Who is the biggest dick?

I also think Batman shoulda killed Joker a long time ago and that he's a dick for not doing that. Ive heard most of his "reasons" and find them stupid as hell concidering the bodycount. Same can be said about many heroes/villains but Joker is a special case. Should be killed in a most sadistic way.

Also Batman is one lucky SOB. Thanks to PIS he always manages to find a way to save everyone without killing anyone and life doesnt work that way. (for those who watched Trigun) Id LOVE to see what choice Batman would've made if he found himself in a situation simillar to the one Vash was in (the Legato thing). Probably cried.

Originally posted by SamZED
I also think Batman shoulda killed Joker a long time ago and that he's a dick for not doing that. Ive heard most of his "reasons" and find them stupid as hell concidering the bodycount. Same can be said about many heroes/villains but Joker is a special case. Should be killed in a most sadistic way.

Also Batman is one lucky SOB. Thanks to PIS he always manages to find a way to save everyone without killing anyone and life doesnt work that way. (for those who watched Trigun) Id [B]LOVE to see what choice Batman would've made if he found himself in a situation simillar to the one Vash was in (the Legato thing). Probably cried. [/B]

Hah yeah I would love to see batman is that situation.

Originally posted by Deadline
*sigh* Yes lets try and pretend you have a point when you can't back up your arguements. Hey its DC.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Lol. This from "Cancer cure could be used as a biological weapon and that's why BP doesn't share it and boasts about not sharing it" guy.

Considering you think that dodging bullets is more impressive than batting bullets I think you should keep quiet.

Not exactly sure what your problem is but if you're arguing that it wouldn't happen when people do shit like that all the time is obvoulsy a faulty arguement.

I wasn't sure wether that WAS his reason I just a gave a good reason as to why he did it. If thats the case you need to prove thats his standard personaility.

Black Panther is kind of a dick. He joined the Avengers to spy on them, he won't share the cure fore cancer, and he didn't bother to tell anyone that the Skrull invasion was going down even though he had Dues Ex Machina "soul sight" that allowed him to identify Skrulls...

^ i dunno I might change my mind the list keeps piling up. I can see why he would spy on The Avengers not sure about the Skrull thing. All I can say really is that his people are first priority like Gothams people are Batmans. If BP had somebody like Joker in Wakanda I'm betting he'd get killed.

Originally posted by Deadline
Um you're trying to split hairs the reason why they're both responsible is because they both have the power to do it.

Batman is not responsible to act as executioner simply because Joker did something wrong. He can leave that up to the state, it's not in his hands to end somebody elses life. That puts a direct responsibility on his shoulders to remove Joker's personal autonomy and right to self-determination by ending his life due to actions he may or may not take in the future.

It can be argued that it is within Batman's capability to effectively fill such a position and to make appropriate decisions, but not accepting such a role doesn't make Batman a dick.

Black Panther, on the other hand, wouldn't be killing somebody in order to help people, and he wouldn't be acting on an uncertainty. It is certain that millions will die from cancer without a cure. It is not, as you are suggesting, remotely certain that Joker will pose a threat to the world.

Not remotely comparable.

^ It's a lot more complicated than you realise. However it looks I'm going to have to do a long post, so looks like I'm going to have to leave it till Monday...well not today anyway.

I look forward to you unravelling this mystery for me.

IMO, Stark is still the greratest dick to ever appear in a comic book.

Let's compare him to T'Challa: T'Challa, not sharing the cure, is a dickish, and against the entire world, but he don't care, but it's not "personnal".

On the other hand, Stark went against his old friends, even hiring evil dudes to kick their asses. He use villains to beat HEROES, and they are his FRIENDS. And if these friends doesn't go his way, he sends their asses in the Negative Zone.
Man. This dude was hardcore in CW.

Reed richards.

Originally posted by Existere
It is certain that millions will die from cancer without a cure.

Originally posted by Existere
What? That doesn't begin to make sense.

Batman is not responsible to act as executioner simply because Joker did something wrong. He can leave that up to the state, it's not in his hands to end somebody elses life. That puts a direct responsibility on his shoulders to remove Joker's personal autonomy and right to self-determination by ending his life due to actions he may or may not take in the future.

You're arguing because he doesn't have legal responsibility that he doesn't have any responsibility. I could be wrong but as far as I'm aware in the Roman Empire children could be chucked out onto the street and there wouldn't be anything wrong with it. So clearly because it's not there legal responsibility then there nothing wrong with it. I guess if an Asagardian turned up on earth and saw a group of thugs about to rape a women he doesn't need to do anything, it's the job of state and if he chooses to do nothing it's perfectly fine.

Please don't point out that none of the examples above involve killing the whole point I'm getting at is the people in the above examples have a moral responsibility to do something eventhough they don't have a legal one. That responsibility can apply to whole load of situations and actions. Batman is responsibile for killing The Joker because he has the power to do it AND he has made it his responsibility to protect the people of Gotham for years, it's his unofficial job. Hell I think the JLA are even sanctioned by the government.

What do you mean he may or may not take? He may not destroy the universe in the future but it's pretty much certain that hes going to keep on killing. Oh and I don't advocate the killing of criminals or breaking the law, a situation like this wouldn't exist in the real world ( in other words this is a hypothetical situation). Joker is an exception and since he's a mass murderer who could have destroyed the earth at least once and could have destroyed the universe on at least two ocassions I think he's an exception.

Originally posted by Existere

It can be argued that it is within Batman's capability to effectively fill such a position and to make appropriate decisions, but not accepting such a role doesn't make Batman a dick.

Sure it does.

Originally posted by Existere
Black Panther, on the other hand, wouldn't be killing somebody in order to help people, and he wouldn't be acting on an uncertainty. It is certain that millions will die from cancer without a cure. It is not, as you are suggesting, remotely certain that Joker will pose a threat to the world.

Not remotely comparable.

Please stop arguing that because BP isn't killing anybody that somehow it makes it different, it still involves saving lives.

Yea I know it's not certain that Joker will pose a threat to the world. Hes only been a threat to the universe twice and was a threat to the whole world In The Killing Joke and the Last Laugh. Joker poses a real and credible threat to the whole world, cancer doesn't. I'm more concerned about The Joker because if I don't sort him out I may not even have a world to save in the first place.

Another thing eventhough I think BP has a responsibility to the world his priority is to his people. Do you have mass murderers running around in Wakanda? Yes I know what you're going to say, yes they both have different jobs but if you both look at their jobs BP is doing better than Batman.

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
Black Panther is kind of a dick. He joined the Avengers to spy on them, he won't share the cure fore cancer, and he didn't bother to tell anyone that the Skrull invasion was going down even though he had Dues Ex Machina "soul sight" that allowed him to identify Skrulls...

Though I still Think Prof X takes the cake as the biggest dick.

Originally posted by Bouboumaster
IMO, Stark is still the greratest dick to ever appear in a comic book.

I disagree completely. X is worse then Stark.

Originally posted by Bouboumaster

Let's compare him to T'Challa: T'Challa, not sharing the cure, is a dickish, and against the entire world, but he don't care, but it's not "personnal".

Originally posted by Bouboumaster
On the other hand, Stark went against his old friends, even hiring evil dudes to kick their asses. He use villains to beat HEROES, and they are his FRIENDS. And if these friends doesn't go his way, he sends their asses in the Negative Zone.
Man. This dude was hardcore in CW.

Prox X still takes the cake though, mind raping fellow teamates, lovers ect. Manipulating his own men for his goals. Sending mere children to the slaughter. Attempting to higher though failing to, mass murders like sabre-tooth simply so he had a weapon. All this an much more while pretending to the world he was a saint.

Originally posted by Deadline
You're arguing because he doesn't have legal responsibility that he doesn't have any responsibility. I could be wrong but as far as I'm aware in the Roman Empire children could be chucked out onto the street and there wouldn't be anything wrong with it. So clearly because it's not there legal responsibility then there nothing wrong with it. I guess if an Asagardian turned up on earth and saw a group of thugs about to rape a women he doesn't need to do anything, it's the job of state and if he chooses to do nothing it's perfectly fine.

If an Asgardian (why?) turned up on earth and saw the beginnings of a rape, then the rape would be a certainty and he could stop the rape without killing somebody.

Originally posted by Deadline
Please don't point out that none of the examples above involve killing the whole point I'm getting at is the people in the above examples have a moral responsibility to do something eventhough they don't have a legal one.

Originally posted by Deadline
What do you mean he may or may not take? He may not destroy the universe in the future but it's pretty much certain that hes going to keep on killing.

Batman continuously looks for ways to stop super villains from being evil, that's what he's about. Not willing to simply resorting to killing them doesn't make him a dick. You can argue that it makes him ignorant or foolish, but not a dick.

Originally posted by Deadline
Sure it does.

Originally posted by Deadline
Please stop arguing that because BP isn't killing anybody that somehow it makes it different, it still involves saving lives.

Originally posted by Deadline
Yea I know it's not certain that Joker will pose a threat to the world.

Originally posted by Deadline
[B]Another thing eventhough I think BP has a responsibility to the world his priority is to his people. Do you have mass murderers running around in Wakanda? Yes I know what you're going to say, yes they both have different jobs but if you both look at their jobs BP is doing better than Batman.

Batman's a completely different character than Black Panther, and they live in completely different, not-at-all comparable places.

Yes, Wakanda's nicer than Gotham. Probably due to Black Panther being a less popular character with nicer technology. It also helps that Wakanda has a cure for cancer...

Deadline does make interesting point about Hudlin though. It is interesting if we should take what hudlin writes as legitmently part of black panther character, because he seem to be under the impression that Black Panther an wakanda symbolizes the extremist fraction of "Panthers". More I read his stuff the more I believe this may very well be the case. If so, I not sure we can hold it as any type of standard for the character, because it very doubtful any other writer views Black Panther character in such light.

Batman has handed the Joker in to a legal system with the legal authority to kill him multiple times.

He doesn't personally pull the trigger, but it's sort of like yelling at an arresting officer on whether or not a criminal stays locked up when the officer tracks them down, gets proper evidence, arrests them following procedure, and gets them into the courtroom intact with no failings on his or her end, but then they escape from prison.

At that point, it's the warden's responsibility, not the arresting officer's. Batman has handed off responsibility to the legal system with the Joker, with enough evidence to convict him, and with the legal system knowing full well what he's done and his likely future actions.

It's not like Batman just stops the Joker and leaves him free and unhindered, not if he can do something about it. Batman, someone who can't legally kill someone, hands criminals over to someone who can. The lack of dead Jokers isn't his fault.

Originally posted by Q99
Batman has handed the Joker in to a legal system with the legal authority to kill him multiple times.

Originally posted by Dum Dum Dugan
Are you sure they do? He tends to hand them to Gotham Police, and Gotham symbolizes New York, which I believe does not have a death penalty at the moment.

Iirc they've mentioned in the past that Gotham has the death penalty.