Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 47

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Totally harmless RubberLotus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Arkham Asylum
    Posts
    3,260

    Default Joker and the busload of children...

    So... I've noticed lately that whenever people bandy about the whole "someone (preferably Batman) should totally kill the Joker!" thing, they always mention something along the lines of "he once killed a busload of children!" or "he once gassed an entire kindergarten class!" as justification.

    The thing is... has canon actually confirmed any of this? In anything other than a throwaway line from Joker (who would say ANYTHING to get under someone's skin, whether it was true or not) to verify it? The closest I can think of was in The Dark Knight Returns, where he killed (dozens of?) boy scouts with poisoned cotton candy. But that 1.) was an Elseworlds, and 2.) featured him dying painfully shortly thereafter.

  2. #2
    Junior Member Mistah K88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Jose, California, USA
    Posts
    400

    Default

    There was the time that he told Lex Luthor that he boiled a baby alive and forced the father to eat the soup. As for the murder of children, I wouldn't be surprised with his resume.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Vidocq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,456

    Default

    This things are said but never showned because even for DC and it's Shock instead of story style, showing the Joker killing a bunch of kids would be in bad taste, not to mention it would finally cross the line (that should've been crossed long ago) for the Fans who worship the Joker as some kind of ''High Class'' Psycho or with some kinds of standards if they actually got to see what an actual bastard he is.

    The closest he actually got was in NML where he was SPOILERS about to kill all the babies born in the year Gotham was NML. SPOILERS
    ...And does Mr. Goddanm Batman says so much as ''Thanks''? OF COURSE not. That'd hardly be GRIM AND GRITTY, would it?

    The jerk...

    -DKU's Jim Gordon.

  4. #4
    Senior Member jgiannantoni05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Arkham, Mass.
    Posts
    3,636

    Default

    I don't know if he's actually done those things (confirmedly so). But Joker has definitely done the worst of the worst (killed children, women, families, etc, etc), with a huge body count (so whether he's done those precise things doesn't matter much). AND yet I completely understand Batman not killing him (Bruce is Kantian in morality on the issue of murder, which is his perogative).

    fun fact: Sinestro's body count is the trillions (see when Sinestro and MadGod Sector 3600 tore thru the universe in late 80s comics), so feel free to throw that in fan's faces
    Last edited by jgiannantoni05; 02-02-2013 at 09:04 PM.
    DC discarded their history, and now has none. DC will always be in the shadows of their past work.

  5. #5
    Totally harmless RubberLotus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Arkham Asylum
    Posts
    3,260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jgiannantoni05 View Post
    I don't know if he's actually done those things (confirmedly so). But Joker has definitely done the worst of the worst, with a huge body count (so whether he's done those precise things doesn't matter much). AND yet I completely understand Batman not killing him (Bruce is Kantian in morality on the issue of murder, which is his perogative).
    My thoughts on this: if Batman won't even kill Ra's al-Ghul, then people have no business expecting him to kill Joker.

    Bruce has seen first-hand, and remembers, what Ra's can do on a good day. When you factor in the guy's past, you've got a pretty good case of Ra's being even worse than Joker.

  6. #6
    Senior Member jgiannantoni05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Arkham, Mass.
    Posts
    3,636

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RubberLotus View Post
    My thoughts on this: if Batman won't even kill Ra's al-Ghul, then people have no business expecting him to kill Joker.

    Bruce has seen first-hand, and remembers, what Ra's can do on a good day. When you factor in the guy's past, you've got a pretty good case of Ra's being even worse than Joker.
    Sure. Yea, I wonder why Joker is always the focus of such discussions. And with Sinestro (see my edited post above), fans should get on Hal's case with him, etc.
    DC discarded their history, and now has none. DC will always be in the shadows of their past work.

  7. #7
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    221B Baker Street
    Posts
    18,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RubberLotus View Post
    My thoughts on this: if Batman won't even kill Ra's al-Ghul, then people have no business expecting him to kill Joker.

    Bruce has seen first-hand, and remembers, what Ra's can do on a good day. When you factor in the guy's past, you've got a pretty good case of Ra's being even worse than Joker.
    I cheered on Bruce when he "killed" Ra's in Batman Begins.

    You're calling a double standard where it doesn't exist.

  8. #8
    Senior Member tylenoljones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,146

    Default

    Despite claims to the contrary, I really don't think it's Joker's massive body count that makes it hard for people to believe Batman wouldn't have killed him by now. I feel that what really doesn't sit well with fans is the fact that Joker has gotten away with some very personal attacks on Bruce's family.

    People might say that it's a bit ridiculous Joker hasn't been sentenced to the electric chair yet; but the root of the problem is that because of what Joker has done to Jason, Barbara, (and by extension what he's done to Bruce and Jim Gordon), it's hard to believe either of those two men would let the Joker just go on killing. Most people (not all) who've had a maniac kill their son, daughter, wife, etc. might not murder the killer personally, but I can't see them opposing the death penalty if this hypothetical killer ever went to trial.

    It's impossible for me to believe that Jason Todd wouldn't have killed Joker by now. It helps that I haven't been reading as many Bat-Books (Morrison's run aside) since Jason came back.
    Last edited by tylenoljones; 02-02-2013 at 09:26 PM.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    N/A on Comicbookresources
    Posts
    2,343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RubberLotus View Post
    My thoughts on this: if Batman won't even kill Ra's al-Ghul, then people have no business expecting him to kill Joker.
    Batman's "killed" Ra's at least twice: Batman Annual #8 (1982) and Batman #400.

  10. #10
    just does things Vil_Dee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    579

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RubberLotus View Post
    My thoughts on this: if Batman won't even kill Ra's al-Ghul, then people have no business expecting him to kill Joker.

    Bruce has seen first-hand, and remembers, what Ra's can do on a good day. When you factor in the guy's past, you've got a pretty good case of Ra's being even worse than Joker.
    It's just hating haters hating. They're mad all the writers drool at the thought of writing the Joker and no one gives a crap about their favs. Sorry, it's not the Joker's fault no one has written about your precious Killer Moth in years.

    Yeah, you'll never see one thread about "Why doesn't Batman kill Ras" or "Should Ras die" even though every Ras outing has him trying to kill over 95% of the population. He unleashed a freakin plague in Gotham, how many people died in that? No one asks why Batman, or the CIA, or Nato, or the UN, or the JLA, or the JLI, or the GLC, or anyone doesn't actively hunt Ras down (or his now crazy a$$ daughter Talia) Zero Dark Thirty style. Nope, grasshoppers and tumbleweeds. Evidently, the only character in comics that is subject to real-world standards is the Joker.

    I wish one writer would just put in as canon, "Gotham doesn't have the flippin death penalty, m'kay!!!!"

    And wouldn't Batman look like a massive hypocrite if he was all high and mighty with his code of not killing when it was someone else's family that was torn apart, but when it's his own, now he's going to kill?

    Jason Todd, a grade C character, is not worthy to kill the Joker, so you can just sit down about that.

  11. #11
    God Of Tokusatsu Guy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Everywhere and Nowhere
    Posts
    64,568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vidocq View Post
    This things are said but never showned because even for DC and it's Shock instead of story style, showing the Joker killing a bunch of kids would be in bad taste, not to mention it would finally cross the line (that should've been crossed long ago) for the Fans who worship the Joker as some kind of ''High Class'' Psycho or with some kinds of standards if they actually got to see what an actual bastard he is.
    That went out the window when he blew up an entire orphanage in Cacophony.
    Won 6 Awesome Awards, 2Cool awards, 2 internets, a Raging storm and funniest video award
    My RPG Site!

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy1 View Post
    That went out the window when he blew up an entire orphanage in Cacophony.
    Yeah, but Cacophony sucked. Is that even considered canon?

  13. #13

    Default

    The problem with the Joker by now is that no matter how monstrous he gets, it's just passe. He kills a whole load of people? Done that before, what makes this any more horrific? He kills a Batclan member? Killed Jason, crippled Barbara, seen it all before. It's just ludicrously overdone, he is a one-note murderous bore. Escape Arkham, kill people, go back to Arkham, rinse and repeat ad nauseam. That's why Nolan Joker was interesting for me. He wasn't just killing people because he found it amusing, he had a plan, or at least an agenda, there was a purpose to what he was doing. Comics Joker has no point. (For me anyway.)

  14. #14
    Veteran Member Hypestyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    5,669

    Default

    so, short of outright "killing", has the joker ever really received a brutal beatdown? I'm not talking one-two punches and then bat-cuffs..

  15. #15
    Senior Member jgiannantoni05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Arkham, Mass.
    Posts
    3,636

    Default

    I think that the best explanation for why Bruce won't kill the Joker is to stop himself from sliding down the path of Light Yagami.
    No, IMHO the best explanation is that Batman is a Kantian/deontological moralist (which says: We have moral duties to do right actions and moral duties not to do wrong actions. Whether something is right or wrong doesn’t depend on its consequences. Rather, some actions are inherently right or wrong). Batman's not a utilitarian on at least the specific issue of murder. See philosophy. See the book Batman on Philosophy.

    Dixon is/was a Catholic. Catholic morality is Kantian/deontological.


    There are two presumptions that many fans seem to make regarding Batman killing Joker:
    a) that Batman is morally responsible for any/all/most of the lives Joker has taken
    b) that there is not any substantial longstanding philosophical view that supports Batman's firm no-killing position

    In short, to those who feel Batman should kill...Bruce doesn't agree with you on a fundamental philosophical level, he ain't even seeing what you are. In other words, Bruce doesn't even agree with you that there is a problem, let alone whether he should fix it or not (and he'd say not, because murder is inherently wrong in deontological morality).
    Last edited by jgiannantoni05; 02-03-2013 at 07:35 AM.
    DC discarded their history, and now has none. DC will always be in the shadows of their past work.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •