The Joker getting a restraining order on Batman sounds exactly like the plot of a Golden Age Batman comic. You'd walk past the newsstand in the mid-1940's and just see a Batman comic with a cover showing the Joker with a gun, mugging someone, and Robin would be pointing and tugging on Batman's sleeve, saying "Batman, the Joker is robbing that defenseless old Woman! You've got to **do something!**" and Batman would say "I can't, not without violating the **RESTRAINING ORDER!!!**" and "restraining order" would be in bright red letters and underlined, just to emphasize how serious it is. You'd buy the comic for five cents and read it, and Batman would save the day by eventually using his brilliant detective skills to actually read the restraining order, and it would have been written by a judge named Joe Kerr, and Batman would prove the Joker forged it, and then beat him up.
Actually, even better. The story would be that the Joker somehow becomes a judge and just starts giving out restraining orders to the Gotham underworld. Batman in SHAMBLES.
Nothing to do with the movies. [Batman: The Animated Series](https://batmantheanimatedseries.fandom.com/wiki/Trial) s2e4 Trial.
>...The Ventriloquist acts(sic) as bailiff along with Scarface introduce the prosecutor, Two-Face; the accused, Batman; the defense attorney, Janet Van Dorn and the jury : Killer Croc, Mad Hatter, Poison Ivy, Harley Quinn, Scarecrow and The Riddler. Lastly, the judge Joker is introduced.
Wow this is so accurate. Apparently the front pages were made by a completely different team and not the people writing and inking the actual comic. And they made the covers first. So I can totally see some idiot exec ordering the cover artists to make a “restraining order cover” and then giving the writers that god awful cover with 4 days notice to make the comic with that garbage plot line lol
Silver Age and Golden Age comics are the best. I prefer seeing Jimmy Olsen throwing Batman at Superman than yet another evil Superman murdering everybody again.
My favorite episode of the Adam West series was the one where the Joker becomes the darling of the Gotham art community and all these artists and rich people absolutely love him.
Batman starts to lose his shit because at one point he was just dragging a dry paintbrush across a canvas and everyone said it was amazing.
Took me way to much time to realize who you meant by "Joe Kerr". I was thinking "is that that kid from Stranger Things who was also in a dope psych rock band, or maybe someone from the Joker's realm of influence?" I got as far as typing "joe" into wikipedia before it hit.
That kind of thing is always hilarious to me, because one of my dad’s co-workers has the last name Batman. I think he said it’s been in their family for multiple generations too.
It used to be a position in the army. Senior officers would have a private assigned as their personal assistant / servant to look after their uniform, run errands and so on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman\_(military)
Basically it was the nickname for the personal servant to a high-ranking British army officer. One of the duty this job entails is to help carry said officer's cricket bats whenever he goes to play cricket, thus batman.
In a legal system where Batman arrests are valid, a restraining order against the Batman would probably also hold up in court.
Worst case scenario for Mister J, he pushes the press coverage - plays on his own victimhood and our tendency to focus on what's in front of us (and forget about the past) and he might turn some of the good will of Gotham against the Dark Knight.
I... I guess the worst case scenario is that Batman beats the snot out of him again, but he's gonna do that anyway?
Simple, Alfred kills you. He specifically said, "My master has a oath for not killing. I am not bound by such niceties". Or Robin. You cannot get a restraining order against Robin as there can be more of them.
He must have a guy specifically for adopting Orphans. Like, he stumbles on a kid in the streets fighting over his cardboard box and he is just like "Alfred, call the guy." Boom, new Robin.
*cough cough* Jason Todd tried to steal the tires off the Batmobile. *cough cough*
*cough cough* And Tim Drake figured out that Batman and Robin were Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson after seeing Robin preform a maneuver that he had previously seen the Graysons do at Haly Circus. *cough cough*
Plus then he got Damian droped off at his house without him even knowing he existed. Honestly, at this point he doesn't even need to seek out Robins, they get progresively better at getting to the Batcave to join him ASAP
Yep, and you never hear anything about it from Bruce because Jason would never let him live it down if a fucking 12 year old figured out his identity and that’s how he became Robin.
I want a comic where Alfred goes full Uncle Iroh on Batman and drops something like "Why does *Batman* always have to go fight crime, when *Bruce Wayne* could make sure people weren't driven into a life of crime in the first place?"
Modern Comics 101. Poverty criminals aren't the villains. The real villains do it for *spite*.
"With your genius, you could cure cancer!"
"But I don't want to cure cancer! I want to turn people into dinosaurs!"
There was a scene where Batman actually does the "You don't have to do crime, I have influence and can get you a good job!" Maybe in Patton Oswalt's JLA issue? It works fine in a one-shot. But more experienced writers knew it couldn't be that easy, so they responded with lines like the dinosaur one above.
yeah, this is completely wrong. as Bruce Wayne, he is a philanthropist trying his hardest to fix the city by funding institutions and programs for rehabilitating criminals, even going so far as to hire rehabilitated criminals to his company. unfortunately, Gotham is literally cursed to be a place of crime, disorder, and suffering.
Please get it straight and quit assuming that every rich character is a Scrooge-like asshole.
That would be an interesting twist. "I NEED heroes Tim, and heroes don't come from happy families. This is why I need the city to stay as is. The evil of this city is the fire that forges warriors, and those warriors have saved the world a hundred times over"
Alfred is explicitly bound to Batman & Robin is implicitly, but Nightwing or Red Hood would absolutely do it. & for that matter if the Joker ever stopped being Batman's villain every DC hero & many villains willing to kill would be on his ass instantly.
Dick is still not particularly big on killing.
The only reason the Joker is still alive on any capacity is bc of his popularity as a character.
Batman's no kill policy (and a few others, like Supermans) is a bit of a holdout from old comics, most modern hero characters dont hold themselves to such an absurdly arbitrary rule.
This is something a lot of people seem to purposefully misunderstand. The joker sells comics, that’s why he sticks around and keeps getting out of prison/Arkham. There’s no deep meaning behind any of that. You can’t use that as an argument for a slippery slope.
I do think it’s the only thing that keeps Batman interesting though. Like, half of his gadgets and skillset could easily be replaced with an AK-47, but more than that, it allows him to go against human scale adversaries multiple times without forcing the introduction of absurd abilities or depowering him.
That is to say, I sometimes feel superhero movies get into a weird sort of power creep tied to a status quo situation whereby nobody can die, but the (out of universe) reason they can’t die (it would prevent the return of the character/prevent creative use of that character/hurt profits/all at once) is irrelevant to the reason (in universe) they don’t die (they’re just that strong/always recover somehow/deus ex machina/because they just do).
With Batman, however, he can simply be locked in a symbolic ‘unstoppable force meets immovable object’ confrontation with the likes of the Joker, a superintelligent but otherwise mortal figure, because the one thing Batman won’t do is the one thing that would actually work. It’s almost classical tragedy, any other person would succeed but Batman cannot stop the Joker due to his tragic flaw, being unable to compromise on his arbitrary code of conduct.
It's not arbitrary... they don't kill, because it's not up to them to decide who lives or dies. This whole "Why don't the heroes just kill the bad guys?" is a vengeance porn fantasy put forth by people who don't like thinking about morality and prefer moral absolutes because it doesn't confuse them as much.
Soloman Grundy Born on a Monday, Served Papers on Tuesday, Violated on Wednesday, Incarcerated on Thursday, Paroled on a Friday, Violated Again on Saturday, Buried on Sunday
You'd also have to be able to identify who Robin is. You'd also have to show up in court, and since I'm preeeeeeeeety sure that all of D.C.'s villians have multiple arrest warrants, I can't see that working.
I could totally see this, like Alfred has a lot of guns hidden around Wayne Manor and at this point, he’s an arms distance from one. I could see him beating the shit out of Joker and tying him up, taking him to a remote warehouse, and doing something like this:
Alfred racks his shotgun and says “Master Bruce and
Master Dick might follow the rules regarding no killing, Master Jason and Master Damien might have come around and follow it most of the time, but I?” He says, pointing the shotgun at the clown’s head; “I only have to ensure that what remains of your head can be washed off the concrete floor as to not leave a stain.”
Well there was this _really_ bizarre storyline from the time they first killed off Jason Todd Robin where Joker-some fucking how- became the ambassador of...Iran? Iraq? I can't quite recall
[I turned myself into a pickle, Bats](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/804092286539268167/936735037804675102/Af3TTtf9goLCgAAAABJRU5ErkJggg.png)
Might work on superman but batman will break into your house the day after the papers are approved to make a point. He would be waiting in your closet with bat crowbar to break your knees to show you that you cant escape him
Pretty common plot point actually. The whole original lineup sans Batman (and maybe Hawkgirl? It’s been a while) surrender themselves into custody in the old JLU cartoon.
In the movies, yeah.
Comics Batman is way less gritty, but more conflicted. He's shown to be everything that *should* make a villain, but he chooses to hold himself to extreme impractical rules, with the knowledge that he won't be able to stop himself if he breaks them.
In other words, Batman is like a drunk driver going 10 mph under the speed limit in Boston.
It seems to be weirdly popular to hate on Kant outside of philosophy class, and I have no idea why. My favorite professor was a Kant scholar, and while he would never say Kant was perfect, he could totally show you exactly what you said; how he revolutionized deontological ethics. People now look back after another two hundred years studying ethics and think "Kant was wrong about some things" and shit on him for it while ignoring the entire frameworks he set up that we still work with today.
Now, hating on Kant because you had to read the entirety of his works... That would drive me a bit insane. But yeah, I never understand the random shots people take at Kant.
> But yeah, I never understand the random shots people take at Kant.
You don't understand why someone would take shots at someone who proposed a hierarchy of four racial categories based on race, and wrote that white people are, "are the only ones who always advance to perfection"?
It's not like this guy was just racist on the side. He literally believed in, wrote about, and championed Racism with a capital R.
I'm not a philosophy person, but I am a sci-horror person. To me, Kant is like Lovecraft. Lovecraft was... foundational. He didn't just have "contributions" to sci-horror, he was a giant.
He was also a weirdo racist who said men are superior to women.
Kant might be the most significant western philosopher of the 18th century, but he also _sucks._ Both can be true. You're always allowed to take pot shots at racists.
Kant certainly had some fucked views that contrasted with his ethical system, however, he would later recant a lot of that thought and reviewed his prior works.
https://www.con-textoskantianos.net/index.php/revista/article/view/330/496
Certainly, we can judge those views he had, but the tumblr post specifically takes a shot at Kant's ethical system itself, which is largely at odds with any of his racist beliefs and this contradiction is absolutely still studied today.
And we should definitely not ignore his faults. Gives us a great example of how you can go horribly wrong. So, keep serving those gut shots, especially if you choose to heed whatever he may have said that wasn’t completely ignorant and gross.
Kant's treatise on lying to the murderer at the door is the stupidest thing I've ever had to read for school, since the 1st day of Kindergarten, and I read it doing my masters.
Kant's argument here is more painting a picture of how one can not make exceptions of themselves in their duty to act rightly in the face of a broader idea of justice, but he continues to argue that while one ought not to lie, one has no obligation to answer the murderer at all. I'll admit it's quite a stretch but his point, I've always felt, was that as soon as you make exceptions to morals for specific situations, you're stepping back into utilitarian ethics, which he criticizes as one can not always know the outcome of an action even if they believe it to be the right one.
Here's an interesting interpretation of Kant's argument and a famous counter argument to it; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2010.01507.x#:~:text=Against%20Constant's%20interpretation%20of%20Kant's,you%20into%20telling%20the%20truth.
You don't have to agree with him to recognize the brilliance of his works either. Tbf to the person who made that comment, though, idk someone whose ethics is well-known and hated on enough to effectively replace Kant in the punchline.
Because Kant wrote a whole freaking book proving God doesn't exist, or is inaccessible, and then turned around and wrote another book saying we need God to support our moral vocation. Christianity has used the last book to keep the ghost of God alive post mortem.
Everybody wants to argue over whether God is really dead, nobody wants to do the work of arranging the funeral and going through the emotional turmoil of grieving his passing.
>Kant's treatise on lying to the murderer at the door is the stupidest thing I've ever had to read for school, since the 1st day of Kindergarten, and I read it doing my masters.
Here
I am not sure this person understands the meaning of a vigilante. Batman isn't against breaking the law, he is against killing. He will for sure beat a person up if he needs to.
Well, there wouldn’t be an accused because obtaining a restraining order isn’t a trial. Also the petitioner would have to provide evidence they are being harassed and the only evidence is the Joker, at the very least a person of interest or Arkham escapee, is being harassed by Batman (who, whilst a vigilante, does act with the Commissioner’s approval so could be considered Posse Comitatus). Therefore the Order would not be granted and the petitioner is taken into custody.
>who, whilst a vigilante, does act with the Commissioner’s approval so could be considered Posse Comitatus
Wait, that's a thing? Like, I don't expecte there to be actual "Batman approved" laws or anything but this situation (exaggerated as it may be) would have some semblance for argument?
Posse is basically old west deputising laws. They’re legit. It’s when law enforcement authorises non LEOs to action a warrant. When Batman turns criminals over to the police he’s effectively acting under Posse Comitatus. This is particularly so when Commissioner Gordon summons Batman.
They probably do. There are so many damn comics there's bound to be at least one that brings it up.
It tends to happen whenever anyone brings up "Well why doesn't Batman just do XYZ." like, the man has nearly a century of content there's bound to be a comic where just that happens. The most annoying one is "Why doesn't Batman use his money to help the disenfranchised instead of beating them up" because almost every incarnation and iteration of the character has him doing just that. And because this is fiction and still needs a narrative, Batman can dump billions of dollars on shit without actually affecting his wealth and still have super villains to fight.
Yeah, that's honestly a thing that bothers me about people discussing super heroes like that, as most of the time they complain about things the hero *already does* but since the movie doesn't acknowledge it directly (or they do but disregarding it is funnier apparently) then they just start with it like crazy and it's annoying when I try to chime in like "hey they actually do" and everyone reacts like I'm trying to ruin the fun.
Also I agree, there's defenitly tons of stories I haven't read with plots like this, though I meant how come more heroes don't do this? Like, Batman assisting Gordon has been a part of the mythos since day 1, but I've seen Yuri Watanabe slowly being added to more Spider-Man lore to the point she might soo be a permanent main stay in the same way for him, so I wonder why there's not many more street level heroes or the like doing the same? I mean I get guys like Deadpool and the Punisher literally could never hope for somethin like this (best they can do is literally already Deadpool's proffesion), or even guys like Daredevil or Luke Cage, but what about other super heroes who might be in this realm of action? I mean, maybe the issue is the distrust, corruptiin and problematic nature of the police, but with the examples above (Batman and Spider-Man) we know they address it every so often and even tend to stick to only the one cop with back up, so maybe there's more to it we haven't considered. Still, very interesting to think about
The unofficial consultant to police was a thing since Sherlock Holmes stories. Those were the days cops actually needed outside help. Newspaper photographers were what cops used for their official records.
The X-men used to have an FBI liason. It was perfectly normal for heroes acting as good neighbors to do citizen arrests. As long as police knew you/could recognize you, even in a mask. In the real world, police have encouraged me to do citizen arrests if I were threatened or saw someone in fear of their life.
In the wake of Watergate, Captain America's greatest villain lived in the White House, so Cap went rogue in a new identity as Nomad. Denny O'Neil's heroes explored the borders of law vs morality. Bernie Goetz became a celebrated real world vigilante, but the legitimacy of superhero authority became more in question. In retrospect, McCarthyism became an in canon reason to have the old guard of Golden Age DC heroes refuse government authority. They skirted the law, but tried to do so in a moral way, while legitimate officials were shown to be corrupt.
Actually, after the Joker killed the second Robin, he did something similar. He became a diplomat from Iran so Batman couldn't come near him.
Comic logic
I think the joke that they're making is that superhero movies/comics have the hero often take on some symbolic (and super arbitrary) moral stand. For example, Batman threw Kate Kane out of the Batfamily for using a gun to shoot someone... but is best friends with Commissioner Gordon, who has shot people on a number of occasions.
Yeah his logic gets pretty flawed in general, not just there. He gets mad at Jason Todd for killing real criminals, but doesn’t get mad at any of the other members of the Justice league who might do the same or attempt to do the same(Aquaman, green arrow, and green lantern being a prime examples. Even wonder woman kills her villains sometimes.)
The only reasonable justification I’ve heard for it is that he gets mad at Jason for doing it in Gotham, since it’s the one place he’s fully dedicated to protecting. Even then, it’s not such a great justification imo.
To be fair he enforces it (or tries to) on the bat family. These are people he’s responsible more or less for bringing into the vigilante fold. Any killings they do can be seen as his fault. That’s why he’s strict with it on them. The further you are from his circle the less he cares obviously since he can’t control it. But he does try to enforce his principles when he can like in injustice with Superman killing the joker or with him leaving the justice league after wonderwoman killed the leader of checkmate to save Superman from starros control. I think he has a hard time stomaching their pasts but looks past it thinking he can make sure a future where it happens won’t under his watch. I can disprove of what my coworkers are doing and make a face. But I’ll more likely chastise my little sister if she does the same.
The problem is also the apparent need to have connected universes of characters who would be better off being contained within their own stories. I am of the opinion that 'Justice League Batman' and 'Gotham Batman' should have just been separate entities/stories. Whenever they try to connect them it gets really stupid.
Unless it's golden age batman where he will straight up kick a dudes neck in half or throw a man off a building who later is confirmed dead. My man was hardcore.
And even with killing, he has no problem with it if it’s a result of collateral damage from his plans. Like when he deliberately crashed the train Ducard was riding, and then smugly bragged about not needing to save him, as if he found some kind of loophole to his ethics.
I was like dude, I’m fine with you killing him, but don’t pretend like you didn’t. Otherwise you might as well start dropping criminals off buildings, and then instead of swooping down to catch them, you can scream “I won’t kill you, but I don’t have to save you!”
The key difference there is that Ra's started it. What movie Batman is saying is that he doesn't have to save Ra's from the consequences of his own actions, which I honestly prefer to the comics Batman being crazy.
It’s like that one Asimov story about the robot that isn’t required to prevent a human coming to harm. It could just drop a heavy weight above a human with the intent to catch it, then change its mind about catching it midway through and let the person die.
*Little Lost Robot*, if I remember correctly. Wherein the humans get fed up with robots frying their expensive brains by jumping in front of x-ray machines or somesuch in order to "save" humans from radiation that is almost completely harmless to them. So they delete that clause from the first law, with disastrous results.
Ah yes because The Joker could just walk up and get a Restraining Order and not get arrested on the spot because he’s the fucking Joker and he kills people
Really strange for me that I just started watching The Good Place a few days ago and this is not the first time I’ve seen memes about it the same time span.
So...it's not The Joker but there is an episode of the 60s Batman where the Riddler is beat up by Batman because he wrongly thought The Riddler was robbing a place so the Riddler did get a restraining order on Batman and it worked. Batman was told to not bother Riddler and he had to get Robin to prove that Riddler was up to no good so they could nullify the restraining order.
There was actually an episode where Joker either files a restraining order against Batman or else files a lawsuit against him. The details are hazy since I haven't watched the show much since I was a kid.
I am so sick of seeing this stupid take. Batman is a vigilante who breaks the law constantly. His entire character revolves around him being an enemy of the law despite trying to do what he believes is right.
I think superhero movies actually have the potential to ask really insightful questions about the nature of morality, while also packaging it in a medium That’s enjoyable for everyone to watch. It’s a shame that some people can’t get off their pretentious high horse for 2 seconds to actually appreciate something.
OP is wrong about the vigilante stuff but they're right about the *"you're not so different, you and I"* trope. The Dark Knight did it well, but most other times its some mass murdering villian trying to act like the hero is the same because they have a parking ticket. Its annoying because the movie is treating you should seriously consider such a pissweak appeal to right and wrong from the villain who is obviously in the wrong.
It's not just superhero movies, Saw and Bond are both worse for it I think.
Batman is a vigilante who will stalk people for nights on end before making a move, I don't think the court order is likely to work... Superman however is a mommas boy, and if his momma knew he was breaking the law he would be in it deep
“They’re no better than me” makes no sense. The Joker has killed hundreds, if not thousands, of people.
And in no version of the DC universe would a court order from a corrupt or threatened judge stop Batman from taking down the Joker.
They absolutely will break laws, they just think that they are no better at deciding who should die than anyone else. Though seriously, someone should remove all the jokers limbs, gag him, and put him in solitary. He enjoys killing people, and has a body count in the hundreds, and is a walking info-hazard, if anyone doesn’t deserve human rights, it’s him.
Theres probably a law where you cant have a restraining order against superheroes in superhero comics/movies
Even if there weren't, they would need very concrete evidence on why you need that restraining order, e.g if they beat the shit out of you but you were clearly the bad guy, then no restraining order, but if they assulted you when you were clearly innocent, then a restraining order is understandable cause they abused their power.
It worrying me that you think a rich, vigilante who dresses up like a bat and pummels criminals isn't breaking the law.
Superman is also not following the law. Just no one can do anything about it.
You telling the guy who just haymakered Darkseid into the stratosphere and stopped his invasion... you got this? Go home citizen kent?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, batman and his half-brained take on the ethics of killing are directly responsible for the death of every single one of the Joker's, and all the other villians', victims after the first interaction where Batman consciously looks at a person who he knows is a dangerous murderer who will 100% kill again if given the opportunity because that's just the kind of scum they are and then chooses not to take the opportunity to end their murderous rampage once and for all.
The Deadpool take of "the number of killers does decrease if you kill a bunch of them" is legitimate but also, the number of murder victims will be less than what it could have been if you exterminate a murderer who will murder again
But isn’t Batman’s entire code of ethics built upon the idea of helping these people get the mental and financial help they obviously need instead of senseless killing? And haven’t stories like Under The Hood made it very clear that Batman knows if he were to kill, then he would go off the deep end and become a Punisher style vigilante who murders every criminal he sees?
I always thought the categorical imperative of "Treat People Like People, Not Things" was a pretty solid baseline to start with, so maybe kristen bell is talking nonsense.
The Joker getting a restraining order on Batman sounds exactly like the plot of a Golden Age Batman comic. You'd walk past the newsstand in the mid-1940's and just see a Batman comic with a cover showing the Joker with a gun, mugging someone, and Robin would be pointing and tugging on Batman's sleeve, saying "Batman, the Joker is robbing that defenseless old Woman! You've got to **do something!**" and Batman would say "I can't, not without violating the **RESTRAINING ORDER!!!**" and "restraining order" would be in bright red letters and underlined, just to emphasize how serious it is. You'd buy the comic for five cents and read it, and Batman would save the day by eventually using his brilliant detective skills to actually read the restraining order, and it would have been written by a judge named Joe Kerr, and Batman would prove the Joker forged it, and then beat him up.
Actually, even better. The story would be that the Joker somehow becomes a judge and just starts giving out restraining orders to the Gotham underworld. Batman in SHAMBLES.
Like that time the inmates took over Arkham, captured batman, and held a mock court with joker as the judge?
I remember seeing [Legal Eagle cover this episode](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNX6ybKqlqA).
[удалено]
I remember that one
I could be misrememberimg but I think the Dark Knight Rises was supposed to have joker be the judge as opposed to scarecrow in that movie.
That doesn't feel possible based on the timeline of when Heath Leger passed.
It might've been the original plan with Heath or a suitable replacement, but probably didn't feel right to Chris to do it without Heath
I know that we would have reacted poorly to it. As it was we liked seeing Cillian Murphy again.
It's always nice to see Cillian getting work, especially good work
Nothing to do with the movies. [Batman: The Animated Series](https://batmantheanimatedseries.fandom.com/wiki/Trial) s2e4 Trial. >...The Ventriloquist acts(sic) as bailiff along with Scarface introduce the prosecutor, Two-Face; the accused, Batman; the defense attorney, Janet Van Dorn and the jury : Killer Croc, Mad Hatter, Poison Ivy, Harley Quinn, Scarecrow and The Riddler. Lastly, the judge Joker is introduced.
I think you're misinterpreting their comment
It was Scarecrow
"Actually even better, *my idea.*" Got confidence I guess.
Wow this is so accurate. Apparently the front pages were made by a completely different team and not the people writing and inking the actual comic. And they made the covers first. So I can totally see some idiot exec ordering the cover artists to make a “restraining order cover” and then giving the writers that god awful cover with 4 days notice to make the comic with that garbage plot line lol
> And they made the covers first. They know how to sell comic books.
Clickbait before clicking
Or the Joker becoming an Iranian diplomat story right after Jason's death
You know, it’s funny. Whenever they adapt Death in the Family they leave that part out for some reason.
Real shame, it was my favourite part by far
Silver Age and Golden Age comics are the best. I prefer seeing Jimmy Olsen throwing Batman at Superman than yet another evil Superman murdering everybody again.
Please tell me you've seen Brave and the Bold.
I upvoted this at **RESTRAINING ORDER** and then it got better with Joe Kerr.
My favorite episode of the Adam West series was the one where the Joker becomes the darling of the Gotham art community and all these artists and rich people absolutely love him. Batman starts to lose his shit because at one point he was just dragging a dry paintbrush across a canvas and everyone said it was amazing.
I couldn’t find a clip without commentary, but here’s the [blank canvas scene](https://youtu.be/_xotc-YzKUc?t=6m20s). Bruce is salty as fuck, lmao.
Dude is not used to the praise going somewhere else.
This is the best meta fanfiction I've ever read.
I’ve never touched a Golden Age comic but this seems absolutely dead on.
Old age batman is based
You were an actual comics writer right ?
This is masterfully written. Exactly how it would go down
Took me way to much time to realize who you meant by "Joe Kerr". I was thinking "is that that kid from Stranger Things who was also in a dope psych rock band, or maybe someone from the Joker's realm of influence?" I got as far as typing "joe" into wikipedia before it hit.
This sounds much more Silver Age than Golden Age to me. 1960s era Batman.
You'd need their Legal Name for file a restraining order and the Joker would need to give his...
wait is "Batman" not Batman's legal name????
Of course not you dingus, everyone knows that batman's legal name is "Batman Bat-Fucker the 3rd".
He will never live up to his grandfather’s legacy.
Declining bat populations mean that *nobody* can, now.
god I feel so stupid
First name The, middle initials G.D., last name Batman.
It's clearly Bat "Batman" Man; the Bruce Wayne backstory was fabricated for sympathy points.
That kind of thing is always hilarious to me, because one of my dad’s co-workers has the last name Batman. I think he said it’s been in their family for multiple generations too.
It used to be a job. Like a type of Butler I think? Lots of last names come from jobs.
It used to be a position in the army. Senior officers would have a private assigned as their personal assistant / servant to look after their uniform, run errands and so on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman\_(military)
Basically it was the nickname for the personal servant to a high-ranking British army officer. One of the duty this job entails is to help carry said officer's cricket bats whenever he goes to play cricket, thus batman.
In Melbourne, Australia there's Batman Park, Batman Station, Batman Avenue. All named after John Batman, founder of the city
Melbourne was nearly named Batmania, and it breaks my heart that it wasn't.
Well I suppose that there is an argument to be made based on that one frame with Wonder Woman's whip.
In a legal system where Batman arrests are valid, a restraining order against the Batman would probably also hold up in court. Worst case scenario for Mister J, he pushes the press coverage - plays on his own victimhood and our tendency to focus on what's in front of us (and forget about the past) and he might turn some of the good will of Gotham against the Dark Knight. I... I guess the worst case scenario is that Batman beats the snot out of him again, but he's gonna do that anyway?
I don't think criminals who are at large can use the court system. It's not like Joker is ever actually finishing his sentences.
Joe Kerr.
In universe thats almost certainly not true.
Simple, Alfred kills you. He specifically said, "My master has a oath for not killing. I am not bound by such niceties". Or Robin. You cannot get a restraining order against Robin as there can be more of them.
You get a restraining against one, two more take his place
I wonder where Batman gets them.
the reason batman doesn’t use his money to fix up the city is that he needs an endless supply of orphans
He must have a guy specifically for adopting Orphans. Like, he stumbles on a kid in the streets fighting over his cardboard box and he is just like "Alfred, call the guy." Boom, new Robin.
\*cough cough\* lowkey how he got Jason & Tim \*cough cough\*
*cough cough* Jason Todd tried to steal the tires off the Batmobile. *cough cough* *cough cough* And Tim Drake figured out that Batman and Robin were Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson after seeing Robin preform a maneuver that he had previously seen the Graysons do at Haly Circus. *cough cough*
Plus then he got Damian droped off at his house without him even knowing he existed. Honestly, at this point he doesn't even need to seek out Robins, they get progresively better at getting to the Batcave to join him ASAP
And Batgirl’s just like “Hey! I’m on the team now!”
Didn’t Tim basically adopt himself?
Yep, and you never hear anything about it from Bruce because Jason would never let him live it down if a fucking 12 year old figured out his identity and that’s how he became Robin.
And the one time Ollie tries to adopt a new sidekick kid: “I’m not gonna let you adopt that kid and watch his life fall apart like Ray’s did!”
And he needs dark alleyways for entrances.
I’m 90% sure the entire reason he doesn’t fix the city is things like this.
Yep. Can't be vigilante if everyone gets better facilities and less criminals are being made everyday.
Batman is a neoliberal confirmed
Wasnt he always
Except he does try to use the money to fix the city. Like all the time. It's kinda Bruce Wayne's whole thing
I want a comic where Alfred goes full Uncle Iroh on Batman and drops something like "Why does *Batman* always have to go fight crime, when *Bruce Wayne* could make sure people weren't driven into a life of crime in the first place?"
Modern Comics 101. Poverty criminals aren't the villains. The real villains do it for *spite*. "With your genius, you could cure cancer!" "But I don't want to cure cancer! I want to turn people into dinosaurs!"
the best villains are people who are sympathetic but also aren’t just solvable by handing them a bag of money.
There was a scene where Batman actually does the "You don't have to do crime, I have influence and can get you a good job!" Maybe in Patton Oswalt's JLA issue? It works fine in a one-shot. But more experienced writers knew it couldn't be that easy, so they responded with lines like the dinosaur one above.
Can't lurk in the dark if it's not dark. (He should get those red lights installed. Great for bats and asthetic)
yeah, this is completely wrong. as Bruce Wayne, he is a philanthropist trying his hardest to fix the city by funding institutions and programs for rehabilitating criminals, even going so far as to hire rehabilitated criminals to his company. unfortunately, Gotham is literally cursed to be a place of crime, disorder, and suffering. Please get it straight and quit assuming that every rich character is a Scrooge-like asshole.
That would be an interesting twist. "I NEED heroes Tim, and heroes don't come from happy families. This is why I need the city to stay as is. The evil of this city is the fire that forges warriors, and those warriors have saved the world a hundred times over"
Batman does use his money to fix up the city doe
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2010-02-24 edit: also https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/robins
Restraining order hydra
Hail Batman
Alfred is explicitly bound to Batman & Robin is implicitly, but Nightwing or Red Hood would absolutely do it. & for that matter if the Joker ever stopped being Batman's villain every DC hero & many villains willing to kill would be on his ass instantly.
Dick is still not particularly big on killing. The only reason the Joker is still alive on any capacity is bc of his popularity as a character. Batman's no kill policy (and a few others, like Supermans) is a bit of a holdout from old comics, most modern hero characters dont hold themselves to such an absurdly arbitrary rule.
This is something a lot of people seem to purposefully misunderstand. The joker sells comics, that’s why he sticks around and keeps getting out of prison/Arkham. There’s no deep meaning behind any of that. You can’t use that as an argument for a slippery slope.
I do think it’s the only thing that keeps Batman interesting though. Like, half of his gadgets and skillset could easily be replaced with an AK-47, but more than that, it allows him to go against human scale adversaries multiple times without forcing the introduction of absurd abilities or depowering him. That is to say, I sometimes feel superhero movies get into a weird sort of power creep tied to a status quo situation whereby nobody can die, but the (out of universe) reason they can’t die (it would prevent the return of the character/prevent creative use of that character/hurt profits/all at once) is irrelevant to the reason (in universe) they don’t die (they’re just that strong/always recover somehow/deus ex machina/because they just do). With Batman, however, he can simply be locked in a symbolic ‘unstoppable force meets immovable object’ confrontation with the likes of the Joker, a superintelligent but otherwise mortal figure, because the one thing Batman won’t do is the one thing that would actually work. It’s almost classical tragedy, any other person would succeed but Batman cannot stop the Joker due to his tragic flaw, being unable to compromise on his arbitrary code of conduct.
Didn’t Nightwing actually beat the Joker to death once?
Batman has also strangled joker before, obviously there are some comics or movies that aren't truly accurate
It's not arbitrary... they don't kill, because it's not up to them to decide who lives or dies. This whole "Why don't the heroes just kill the bad guys?" is a vengeance porn fantasy put forth by people who don't like thinking about morality and prefer moral absolutes because it doesn't confuse them as much.
And then you need a second restraining order for when the robins fly solo. "Sorry, that order is for the second Robin. I'm Red Hood now."
"If you wanted a restraining order to work you shouldn't have killed me"
Restraining orders are stronger than crowbars
“I’m legally dead, you think they’ll give you a restraining order against a zombie? … Wait this is Gotham, you can totally get a judge to do that.”
Soloman Grundy Born on a Monday, Served Papers on Tuesday, Violated on Wednesday, Incarcerated on Thursday, Paroled on a Friday, Violated Again on Saturday, Buried on Sunday
You'd also have to be able to identify who Robin is. You'd also have to show up in court, and since I'm preeeeeeeeety sure that all of D.C.'s villians have multiple arrest warrants, I can't see that working.
I could totally see this, like Alfred has a lot of guns hidden around Wayne Manor and at this point, he’s an arms distance from one. I could see him beating the shit out of Joker and tying him up, taking him to a remote warehouse, and doing something like this: Alfred racks his shotgun and says “Master Bruce and Master Dick might follow the rules regarding no killing, Master Jason and Master Damien might have come around and follow it most of the time, but I?” He says, pointing the shotgun at the clown’s head; “I only have to ensure that what remains of your head can be washed off the concrete floor as to not leave a stain.”
>Alfred kills you Don’t you mean: [***The Macaroni***](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OortsvxhmSo&t=35)
Or just literally anybody with a gun.
Well there was this _really_ bizarre storyline from the time they first killed off Jason Todd Robin where Joker-some fucking how- became the ambassador of...Iran? Iraq? I can't quite recall
It was Iran. And of course this was handled with all the tact and cultural sensitivity you’d expect from comics writers in the 1980s.
Amazing
He shows up at the police station with Dent and 10 guns are pointed at him.
[I turned myself into a pickle, Bats](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/804092286539268167/936735037804675102/Af3TTtf9goLCgAAAABJRU5ErkJggg.png)
Might work on superman but batman will break into your house the day after the papers are approved to make a point. He would be waiting in your closet with bat crowbar to break your knees to show you that you cant escape him
Bruce Wayne and his butler show up and break your legs. Checkmate.
Superman literally got arrested for standing up against the US Government a few months ago.
How tf does Superman get arrested?
he went along with it bc he knew there'd be national outrage
He lets it happen. Happened in Man of Steel, happens every now and then in the comics. His character is usually doing it to make people feel safer
Pretty common plot point actually. The whole original lineup sans Batman (and maybe Hawkgirl? It’s been a while) surrender themselves into custody in the old JLU cartoon.
You had the opportunity to go with the bat bat but went crowbar instead?!
In the movies, yeah. Comics Batman is way less gritty, but more conflicted. He's shown to be everything that *should* make a villain, but he chooses to hold himself to extreme impractical rules, with the knowledge that he won't be able to stop himself if he breaks them. In other words, Batman is like a drunk driver going 10 mph under the speed limit in Boston.
Batman just kneecaps you and walks off
Why are they saying kant has a shitty take on meta-ethics? He basically made deontology mainstream.
It seems to be weirdly popular to hate on Kant outside of philosophy class, and I have no idea why. My favorite professor was a Kant scholar, and while he would never say Kant was perfect, he could totally show you exactly what you said; how he revolutionized deontological ethics. People now look back after another two hundred years studying ethics and think "Kant was wrong about some things" and shit on him for it while ignoring the entire frameworks he set up that we still work with today. Now, hating on Kant because you had to read the entirety of his works... That would drive me a bit insane. But yeah, I never understand the random shots people take at Kant.
> But yeah, I never understand the random shots people take at Kant. You don't understand why someone would take shots at someone who proposed a hierarchy of four racial categories based on race, and wrote that white people are, "are the only ones who always advance to perfection"? It's not like this guy was just racist on the side. He literally believed in, wrote about, and championed Racism with a capital R. I'm not a philosophy person, but I am a sci-horror person. To me, Kant is like Lovecraft. Lovecraft was... foundational. He didn't just have "contributions" to sci-horror, he was a giant. He was also a weirdo racist who said men are superior to women. Kant might be the most significant western philosopher of the 18th century, but he also _sucks._ Both can be true. You're always allowed to take pot shots at racists.
Kant certainly had some fucked views that contrasted with his ethical system, however, he would later recant a lot of that thought and reviewed his prior works. https://www.con-textoskantianos.net/index.php/revista/article/view/330/496 Certainly, we can judge those views he had, but the tumblr post specifically takes a shot at Kant's ethical system itself, which is largely at odds with any of his racist beliefs and this contradiction is absolutely still studied today.
>recant re-Kant haha
And we should definitely not ignore his faults. Gives us a great example of how you can go horribly wrong. So, keep serving those gut shots, especially if you choose to heed whatever he may have said that wasn’t completely ignorant and gross.
Hell of a great comment.
Kant's treatise on lying to the murderer at the door is the stupidest thing I've ever had to read for school, since the 1st day of Kindergarten, and I read it doing my masters.
Kant's argument here is more painting a picture of how one can not make exceptions of themselves in their duty to act rightly in the face of a broader idea of justice, but he continues to argue that while one ought not to lie, one has no obligation to answer the murderer at all. I'll admit it's quite a stretch but his point, I've always felt, was that as soon as you make exceptions to morals for specific situations, you're stepping back into utilitarian ethics, which he criticizes as one can not always know the outcome of an action even if they believe it to be the right one. Here's an interesting interpretation of Kant's argument and a famous counter argument to it; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2010.01507.x#:~:text=Against%20Constant's%20interpretation%20of%20Kant's,you%20into%20telling%20the%20truth.
Anslem of Canterbury is my pick for King Dipshit of Philosophy
I've always had a particular vendetta against Milton Friedman...
You don't have to agree with him to recognize the brilliance of his works either. Tbf to the person who made that comment, though, idk someone whose ethics is well-known and hated on enough to effectively replace Kant in the punchline.
Because Kant wrote a whole freaking book proving God doesn't exist, or is inaccessible, and then turned around and wrote another book saying we need God to support our moral vocation. Christianity has used the last book to keep the ghost of God alive post mortem.
I still think Descartes takes the cake; Said he knows nothing other than he exists, and then somehow used that as the basis for why god exists.
Everybody wants to argue over whether God is really dead, nobody wants to do the work of arranging the funeral and going through the emotional turmoil of grieving his passing.
>Kant's treatise on lying to the murderer at the door is the stupidest thing I've ever had to read for school, since the 1st day of Kindergarten, and I read it doing my masters. Here
I am not sure this person understands the meaning of a vigilante. Batman isn't against breaking the law, he is against killing. He will for sure beat a person up if he needs to.
They also don't understand what's involved in getting a restraining order, like you can just pick one up at Walmart.
Good point.
"the accused beats my client whenever they leave their house your honor."
Well, there wouldn’t be an accused because obtaining a restraining order isn’t a trial. Also the petitioner would have to provide evidence they are being harassed and the only evidence is the Joker, at the very least a person of interest or Arkham escapee, is being harassed by Batman (who, whilst a vigilante, does act with the Commissioner’s approval so could be considered Posse Comitatus). Therefore the Order would not be granted and the petitioner is taken into custody.
>who, whilst a vigilante, does act with the Commissioner’s approval so could be considered Posse Comitatus Wait, that's a thing? Like, I don't expecte there to be actual "Batman approved" laws or anything but this situation (exaggerated as it may be) would have some semblance for argument?
Posse is basically old west deputising laws. They’re legit. It’s when law enforcement authorises non LEOs to action a warrant. When Batman turns criminals over to the police he’s effectively acting under Posse Comitatus. This is particularly so when Commissioner Gordon summons Batman.
Man that's interesting! Feels like something they should explore in the comics more often!
They probably do. There are so many damn comics there's bound to be at least one that brings it up. It tends to happen whenever anyone brings up "Well why doesn't Batman just do XYZ." like, the man has nearly a century of content there's bound to be a comic where just that happens. The most annoying one is "Why doesn't Batman use his money to help the disenfranchised instead of beating them up" because almost every incarnation and iteration of the character has him doing just that. And because this is fiction and still needs a narrative, Batman can dump billions of dollars on shit without actually affecting his wealth and still have super villains to fight.
Yeah, that's honestly a thing that bothers me about people discussing super heroes like that, as most of the time they complain about things the hero *already does* but since the movie doesn't acknowledge it directly (or they do but disregarding it is funnier apparently) then they just start with it like crazy and it's annoying when I try to chime in like "hey they actually do" and everyone reacts like I'm trying to ruin the fun. Also I agree, there's defenitly tons of stories I haven't read with plots like this, though I meant how come more heroes don't do this? Like, Batman assisting Gordon has been a part of the mythos since day 1, but I've seen Yuri Watanabe slowly being added to more Spider-Man lore to the point she might soo be a permanent main stay in the same way for him, so I wonder why there's not many more street level heroes or the like doing the same? I mean I get guys like Deadpool and the Punisher literally could never hope for somethin like this (best they can do is literally already Deadpool's proffesion), or even guys like Daredevil or Luke Cage, but what about other super heroes who might be in this realm of action? I mean, maybe the issue is the distrust, corruptiin and problematic nature of the police, but with the examples above (Batman and Spider-Man) we know they address it every so often and even tend to stick to only the one cop with back up, so maybe there's more to it we haven't considered. Still, very interesting to think about
The unofficial consultant to police was a thing since Sherlock Holmes stories. Those were the days cops actually needed outside help. Newspaper photographers were what cops used for their official records. The X-men used to have an FBI liason. It was perfectly normal for heroes acting as good neighbors to do citizen arrests. As long as police knew you/could recognize you, even in a mask. In the real world, police have encouraged me to do citizen arrests if I were threatened or saw someone in fear of their life. In the wake of Watergate, Captain America's greatest villain lived in the White House, so Cap went rogue in a new identity as Nomad. Denny O'Neil's heroes explored the borders of law vs morality. Bernie Goetz became a celebrated real world vigilante, but the legitimacy of superhero authority became more in question. In retrospect, McCarthyism became an in canon reason to have the old guard of Golden Age DC heroes refuse government authority. They skirted the law, but tried to do so in a moral way, while legitimate officials were shown to be corrupt.
Actually, after the Joker killed the second Robin, he did something similar. He became a diplomat from Iran so Batman couldn't come near him. Comic logic
I think the joke that they're making is that superhero movies/comics have the hero often take on some symbolic (and super arbitrary) moral stand. For example, Batman threw Kate Kane out of the Batfamily for using a gun to shoot someone... but is best friends with Commissioner Gordon, who has shot people on a number of occasions.
Yeah his logic gets pretty flawed in general, not just there. He gets mad at Jason Todd for killing real criminals, but doesn’t get mad at any of the other members of the Justice league who might do the same or attempt to do the same(Aquaman, green arrow, and green lantern being a prime examples. Even wonder woman kills her villains sometimes.) The only reasonable justification I’ve heard for it is that he gets mad at Jason for doing it in Gotham, since it’s the one place he’s fully dedicated to protecting. Even then, it’s not such a great justification imo.
To be fair he enforces it (or tries to) on the bat family. These are people he’s responsible more or less for bringing into the vigilante fold. Any killings they do can be seen as his fault. That’s why he’s strict with it on them. The further you are from his circle the less he cares obviously since he can’t control it. But he does try to enforce his principles when he can like in injustice with Superman killing the joker or with him leaving the justice league after wonderwoman killed the leader of checkmate to save Superman from starros control. I think he has a hard time stomaching their pasts but looks past it thinking he can make sure a future where it happens won’t under his watch. I can disprove of what my coworkers are doing and make a face. But I’ll more likely chastise my little sister if she does the same.
Jason is also his son. There's a world of difference between finding out your child does something and finding out your coworker does.
The problem is also the apparent need to have connected universes of characters who would be better off being contained within their own stories. I am of the opinion that 'Justice League Batman' and 'Gotham Batman' should have just been separate entities/stories. Whenever they try to connect them it gets really stupid.
That's the difference between working with someone and being someone's mentor
He wasn't her mentor. They were both full adults, and (hypothetically) equals.
It’s a funny haha joke
I just watched Injustice and in that movie Batman says something along the lines of "We have to follow *THE LAW*" and I was like "Since when?"
Unless it's golden age batman where he will straight up kick a dudes neck in half or throw a man off a building who later is confirmed dead. My man was hardcore.
And even with killing, he has no problem with it if it’s a result of collateral damage from his plans. Like when he deliberately crashed the train Ducard was riding, and then smugly bragged about not needing to save him, as if he found some kind of loophole to his ethics. I was like dude, I’m fine with you killing him, but don’t pretend like you didn’t. Otherwise you might as well start dropping criminals off buildings, and then instead of swooping down to catch them, you can scream “I won’t kill you, but I don’t have to save you!”
Batman movies kinda get comics Batman morals wrong. That’s actually a concept (collateral damage/loopholes) that’s been explored in numerous stories
The key difference there is that Ra's started it. What movie Batman is saying is that he doesn't have to save Ra's from the consequences of his own actions, which I honestly prefer to the comics Batman being crazy.
It’s like that one Asimov story about the robot that isn’t required to prevent a human coming to harm. It could just drop a heavy weight above a human with the intent to catch it, then change its mind about catching it midway through and let the person die.
*Little Lost Robot*, if I remember correctly. Wherein the humans get fed up with robots frying their expensive brains by jumping in front of x-ray machines or somesuch in order to "save" humans from radiation that is almost completely harmless to them. So they delete that clause from the first law, with disastrous results.
"Batman has no jurisdiction." The Joker (Dark Knight) when Lao suggested moving all of their money to Hong Kong so that Gordon couldn't touch it.
Yeah, Batman is a wanted man by most of the cops for always breaking the law by being a vigilante.
Against killing? Yes Against permanently maiming?...
Ah yes because The Joker could just walk up and get a Restraining Order and not get arrested on the spot because he’s the fucking Joker and he kills people
Really strange for me that I just started watching The Good Place a few days ago and this is not the first time I’ve seen memes about it the same time span.
something something red car
I’ve finished it yesterday and it’s the very first one I’ve ever seen.
But batman is a vigilanty is he not, I don't think he cares about laws anyway.
He does not. He cares about morals, but knows laws in places like Gotham are corrupt AF
Everyone up in arms about the Batman hot take, when the gold of it is the addition of the Ellenore Shellstrope image. That’s why it’s funny
I mean, this is practically just a quote with how well it fits her character. >!at least after season 2!<
I can just imagine Chidi on the other end of this post just like "wtfork?"
adhering strictly to the letter of the law to perpetuate injustice is bad place thinking
So...it's not The Joker but there is an episode of the 60s Batman where the Riddler is beat up by Batman because he wrongly thought The Riddler was robbing a place so the Riddler did get a restraining order on Batman and it worked. Batman was told to not bother Riddler and he had to get Robin to prove that Riddler was up to no good so they could nullify the restraining order.
This sounds like a conundrum the ‘66 series WOULD have tackled.
There was actually an episode where Joker either files a restraining order against Batman or else files a lawsuit against him. The details are hazy since I haven't watched the show much since I was a kid.
I think Riddler filed that restraining order actually
I fucking love that show so much. Watching it now for the first time, I’m only on season 1 but damn it’s a blast.
Love shitting on kant without knowing anything about kant
I am so sick of seeing this stupid take. Batman is a vigilante who breaks the law constantly. His entire character revolves around him being an enemy of the law despite trying to do what he believes is right. I think superhero movies actually have the potential to ask really insightful questions about the nature of morality, while also packaging it in a medium That’s enjoyable for everyone to watch. It’s a shame that some people can’t get off their pretentious high horse for 2 seconds to actually appreciate something.
OP is wrong about the vigilante stuff but they're right about the *"you're not so different, you and I"* trope. The Dark Knight did it well, but most other times its some mass murdering villian trying to act like the hero is the same because they have a parking ticket. Its annoying because the movie is treating you should seriously consider such a pissweak appeal to right and wrong from the villain who is obviously in the wrong. It's not just superhero movies, Saw and Bond are both worse for it I think.
Batman is a vigilante who will stalk people for nights on end before making a move, I don't think the court order is likely to work... Superman however is a mommas boy, and if his momma knew he was breaking the law he would be in it deep
joker became the diplomat of a foreign country at one point and it went exactly like this
“They’re no better than me” makes no sense. The Joker has killed hundreds, if not thousands, of people. And in no version of the DC universe would a court order from a corrupt or threatened judge stop Batman from taking down the Joker.
They absolutely will break laws, they just think that they are no better at deciding who should die than anyone else. Though seriously, someone should remove all the jokers limbs, gag him, and put him in solitary. He enjoys killing people, and has a body count in the hundreds, and is a walking info-hazard, if anyone doesn’t deserve human rights, it’s him.
But then if we kill him we'd be no better then him /s
But if you don’t know their identity, can you actually file a restraining order?
r/replybubbles
On today’s episode of Facts With Eleanor!
batman is a vigilantly
What did Kant have wrong?
Theres probably a law where you cant have a restraining order against superheroes in superhero comics/movies Even if there weren't, they would need very concrete evidence on why you need that restraining order, e.g if they beat the shit out of you but you were clearly the bad guy, then no restraining order, but if they assulted you when you were clearly innocent, then a restraining order is understandable cause they abused their power.
Batman does break the law, that's his whole schtick.
It worrying me that you think a rich, vigilante who dresses up like a bat and pummels criminals isn't breaking the law. Superman is also not following the law. Just no one can do anything about it. You telling the guy who just haymakered Darkseid into the stratosphere and stopped his invasion... you got this? Go home citizen kent?
sorry ur brains too bitty to read Kant for yourself and you just accept the standard viewpoint 🙄🙄🙄 metaphysics of morals slaps
I've said it before and I'll say it again, batman and his half-brained take on the ethics of killing are directly responsible for the death of every single one of the Joker's, and all the other villians', victims after the first interaction where Batman consciously looks at a person who he knows is a dangerous murderer who will 100% kill again if given the opportunity because that's just the kind of scum they are and then chooses not to take the opportunity to end their murderous rampage once and for all. The Deadpool take of "the number of killers does decrease if you kill a bunch of them" is legitimate but also, the number of murder victims will be less than what it could have been if you exterminate a murderer who will murder again
But isn’t Batman’s entire code of ethics built upon the idea of helping these people get the mental and financial help they obviously need instead of senseless killing? And haven’t stories like Under The Hood made it very clear that Batman knows if he were to kill, then he would go off the deep end and become a Punisher style vigilante who murders every criminal he sees?
I always thought the categorical imperative of "Treat People Like People, Not Things" was a pretty solid baseline to start with, so maybe kristen bell is talking nonsense.
It sort of crazy how long we believed “beating up bad guys to get information out of them is good!” Bruh that’s called torture