How Many People Should Batman Have Killed?

[SowZ]

Considering how many people he's knocked off the roofs of small buildings, smashed through windows, beaten to unconsciousness, broken their bones, used fancy gadgets including electrocution/paralysis/sleep poison, scared out of their wits, and left wounded in the snow, how many people should he have killed by accident due to untreated head wounds, internal bleeding, heart attacks, allergic reaction to otherwise mild toxins, hypothermia, infection, etc.?

[Giggling Ghast]

I know during Batman: Arkham Asylum I broke the arms and legs of several hundred inmates over the course of one night. I often wonder if Gotham City hospitals maintain special "Batman" wards to treat all the goons he severely injures.

[comicshorse]

I remember in one of Alan Grant's run he definitely DOES kill someone when he throws a thug throw a window and the guy gets impaled on spiked railings

[Grif]

I know during Batman: Arkham Asylum I broke the arms and legs of several hundred inmates over the course of one night. I often wonder if Gotham City hospitals maintain special "Batman" wards to treat all the goons he severely injures.

Does that mean they can list "Batman" as an injury now? :smalltongue:

"What happened to you?"

"Batman."

"Ah."

[Cen]

All of them.

[Legato Endless]

All of them.

Then, at last, Gotham will have peace.

[ChaosArchon]

In all honesty the only count can be less than Superman, seriously the guy can bend metal and kill a god-like being, and he also hits normal criminals with disregard...

[SowZ]

In all honesty the only count can be less than Superman, seriously the guy can bend metal and kill a god-like being, and he also hits normal criminals with disregard...

Superman occasionally kills things, though, albeit very rarely. So I'd expect Superman to have a higher body count.

[Tanuki Tales]

Superman occasionally kills things, though, albeit very rarely. So I'd expect Superman to have a higher body count.

He does. Superman has zero qualms about killing artificial life, demons and some alien life forms. He's also the one who can bring himself to execute individuals who truly deserve to die, in his opinion.

[Giggling Ghast]

Superman lets common thugs surrender after heat-blasting the guns from their hands. Batman doesn't have the benefit of nigh-invulnerability, so when he puts somebody down, he puts somebody down.

I do sort of wonder about the mooks I leave hanging by their ankles in the Arkham games. Shouldn't that eventually kill them?

[masamune1]

Superman lets common thugs surrender after heat-blasting the guns from their hands. Batman doesn't have the benefit of nigh-invulnerability, so when he puts somebody down, he puts somebody down.

I do sort of wonder about the mooks I leave hanging by their ankles in the Arkham games. Shouldn't that eventually kill them?

The police find them later.

Or other mooks find them and you fight them again.

Or other mooks find them and their bosses order them shot. In which case yes, that does eventually kill them.

Do bare in mind that all of the Arkham games each take place over the course of a single night, so its not like those guys are hanging there for that long.

With regards to Superman, there is also the time he tortured Alternate Universe Zod and his cohorts to death with Kryptonite. Slowly and painfully, while they begged for their lives.

[SowZ]

Superman lets common thugs surrender after heat-blasting the guns from their hands. Batman doesn't have the benefit of nigh-invulnerability, so when he puts somebody down, he puts somebody down.

I do sort of wonder about the mooks I leave hanging by their ankles in the Arkham games. Shouldn't that eventually kill them?

Absolutely. It might be able to exacerbate an otherwise too small to kill you brain bleed. In fact, tripping and falling at walking speeds onto normal ground left untreated kills a larger number of people than most anyone would expect. Just the guys you punch out and walk away from could easily die. If one ever gets in a fight, the first thing the winning party should do is call an ambulance even if there are no major visible injuries.

[Gnoman]

With regards to Superman, there is also the time he tortured Alternate Universe Zod and his cohorts to death with Kryptonite. Slowly and painfully, while they begged for their lives.

Wasn't that the version that he sentenced to death because they exterminated all life in an entire galaxy and were too dangerous to be left alive? You can argue that the choice to execute them didn't belong to him, but there aren't all that many ways to execute Kryptonians once the decision has been made.

[SowZ]

The police find them later.

Or other mooks find them and you fight them again.

Or other mooks find them and their bosses order them shot. In which case yes, that does eventually kill them.

Do bare in mind that all of the Arkham games each take place over the course of a single night, so its not like those guys are hanging there for that long.

With regards to Superman, there is also the time he tortured Alternate Universe Zod and his cohorts to death with Kryptonite. Slowly and painfully, while they begged for their lives.

Can you think of a faster way to do it? While torturous, not sure if that's 'torture' per say.

[Jayngfet]

The obvious issue is that you'd need to pin down what Batman has actually done before you can get even a rough guess. With DC's timeline the way it is he may have one accidental kill or hundreds.

[SowZ]

The obvious issue is that you'd need to pin down what Batman has actually done before you can get even a rough guess. With DC's timeline the way it is he may have one accidental kill or hundreds.

I'm curious how many he actually has confirmed, and how many he probably has and is unaware of.

[Giggling Ghast]

If you can go toe-to-toe with Superman, it's unlikely that any prison on Earth or elsewhere can hold you. When Superman kills, it's often out of necessity.

[jedipotter]

Well hundreds, if not thousands. It would be bad enough just to count all the ones your sure he killed without a doubt. But human life is fragile. Chances are that around half the people he stunned, zapped, gassed or knocked out might have died.


As crazy as it sounds, if you subject someone to trauma, they often die from it. Just watch the news and see how many people die from just going out to get their mail over the winter. That's right, a couple seconds being outside in the cold and people freeze to death. Now think of when Batman holds a bad guy under some freezing sea water or such. When someone gets punched in the face, or even just hit in the head.....they die. When people get their head slammed into or through a wall...they die. And so on and so on.

[Tanuki Tales]

Wasn't that the version that he sentenced to death because they exterminated all life in an entire galaxy and were too dangerous to be left alive? You can argue that the choice to execute them didn't belong to him, but there aren't all that many ways to execute Kryptonians once the decision has been made.

Yup.

And to be honest, the only person in all of DC who I think has more moral authority to decide who should be reasonably executed other than Superman is Captain Marvel.

[SowZ]

Considering how many people Batman has probably killed incidentally, it might be a bit hypocritical when he gets on a high horse when someone else is the J. League kills.

[Sapphire Guard]

Has anyone come up with an actual example yet? Aside from the building he burns down full of chained prisoners in Batman Begin in order to avoid killing chained prisoners.

Batman isn't the Punisher. Some people he deals with probably die... but there's no way he can stop that from happening. I imagine he has a pretty low bodycount overall compared to other heroes, because his powers don't generally involve collapsing buildings by accident in the process of fighting someone else.

[Gnoman]

Yup.

And to be honest, the only person in all of DC who I think has more moral authority to decide who should be reasonably executed other than Superman is Captain Marvel.

Certainly agree with you there, but wanted to acknowledge that the "moral authority" is a perfectly reasonable argument.

[Tanuki Tales]

Certainly agree with you there, but wanted to acknowledge that the "moral authority" is a perfectly reasonable argument.

In DC though, who really has moral authority?

The U.S. government? The United Nations? The Guardians and the Green Lantern Corp? High Father? The Endless? God/Source/YHWH/Jehova/etc.?

[Legato Endless]

I imagine he has a pretty low bodycount overall compared to other heroes, because his powers don't generally involve collapsing buildings by accident in the process of fighting someone else.

Oh that only happens in the abandoned warehouse district. Or Hulk is a super genius who can rampage through the city but never result in any causalities. Superman doesn't kill people, just lifestyles. And the economy. :smalltongue:

[Tanuki Tales]

Oh that only happens in the abandoned warehouse district. Or Hulk is a super genius who can rampage through the city but never result in any causalities. Superman doesn't kill people, just lifestyles. And the economy. :smalltongue:

The Hulk thing is actually canon...

Bruce Banner is always subtly controlling and directing the Hulk subconsciously.

[Dienekes]

Well hundreds, if not thousands. It would be bad enough just to count all the ones your sure he killed without a doubt. But human life is fragile. Chances are that around half the people he stunned, zapped, gassed or knocked out might have died.


As crazy as it sounds, if you subject someone to trauma, they often die from it. Just watch the news and see how many people die from just going out to get their mail over the winter. That's right, a couple seconds being outside in the cold and people freeze to death. Now think of when Batman holds a bad guy under some freezing sea water or such. When someone gets punched in the face, or even just hit in the head.....they die. When people get their head slammed into or through a wall...they die. And so on and so on.

Alright, while I think it's worth noting that yeah, life is fragile. I think you're overstating things here. I've been in a few fights, got my head hit a few times, been thrown through a wall, been stabbed, broke bones, as well as many other unpleasantries and I'm still here. 50% of people Batman fights dying? Ridiculous.

A non-zero, much higher than people should really be comfortable with number? Of definitely.

[Legato Endless]

The Hulk thing is actually canon...

Bruce Banner is always subtly controlling and directing the Hulk subconsciously.

So is the empty city block. Especially back in the 70s. Banner being able to accurately predict the swath of destruction is far from his most impressive feat. The only part I quibble with is how the no causality thing is calculated. There's no way for Banner to prevent a casualty caused by the mass hysteria, or someone keeling over from the shock of him bursting though the wall. So my assumption is it sometimes ignores deaths he's only indirectly responsible for.

[masamune1]

Hulk generally avoids hurting people as well. Its not just Banner. Hulk is a big softie underneath it all.


Has anyone come up with an actual example yet? Aside from the building he burns down full of chained prisoners in Batman Begin in order to avoid killing chained prisoners.

Batman isn't the Punisher. Some people he deals with probably die... but there's no way he can stop that from happening. I imagine he has a pretty low bodycount overall compared to other heroes, because his powers don't generally involve collapsing buildings by accident in the process of fighting someone else.

Obviously there are no actual examples. The point is, Batman is portrayed as having a definitive no-kill code and as being a fairly realistic sort of superhero. Except beating the crap out of thousands of people and not one of them dying is not realistic at all, so the "realistic" part is undermined. Its in the same category as how he is treated as being on-par with (if not superior to) the likes of Flash, Superman and Green Lantern, ie. people who are vastly more powerful than he is. Its one of those things you just have to accept, but it jives with many of the reasons given for the character being popular.

[No brains]

MMA and boxing don't have 50% death rates. If they did, I don't think they would be as popular. One thing about the thugs Batman fights is that they are generally young, strong, reasonably healthy men. Depending on which Batman hits them, it may not be that hard. 60's Batman had a tough time fighting one or two guys even with Robin's help. An interesting correlation to make is that as time goes on, Batman becomes a more skilled fighter, but also, more people know and fear him. He might not be knocking the literal large intestines out of everyone he meets. Some guys might be taking a dive because of what they heard Batman did to this other guy his friend knows. It is perhaps reasonable to assume Batman have made examples and tableau(plural, spell check doesn't seem to know) of people both health and well-set enough to survive and recover from such treatment like The Penguin or Rupert Thorn. It's not about crushing flesh machines out of working order, it's about disarming minds of the nerve needed to keep going.

If this is about who he should have killed so that they wouldn't just escape and kill more people, well, he shouldn't have a rogue's gallery so much as a mausoleum.

[Traab]

Superman has killed more people by accident than half his rogues gallery has killed on purpose. Just the collateral damage from being thrown or throwing through entire buildings, (There is no way all those high rises several blocks away from the sudden fight get evacuated) the exploding vehicles, the dodged weapon fire capable of hurting superman, the deflected attacks, the sheer air pressure of the shockwaves of his hits taken and dished out. That one death of superman movie where he pile drove doomsday into the middle of metropolis from outer space like a frigging asteroid and obliterated several city blocks, superman in all reality would have a death total greater than the holocaust. Metropolis would be effectively depopulated within a decade. It would be in ruins inside of his first year. Only comic book hand waves keep him from being one of the most feared "good guys" in existence. At least batman tends to only accidentally kill thugs and bad guys. Innocent civilians rarely get caught up in his murder sprees.

[jedipotter]

The Hulk thing is actually canon...

Bruce Banner is always subtly controlling and directing the Hulk subconsciously.

That is just the Kid Friendly stuff that takes over so much of everything. The Hulk would have killed thousands. Just think of that bit from first (or second) Hulk movie where the Hulk punches a tank, hurls it like a mile, and then the troops inside the tank just walk out and hold their heads.

And it is why zero people died when the aliens attacked in The Avengers. Remember the awesome bit where the alien breaks through the window, pulls out it's weapon and shoots the wall.


But back to Batman. I don't read the comic. But, naturally, the 'official' number of people Batman has killed is low. After all, to keep Batman a hero he has to not kill.

[SowZ]

That is just the Kid Friendly stuff that takes over so much of everything. The Hulk would have killed thousands. Just think of that bit from first (or second) Hulk movie where the Hulk punches a tank, hurls it like a mile, and then the troops inside the tank just walk out and hold their heads.

And it is why zero people died when the aliens attacked in The Avengers. Remember the awesome bit where the alien breaks through the window, pulls out it's weapon and shoots the wall.


But back to Batman. I don't read the comic. But, naturally, the 'official' number of people Batman has killed is low. After all, to keep Batman a hero he has to not kill.

It's funny that this is a rule in Superhero movies, but not in any other action movie genre. Maybe their powers give them extra responsibility, and it is unfair to kill people who stand no chance?

[thubby]

the people who would die from sneezing too hard aren't the hardened criminals of the world.

there are combat sports and they have a nearly 0 death rate. no doubt batman has been maiming the crap out of people, but since they're violent criminals, stopping them with violence isn't exactly uncalled for.

the man has like a dozen masters degrees in medicine and the sciences in a universe where such fields have advanced to the point of biological augmentation.
he knows exactly what he's doing when he hits someone.

[SowZ]

the people who would die from sneezing too hard aren't the hardened criminals of the world.

there are combat sports and they have a nearly 0 death rate. no doubt batman has been maiming the crap out of people, but since they're violent criminals, stopping them with violence isn't exactly uncalled for.

the man has like a dozen masters degrees in medicine and the sciences in a universe where such fields have advanced to the point of biological augmentation.
he knows exactly what he's doing when he hits someone.

None of those sports are heavy combat sports. Shoot, Batman fights with far less rules than boxing and boxers die.

[Tanuki Tales]

That is just the Kid Friendly stuff that takes over so much of everything.

Yes, because it's so adult and mature to have people die as collateral damage.

I personally find it more interesting from a narrative sense for Banner to be doing the complex math in the Hulk's subconscious and then directing his actions based on the results of that math.

If I wanted to read a grim dark story where the Hulk kills hundreds, I'll read Ultimate comics. Where he's also a rapist and a cannibal.

[Dienekes]

Yes, because it's so adult and mature to have people die as collateral damage.

I personally find it more interesting from a narrative sense for Banner to be doing the complex math in the Hulk's subconscious and then directing his actions based on the results of that math.

If I wanted to read a grim dark story where the Hulk kills hundreds, I'll read Ultimate comics. Where he's also a rapist and a cannibal.

Actually I do kind of think it is more mature to really look at the fiction and think through the details of what you're really reading. Giant insanely strong rage monster pretty much equals dead civilians, unless there is furious writer handwaving going on.

Depending how it's handled, obviously. The same thing that can be very mature can become more immature than the original ever was.

That said, Ultimates... An interesting concept, and I would point to the very first as actually a pretty good read. But there's examining your fiction, and then there is reveling in making your heroes as unlikable and repulsive as you can get away with for a cheap thrill.

[SowZ]

I don't think you can get too dark and edgy. Why else would the best period in comic history be the 90s and the best author Todd McFarlane?

Seriously, though, I don't think the Hulk killing people in inner city battles is particularly edgy, it's just logic. I like the idea that Banner subconsciously reduces the carnage and that the Hulk himself tries to avoid killing civilians when he can. The body count could be drastically lower than it should be, but still not eliminated.

[Traab]

I understand why they pretend collateral damage doesnt exist in comics. It would really bog down the stories when half of each issue is superman or spider-man leading the fight to an abandoned area for safety, or anguishing over their massive kill totals when they cant. In fact, lets look at spiderman for just one example.

Remember in the second movie with doctor octopus when he went through the elaborate fight with the subway car? At the end, doc ock actually slammed everyone on that train so hard he shattered them through safety windows and everyone else smashed into the metal walls. I wonder how many of them would have been hospitalized at least, killed at worst had they been hit with that level of force and pancaked between unforgiving metal or hurled out of a subway car. Thats the kind of thing that would quickly turn to angst as peter realizes that half the time he tries to stop a crime, the death toll actually RISES due to his fights.

[comicshorse]

Has anyone come up with an actual example yet? Aside from the building he burns down full of chained prisoners in Batman Begin in order to avoid killing chained prisoners.

Batman isn't the Punisher. Some people he deals with probably die... but there's no way he can stop that from happening. I imagine he has a pretty low bodycount overall compared to other heroes, because his powers don't generally involve collapsing buildings by accident in the process of fighting someone else.

Detective comics 589 by John Wagner and Aan Grant. Batman hurls the bodygaurd of a terrorist into him knocking the terrorist ( named as Abu Hassan) out of the window where he falls to be spiked on the railings outside. Batman then drives a car into a group of four terrorists which causes the bomb they are carrying to explode killing all four

[Traab]

Detective comics 589 by John Wagner and Aan Grant. Batman hurls the bodygaurd of a terrorist into him knocking the terrorist ( named as Abu Hassan) out of the window where he falls to be spiked on the railings outside. Batman then drives a car into a group of four terrorists which causes the bomb they are carrying to explode killing all four

Seriously, read this (http://www.cracked.com/article_20111_the-6-most-brutal-murders-committed-by-batman.html) for some good old fashioned batman murderin.

[leafman]

If he isn't killing people with massive head trauma or internal bleeding, he is dealing out serious brain damage, paralysis, and permanently crippling injuries. In the Arkham games, Batman punches thugs in the face or head butts them so hard that they are knocked out. Those guys aren't seen waking up within 5 minutes, which means they have likely suffered brain damage if they ever wake up.

You don't see people dying in boxing and MMA events because there are rules as to where you can hit your opponent and what you can hit them with, refs that can stop the fight, and emergency medical teams on standby.

Batman on the other hand, hits people wherever he wants, with whatever he wants (metal pipes, wood crates, brick walls, etc.), there is no one to stop him, and you might be laying in the snow with a broken leg until morning.

[comicshorse]

Seriously, read this (http://www.cracked.com/article_20111_the-6-most-brutal-murders-committed-by-batman.html) for some good old fashioned batman murderin.

Point. Although the KGBeast didn't starve to death as he turns up many times later and I refuse to count ANYTHING that happens in 'All Star Batman and Robin' :smallfurious:

[Dienekes]

Point. Although the KGBeast didn't starve to death as he turns up many times later and I refuse to count ANYTHING that happens in 'All Star Batman and Robin' :smallfurious:

Oh Frank. I'd be worried for your obviously slipping mental health if your insane ravings weren't so damn funny.

[Traab]

Point. Although the KGBeast didn't starve to death as he turns up many times later and I refuse to count ANYTHING that happens in 'All Star Batman and Robin' :smallfurious:

But.... he's the goddamn batman!

[Makeitstop]

Obviously there are no actual examples.
First thing to pop in my head right here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn_FMsoTkGY)


Point. Although the KGBeast didn't starve to death as he turns up many times later and I refuse to count ANYTHING that happens in 'All Star Batman and Robin' :smallfurious:
Come on, who doesn't want batman driving the batmobile through exploding cop cars, poisoning his batarangs with cobra venom and forcing young boys to eat rats?


MMA and boxing don't have 50% death rates. If they did, I don't think they would be as popular. One thing about the thugs Batman fights is that they are generally young, strong, reasonably healthy men. Depending on which Batman hits them, it may not be that hard. 60's Batman had a tough time fighting one or two guys even with Robin's help. An interesting correlation to make is that as time goes on, Batman becomes a more skilled fighter, but also, more people know and fear him. He might not be knocking the literal large intestines out of everyone he meets. Some guys might be taking a dive because of what they heard Batman did to this other guy his friend knows. It is perhaps reasonable to assume Batman have made examples and tableau(plural, spell check doesn't seem to know) of people both health and well-set enough to survive and recover from such treatment like The Penguin or Rupert Thorn. It's not about crushing flesh machines out of working order, it's about disarming minds of the nerve needed to keep going.
This is actually something that should really show up more often. Too many random thugs seem to think, after seeing batman beat the crap out of 8 other guys, knowing damn well that he has taken thousands of similar punks and is in the same league as superman, that somehow, they are going to be the one who beats the bat.

Honestly, this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMd4S-LkywI) should be the most common reaction.



If this is about who he should have killed so that they wouldn't just escape and kill more people, well, he shouldn't have a rogue's gallery so much as a mausoleum.
This is the argument that I always have to disagree with. The idea that batman should kill his enemies because they will just escape is simulatenously too meta, and not meta enough.

The joker isn't so powerful that no prison can hold him. It's not like Darkseid or brainiac, where there really is no alternative. In universe, batman's enemies are entirely containable. It's only the fact the writers and fans want to see more of the villains that allows them to keep escaping.

And because of that same reasoning, killing them wouldn't work anyway. Go on, kill the joker, he'll be back in 6 months, if that.

[Frozen_Feet]

Yeah, realistically those crooks Batsy & co should stay in prison for considerably longer, perhaps even be executed.The problem is, it's not just the villains who are insane, the justice and prison systems are as well to facilitate continued stories with same characters. For the stories to work, the evil has to perpetually be almost winning, but when you try to have that and continuity, it leads to appearence of good being stupid or ineffectual.

[DigoDragon]

"What happened to you?"

"Batman."

"Ah."

Quoting because dangnabbit that's comedy.


One thing I liked about Batman Beyond was that there was a steady body count among the villains. Usually the baddie had something to do with their demise, but Terry certainly pushed things along that direction. For example, the episode with the splicing fad. Terry faces off with the big bad, mutates him horribly, and then lets him flail about until the building explodes.

Awesome.

Civilian-wise I don't think Terry-Batman got much in the way of bodycount, though I wonder how many people may have died in the "Return of the Joker" movie when he's racing down the freeway through traffic ahead of the orbital laser that was firing at him.

[jidasfire]

Realistically, the guy who guy hit by an atomic bomb and became a giant green monster instead of utterly incinerating should be constantly murdering people. Realistically.

Sorry, I know that's not in blue text but I hope you picked up on it anyway.

Honestly, if the Hulk was a murderer, he wouldn't be a hero. Saying that everything would be more awful if it was realistic is a very cynical outlook on life, and realistically, life isn't all awfulness and despair. Moreover, contrary to popular belief, the Hulk doesn't just go around rampaging. He gets attacked and defends himself when he'd rather just be left alone. The idea that Banner keeps the Hulk from killing people is actually a clever way around the idea that he's a murderer. You can argue it's a handwave, but I would say it's a good one.

As to the actual question, Batman should kill the Joker and only the Joker, because the writers have left him with zero choice at this point. He's not a fun but dangerous master villain these days so much as Satan in clown paint, and it's kind of tiresome. I say cap him and let Bats deal with the fallout.

[masamune1]

The Joker crossed the line to "needs to die now" many years ago.

Which is why he can't possibly be the only one Batman kills. The others have also crossed that line long ago too. Joker just crossed it first. Riddler was once a friggin' nuclear terrorist; a couple of years later he was allowed to reform.

Then there is the question of why Batman should stick only to Gotham villains- why not go after, say, Lex Luthor?

[BRC]

The Joker crossed the line to "needs to die now" many years ago.

Which is why he can't possibly be the only one Batman kills. The others have also crossed that line long ago too. Joker just crossed it first. Riddler was once a friggin' nuclear terrorist; a couple of years later he was allowed to reform.

Then there is the question of why Batman should stick only to Gotham villains- why not go after, say, Lex Luthor?

I've always wondered, why do people assume it's Batman's job to kill The Joker?
What do you think would happen if , while driving an unconscious Joker to Arkham, a GCPD officer shot him, then said "He woke up and dived for my gun!"
Would anybody doubt him? Would anybody care?
The Joker gets sent to the hospital by an especially brutal Bat-Beating, a nurse "Accidentally" administers a fatal overdose of painkillers. That sort of thing happens in hospitals sometimes.

Come to think of it, that would be an interesting What If/Elseworlds story. The Joker dies in the hospital, everybody cheers, Batman figures out that a doctor/nurse/janitor killed The Joker, and must decide how to respond.

Okay so it would be exploring themes that plenty of bat-stories have explored.

[DigoDragon]

As to the actual question, Batman should kill the Joker and only the Joker, because the writers have left him with zero choice at this point. He's not a fun but dangerous master villain these days so much as Satan in clown paint, and it's kind of tiresome. I say cap him and let Bats deal with the fallout.

Well, if you take "Return of the Joker" as canon, then you have that. :smallsmile:
Twice in fact.

[Sapphire Guard]

What do you think would happen if , while driving an unconscious Joker to Arkham, a GCPD officer shot him, then said "He woke up and dived for my gun!"
Would anybody doubt him? Would anybody care?



It was tried at least twice in the Arkhamverse alone.



Quincy Sharp sends his guards away and went after him with a knife. It didn't go well.




A group of guards decide to kill him while he's strapped to a trolley and helpless. Harley gets wind of it and kills them before they manage it.



Azrael breaks his arms one time, but the police burst in and stop him just in time.



I doubt those are the only times. Joker is dangerous, and he's also lucky as hell, because his fans love him, so he's too lucrative to kill off.

[Metahuman1]

I still think it would be awesome if something totally mundane killed Joker and Batman had exactly nothing to do with it.

Personal Favorites:

A new DA with the right pull get's the death sentence put on the table for him on the ground's that "He knows what he's doing and that it's wrong, he merely doesn't care, and never will." And the next time he is caught, he is, in fact, sentenced, and it is successfully carried out. He just didn't get lucky for once.

Someone get's a lucky shot off next time he's in a gun battle with the cops and his brain get's blown clean out.

Has an accident with one of his explosives, get's blown up.

Has an accident with one of his toxins and doesn't get treatment in time.

Has an accident in a car that ends up killing him.

Breaks into the wrong house/accosts the wrong person on the street and eats a well placed bullet form just some Joe who keeps one in his house/pocket for home/personal self defense, and when the killer clown known the world over for murdering just cause and being a perpetual walking arsenal comes into your place/surprises your form out of a not especially well lit ally, that's a perfectly valid reaction.

I always thought that would be really interesting.

Or, barring that, kick it to someone who's less inclined to hold back. Let him point Nuke's a Themiscara or harm Talia and Mock Ra's about it, and Diana or Ra's kill him over it. Batman doesn't even need to be on the same continent when it happens.

[Lord Seth]

The Joker crossed the line to "needs to die now" many years ago.

Which is why he can't possibly be the only one Batman kills. The others have also crossed that line long ago too. Joker just crossed it first. Riddler was once a friggin' nuclear terrorist; a couple of years later he was allowed to reform.

Then there is the question of why Batman should stick only to Gotham villains- why not go after, say, Lex Luthor?
Even ignoring the fact that Batman usually has his hands full just sticking with Gotham, Lex Luthor is unlike those other villains in that he rarely ever goes to prison because it's so difficult to prove anything against him. He's not out causing mayhem in front of dozens of eyewitnesses, he does it in ways that are difficult if not impossible to trace to him.

[Traab]

Even ignoring the fact that Batman usually has his hands full just sticking with Gotham, Lex Luthor is unlike those other villains in that he rarely ever goes to prison because it's so difficult to prove anything against him. He's not out causing mayhem in front of dozens of eyewitnesses, he does it in ways that are difficult if not impossible to trace to him.

Couldnt he and queen tag team luthorcorp and drive him out of business somehow? I mean, I have no idea of the relative fortunes and business empires of waynecorp and queen industries versus lexcorp, so maybe it wouldnt be a fight that could be won, but it certainly seems like an interesting idea to try if possible.

[Joran]

I still think it would be awesome if something totally mundane killed Joker and Batman had exactly nothing to do with it.


The opposite has happened. One of my favorite Batman: the Animated Series episodes was one where a schlub got lucky and "killed Batman". Joker was NOT HAPPY.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr0697liZdc

[Metahuman1]

The problem with that is that it wouldn't just be Lex vs Queen and Wayne. Lex is gonna pull every dirty trick in the books out along with a lot he made up, and he's gonna have allies. Now, if the league as a whole started doing this, and were smart about using there powers to cheat, then yes, that could work.

Smart would be having Manhunter be security at a lot of Luthors functions and keep tabs on whats going on in the minds of everyone Luthor has working with/for him at all times and sending that info to someone like Victor Stone so that it can instantly be turned into into a file on the watch towers computers so that Superman or Wonder Woman or Green Lantern can show up and ruin all his illicit under the table stuff and mean while the stuff that's less physical can constantly get swamped out into the general media under aliases by Oracle while Clark has Louis jumping on it as soon as it does so that it gains credibility, and having things like Flash with some invisibility from Zatana going into Luthors everything and searching it to find dirt and then giving anonymous tips to law enforcement about things that are bogus but get them search warrant so that they find Luthors dirt.


And all the while, have Bruce and Olly hammering Luthor form a purely on the up and up business angle every way they can. If he can't get sufficiently big guns to help him, he'll crack before long.




Yeah, that was one of the better TAS eps, but not quite what I'm looking for. The closest thing would be the one were the Joker is blackmailing that nobody guy's family, and then at the end the nobody scares him with a bomb into trashing all the info on his family. And even then, that's not precisely what I'm proposing.

[masamune1]

Even ignoring the fact that Batman usually has his hands full just sticking with Gotham, Lex Luthor is unlike those other villains in that he rarely ever goes to prison because it's so difficult to prove anything against him. He's not out causing mayhem in front of dozens of eyewitnesses, he does it in ways that are difficult if not impossible to trace to him.

The point was that somebody said Batman should kill the Joker and only the Joker. I was saying that if you kill the Joker you have no excuse not to go after a bunch of other villains too. The fact that proof against Lex is so hard to come by actually makes murdering him even MORE compelling because unlike the Joker, Lex will always be on the loose.

Although in point of fact, in the comics Lex has been exposed several times- he STILL manages to get out of it. Always.

[Metahuman1]

On the flip side, that's precisely why Batman doesn't kill.

It starts with the Joker, he's had it coming for ages.

And then Zaza's, cause if anyone's worse then the joker it's him.

And then it slows for a bit, but eventually, Bane crops back up or Ra's tries something in Gothem, and there just so dangerous, he can't risk it, he has to end them.

And after awhile, Two-Face is on a spree, well, ok, 5 down, that's not that bad, and Riddlers playing WMD terrorist, right, time for him to check out, and then Scarecrow comes up with something particularly nasty and well, that just won't stand. And then Hatter, and Freeze, and Killer Croc and Clayface cause there all just so ruthless and dangerous, and Deadshot too, and hey, Penguin and all these other mob bosses just always get away, time to end that, send a message, and the lieutenants and high/mid level enforcers while were at it.

And before he knows it, he's killing Jay Walkers and Purse Snatchers, cause hey, you never know were that might lead down the line.



That's why, It's not that it would be hard, no, it would be too easy. Once he starts, no matter how much the one he starts with has earned it every way a soul can earn an ending to it's mortal existence, he doesn't trust that he'd be able to stop. That he would not finally become the monster.

[Ibrinar]

The point was that somebody said Batman should kill the Joker and only the Joker. I was saying that if you kill the Joker you have no excuse not to go after a bunch of other villains too. The fact that proof against Lex is so hard to come by actually makes murdering him even MORE compelling because unlike the Joker, Lex will always be on the loose.

Although in point of fact, in the comics Lex has been exposed several times- he STILL manages to get out of it. Always.

I suggest superman uses his eye laser to destroy parts of Lex brain in such a way that Lex loses 50 IQ points but is otherwise unharmed. - Problem solved. (Okay just lowering someones intelligence is probably a bit much even for superman.)

[Fjolnir]

At various points in the DCU Bruce Wayne is said to be richer than Lex Luthor, it's just Lex throws his money around more in more unscrupulous ways

[Tanuki Tales]

Um...

During Superman/Batman: Public Enemies, Lex goes completely off the deep end and loses his presidency after he blamed Batman and Superman for a giant kryptonite meteor that is coming to smash Earth into bite sized pieces. But it's ultimately revealed that Lex had cut a deal with Darkseid to make this all happen so he could look like some public hero by finally killing Superman. Bruce, through all of this, ends up buying out Luthorcorp entirely and leaves Lex bankrupt and in prison at the end of that trade.

Lex goes back to his mad scientist roots though and I believe he returns to ruling Luthorcorp and being rich again through the Everyman Project.

The thing about Lex is that, as Fjolnir noted, though he's poorer than Bruce, he's also more reckless and underhanded to what lengths he'll go with his money. He'll explicitly get away with crap Bruce never could simply because he's such a horribly corrupt businessman.

[Metahuman1]

He'll explicitly do things Bruce would never even allow to be on the table for consideration more like. Heck, he'll explicitly do things that if you ever though about it at Wayne Enterprises and Bruce found out you'd find yourself out of a job.

[Dienekes]

I suggest superman uses his eye laser to destroy parts of Lex brain in such a way that Lex loses 50 IQ points but is otherwise unharmed. - Problem solved. (Okay just lowering someones intelligence is probably a bit much even for superman.)

Well that's about the fastest way I know to get Lex to commit suicide.

[gooddragon1]

I often wonder if Gotham City hospitals maintain special "Batman" wards to treat all the goons he severely injures.

They do in fact. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZADdaRRumo)

[Andrews]

I guess these all are coming behind the scenes.

[masamune1]

I don't think 50 points would be enough to make a significant dent on Luthor's threat level. He'd just go from super-genius to slightly-less-intelligent super-genius. And he'd probably find out a way to get those 50 points back again.

Also, while Lex might have less money than Bruce officially, it should be remembered that in addition to being founder and head of a major multinational conglomerate, he is also one of the most powerful criminal masterminds on the planet. And historically in real life, some of the most successful criminals have been ridiculously wealthy through their illegal ventures. So Lex might actually be wealthier in absolute terms if his theoretical (but likely) illegitimate holdings exist and are taken into account (or at least, the gap would be closer).

Also, he seems to be better at making money. Bruce inherited much of his fortune and didn't build his company from nothing; Lex not only did, he did it several times over (since he has lost said company several times over). And he wastes a lot of it on "kill Superman" plots. He could probably beat Bruce financially if he really wanted to; its just that money doesn't interest him as much as glory, power and vengeance. Its entirely a way of keeping score and indulging in his megalomaniac fantasies.

[comicshorse]

making[/I] money. Bruce inherited much of his fortune and didn't build his company from nothing; Lex not only did, he did it several times over (since he has lost said company several times over). And he wastes a lot of it on "kill Superman" plots. He could probably beat Bruce financially if he really wanted to; its just that money doesn't interest him as much as glory, power and vengeance. Its entirely a way of keeping score and indulging in his megalomaniac fantasies.

Well yeah but that's because he's absolutely ruthless about making money. Cutting costs, border0line wages, sweat shops in 3rd world countries. Basically any dirty trick to squeeze more money out. While Bruce throws money away on things like education grants for his workers, environmentally friendly developments and giving to charity

[Tanuki Tales]

Well yeah but that's because he's absolutely ruthless about making money. Cutting costs, border0line wages, sweat shops in 3rd world countries. Basically any dirty trick to squeeze more money out. While Bruce throws money away on things like education grants for his workers, environmentally friendly developments and giving to charity

Lex also is more likely to release some of his old toys onto the product line, while Bruce can't let any connection be drawn between him and Batman.

[SowZ]

He also steals, threatens, makes false promises, and utilizes mind control to get what he wants, so he doesn't always have to pay for what he has. Some new gadget that costs millions? Batman will pay for it. Lex may or may not.

[Fjolnir]

The thing though is that Wayne Enterprises is THE company superheroes conglomerate under, if you are a tech inventor and in the Justice League, Batman will buy your small company so you can focus on the twin tasks of Super Science and saving the world.

[Metahuman1]

Doesn't Star Labs also have a tradition of not wanting to work for/with Lex Corp if it's not a planetary level emergency?

But at the same time, there not adverse to working with/for Wayne Enterprises?

[Fjolnir]

S.T.A.R. Labs tends to not want to work with anyone, though Lexcorp has tried to buy them out at least once...

[masamune1]

Well yeah but that's because he's absolutely ruthless about making money. Cutting costs, border0line wages, sweat shops in 3rd world countries. Basically any dirty trick to squeeze more money out. While Bruce throws money away on things like education grants for his workers, environmentally friendly developments and giving to charity

That's only partly true. Much, maybe even the majority, of Lex's wealth was made legitimately, through hard work and ingenuity. And he actually does treat his employees reasonably well, or at least not poorly. He'll murder them for an evil plan or fire them for helping Superman, or bully them into sleeping with him or call them useless idiots, etc., but I don't think he is much known for screwing them over as company policy. Lex is an elitist- he likes to think that the best and brightest in the world are working for him, pursuing a futurist agenda, and to that end he makes working for LexCorp as attractive as possible. I don't think he's against philanthropy or charity, either- after all, it looks good on the camera. Usually he donates towards scientific research and stuff like that, again because of his futurist and humanist beliefs.

Lex may be an amoral, murderous, egotistical scumbag, but he is an industrious fellow and has grandiose ambitions. Money means little to him in and of itself- what he craves is glory and power.

[comicshorse]

That's only partly true. Much, maybe even the majority, of Lex's wealth was made legitimately, through hard work and ingenuity. And he actually does treat his employees reasonably well, or at least not poorly. He'll murder them for an evil plan or fire them for helping Superman, or bully them into sleeping with him or call them useless idiots, etc., but I don't think he is much known for screwing them over as company policy. Lex is an elitist- he likes to think that the best and brightest in the world are working for him, pursuing a futurist agenda, and to that end he makes working for LexCorp as attractive as possible. I don't think he's against philanthropy or charity, either- after all, it looks good on the camera. Usually he donates towards scientific research and stuff like that, again because of his futurist and humanist beliefs.
]

If that's your definition of a reasonable boss please tell me where you work, so I can avoid it :smallsmile:

[masamune1]

Yes, but the point is there is no indication that LexCorp doesn't treat its employees well aside from that.

Things like "Cutting costs, borderline wages, sweat shops in 3rd world countries"- I don't think there is too much evidence of that. Though you'll probably lose your job after the company goes bust due to blowing all its money on failed "kill Superman" schemes.

Lex is a mean boss, but the dental plan might be great.

[AstralFire]

Haha, I think masa means that the average LexCorp employee probably enjoys a corporate setting no worse (maybe even a little better, because he wants to retain the best and brightest) than most. It's just the people at the fringes (unlucky enough to be the mook against the Justice League or his personal lieutenants) who get crapped on.

[BRC]

Yes, but the point is there is no indication that LexCorp doesn't treat its employees well aside from that.

Things like "Cutting costs, borderline wages, sweat shops in 3rd world countries"- I don't think there is too much evidence of that. Though you'll probably lose your job after the company goes bust due to blowing all its money on failed "kill Superman" schemes.

Lex is a mean boss, but the dental plan might be great.

"Aside from all the terrible things, they don't do anything terrible"

But I get what you're saying. LEX LUTHOR may be personally evil, but as a matter of corporate policy he's a pretty good boss, provided you never actually interact with him. Lexcorp Accountant #2452 probably likes his job just fine.

[masamune1]

Yeah, that.

As long as you aren't working too closely with the man, you are probably safe. Mostly.

Probably depending on the writer, though.

[Dienekes]

Yeah, that.

As long as you aren't working too closely with the man, you are probably safe. Mostly.

Probably depending on the writer, though.

Very much so. In one comic he's seen amicably chatting with his janitor and setting up the man's son with a scholarship.

In another he has a higher employee kill count than the Joker.

I prefer the first interpretation myself. Though honestly even in that one, I think the janitor died because of one of his schemes. But it was very much unintended collateral damage. It's been awhile, I need to reread Lex Luthor: Man of Steel.

[Traab]

Yeah, that.

As long as you aren't working too closely with the man, you are probably safe. Mostly.

Probably depending on the writer, though.

Yeah, I get the feeling that aside from Mercy Graves, personal assistants and other low rankers that directly interact with lex probably regret it. He strikes me as short tempered and vindictive, and some 9-5 desk jockey has nothing to protect him from a shouted, "Get the hell out of here! You are fired! How dare you /insert minor infraction here"

[AstralFire]

I definitely prefer Luthor when he's an amoral force with his own goals and prerogatives to when he's being Superman's devoted archnemesis. He has better foes to play the direct threat.

[Darth Credence]

Personal Favorites:

A new DA with the right pull get's the death sentence put on the table for him on the ground's that "He knows what he's doing and that it's wrong, he merely doesn't care, and never will." And the next time he is caught, he is, in fact, sentenced, and it is successfully carried out. He just didn't get lucky for once.


They did that, in The Joker: Devil's Advocate (http://joker.wikia.com/wiki/The_Joker:_Devil's_Advocate). Basically, the story has a gutsy DA decide that they are going to fight the insanity defense the Joker always puts on, and shoot for the death penalty. The jury finds him guilty of all counts, and sentences him to death. Joker files a wrongful life suit to speed up the execution. Amazingly, this is the only crime that Joker did not actually commit, and of course Batman figures that out. Right before the execution (like, while Joker is in the chair), Batman gets the information to the right people and Joker's life is spared. Batman tells Robin that sometimes justice cuts both ways, so even though it would have been good for Joker to be gone, he couldn't let someone be executed for a crime they didn't commit. He does tell Joker that Joker owes Batman for his life, which for some reason annoys the Joker. I would have gone with the Joker being thrilled by that turn of events rather than upset, but all in all it's a good book.

[masamune1]

Very much so. In one comic he's seen amicably chatting with his janitor and setting up the man's son with a scholarship.

In another he has a higher employee kill count than the Joker.

I prefer the first interpretation myself. Though honestly even in that one, I think the janitor died because of one of his schemes. But it was very much unintended collateral damage. It's been awhile, I need to reread Lex Luthor: Man of Steel.

It wasn't collateral damage. If memory serves, it was a scientist and his family who died in that scheme (I think he was nice to the janitor too, but I can't remember what happened to him). The scientist was working on his construction of Hope, and just happened to be at the opening day of the new daycare centre that Toyman allegedly blew up, but Luthor was clearly expecting it and was probably the true culprit.

....

I think I'm going to buy that comic.


Yeah, I get the feeling that aside from Mercy Graves, personal assistants and other low rankers that directly interact with lex probably regret it. He strikes me as short tempered and vindictive, and some 9-5 desk jockey has nothing to protect him from a shouted, "Get the hell out of here! You are fired! How dare you /insert minor infraction here"

That's...really the nicest thing you could hope for.

He's the type of person who looks after his employees up to the point he feels the need to murder them. Or if they are a pretty woman and have done a good job, he's the type who will physically hurt them unless they sleep with him.

He also has a clause in his contracts that fires anyone who helps Superman in any way. And they have ten minutes to vacate the premises or come face to face with the automatic machine guns hidden throughout the building.

Usually you can count on him being a decent employer though.


I definitely prefer Luthor when he's an amoral force with his own goals and prerogatives to when he's being Superman's devoted archnemesis. He has better foes to play the direct threat.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Luthor is an excellent enemy for Superman, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have other things going on. In lots of stories he finds ways to combine the two hobbies.


They did that, in The Joker: Devil's Advocate (http://joker.wikia.com/wiki/The_Joker:_Devil's_Advocate). Basically, the story has a gutsy DA decide that they are going to fight the insanity defense the Joker always puts on, and shoot for the death penalty. The jury finds him guilty of all counts, and sentences him to death. Joker files a wrongful life suit to speed up the execution. Amazingly, this is the only crime that Joker did not actually commit, and of course Batman figures that out. Right before the execution (like, while Joker is in the chair), Batman gets the information to the right people and Joker's life is spared. Batman tells Robin that sometimes justice cuts both ways, so even though it would have been good for Joker to be gone, he couldn't let someone be executed for a crime they didn't commit. He does tell Joker that Joker owes Batman for his life, which for some reason annoys the Joker. I would have gone with the Joker being thrilled by that turn of events rather than upset, but all in all it's a good book.

There is also a Golden Age story where Batman is a witness at his trial and testifies to his sanity. He actually does get executed, but his men bring him back.

There are a couple of other ones that point out that legally speaking, the Joker is entirely sane- he is just evil.

[masamune1]

Actually, now that I've re-read Lex Luthor: Man of Steel (or just Luthor, now), its got lots of really good examples of what kind of boss he is.

He knows the names of pretty much everyone who works for him, and is on good and friendly terms with ordinary folk, employees or otherwise. He also likes to encourage kids to stay in school, and offers them scholarships and prizes if they have a relative who works for them.

And yet....he screws over a construction company and its union over contracts for one of his buildings (by having the leader beaten up and threatening his family, and his life), mostly to save his company money after it goes over-budget; he has a perverse love / hate relationship with his personal assistant; he saves the life of a scientist, then later has him murdered (and his family, and several other families) because he knows too much (with some minor regret); he tricks a ruthless employee and a hired gun into blowing up a daycare centre....And he thinks all of this is entirely justified, because its part of his plan to create a world without Superman. He feels mildly guilty about it all, but thinks he can make for it by walking the streets and interacting with ordinary people, and small acts of random kindness.

So he's a delusional narcissist. He believes in humanity, but he thinks (even if he never admits) that he is indispensable to humanity, and he is clearly jealous of Superman and is willing to commit mass murder and screw over and kill his own people (and a sentient robot he constructed) to turn the world against him. Lots of hypocrisy and eloquent but not-entirely-consistent philosophical excuses. Generally the closer you are to Lex, the more likely you are to suffer, but if you're lucky he'll feel bad about it for a few minutes. On the other hand, if you don't know him he probably won't feel anything at all. That he really, truly believes everything he does is for the greater good (because he thinks Superman stunts humanities growth- which really means he makes Lex feel inadequate by virtue of being better than him) means that LexCorp is run by an absolute madman, one who projects his personal failings onto everyone else.

Of course, that's just this particular Lex Luthor. The mainstream Lex is more of an entitled sociopath with a sadistic streak. He's a bit nastier.

[Legato Endless]

He does tell Joker that Joker owes Batman for his life, which for some reason annoys the Joker. I would have gone with the Joker being thrilled by that turn of events rather than upset, but all in all it's a good book.[/SPOILER]

That's mostly there for a cheap attempt at a moral comeuppance since basically Joker gets everything he wants in the story itself.

[Tanuki Tales]

Joker is 100% sane, by the by, and not particularly evil in the grand scheme of things. He's simply fully aware that he's in a comic book, that there is a status quo to maintain and that everyone he'll ever kill isn't a real person and that their life doesn't have actual value. In fact, he knows the writer will only have created those people for him to kill in the first place.

[SowZ]

Joker is 100% sane, by the by, and not particularly evil in the grand scheme of things. He's simply fully aware that he's in a comic book, that there is a status quo to maintain and that everyone he'll ever kill isn't a real person and that their life doesn't have actual value. In fact, he knows the writer will only have created those people for him to kill in the first place.

There is a theory that this is true for Ledger's Joker, too. I don't find it a particularly convincing one, but it is an interesting read, regardless. The Joker's awareness of Elseworlds and ret-cons approaches Deadpool level, too, with the Joker referencing times he and some other character did this one thing even though that was in an entirely different continuity.

[Metahuman1]

Yeah, I know about the Devils Advocate story line, but the ending of "oh, sure, he didn't actually commit this one crime" always felt like a cop out.

I'm talking about doing it and having all the evidence in the universe you could hope for in your wildest dreams to prove beyond any doubt he did exactly what he's on trial for, and then is rightfully executed with out a last second "oh, what do you know, he didn't really do it and he just wanted to take the opportunity to make us all break our own rules with out actually realizing it. So we won't kill him after all."

[masamune1]

Yeah, I know about the Devils Advocate story line, but the ending of "oh, sure, he didn't actually commit this one crime" always felt like a cop out.

I'm talking about doing it and having all the evidence in the universe you could hope for in your wildest dreams to prove beyond any doubt he did exactly what he's on trial for, and then is rightfully executed with out a last second "oh, what do you know, he didn't really do it and he just wanted to take the opportunity to make us all break our own rules with out actually realizing it. So we won't kill him after all."

As said above, in the Golden Age that exact thing happened. Then he was brought back to life by his gang. That's all that will ever happen- even if you kill him, the writers will bring him back to life.

Also its not a question of whether he did it or not. Everyone knows he is guilty of capital offences two thousand times over. He openly brags about it. Its just that he is considered legally insane and thus can't be charged. Devil's Advocate involves a legal loophole- he could be charged because he denied that particular murder (Gotham has a screwed up legal system if I ever saw one).

Still, you want to look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfH3bDPNGHw

[Metahuman1]

Yes, the Robot chicken the Joker thing is much more the way I'd want it to go.

As for having him brought back, if a high enough executive wants a character gone bad enough, they get it. See what happened to Mary Jane Watson as an example.

I wish I could get the control to have something like that happen and then tell the writers "no, he's gone, you can have flashbacks and else worlds, but he's dead, deal with it."

[Tanuki Tales]

And then he'd be back as soon as you got sacked or left. :smalltongue:

[Metahuman1]

And then he'd be back as soon as you got sacked or left. :smalltongue:

So the trick obviously is to hold the job for like 70 years so that no one cares anymore. :smalltongue: :smallwink:

[AstralFire]

So the trick obviously is to hold the job for like 70 years so that no one cares anymore. :smalltongue: :smallwink:

Wouldn't be enough. I'll let Wiki do the talking for me here:


A common expression regarding comic book death was once "The only people who stay dead in comics, are Bucky, Jason Todd, and Uncle Ben."[3] referring to the seminal importance of those character's deaths to Captain America, Batman, and Spider-Man respectively. However, after the former two were brought back in 2005, the phrase was changed to only recognize Uncle Ben.

[Dienekes]

Joker is 100% sane, by the by, and not particularly evil in the grand scheme of things. He's simply fully aware that he's in a comic book, that there is a status quo to maintain and that everyone he'll ever kill isn't a real person and that their life doesn't have actual value. In fact, he knows the writer will only have created those people for him to kill in the first place.

That is, one, interpretation of the Joker. Honestly I'm not a fan of that one myself. A bit too meta for my tastes, and it hardly encapsulates every version of the character. Or even the majority. Really he's maybe just thrown in a few 4th wall breaking gags in a handful of stories and the fans have gone wild with it.

Though I think Grant Morrison backs it, can't remember for certain. But if it is, that's just Grant Morrison, he does some weird stuff.


Yes, the Robot chicken the Joker thing is much more the way I'd want it to go.

As for having him brought back, if a high enough executive wants a character gone bad enough, they get it. See what happened to Mary Jane Watson as an example.

I wish I could get the control to have something like that happen and then tell the writers "no, he's gone, you can have flashbacks and else worlds, but he's dead, deal with it."

If you get in power, please don't take the Joker from me. He's my favorite character.

[Tanuki Tales]

That is, one, interpretation of the Joker. Honestly I'm not a fan of that one myself. A bit too meta for my tastes, and it hardly encapsulates every version of the character. Or even the majority. Really he's maybe just thrown in a few 4th wall breaking gags in a handful of stories and the fans have gone wild with it.

Though I think Grant Morrison backs it, can't remember for certain. But if it is, that's just Grant Morrison, he does some weird stuff.


To be honest, I like Grant Morrison a lot more than many other DC writers, even if he's given us a few squirrely things recently.

[Spamotron]

Ironically, having the delusion that the world isn't real and that no one is truly alive could arguably be a legit use of the Insanity Defense. In case you're wondering the defense only applies if its a form of insanity that makes the defendant incapable of telling right from wrong or reality from fantasy. Although IIRC correctly the law and defense used to be broader but when Lee Harvey Oswald escaped the death penalty through the insanity defense public outrage caused the law to be changed to its current form. Since the DCU's timeline has many subtle and many not-so-subtle differences than our own its possible the law was never changed. Though even then I think the Joker being able to use the old version is iffy.

[Dienekes]

To be honest, I like Grant Morrison a lot more than many other DC writers, even if he's given us a few squirrely things recently.

He's very hit or miss for me. Some of his stuff I think is absolutely fantastic. Others I think he tries to pile on weirdness just to confuse his readers into thinking it's deep.

Still I agree, he is much better than some other writers.

As to why the Joker isn't executed. I think it's just much easier to say that whatever state Gotham is in doesn't have the death penalty.

[AstralFire]

He's very hit or miss for me. Some of his stuff I think is absolutely fantastic. Others I think he tries to pile on weirdness just to confuse his readers into thinking it's deep.

Still I agree, he is much better than some other writers.

As to why the Joker isn't executed. I think it's just much easier to say that whatever state Gotham is in doesn't have the death penalty.

I think it's easier just to pretend that comic book continuity is a strange beast that shouldn't be examined too closely. It would strain my disbelief just as much to say that Gotham's home state has no death penalty given 30+ years of horrible things, as it would to say that it has a death penalty which conveniently never affects the big name villains.

[Metahuman1]

I think it's easier just to pretend that comic book continuity is a strange beast that shouldn't be examined too closely. It would strain my disbelief just as much to say that Gotham's home state has no death penalty given 30+ years of horrible things, as it would to say that it has a death penalty which conveniently never affects the big name villains.

I respectfully submit California, New York and New Jersey.

Anyway.

As for a Lex story, I think there could be a hilarious one in this idea.

Elseworld: Lex isn't evil, isn't even really a bastard, but he freaking HATES superman. She he's constantly going nuts trying to top the man of steel in some fashion, trying to be more important then supes, and trying to find just what ever thing he can to be a pest to sups that wouldn't actually be illegal or dangerous.

[AstralFire]

I respectfully submit California, New York and New Jersey.

Nothing in its real life analogues remotely compares to the amount of hells which are visited upon Gotham roughly every 3 to 5 years, to be quite honest. It's comically grotesque, especially when you consider that at most it can have taken about a decade of Batman's life at any one time.

[Metahuman1]

And yet those three states hold some of the highest crime rate citys in the country if not the world, and have had a number of high profile serial killer cases.

Son of Sam, Charles Manson, Night Stalker, just to name a few rather famous ones.

[AstralFire]

And yet those three states hold some of the highest crime rate citys in the country if not the world, and have had a number of high profile serial killer cases.

Son of Sam, Charles Manson, Night Stalker, just to name a few rather famous ones.

I can't get too much into the specifics of the real world, given the forum's restrictions, but I am actually studying criminal law and criminology and you're not making a convincing argument to me on how they measure up to a city with The Joker, Zsasz, and the Riddler among others, and has been under martial law for an extended period multiple times.

[Metahuman1]

I can't get too much into the specifics of the real world, given the forum's restrictions, but I am actually studying criminal law and criminology and you're not making a convincing argument to me on how they measure up to a city with The Joker, Zsasz, and the Riddler among others, and has been under martial law for an extended period multiple times.

I'm not trying to say it measures up precisely. What I'm trying to say is that it's not at all impossible to have a place were there is no death penalty in spite of comparatively high rates of crime/ having extremely well known serial/mass killers.

[Zrak]

As crazy as it sounds, if you subject someone to trauma, they often die from it. Just watch the news and see how many people die from just going out to get their mail over the winter. That's right, a couple seconds being outside in the cold and people freeze to death. Now think of when Batman holds a bad guy under some freezing sea water or such. When someone gets punched in the face, or even just hit in the head.....they die. When people get their head slammed into or through a wall...they die. And so on and so on.

Nobody freezes to death in a couple seconds. That cannot happen. Maybe they die from some other cause, or pass out and freeze to death over an extended period of time, but they certainly don't die of hypothermia in under a minute.

[Legato Endless]

I'm not trying to say it measures up precisely. What I'm trying to say is that it's not at all impossible to have a place were there is no death penalty in spite of comparatively high rates of crime/ having extremely well known serial/mass killers.

There really isn't any good real life comparison in America. Gotham really doesn't have a high crime rate. New York doesn't compare. South Africa doesn't compare. Gotham is essentially a low grade war zone at the bare minimum. You have no guarantee the water you drink from your tap next month won't contain fear toxin or laughing gas. People in Gotham really shouldn't act anything like the average urbanite in our world. Especially considering how easy it would be to migrate 50 miles over to some other city, any other city, would be safer and less chaotic.

If we abandon the rules which masamune and Tanuki_Tales have illustrated make the setting run, there is simply no way the Joker would still be alive. Forget the death penalty. The law would be the least of his concerns. Someone who had inflicted that much pain and suffering would be killed if he so much as showed his face in public. Doesn't matter how scary he is. Some poor Gothamite, the victim of some unspeakable hell, someone with absolutely nothing to lose, would riddle him with bullets during one of his crime sprees. A sniper while he's pushed into a police vehicle, an explosive, an arkham guard who lost his child 5 years ago, there's no way he'd last if he ventured out in public.

[AstralFire]

Agreed, entirely. That's why I believe it's better to simply not examine Comic Book Continuities too closely; their rationales don't hold water very well for me, and it's easier to just 'forget' specific events unless they're getting referenced that arc.

[Coidzor]

So the trick obviously is to hold the job for like 70 years so that no one cares anymore. :smalltongue: :smallwink:

And for good luck, destroying the company and scattering the IPs so that it'd be a right bastard to ever reunite them. They'd still be back before the body was in the ground.

[masamune1]

Ironically, having the delusion that the world isn't real and that no one is truly alive could arguably be a legit use of the Insanity Defense. In case you're wondering the defense only applies if its a form of insanity that makes the defendant incapable of telling right from wrong or reality from fantasy. Although IIRC correctly the law and defense used to be broader but when Lee Harvey Oswald escaped the death penalty through the insanity defense public outrage caused the law to be changed to its current form. Since the DCU's timeline has many subtle and many not-so-subtle differences than our own its possible the law was never changed. Though even then I think the Joker being able to use the old version is iffy.

I'm guessing you meant John Hickley Jr.

Though he wouldn't have gotten the Death Penalty anyway (trying to assassinate the President wasn't a capital offence then); had he been found sane, he would have been sentenced to prison. And he would have served his time and been released by now (think the maximum he could have gotten was 25 years)- the fact that he was found insane means he can be locked up potentially forever, as long as he is still considered a danger to the public.

The insanity defence isn't a "soft" option by any stretch of the imagination. The problem with guys like the Joker isn't that they are locked up in maximum security asylums for the criminally insane (though they legally shouldn't be); its that they are able to escape with impunity and go on murder sprees yet still get sent right back there to continue a vicious cycle. In real life, whether he was found sane or not, being locked up would have stopped him. At the very least, he wouldn't have escaped as much as he has, and he probably would have been shot by someone by now.

With regards to the delusion that the world isn't real (which in the Jokers case, of course, isn't a delusion at all), that probably wouldn't be enough to save him. The "right or wrong" thing really means "did you know you were breaking the law", and even if he regards the world as illusionary the Joker still knew he was breaking its laws. The fact that his plans are often methodically planned out and are clearly grounded in reality works against him. Ultimately, the Joker still thinks that his victims are as real as he is, and that's what counts.

Also, "right and wrong" (the M'Naghten rules) is not the only form of insanity defence; its just the main one. Hickley Jr. was (I believe) found insane on the (now largely, but not entirely, disused) "irresistible impulse" defence, ie. he could not control his actions. Its largely out of favour, on the grounds that most people who have an irresistible urge to commit a crime, especially a violent crime, still have a conscience, still know it would be breaking the law, and are still capable of seeking medical help (just because you have the urge to kill somebody doesn't mean you actually want to do it; that is, unless you are amoral, such an urge will disturb you). But Gotham seems to use it as some form of "he's crazy; he can't help himself" is usually how the Joker is described as being insane. It still shouldn't apply to him, though.

[Tanuki Tales]

Arkham Asylum is a Genus Loci, by the by, so it kind of lets Joker and the other inmates out routinely for giggles. And when he's imprisoned elsewhere, well...he does tend to be portrayed as a peer to Bruce intellectually and his hand to hand skill, depending on the writer, isn't too shabby.

[masamune1]

Its not just Arkham. Its the whole city, though Arkham might be the centre.

I think Grant Morrison implied that it was actually the Omega Power of Darkseid sent back through time that affected everything that way.

Anyway, I don't think Joker is Bruce's equal mentally and certainly not physically. He's almost as smart as Bruce, but he's not quite there. He makes up for it with bizarre or crazy or elaborate scheming and general unpredictability.

I don't think he's been portrayed as a match for Batman in a fight; its just, sometimes he can hold his own for a little while, others he'll be pulverised. Its more the ability and willingness to take punishment, along with literally having tricks up his sleeve and usually being backed up by large, violent / deranged mooks, that gives him a shot.

I can buy that Joker is an escape artist good enough to break out of almost anywhere; its when he does it so often that you have to suspend your disbelief. It makes it seem like the guards and doctors and wardens at Arkham Asylum or wherever else he's being held don't take him seriously enough. Whenever we see them, that's often shown to be true. They should be held in SuperMAX conditions (ie. in their cell 23 hours a day; under constant surveillance; always surrounded by armed guards; indefinite and mandatory solitary confinement) or worse, but they aren't. Even given its a mental hospital, they are given far too much freedom. Not to mention that the doctors themselves are often quacks.

They don't even resemble Maximum security. Arkham is closed security at best, medium security at worst. Their reputation doesn't match up to their treatment.

True, they'd escape anyway, but really, neither Gotham nor Batman is even trying.

[Dienekes]

Its not just Arkham. Its the whole city, though Arkham might be the centre.

I think Grant Morrison implied that it was actually the Omega Power of Darkseid sent back through time that affected everything that way.

Anyway, I don't think Joker is Bruce's equal mentally and certainly not physically. He's almost as smart as Bruce, but he's not quite there. He makes up for it with bizarre or crazy or elaborate scheming and general unpredictability.


Yeah, Joker's exact attributes are kind of hard to point down. In his first appearance he was specifically called out as Batman's physical equal. That was dropped, though it came back for a time, now I don't know (I don't keep up to date). But generally I think it's agreed the Joker is not as trained or as strong as Bruce. Maybe as agile. But he makes up for it in shear unpredictability, there's always a knife in his hand. Though it maybe be made of rubber and make a fart noise when he uses it. But then he has his lapel flower which shoots acid. Or water. Which do you block?

Mentally it's even harder to pin him down. He's generally considered one of Batman's smarter villains. But he does some fantastically stupid stuff for no reason at all. He does, however, generally has a decent chance of pulling off some of his crazy schemes better than anyone else really, and along with Ra's has successfully tricked Bruce more than (I think) anyone else. He also has a decent chance of outsmarting or outplaying Lex who canonically is smarter than Bruce (though I would argue in different ways).

So make of all that what you will. Personally I think it's a bit pointless to rate all of them on such vague things as intelligence. Bruce is a better tactician and sleuth than Lex and the Joker. Lex is a better businessman and inventor than Bruce. Lex and the Joker about equal in criminal shenanaganery.

[Guancyto]

Its not just Arkham. Its the whole city, though Arkham might be the centre.
Wait, I thought the "Gotham City is alive and it hates you" thing was an entertaining line of fan speculation to explain why it was such a terrible place.

Are you telling me it's canon?

[Tvtyrant]

I have killed people as Batman in Arkham City by use the remote control batarang and tossing them off of the top of wonder tower before, so at least that many.

[SowZ]

I have killed people as Batman in Arkham City by use the remote control batarang and tossing them off of the top of wonder tower before, so at least that many.

In Spiderman 2, I used to throw mooks in front of speeding taxis. Or lash them on the tram tracks. Or knock them out into the sea. Or tie them up, carry them onto the empire state building, and fling them off. From what I hear, everyone used did that in Spiderman 2.

[masamune1]

Wait, I thought the "Gotham City is alive and it hates you" thing was an entertaining line of fan speculation to explain why it was such a terrible place.

Are you telling me it's canon?

Yep, its canon.

Gotham is the site of lots of occult rituals, many involving a Bat demon. That's been canon since Alan Moore back in the 80's. Grant Morrison implied the Bat demon was in fact a living attack by Darkseid, sent back in time to destroy the world during Final Crisis.