Comments | philippos42: Batman vs Wonder Woman

philippos42

Batman vs Wonder Woman

Mar 17, 2009 00:25

I used to sort of like Batman. But somewhere along the way, it started to seem that Bruce was a guy so obsessed with forever "fighting crime" that he didn't care about actually winning. He avoids the wrath of the law by not playing executioner, fair enough. But as a masked man with a secret identity, he's useless in a chain of evidence. Batman's ( Read more... )

wonder woman, batman

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

janegray March 17 2009, 12:31:26 UTC

Personally, I've been considering Bruce harmful to Gotham ever since he started saving the Joker's life.

Refusing to kill the Joker, fair enough, it's not Batman's failt if the system is flawed.

But saving the Joker, when the system (that time Joker was condemed to death; granted, it was the one time Joker hadn't actually committed the crime, but if a system's flaw balances the other flaws out to make an overall functional system, isn't that just?) or other people try to kill him, is utterly absurd. And makes Batman indirectly responsible for all the Joker's subsequent crimes.

It's the reason I like Jason Todd so much: he gets it.

misterandersen March 17 2009, 17:15:49 UTC

Exactly. There's no reason why Batman couldn't have dumped the evidence of the true felon's guilt in Gordon's lap one minute after midnight.

(The comment has been removed)

__marcelo March 17 2009, 22:24:17 UTC

Bruce didn't interfere with the courts in that case, either. He kept studying the case --- using arguably illegal methods, but par for his course --- and then he gave the evidence to Gordon, who then arranged for the execution to be suspended. It would have been different if he had staged a breakout to get the Joker out of jail on a hunch. Giving information to the police is not interfering with the judicial system.

looking2dastars March 19 2009, 03:16:54 UTC

The thing of it is - and Kevin Smith nailed this recently in his Batman story - that Batman does not want to see anyone die... even someone who probably deserves it.

Bruce is hard-core Neutral Good. Life is life. Allowing someone to die through inaction is, from this perspective, no different than pulling the trigger yourself.

philippos42 March 19 2009, 04:58:42 UTC

Then why doesn't he take action to better restrain the Joker?

I get that maybe he's not aware of how badly Zsasz is managed by Arkham--he maybe didn't see coming that a doctor there would let Zsasz snap her neck--but the Joker killed Bruce's kid. That's a big blind spot.

looking2dastars March 19 2009, 14:30:14 UTC

Bruce does everything he can as an individual to see The Joker contained - both as a vigilante and in his secret identity ( ... )

janegray March 19 2009, 08:44:26 UTC

I understand that. I simply can't accept it.

Why should countless innocent people die, murdered by the Joker, just so that Bruce can (somewhat) keep a peace of mind? He put his own principles above the lives of thousands of innocent people. That's pretty damn selfish.

looking2dastars March 19 2009, 14:37:33 UTC

There's actually a very good book that came out recently which discusses these issues in detail, along with the fact that if The Joker is truly crazy, then he can't be held responsible for his actions and thus cannot be put on trial under United States law. There is also an entire chapter on why Batman doesn't kill The Joker and how the differing systems of ethics would view the problem.

Batman and Philosophy: The Dark Knight of the Soul You sound like you subscribe to the theory that one death can excuse the potential deaths of others. Bruce, most of the time, subscribes to the theory that committing one evil act (in this case, taking life) would not excuse the potential good that might come of that act. The end does not justify the means, in other words ( ... )

Back to all threads