for the people? His own personal morality seems to outweigh the lives of those that he knows will be put in danger once Joker escapes( its happened enough so he knows how their little game of tag will go). Kinda selfish when you think about it.
Absolutely right.I would also add, the issue is with the quality of the prison service or P.I.S. Batman's "not killing rule" is in no way absurd regardless of other opinions, what is absurd is that how a maximum security criminal like the Joker should ever be able to escape. He should be watched around the clock by multiple guards in the most high tech prison available. He shouldn't be behind a glass screen at Arkham.
In fact I think a great Joker centric story could be in the making there, regarding not Batman's no killing rule, rather Prison life for the Clown Prince of Crime. Why a prison and not a mental insitution or vice versa? Exploring these aspects would make a great character study for a good Batman storyline.
