>Frank is a murderer!
Thor smashes villains with a lightning infused hammer with the weight of a neutron star. Ironman blasts people with his repulsion rays and other conventional weapons. Black Widow takes down Hydra agents with firearms, Wolverine slices and dices, even Captain America probably kills every goon he punches, and Hulk speaks for himself. The Avengers are a walking collateral damage lawsuit.
But, hey, Frank is a psychopath.
None of those people except Frank executes bank robbers though, typically anyway.
Those guys are willing to take prisoners.
Frank just does them execution style.
It's the difference between war and a war crime.
Frank would shoot someone for jay walking if he's having a bad day. No one, literally no one else in Marvel's entire catalog of superheroes, would do the same.
The only reason why people get their panties in a twist over Frank here is because hes too real, too close to home. Not only that, but Frank doesnt delude himself into thinking hes a hero either. He kills because it makes him feel better
>Iron Man
>Black Widow
>Wolverine
>Captain America
>Hulk
They'll kill if they have to, but it's not always the first option. Frank is stuck on kill mode for like 97% of the time though, which is the issue.
Beats being a no-kill code limpwrist that's for sure.
>this is what Punishedfeags actually believe
But hes not a hero, user.
>Hurr if superheroes were real they'd cause tons of collateral damage
>MUH REALISM
Fuck off
>even Captain America probably kills every goon he punches
>I never carry a gun. I have never taken another persons life
Steve is a veteran of World War II, fuck off.
You, who has probably never read a Captain America comic from before 2015, are going to argue with continuity autist Mark Gruenwald?
Also, the Timely Cap comics are all non-canon unless specifically referenced.
I'm not saying its a continuity problem, i just think the idea that Caps such a pacifist that he killed zero people during World War II, which he was on the front lines of for like every major battle, is dumb.
Even in the WWII comics he said he preferred to use his shield and mostly just punched people. I've only read a dozen or so of those, but I don't recall him ever using a gun.
I'll admit in Invaders he did bring down some planes and Roy Thomas says right there on the page that in war they do what they have to, so you're not wrong.
>None of those people except Frank executes bank robbers though, typically anyway.
Wolverine will murder an entire bar if they look at him wrong and regularly does crap like that whenever he's all alone, the only thing stopping him from this is if he's on a team
Those people are still willing to work with him knowing he does that
>Wolverine will murder an entire bar if they look at him wrong
wolverine hasnt been that dude in a long ass time.
So would "heroes" like Elektra. And where is Deadpool on the "hero" spectrum these days?
I think he would have used a gun if not for the code. What's weird is that bucky actually carried one when he was Cap, even though his suit was apparently laced with adamantium. If anyone could use a piece, it's the guy whose suit is made out of fabric and scales.
I mean it isn't technically canon because the comics code would never have allowed showing it, but if cap knocked somebody out or sent them flying with a punch there's no way in hell they'd just be left there to be taken back to a hospital and rejoin the front lines later.
Even if cap personally never killed anybody, his squadmates and other U.S soldiers would have been finishing them off or capturing them as POWs
Code wasn't put in place until the 1954, which also caused Cap to get cancelled for the first time since 1941.
Ironically most every time Cap explicitly killed someone was in the 50's, when he was a "Commie Smasher" instead of Nazis, and that was retconned into being a different Cap and Bucky.
It was by writer choice that he didn't use a gun or explicitly kill anyone before that, because the comics were still for kids. It was generally the same situation as the MCU movies where the tone is too light to explicitly show guys getting iced, but there is the implication that they fall to their death sometimes.
>the tone is too light to explicitly show guys getting iced,
They can sure as hell get liquified by a propellor though.
Iron Man killed a bunch of people in the first movie pretty explicitly, and Hulk didn't do that but he got pretty gruesome with the stabbing of Abomination with his own bones
MCU didn't get super wussified till the Disney thing
People take the "soldier" part of Super Soldier way too literally. Kirby and Simon never intended him to be anything close to an actual military soldier.
>Kirby and Simon never intended him to be anything close to an actual military soldier.
Is that why he was fighting in multiple battle's under their pen?
>Frank would shoot someone for jay walking if he's having a bad day.
Wrong.
>gun control infused in punisher episodes of MCU
Wrong. Also, Wolverine's more the type to do things like that.
Frank is a calm and collected psychopath, he doesn't have anger problems or go berserk like Logan
>Frank would shoot someone for jay walking if he's having a bad day
He'd off himself out of guilt later if he did something like that. Frank's a psychopath with a moral compass.
if Frank was a blonde blue-eyes Aryan no one would bat an eye at him murdering criminals
he's too jewish looking to get a white-privilege pass
He's a Catholic Italian-American
>Hulk didn't do that
I'm pretty sure that helicopter pilot died dude. So did those soldiers trying to apprehend him at the beginning. Probably several more at the college campus fight too.
Captain America kills the shit out of his enemies in the post-Disney movies.
Has Frank popped up in the Defenders at all? Is he suppose to?
if Frank was a blonde blue-eyed high school girl
everyone would be ok with her being a psycho criminal killer
Mark is a faggot and his interpretation of cap is garbage
You sure convinced me with those hot opinions.
Real heroes kill
Yeah, forgot about Ghost Rider, who literally consigns souls to eternal damnation.
Italians and /fit/ Jews look pretty similar desu. That's why Bernthal could portray him so well.
>"so I shot him with the gun that went with my disguise"
>his head with the "A" and head wings totally exposed
Sneaky.
Deadpool tries to be a hero (do good, help people), but isn't very well liked by the public or community.
Then again, he has literally God-given powers of absolute arbitration.
He had had a snow mask over his face and head until about ten seconds prior.
Here's the difference:
Cap, Iron Man, Thor, ect. would kill in a battle scenario. It's you or them. Or if they're directly threatening someone else's life. In this picture any one of those heroes would take her to the proper authorities.
Frank doesn't think she deserves to go to jail. She's clearly not an immediate threat to him or anyone else right now. But Frank doesn't care. Frank thinks she deserves to die for what she did. And maybe he's right. But a lot of people would say that it's not up for a random guy with a gun to decide.
>But a lot of people would say that it's not up for a random guy with a gun to decide.
And a lot of people would say it is and he's a hero for doing what others wouldn't.
On the flipside, a lot of people would say it isn't up to any random guy in a costume to deal with things that should be left to the cops and/or military, even if they don't have the power to properly deal with whatever problem.
I'm not saying Frank is wrong, I'm just explaining the difference between the way he kills, and the way the other heroes kill.
>And a lot of people would say it is and he's a hero for doing what others wouldn't.
That isn't what makes a hero. Any sick bastard can kill. But someone with power, someone who could punch you to paste, shoot you full of holes, or hit you with a fry you to char with a bolt of lightning, CHOOSING not only not to, but to also make sure you make it to the people who have the authority to decide what happens? That's heroism. Frank is sick. He knows he is. The only reason he's not a villain is because he has just enough of a handle to pick his targets well.
>But someone with power, someone who could punch you to paste, shoot you full of holes, or hit you with a fry you to char with a bolt of lightning, CHOOSING not only not to, but to also make sure you make it to the people who have the authority to decide what happens? That's heroism.
No, it's cowardice and self preservation, and in some cases an equal insanity and sickness to that of Frank's. Cowardice to make the sacrifice and do what must be done no matter how awful, to preserve ones self image from the authority who would come down on and hunt you, and in some cases out of an insane fear/hatred of death which is literally the only thing that drives some heroes like Batman or Spider-Man, the latter of which who would probably have been a villain had death not effected his personal life directly
As for Frank, a lot of the time the so called "authority" lets him do his job because they know he's doing good, your so called "heroes" act as subordinates to these people? Kek, super heroism/moralfagism is a never ending circle of hypocrisy and "but but buts"
Making the choice to not be an executioner isn't cowardice. People like you are the reason for the dark age of comics.
That 'agent of heaven' bullshit? Only in the sense that God made hell and keeps it open. The rider gets his power from a demon. The demon punishes thoes that need to go to hell.
Where did I say "agent of Heaven"? The Rider is effectively the Devil's marshal most of the time, going out after souls who are damned.
>Where did I say "agent of Heaven"?
See
>he has literally God-given powers
And if you had it your way it would be redundant to tell stories about any character other than Superman.
Enough with your heroism fetish, comics don't only exist for you to maintain your imaginary idealistic world, they exist to entertain.
If I had my way, characters would be interesting, some would have moral dilemmas some wouldn't. Characters like Frank would most certainly have a place, just not up on some pedestal except as "this person is broken, but still wants to do good". Enough with your killing fetish, comics don't only exist for you to self-insert, they exist to entertain. See, I can make baseless accusations too!
God given doesn't mean in the service of heaven. The Devil's powers are clearly God-given, but he's sure as not an agent of Heaven.
You forget that Frank has an undocumented superpower. Everyone he kills, even by stray bullets or what have you, turns out to have been an unforgivable monster retroactively. He could throw a grenade on a crowded subway and the shrapnel would only hit a bunch of child rapists.
Because people who actively assess their values are rare.
Most people just do what they are told. If they are told Wolverine is a good guy while he's sknitbubbing drunks just for being drunk, why hell it must be the morally righteous thing to do. The killing potential of Iron Man's kit doesn't matter so long as the page they're shown on is acting like Iron Man is in the right. Stories that focus on morally rotten individuals also garner sympathy driven excuses VERY COMMONLY from readers simply because
>They were the first character they saw
>The story is about them so they must be good
The whole point of any PUNISHER comic is to push the line that Frank is a broken psychotic individual and a murderer. No context is needed for most people so long as not a single page every dares question it actively.
I've never met an actual Punisher fan deny that Frank is broken, or even that he is a psychopath. OP may have been saying that but I got more the jist that they were saying so are tons of other heroes but nobody acknowledges it because some people just have a hate boner for Punisher
Maybe, but most of those heroes actually do ask themselves if what they do is right. Frank doesn't. THAT'S the difference between Frank and Logan. Logan actively wanted to be a better person and took step towards it, even if he did backslide, and wasn't happy when he did. Frank doesn't outwardly care beyond accept that he's not a good person.
Logan only wants to be a good person when pussy is on the line. He tries to be better for pussy. Hes a Beta Chad.
As fragile a reason it is, it's still a reason.
Sure but that's ignoring the fact that morality is subjective. What defines a "good" person differs from individual to individual, as does what defines "right" and "wrong", these are abstract constructs.
Just because shit is abstract doesn't mean it doesn't have something to define it. Every system of morality has a basis in "Not hurting other: good. Hurting others: not good. Helping others: most good."
So, Cenobites are good? They just want to give you pleasure.
As far as the public of the marvel universe knows heroes like Cap, Ironman, and the other avengers have never killed anyone. A lot of the avengers' exploits are totally unknown by the public because the avengers want it to be that way. The avengers can only exist as long as the PR for them is good. They know that if the people knew even half the shit they've done in the past, that they would stop being heroic figures to the people. Frank, on the other hand, has no desire for a likeable public image. Frank only has a job to do and only one means to do it.
When they are giving pleasure, they are. But most of the time, they seek only to gain pleasure themselves, at the cost of others. So most of the time they are not good. Morality isn't complicated, stop pretending it is.
>they seek only to gain pleasure themselves, at the cost of others.
When has that happened? They never did an unkindness at the expense of anyone for personal satisfaction
Morality is only simple if youre Mr. A
>"Not hurting other: good. Hurting others: not good. Helping others: most good."
Some would also say punishing those who are bad is good, many actually
The ultimate hypocrisy comes down to killing itself, anybody who says murdering in war is worse than murdering outside of it is an idiot and hypocrite, INCLUDING Frank, the only difference between the two is in one scenario you're doing it cause somebody else told you to do it and you likely don't know the real reason why.
>anybody who says murdering in war is worse than murdering outside of it is an idiot and hypocrite,
Less worse*
>Some would also say punishing those who are bad is good, many actually
Maybe, but that's where you have to ask, when punishment ends and where revenge begins, because those are two VERY different things.
And Cenobites aren't real, and anyone who did what they do against the express wishes of those they do things to (which they do ALL THE TIME) would be locked up for life at best.
>you likely don't know the real reason why
Soldiers arent given bound and blindfolded people and told to kill them you know. Every soulder knows why they kill.
punishment is a worst concept than revenge. Person does a wrong. Lets punish them. Why? Its not going to undo the wrong. How much should you punish them? Two different people do the same crime. Should they be punished the same? 10 years in prison changes a great deal if one criminal is 16 and the other is 83. You dont have to worry about any of that with revenge. They made you suffer and now your going to make them suffer too.
Punishment changes to fit the circumstances. Revenge achieves nothing. Changes nothing. Soothes nothing, heals nothing. Punishment can fix things, if you allow it to.
Fucking violencefags.
Does Frank actually feel pleasure by killing?he "needs it" like a drug? I always asumed he's like a knight or a samurai. A man with a code.
>Ironman blasts people with his repulsion rays and other conventional weapons.
I do like how the MCU shows that Tony is a huge hypocrite, like in the comics
>MY TECH SHOULDN'T BE USED FOR DESTRUCTION BUT I'LL USE IT TO REPULSOR SOME ARABS
It's been mentioned a few times that Frank hasn't been able to enjoy anything ever since picnicgate
>Person does a wrong. Lets punish them. Why?
To prevent other people from doing wrong, of course.
>Its not going to undo the wrong.
Irrelevant.
>How much should you punish them?
Hard enough to make possible benefits of doing the same wrong not worth the risk to anyone capable of rational thinking.
>Two different people do the same crime. Should they be punished the same? 10 years in prison changes a great deal if one criminal is 16 and the other is 83.
Irrelevant.
>You dont have to worry about any of that with revenge.
Revenge is just punishment in societal conditions so primitive, that you have to rely on your own strength to exact punishment for wrongs done to you.
>Revenge changes to fit the circumstances. Punishment achieves nothing. Changes nothing. Soothes nothing, heals nothing. Revenge can fix things, if you allow it to.
>Fucking arbitrationfags.
>To prevent other people from doing wrong, of course.
Punishment as a deterrent doesnt work though.
>Revenge is just punishment in societal conditions so primitive, that you have to rely on your own strength to exact punishment for wrongs done to you.
What happens when the state fails to deliver justice? Oh well, at least they tried, right?
>You dont have to worry about any of that with revenge.
Revenge being easier doesn't make it better, it makes it worse. It's easy to give into your emotions and take your rage out on whoever you think deserves it, but it takes a strong person to treat everyone with human dignity regardless of their crimes. If we suspend the humanity of criminals solely for their acts then we are doing no better as people than they are. Thinking that because of what someone did, that makes it okay to treat them as less than human, is a thought that makes you less than human and disallows true justice from happening.
Of course, we still need to lock murderers and assaulters up, for the safety of the whole of society from those choosing to not play by society's rules. But don't mistake that punishment itself for justice.
>Soldiers arent given bound and blindfolded people and told to kill them you know. Every soulder knows why they kill.
Hahahahah. Good you know what.
Have you ever performed a social experiment just to see how easy it is to get people to do what you want them to based on a lie? It's quite simple.
I'd say Wolverine is a psycho,Black Widow eeeeh,i've seen some panels where she looks like killing people makes her hot.
Aw shit, an armchair sociologist who heard about the Stanford prison experiment is here. Everyone better leave the thread before he starts making wild, sweeping assumptions about how people act regardless of context or possible consequences.
>If we suspend the humanity of criminals solely for their acts then we are doing no better as people than they are.
What a story, Mark. Thats up there with "your enemies win if you kill them". Your concept of humanity only matters to yourself. It can only be enforced as long as you and like minds hold power. What happens to you when those of a different viewpoint take control?
>how easy it is to get people to do what you want them to based on a lie
Yes, but if they think thats the truth then to them its still a valid reason