Honestly I would feel a lot safer with them...

Honestly I would feel a lot safer with them. There are too many awful villains and monsters that need to die or be lobotomized.

I love the no kill rule but it is ruined by the need of writers to parade the same villains out again and again. It makes the no kill rule impossible to defend. No one stays locked up or reforms except for Harley.

>choosing safety over freedom
...

having the justice lords around won't prevent you from dying at a place and time you can't predict

Because it's much better to risk dying at the hands of a displeased Lord?

>making every 'safety over freedom' story end up with the enforcers kicking puppies to force a biased point
>not promoting the guaranteed utopia that a good Singularity would bring

>guaranteed utopia
no such thing

>choosing freedom over safety

real world you make a balance never choosing one over the other completely.

you pay tax you get a job you obey the law your not 100% free.

You know what always bothers me about this scenario? Wonder Woman.

Diana's whole deal is that she's supposed to be all-loving, compassionate, nurturing, the embodiment of feminine strength. So then it should follow that Justice Lord Diana should represent a corruption of those ideals, like a toxic, psychologically abusive mother figure.

But no, every time we see an evil version of Diana, she's just a warmonger who wants evil Superman's cock, and it's boring as hell.

No one cares about Wonder Woman. She will always be a shitty character and cock sleeve for Superman.

> freedom

As long as you are in anyway reliant on others - you aren't free.

They turn her into Lady Macbeth. The evil and manipulative bitch that make the mind of a powerful man by massaging his ego and turning him against everyone in her desire for more power.

I do believe the point of Justice Lords universe is that these heroes are different, less idealistic and heroic versions of the "main" universe Justice League. The way Superman talked with Lex at the White House was already a clear hint that something's off.

That pretty much fits the description of Injustice Wonder Woman-even Martian Manhunter noted how her bloodlust was the reason why she wanted Superman to take a more proactive, authoritarian approach towards making the world a "safer" place.

Dissodent found, justice Lord's in rout.

Yeah. Villains' appearances would hold a lot more weight if they stayed locked up for a long time and escape was a rare, dramatic event instead of something so dirt common that writers don't even bother to explain how they did it anymore

Maybe freedom is overrated? In the DCAU at least, there are too many things and people that just randomly kill huge amounts of people.

>Diana's whole deal is that she's supposed to be all-loving, compassionate, nurturing
She's not even the most compassionate or loving among the trinity. And she's the only one who's kills people too. That sounds more like superman to me.

The Breakout from Marvel and EMH is probably the best example of that.

Yeah. In these stories she use the excuse of her holy mission to spread peace to the world mainly to mask her desire for power. Even her attraction to Superman in these stories is because she find power appealing. So her real desire is usually shown to rule a peaceful utopia of her design as the utmost authority alongside Superman who she controls. So for that she's willing to manipulate Superman using their friendship, set him up against the world and spill as many blood as necessary.

Even stories like Kingdom Come, which set this terrible consistent characterization implied that sort of thing despite later trying to portray her as a redeemed hero.

That's mainly because writers always twist Wonder Woman characterization when she's paired next to Superman to better contrast the two. Of course writers wouldn't show Superman as the more violent and temperamental of the two, since he's DC's biggest character. So usually she's the one thrown under the bus.

On one hand the Justice Lords had a point.

With guys like Joker and Luthor around it's way too dangerous to let them be free, and in the case of Joker it's either a death sentence for him or lobotomization (preferably the former and no, no justification that he's crazy and needs to be treated since he's too insane to let live).

On the other hand making a totalitarian regime, taking a lot of liberties and even giving Lois house arrest is over the line. Not to mention that they went too far with the whole end justify the means thing.

Geoff Johns please leave.

That was my biggest beef with the whole thing. Writers hardly ever bother to go for some middle ground, they always have to push to the extremes because "status quo is the only preferrable solution and everything else is wrong"

Bruce Timm's WW looks to be more based on a less aggressive Artemis.

Seriously it's retarded.

Why not let the Joker be killed by someone only to have him get raised as a Revenant that rises back every month or two after being killed?

Or even have him get lobotomized. Are everyone in the DC Universe who are in the government THIS RETARDED? I mean the guy at this point has a crapton of skeletons in the closet to make a whole necropolis and be judged on a federal level.

Yup. The whole concept of those episodes was that they were the real JL after the murder of Flash, not some evil version. So Superman even as a bit of control freak was still very much into Lois who he placed on house arrest because he was worried about her safety and Wonder Woman was simple more strict and prone to murder the fuck out of people.

It was only in those awful Beyond comics that Justice Lord Superman was shown as a mustache-twirling crackling villain obsessed about da Wondy's puss-puss and Justice Lord Wonder Woman was for some inexplicable reason his consort.

>Hurr, killing is wrong and goes against everything heroes stand for.
>Meanwhile letting mass murderers escape from shitty prisons daily is a-ok and represents optimism.

Do any of these writers who go by this shit have any sense of logic? They might as well say that leaving a rabbid dog alive is the right thing.

Wonder Woman is a warrior, she'd go along with killing villains no problem.
That's the great weakness of the DCAU; Extremes are the only option

Hell, even Jason puts it well in Red Hood movie, mentioning "all the graveyards Joker has filled" when holding Bats at gunpoint, and Bats still goes for his retarded "if you take just one step, you can never go back" mindset.

Different company, but Maria Hill was right.

>killing villains is unacceptable
>vast majority can't be rehabilitated
>can't keep them locked up, cause they'll just escape
Okay, it's a little extreme, but we'll just have to brainwash them into being upstanding citizens!
>brainwashing psychotic murderers and rapists is wrong
... WELP, I guess the "moral" thing to do is just bend over and take it directly up the ass, because every possible solution to the problem is wrong and we're wrong for trying to do something about it.

Well in the Batman Beyond 2.0 comic, there's still gangs and shit so crime isnt gone, you just have a very angry Superman coming to wreck your shit.

Yeah, didn't Justice Lord Supes in that comic also kill Darkseid and some other villains?

>Rabid Dog

I'd rather a Rabid Dog than the Joker or Darkseid.

Even Marvel has the same problem.

>Extremes

We'll never get someone who goes for the middle right?

Indeed. Yet in Batman's case it's understandable since if he did kill just once, then there would be a probability of him doing it again. And with every single kill he'd devolve into something whose M.O. is killing. That would be easy to overcome if he had enough willpower (which he has), but also add to this that Batman is somewhat unstable due to his past and all the shit he witnessed.

That's even more retarded.

So killing villains is OK, while brainwashing or lobotomizing them is worse?

Hill is a retard. Also lawful stupid to boot.

That comic is really bad, though. Everything in the arc was contrived and forced, and made no sense given what was shown in the cartoon regarding the Lord versions. It just wanted to portray the Lord versions as pure evil that made no good.

In the JLU universe Flashes Rogues seem more like a bunch of sad people in costumes that routinely need some heart to heart from him. I like to think a lot of the third stringer heroes have villains like that, just people that need help. The JL7 are so tough not just from powers but from dealing with legitimately evil madmen all the time.

Wasn't there an episode of BTAS where the "villain" was a warden at Arkham who got called out for being rough with murderers and possible terrorists?

Sucks that despite the quality and writing, the DCAU would occasionally suffer from half-baked views on "what is right and what is wrong".

The dude ended up jailed but still promising to fuck the inmates up.

What good is freedom if a supervillain kills you?

>all-loving, compassionate, nurturing
>the embodiment of feminine strength
Choose one, and only one.

ITT: People who don't understand Justice

Shounen and the Big Two have a very similar thing where you basically write stories that have no end. The key difference is that in Shounen you write a story till it doesn't end BUT you still write ONE story not a million short stories. The problems with that are that you end up with stories that could be told in half the pages. With the Big Two you write CHARACTERS who never end rather than stories which means you get villains that should be by all that's holy dead but keep showing up cause they sell.

Goku sells pages so he's always the main hero, Joker sells pages so he's always the main villain. You choose your poison (or read independent)

Good thing the Big Two are too big to fail now.

But shounen do have set endings. Hell, Bleach and Naruto ended a while ago with a new series about his son.

They just take a long while to get to it.

write a story till it doesn't SELL sorry tired have pic for my sins

I like you. Maria Hill was trying her best to make the world a better place before she would inevitably be ousted from her position (she knew it would only be a matter of time), and Pleasant Hill could have been that kinda idea that fundamentally changes the game.

They are meant to go on forever , the only reason they end is when sales drop

Look at Detective Conan, its nearing 1000 chapters and has been running for 25+ years

Maria Hill should always be "I'm trying my best but I'm not a hundred years old so I'm worse than Fury." I like to think that she's doing all these crazy ideas because Nick thought them up around her age but he was in a foxhole somewhere in europe so he never tried them out.

>with a new series about his son
yes and he goes on adventures with all the other main characters kids, aka the same story. bleach only ended because the creator quit. dragonball almost ended, but then they said "oh wait this is still a cashcow" and now we have super.

As long as it can make money and they have the blessing of the creator these things will be never ending. Hell, one piece had the simplest story structure in the world and it still probably has another 10 years left.

Offing doomsday was about one of the few villains that doing so to would be logical considering that he's an actual mindless killing machine.

See
Also if the Big Two was structured like Shounen when do you think the big heroes comic would end?

Spider-

This.

>They are meant to go on forever
>the only reason they end is when sales drop
That depends on the series though. Something like Full Metal Alchemist ended on its own terms, rather than due to sales drops and it was fairly successful up to the ending, even getting an animated adaptation of that ending in spite of already having a finished anime.

Conan continues eternally because it's mostly focused on episodic cases with the main story mostly in the background. The focus was never the main plot.

Same goes to the island format of One Piece. In both of those cases, they're by far the best selling manga of their magazines and if they end without a serious replacement rising up the magazine would see a significant sales drop, so there's also that issue pushing their continue existence, while other series don't suffer that kind of pressure.

Include Hellsing onto the list of popular mangas that have a closure.

Some people argue that Guyver has been going on forever, but that's only because it's author has some serious health issues and he can only do like one issue every few months or so.

One more God rejected

One thing I absolutely despise about superhero comic is that if a character ever changes their world view about something they almost always become a supervillain. Seriously can superman really not tell people not to do something without becoming a literal serial killer?

t. Libertarian

Batman in this episode was so annoying.

>Lord Batman turns Reg Batman with "you're parents"
>Reg Batman turns Lord Batman with "you're parents"
>"there's no escape, he's me and I'm too awesome to outsmart"

t.Authoritarian

>I love the no kill rule
hippie

Could they also lobotomize Sup Forumsfags and the entirety of the alt-right? Then it would actually be a perfect world.

That's because Batman's smart to never enter a battle he know he won't win.

The same happened in the JLA/Avengers cross-over where Captain America and Batman eyed each other and decided it was best not to fight.

Yeah no a you can't tell me some guy in a costume can beat a super soldier.

fucking this

>it's an evil superheroes universe
>Batman winds up becoming good or is already good
>even though one of the main dilemmas of his comics is how he's always teetering close to the edge of madness

I dunno I liked it. The whole "You have a plan right?" thing was funny cause it's true. Batman would have planned for everything Batman would do, he probably does that just normally.

>>they wouldn't fall in line for their fascist superhero overlords.

>>wouldn't be role models for Sup Forums

He did in the Marvel vs. DC crossover.

Yea but Bat's the one with the no kill rule. He might be close to madness but he's never trusted himself because of that. If you convince Batman he's gone insane he'll probably come to his senses, the rest of the League are a bit more well put together. The paranoia that Bruce has doesn't extend to his friends.

Then wouldn't it make sense that Evil Batman is the one closest to becoming good?

Hell, the entire Batman^2 conflict was both were trying, and coming very close, to bringing the other one to their side. League Batman gave Lord Batman a chance to tour their new fascist world, but in the end wasn't convinced and managed to convince Lord Batman to turn to this side.

And not to mention it ironically gets more people killed. To use an overused idea, if Batman would throw his moral compass away and kill The Joker, it'd save hundreds of lives.

It's like a schizophrenic person having an episode and a normal person having an episode.

An schizophrenic person would be more willing to accept that he slipped up again on his meds and is behaving irrationally.

An normal person won't easily accept that he's freaking out or that he needs help.

>"I can't kill the Joker because all life is precious!"
>Joker breaks out next week and blows up a school bus full of children

>That one comic where Batman literally swooped in and attacked The Punisher to save The Joker.

Sorry sweetie, you're the one with childish world views here

Women conform over time to the mindset of the men in their social circle. When Supes and Bats turned evil, it was only a matter of time before their womenfolk followed

Usually it's Wonder Woman who push Superman to go Injustice on everyone's else.

Writers always try to show her as a militaristic and fanatical goddess that want to use her power to change the world to better contrast with Superman pacifistic and logical characterization of a god who just wants to use his power just to protect the world.

It's a dynamic born out of Kingdom Come and since KC is pretty famous it is still used as a springboard in how to characterize the two as a duo.