Lets discuss the No-Kill Policy. Does it work...

Lets discuss the No-Kill Policy. Does it work? Would you be in favor of it and actually have it active if you were a superhero?

Other urls found in this thread:

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2981515/Justice-Indian-style-Angry-mob-breaks-prison-kidnaps-man-accused-raping-student-stripping-naked-dragging-four-miles-beating-death-street.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

It doesn't work, because the story needs to go on and the story needs recurring villains. Not to say killing them would work either since theyd just be ressurected or reveal it was a fake out.

Lets discuss the No-Rape Policy. Does it work? Would you be in favor of it and actually have it active if you were a superhero?

its outdated and doesn't make much sense and practically isn't followed anymore by anyone except Batman.

and Spider-man. And a ton of heroes when the story needs it.

I wouldn't rape the Joker, but I think it's up to each hero to decide where they fall on the rape/no rape issue.

No-Kill Policy is retarded, but if my employer wants them alive, I'll abide by their request.

It can work but you can't have villains like the Joker keep showing up and eating babies. It makes the hero look stupid.

>Does it work?

Sure. It works fine. You just need to keep a handle on the tone of your book. The problem isn't that Batman doesn't kill the problem is that the Joker has been written more and more extreme to the point where he's nothing but a psychotic mass murderer who's filled countless graves. A hero doesn't have to kill unless the writers want to put him in a direction where he has no other choice, which for a super hero books isn't always really a good idea.

It's a retarded idea. It works for narrative reasons but it's fucking retarded.

Which hero would be the best rapist? My vote would go to Guy Gardner, his ring can create all kinds of sex toys and equipment and he's kinky enough to know how to use it. Although Wonderwoman is a close second place.
Worst ones would be Captain Marvel and Superman they are 2 pure.

No it doesn’t. It’s dumb autistic logic to treat every kill the same with the same motive. It actually makes you more evil. Batman not using guns is fine but the no killing rule is retard logic.

Well Batman is pretty stupid. Recently we had a rampaging Kaiju Clayface destroying Gotham and no non-lethal solution in sight. Batman's master plan was to hope that Kaiju Clayface would stop. And endangering the lives of everyone in Gotham. Batwoman killed Kaiju Clayface with a special bullet and Batman became anal over it despite his solution is hoping the Kaiju Clayface would stop. Drake is even more anal about it and basically followed his only self-fulfilling prophecy of being a super edgy maximum plot-armor Batman.

Killing is better

The rule is fine. We just need writers trying to make things edgy while still towing the no kill line. Writers and even fans want every thing to be gritty and mature and it just calls attention to fact that these killers are always getting away. Something like Brave and Bold or the Adam West show can just have the day be saved and the badguy knocked out and locked up and it works because the sillier tone doesn't call attention to the incongruities.

I think that no-kill is a goal to strive for, even if it's not always possible to live up to.
There's a difference between killing someone in cold blood, like say, someone who's chained up and in custody and a supervillain loose on the streets. In a serious battle, you have to at least consider the option if you want yourself our potential hostages to make it out alive.

Killing is usually a short-term option, since it also creates martyrs and potential revenge cycles.

If you kill them you are just like them

No the rule isn’t fine. See . He puts people in danger because they end up dying due to his retard plans. But you know the mass murderer is well and alive so that’s fine even though the children he encountered yesterday died..

I can buy someone on Superman's level having a "No Kill" rule, because at that point you're generally powerful enough that you have more options available to you in a fight that don't require the use of lethal force. But if you're just a well-trained guy in a suit (not even an Iron Man tier suit, just some body armor), even someone with an ordinary gun is potentially a threat to you. Obviously comic book characters are capable of more than normal real world people, but if you're aiming for verisimilitude a character like that is not really in a position to pull their punches in a firefight or other forms of dangerous armed combat.

I think it works to an extent. Superheroes shouldn't be allowed to kill, but when you have no options then you gotta do what you gotta do.

With Batman, he's just a vigilante. If he was allowed to kill first then ask questions later, then what stops any other person from donning a mask and killing other people in the name of "justice"?

it makes sense as long as writers are able to come up with new ones instead of literally losing count of the times they broke out of jail

your thread is bad and you should feel bad

I mean, the whole if you murderer you become a villain you self doesn’t make much sense. It honestly sounds something the villian would say at a last ditch effort to stay alive and escape prison.

Villain: wait wait! If you kill me you will see me in the mirror next morning.

Batman: ... *oh shit he is right*

Villain: *Wow I can’t believe he actually bought it*

Villain gets knocked out.

...

...

The No-Kill rule is fine, but if that's the case I wouldn't write every single Joker story as "HE'S GONNA KILL BABIES WITH A CHEMICAL WEAPON TO TEMPT BATMAN INTO KILLING HIM" because that's awful fucking writing and brings up that even if Batman doesn't kill, eventually Gordon or some random cop would take one for the team and execute him.
If Joker's doing something like robbing banks or weird ass themed crimes, then it's more believable he'd be sent to Arkham Asylum and not the electric chair. You can even still have him be dangerous and shoot people, as long as it's simply a means to an end, never the goal.

Hey that's pretty good

Really it's hard to evaluate since it's impossible to separate the question from the nature of the medium. When someone like the joker or bullseye keeps coming back and escaping it's hard to argue against. But logically speaking the only reason they keep coming back is due to comics. So if you looked at it hyper realistically... Well then you would not need to kill the joker because the odds of him escaping are next to nothing.

The no kill rule exists to basically show good role models. In real life we want our heroes to be better than the villains. But in real life we don't have serial killers breaking out of prison literally dozens of times. Batman's whole job is just damage control at this point, because it's inevitable that everyone he puts in Arkham will eventually break out. If the Joker existed in real life and had broken out of prison as many times as he has, he would definitely be killed.

It’s only outdated because comics of been going on so long

The idea of somebody escaping jail so many times is extremely goofy and contrived

People don’t actually escape jail as much as the joker does

The no kill policy is fine

Something like this would happen.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2981515/Justice-Indian-style-Angry-mob-breaks-prison-kidnaps-man-accused-raping-student-stripping-naked-dragging-four-miles-beating-death-street.html

Basically next time joker goes on a genocidal rampage and gets caught, people will form a lynch mob and kill him in route to the police station, heck the cops would off him the next time he gets caught.

Basically any psychic/mind controller/reality warper.

Basically these. The no-kill rule only works if the tone of the work allows for it's plausibility. Plus, there's always the case that Superheroes running around inflicting their own form of judgement upon others could be just as bad if not worse than the crimes of the super villains they face. Plus, there also the fact that murder is bad, and ugly, and should never be the go-to solution for solving a problem.

I'm pretty sure even as a vigilante, you could get charged for murder/manslaughter for preemptively killing a criminal before their plans are acted out. But then again Batman is basically part of the police force at this point.

yes, you help the law you aren't the law

In a case where locking up a perpetrator who keeps getting out over and over due to both inside and outside forces, racking up hundreds of kills; murder his ass. It's defense of others.

Why do you need recurring villains? Just make new ones.

It doesn't matter if it works it's the only option you've got.
If you are a vigilante then holy shit you'd just be a dressed up serial killer before they finally catch you. They will catch you by the way, because if you are a hero you can't kill cops ad if you can take out goons non-lethally then you shouldn't kill anyway.
If you are a state-approved hero then you are fucked on an equal level. You are a government worker murdering people because of a crime they aren't legally responsible for. In your example, you show Batman killing the Joker. In this situation Batman has Joker completely under control and could easily restrain him and bring him in but decides to kill him. In the eyes of the law this is murder, you cannot play Judge, Jury, and Executioner in the modern world.
And if he says in court "but he'd just escape" then he is admitting to murder and he's fucked. If he has issues with the prison system he should speak up about it rather then deciding to fix the problem himself.

It works when the superhero taking down villains/mooks might as well be comparable to a highly trained spec-ops murderstomping a bunch of kindergartners. At that point, there are better alternatives.

The closer the gap and the more it should turn into a noble ideal to strive for, and just that. The needs of the situation come first and barring being an omnipotent god, you'll do what you have to to protect those you've sworn to protect, like every other fucking professional has ever done. Not doing so because you know it will also bring a ton of legal troubles down on your head is also acceptable. Putting those concerns before the safety of the public you supposedly care for is not.

It only works if the hero in question exists in a universe that's allowed to permanently change, usually because it has a set beginning, middle and end. In such a universe, villains are allowed to be taken out of play by being incarcerated or executed by the state because it's not imperative that they always come back.

In universes like Marvel and DC, heroes and villains alike are timelocked- they can't age, they can't retire, they can't quit, and they can't die. Any changes to their baseline "normal" selves are temporary, and eventually reverted in favor of maintaining the status quo necessary to keep profiting off them. In such a universe, a No-Kill policy looks patently ridiculous, because it allows repeat offenders (who by the nature of the universe will ALWAYS escape justice and ALWAYS return to supervillainy) to rack up ridiculously huge bodycounts, making superheroes look ineffectual at best and kind of psychotic themselves at worst.

...

I've seen compelling cases where it works for batman, because he doesn't trust his own judgment to make that call

but by and large, no. Villains that can and have caused the death of thousands of civilians should be killed to prevent the further murder of thousands of civilians.

Such a shame too since everything in Marvel NOT directly related to that retcon-hellscape known as Earth is infinitely more interesting and actions are even sometimes allowed to have consequences.

Out of curiosity, what crime DID the man in green commit to warrant such a punishment?

...

...

...

It SHOULD work, the problem is that leaving the crooks to "real justice" doesn't work in superhero comics because these guys just never do their work correctly. Villains escape, get acquitted on technicalities, everything is corrupt, prisons are made of cardboard. Batman isn't at fault as much as the entire chain behind him that's actually paid to do a job they can't be assed to do right. If Arkham couldn't hold the Joker after his first twelve arrests, don't lock him up in the same damn cell a thirteenth time.

Of course, this issue coming directly from the writers's desire to reuse the same characters over and over means that killing them won't work either. Superhero worlds have so many ways for a bad guy to cheat death or get brought back to life easily.

No. Even if Batman and his retarded dogma forbids him from killing, do you honestly expect me to believe that somebody else hasn't killed the Joker and the other villains with insane body counts? Maybe some friend or family of one of Joker's many victims, or just a cop who is fucking tired of these lunatics ruining Gotham time and time again.

...

I really wished Civil War II was non-killers vs killers stand out.

Being autistically opposed to killing is basically the only reason that Batman works as a character by this point. His villains are so irredeemably monstrous and genocidal that any sane person would have just resorted to freely murdering the worst of their numbers.

Doesn't matter if they can come up with new ones because the same people bitching about no kill will bitch that the new characters suck or died too soon and will hypocritically demand No kill to come back and for the old favorites to come back to life.

Let's face it, people are fickle as fuck and don't really want change as much as they demand it.

too many people in these threads are not like you and are instead retarded and don't think about things in a meta context and the importance of keeping toys in the toybox

Not really no. It depends

When it gets to the point guys like the Joker just constantly break out, kill hundreds, and the law doesn't just make him kill on sight or fucking execute him then it becomes ridiculous

Thinking on the most "realistic" level possible. I think No-Kill is extremely important for a hero. There's an acceptance of the idea of hero that seems to overshadow the fact that almost EVERY hero is a vigilante. Just by definition most heroes are taking the law into their own hands, they're interfering with police investigations, endangering the public and I'm sure the list goes on. And fine, you know, in the case of super powered beings or genius mass murdering psychopaths I wouldn't get to picky about how you stop that guy from doing whatever he's doing. But in the end the punishment and or decision on how to deal with these criminals needs to be in the laws hands and not for any random person with the power enough to make it happen. Like The Joker, How many times has he been arrested and escaped? That burden or series of failures is way more on the state than it is Batman. He did his part he stopped a violent freak, but then the government takes the exact same lax ass measures against him that they've taken a dozen times before. Arguments or exceptions could be made for world ending threats being up to the hero to decide as like emergency situations but in general It's retarded that the responsibility is on the hero and that no one recognizes the danger of letting individuals technically not recognized by the law kill whenever they feel it's justified without any kind of oversight.

I'm still on the fence about this, on one hand killing them is for the best, but on the other hand the main character mowing down hundreds of goons (whether or not they kill the big bad regardless) really bugs me.
I can't seem to route for a main character who kills unless it's under some weird specific circumstances

Why make new villians? Just have the old villains come back from the dead. Or retcon their death.

Every single time the Joker escapes Arkham, the Joker kills like at LEAST 10 people. I personally find it actively negligent of Batman to not make the hard choice and kill the Joker. He's actually an unsympathetic character to me at this point because of it, but I acknowledge that plenty of people would feel that Batman isn't responsible for the Joker killing people (even though he's LITERALLY IN AN INSANE ASYLUM) and that that's not a line they feel he should cross.

But what I CAN'T FUCKING STAND is when they have Batman going out of his way to SAVE THE JOKER'S FUCKING LIFE. YOU'RE NOT HELPING ANYONE BY SAVING HIM, YOU SELFISH FUCKING PRICK, YOU'RE ONLY STROKING YOUR FUCKING EGO. But he can't even fucking take the fucking freebie, because he's incapable of making a fucking merciful choice that would save literally thousands of lives because it would make him "uncomfortable". Dozens of children would be spared the exact horror Bruce Wayne went through every year, if he wasn't so busy masochistically punishing himself by playing hide-and-seek with a mass-murderer. But no, not EVEN DOING IT HIMSELF, but letting SOMEONE ELSE (including, several times, the JOKER HIMSELF, when his traps misfire) do it would hurt his poor fucking feewings too much to make the right not-even-difficult choice. What a fucking little bitch.

Fuck Batman.

Why doesn't society fucking executes the Joker then? Batman brought his ass time and time again.

Because we need plot to most of Batman stories.

Because Batman SAVES HIS FUCKING LIFE. And makes Barbara help him.

Well, that's sad as fuck.

It gets worse.

Different story, mind you.

...

This is AFTER the Joker doublecrossed him (shocking), by the way.

In all seriousness has there been a hero or anti hero who had rape tendencies like rape the female villains but still dispense justice or any thing that came close to that. I like a hero or anti hero with flawed habits or behavior.

i think that it depends on the context of the situation or who the criminal is.

someone like the joker or kingpin? yes.

random mugger on the street or guy knocking over a convenience store? probably not.

And then there's the time when the Joker actually DOES die...

And Batman tosses him in a fucking Lazarus pit to revive him, AND is a cunt to a guy wanting to be armed next to the greatest mass-murderer in history.

Did I mention "fuck Batman"?

Haha guys what if there was a hero who just raped the female villains?
Haha just crossed my mind guys.
Heavy breathing intensifies.

Japan got you covered, senpai.

just make the joker a nugget and it wont hurt batmans no kill policy

It honestly depends. If I was a low-level vigilante, like Batman, I would probably kill. Otherwise, I wouldn't really be very effective. However, if I was Superman, I would never kill no matter what. After all, I wouldn't want people to be terrified of me.

This doesn't mean I'd be ineffective, though. Wrapping up ISIS militants in steel beams, or simply disarming them before the army rolls in, is still a great way to deal with enemies. As a Superman-tier hero, I'd care a lot about how I look to others: As Batman, I wouldn't give a shit.

Yeah that's a great idea. Batman comics would be just as good if Joker and Two Face died in their first appearance. Why can't Green Lantern just focus on new random fucking aliens every issue instead of developed, long lasting rivalries like Hal and Sinestro

You know, this wouldn't be such an issue if heroes aged in real-time, or if there was a single continuous plot. Villains are killed off in manga all the time, to make room for the next tier of enemies.

I could see a nonlethal policy working in the sense that it keeps the police from taking too much of an interest in your cape activities. If there was a masked vigilante going around murdering people, they'd probably try to stop him way harder than if he was merely beating them up.

The rape joker meme was never good. What the fuck is with the autists on this board who think just adding the word "rape" is enough to make a joke funny. This is elementary school tier humor, even Sup Forums is more creative than that.

its not the word its the context you tard

The context being that the word "rape" is the punchline

Isn't it just a reference to someone larping that Gordon told Batman to rape the joker. What's funny about that?

Don't mind me, just posting more examples of Batman saving Joker's ass from other people trying to finally put him down

...

its something thats hit or miss, its similar to the doctor pig meme and youtube poops but co is not the place for lowbrow humor apparently

...

...

How many chances should a hero logically give a villain if they spared their life but they repeatedly try to kill him/her afterward

Well, if he refuses to kill Joker, he could always just cripple him. How many backs and necks of common mooks has he broken? As evil as Justice Lord Superman had become, at least he had the right idea on how to deal with absolutely hopeless cases.

>it works for batman, because he doesn't trust his own judgment to make that call
See, I agree with the idea that Batman doesn't kill because he doesn't trust his own stability after he murders. I think it makes him more interesting and it's a decent argument as to why he himself shouldn't kill.
But it's when he starts going out of his way to save mass murderers and preventing people more able to put them down without going crazy, like in , , , while spouting retarded excuses like "THEIR LIVES MATTER TOO" or "HE'S INSANE" or "YOU'D BE JUST AS BAD AS HE IS, that's where the problem is.

>Hero doesn't kill villains; this is completely unacceptable
>Justice system can't rehabilitate a single insane clown, create a prison strong enough to hold a man with less muscle definition than Twiggy, or create a strong enough case to execute him

The hero isn't at fault here.

Manga are annoying because constantly escalating power levels though. When a comicbook hero gains a sudden boost in power its generally plot related instead of a constant need to power up for the next big bad.

I liked Zack Snyder's Batman, he didn't go out of his way to kill but he didn't pull any punches either. Also bonus points for being the first Batman that felt legitimately intimidating for the audience.

None, if they didn't learn their lesson the first time, they obviously didn't get the message.

>Not just emptying the bad thoughts of the villains minds and filling them with JUSTICE! So you get a new hero in their place.

you are the reason why capeshit became bad

I am sure there are plenty of murderers in the world, why aren't you out killing them? You're just as bad as Batman.

The no-kill rule works in a sense of "You can never truly kill your enemy" imagine in comics that no matter how many times you kill an opponent, they always come back in one way or another.
No matter how many time Batman kills the Joker, no matter how many times Spider-Man kills any of the sinister six, and definitely no matter how many times Punisher shoots the same 6 bad guys, they always come back.

Because the one fucking time they decided to execute him, they couldn't even do it for the crimes he actually committed.

It works on the smaller scale for low skill/danger thugs but when you start getting to repeat offender supervillains murdering hundreds you have to eventually put a stop to it. No kill rule for the Joker is fucking stupid and there is no way any superhero, regardless of whether he directly attacks them/their city can justify not going to gotham and killing him if they give even the remotest of shits about ordinary people.

>Implying ego-death or personality rewrite is somehow morally superior to just killing them outright.