And beyond the legality of it all, Batman's not a dick for not being willing to take another's life. On a moral level, you can't accurately compare simply not sharing a cure for a disease without giving reason, and not killing a man who may go on to kill others.
Like Q said, Bats does everything bar kill Joker. He legitimately wants to help everybody, and he doesn't want anybody, including Joker, to die. That outlook or philosophy doesn't make him a dick.
Black Panther deigned not give a reason as to why he refuses to help those with cancer around the world. He just didn't. Even if he had a reason, the simple act of showing off his cure without even attempting to share or explain why he can't makes him a dick, plain and simple.
Though I do agree it makes him a dick. I not sure we can take it as legitment. Hudlin to my knolwedge wrote that as well as the skrulls. The way he views that characters is very extreme way to look at him, which highly doubt any of the other writers fallow in the least.
there was a oneshot that dealt with this. he avoids death penalty because he is crazy, but a jury found him sane enough and convicted him to the chair once. Ironically it was a copycat commiting the crimes, so batman proves the joker's innocence and gets him out of the chair in time.
You said it was the job of the state that implies it's not Batmans reponsibility because he doesn't hold an official position.
The point is Batmans responsibile you just disagree on the methods. Grow up, I misunderstand one point and you want to make a song and dance about it.
Arkham isn't containing him though is it? Since you already implied that he has a responsibility to stop The Joker it then falls on Batman to do something.
No he doesn't, he actually spends more resources spying on other superheroes and finding complicated methods to take them down. Read The Tower of Babel JLA. Also Batman will kill other humanoid lifeforms that haven't killed half as many people as The Joker. You could even argue that he doesn't have to kill The Joker but just do something else. Hell he won't even mindwipe The Joker, we saw him flip out when other heroes mindwiped Dr Light. He also won't try and build a hi-tech prison to try and keep The Joker contained despite the fact he has god tech and boom tube tech.
Great, so what weve established is that he spends more time trying to find means of stopping other super heroes. He won't try and find better methods of putting down The Joker despite having the tech to do it and will kill other lifeforms that are less dangerous just because they're not human. This is despite the fact that hes been a threat to the earth at least four times, beat his partner to death, crippled Babara Gordon and tortured a man to death so badly that he couldn't get to sleep, and you're arguing he's not a dick? You're playing with semantics its like trying to say that a guy who likes to walk outside with his underpants on his head isn't strange he's just eccentric (yes you can argue that its the same thing and thats the point).
It doesn't, this is bad enough as it is at least try and provide a logical explanation instead of just saying what your opinion is.
[/B][/QUOTE]
That is irrelevant, you are now trying to dodge the point. Just because there are more dangerous people doesn't change the fact that Joker is more of a threat to the world than cancer. Again wether he's more popular or not is irrelevant the fact is that it happened and it's DC canon, we don't get to decide that feats or events didn't happen just because a character is popular or not.
God grief what an absurd argument, before telling somebody there inept look at your own arguments. You're actually trying to argue that it's the fault of the writer for Joker doing that stuff and therefore Batman isn't responsible? If you're going to make that argument then nobody is responsible BP isn't responsible then because he just happened to be written by Hudlin who is racially obessessed and wanted to get back at white people.
We are assuming that eventhough these characters are written within the context of their reality they are responsible or we might as well not have this debate in the first place.
I'm not suprised and I knew you were going to say that, which is why I attempted to explain it before you made that excuse. This is debating tactic that people use alot on these forums, people try to argue that because two comparisons are different they are not comparable. Say for example you are studying for a science degree and I tell you that the longest journey starts with the first step, you will try to argue that the analogy is stupid because walking is different to studying. I'm not going to elaborate you should be able to figure that out for yourself.
Both individuals have the responsibility to protect their people and in some cases it overlaps. They both have to deal with crime and BP is winning on that front. Yes BP has to deal with other things as well and eventhough Batman has less resources he has to deal with fewer problems but still has the resources and the responsibility to stop the problem....or at least do better.
100% speculation. Being less popular doesn't always equal less death, having nicer tech doesn't always equal better society. We could also mention that eventhough BP has better tech, BP has to rule over a country while all Batman has to do is be a vigilante and most of the times his villains aren't as dangeous as BPs.
__________________ Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack.
- General George Patton Jr
Problem between Joker and Batman is that they are two sides of the same coin. They both subconsciously know that killing the other takes something very important away from themselves. Something that defines them as living beings. They define a part of their being through eachother and without it their lives cease to mean what it once did.
KMC Community Forums
Apr 12th, 2011 12:12 AM
