Is the superhero genre inherently predisposed toward right wing politics?

[Grumman]

On that note, I've noticed a number of times that comic writers have tried to push the (left-wing) idea that killing is never justified, and fail utterly at it. It's nonsense in the real world, but it is even worse in superhero comics where for both in-universe and out-of-universe reasons, there are evil people who cannot be contained even if you do manage to catch them. Bruce Wayne does not need to kill the Joker personally - the lawful authorities are fully capable of doing that themselves once he hands the Joker to them on a silver platter - but somebody should, if you're not going to treat nonlethal containment as something that works. When writers pretend that there is no moral difference between the guy who kills a busload of orphans and the guy who kills the first guy to stop him killing a busload of orphans, that is transparent and offensive nonsense.

[trekky0623]

On that note, I've noticed a number of times that comic writers have tried to push the (left-wing) idea that killing is never justified, and fail utterly at it. It's nonsense in the real world, but it is even worse in superhero comics where for both in-universe and out-of-universe reasons, there are evil people who cannot be contained even if you do manage to catch them. Bruce Wayne does not need to kill the Joker personally - the lawful authorities are fully capable of doing that themselves once he hands the Joker to them on a silver platter - but somebody should, if you're not going to treat nonlethal containment as something that works. When writers pretend that there is no moral difference between the guy who kills a busload of orphans and the guy who kills the first guy to stop him killing a busload of orphans, that is transparent and offensive nonsense.

I'm betting not killing started almost entirely as a plot device to keep villains coming back.

[Q99]

Yea, I have an issue with that too. I mean, I think the idea that heroes should always if possible avoid killing is a good one. That they should go to absurd lengths to minimize casualties. But not without limit- someone like the modern interpretation of the Joker? Should go down.

Though in some cases like the Joker it is simply a matter of 'they want to keep writing him,' they should come up with better ways than 'actively decide not to kill him a lot.'

Hm, one story that comes to mind is Infinite Crisis. Wonder Woman kills someone to prevent him from using a mind-controlled Superman as a murder weapon, and this is after asking the villain, who knows what she can do, if there's any other way to stop him (i.e. she does her diligence). Half of the league reacts with shock, and she's kicked out. It's resolved by... her being let back in when a big situation calls for it, and her getting a trial where she's let off by a jury (who even lacking the details of Superman's involvement, felt she was not over the line). Most of the heroes were still totally anti-killing, and WW was still somewhat willing to in extreme situations, but they really didn't have a way to resolve the situation so the conflict was just silently dropped.

I will note it's more of a DC thing nowadays (and a comic-code thing back in the day), and while Marvel does it some, it's not to the same extent (hi Wolverine! Hi heroes who know who Wolverine is palling around with him!).

[Gandalf]

I'm betting not killing started almost entirely as a plot device to keep villains coming back.

In that case, you'd best look up the history of the Comics Code Authority and related controversies in comic books.

They used to kill far more frequently.

[Q99]

I'm betting not killing started almost entirely as a plot device to keep villains coming back.

In that case, you'd best look up the history of the Comics Code Authority and related controversies in comic books.

They used to kill far more frequently.

While that's certainly part of it, I think the rise of iconic reoccurring villains also helped, and it'd be *especially* silly if one merely avoided killing Joker rather than killing in general.

[biostem]

Most portrayals of superheroes boil down to them using force in order to bring down the villain. This kind of depiction falls in line with a policy of "send the military to smash something" in order to resolve a given situation. Obviously, this mentality lies more with certain political stances than others, but I wouldn't necessarily say it is right-wing.

The problem, IMO, is that violence and flagrant uses of their powers make for a more exciting and visually attractive story, so that's what writers/artists go with. I mean, how many panels can you have of Batman just wandering around, gather clues or doing actual investigative work, before you need to throw in some fighting, in order to keep your readers interested?

[Adam Reynolds]

It is interesting that the overuse of violence is a fundamental consequence of more visual stories that are oriented towards younger audiences. Primarily comic books, movies and video games. Novels and TV series(which are generally created by writers as opposed to directors) don't require this to the same degree. Though it is a trait that appears in the majority of fiction in general, regardless of medium. Because all fiction resolves around conflict, and because violent conflict in which death is on the table is the highest level that can be achieved, it will always be more interesting in a fundamental sense.

This is something I have been thinking about with regard to the tabletop RPG Fate Core. An interesting trait of that system is that it does not distinguish between types of actions. You can socially attack someone using the same mechanics as when you punch him in the face or shoot at him with a sniper rifle. Most games inevitably still have violence because it always elevates the stakes and makes it more interesting from a narrative perspective.

The additional fundamental consequence of superhero stories in particular is that the consequences of violence will always be muted. Contrast the Hunger Games movies with The Avengers. While characters in the Hunger Games series are see serious long term physical and emotional consequences to using violence even in self defense, in the Avengers there are virtually no long term consequences to violence when used for any reason at all. When we see Katniss survive the Hunger Games and the war to follow, it appears somewhat miraculous. When we see even Black Widow survive the Battle of New York, it has a sense of inevitability. An additional problem comes from the fact that the various characters in The Avengers series are ambiguous in what it takes to kill them. Even the supposedly mortal ones.

Even if character in such films do die they might survive anyway given the current trend in Marvel movies of "killing" characters only for them to survive later, something used in every film between the two Avengers movies. While this is almost always fine in individual films, it doesn't work as an overall trend as it means that character death is almost entirely off the table in the long run. This in many ways defeats the point of even having violence from a storytelling standpoint. If death is not at least a possibility for main characters, then it eventually ruins the drama of having it appear.

As for political leanings, superhero movies in many ways are closer to the fantasy many modern politicians have in the US on both sides of the spectrum*. That is the idea that it is possible to use military force for just reasons and that it can be done with minimal collateral damage and almost no dead "good guys", as was common under Clinton and ultimately failed utterly under Bush. Though they are often closer to the black and white morality system that conservatives seem to subscribe to. Not to mention that in general, as a result of that philosophy, conservatives are more likely to be willing to resort to violence as they are more likely to believe that their cause is just. So in a sense, it is a mix of the politics of the worst of both worlds. It has the black and white thinking and quicker response to violence of conservatives combined with the lack of serious consequences idea of both sides.

* Which by the standards of the rest of the world means conservative and somewhat less conservative.

[The Romulan Republic]

On that note, I've noticed a number of times that comic writers have tried to push the (left-wing) idea that killing is never justified, and fail utterly at it. It's nonsense in the real world, but it is even worse in superhero comics where for both in-universe and out-of-universe reasons, there are evil people who cannot be contained even if you do manage to catch them. Bruce Wayne does not need to kill the Joker personally - the lawful authorities are fully capable of doing that themselves once he hands the Joker to them on a silver platter - but somebody should, if you're not going to treat nonlethal containment as something that works. When writers pretend that there is no moral difference between the guy who kills a busload of orphans and the guy who kills the first guy to stop him killing a busload of orphans, that is transparent and offensive nonsense.

I think it makes sense for certain characters not to kill, regardless of ones' feelings about the morality of killing in general. Take Batman- As someone outside the legal system, it would be utterly wrong for Batman to play judge or executioner. Of course, he violates loads of laws as part of his mission, but their needs to be that line he won't cross.

Then, of course, their's the personal motivation. His parents were murdered in front of him. Its the driving motivation for everything he does as a vigilante. He doesn't want to become like the people who killed his parents. His aversion to guns, in particular, comes off at times as more of a gut revulsion born out of childhood trauma than a reasoned moral/philosophical conclusion. But it makes sense for that character.

But part of it, of course, was also probably due to comics being aimed at young audiences and having to have an anti-killing message to appease would-be censors.

[Adam Reynolds]

I think it makes sense for certain characters not to kill, regardless of ones' feelings about the morality of killing in general. Take Batman- As someone outside the legal system, it would be utterly wrong for Batman to play judge or executioner. Of course, he violates loads of laws as part of his mission, but their needs to be that line he won't cross.

Even in a case of clear cut self defense? Look at the scene in The Dark Knight in which the Joker stands in the middle of the road and goads Batman into hitting him. Would it be unreasonable for him to do so?

This is one reason I prefer the vigilantism shown on Person of Interest to most superheroes. The characters recognize that extreme violence is sometimes necessary and are willing to use it when it is required. Though they almost always avoid killing when possible. That show also neatly gets around a fundamental problem of such characters by giving them an AI that guides them towards specific problems.

Then, of course, their's the personal motivation. His parents were murdered in front of him. Its the driving motivation for everything he does as a vigilante. He doesn't want to become like the people who killed his parents. His aversion to guns, in particular, comes off at times as more of a gut revulsion born out of childhood trauma than a reasoned moral/philosophical conclusion. But it makes sense for that character.

That is one of the problems with Batman. That he is fundamentally immature as a person. A consequence of the fact that the character was written for children. If you are willing to engage in the game of violence, you need to be willing to kill your enemies when necessary.

Though most of the Marvel heroes don't share this problem. All of them have killed when it was necessary to prevent a greater evil.

But part of it, of course, was also probably due to comics being aimed at young audiences and having to have an anti-killing message to appease would-be censors.

I'm sure that is the case. For an extreme example, look at the GI Joe cartoon in which no one actually dies. As Jeff pointed out in the Community episode in which they parodied this: "Isn't Cobra a ruthless terrorist organization committed to ruling the world? And if we kill them, aren't we basically on their side? And won't this war last forever unless we finish killing Cobra, or start killing ourselves?"

I would suggest that this is in many ways a bad message as it leads to the idea that it is possible to have violence without serious consequences. Which leads to things like the decision to invade Iraq.

[Simon_Jester]

Batman, by contrast, isn't a fascist.

No, as I said, I think he leans more towards a libertarian ideal (though I will also argue that their is a very fine line between libertarian and authoritarian).

There is a actually a very wide line between those things. And the name of that line is "Objectivism" or "Randism."

Libertarianism shades over into Objectivism, and there isn't much actual difference between the two- the tenets of Objectivism fit neatly into most forms of libertarianism.

Objectivism becomes authoritarian when powerful people practice Objectivism (the game Bioshock does a better job of illustrating this than much else I can think of in the cent past; Andrew Ryan is basically an Objectivist, and as soon as he needs to actually hold onto control of the thing that "he alone" created, he starts abusing his power.

I don't think you've provided sufficient evidence to support your conclusion

Perhaps, though I am not claiming all superhero fiction is uniformly Right wing. Only that the genre has elements that lean in that direction.

No, you claimed that the genre has an inherent collective leaning in that direction.

I would argue that the genre has elements that lean forward and backward and left and right and in every other possible direction, and is inherently politically neutral. Certain individuals who are prominent artists within the genre (e.g. Ditko, Miller) may lean to the right, and create prominent comic books that also lean right, but that doesn't mean everybody does.

Also, of the 'rich businessmen' superheroes, Iron Man's plot is how he came to realize gaining wealth from selling weapons is wrong, and Green Arrow's is becoming a gigantic leftie, and Batman's not really focused on the business side as it's mainly there to fund his crusade but 'Bruce Wayne' rarely touches the business end, spending almost all of his Wayne-time on the charity side.

Did he actually realise that selling weapons is wrong, or did he decide that he just needs better customers?

In most interpretations of the character, the former- he starts actively hoarding his weapons technology and trying to limit it so that it cannot be used by anyone, including organizations he approves of. Basically, he doesn't become a pacifist but he does decide that he's the only person he can trust to use his own weapons properly.

[madd0ct0r]

Which is still a very right wing position

[Adam Reynolds]

In most interpretations of the character, the former- he starts actively hoarding his weapons technology and trying to limit it so that it cannot be used by anyone, including organizations he approves of. Basically, he doesn't become a pacifist but he does decide that he's the only person he can trust to use his own weapons properly.

SHIELD still ended up with most of his tech in TWS in their helicarriers. The ones run by Hyrda.

On a slightly related note, I just saw an interesting article about the general issue of writing action sequences. The author of this article points out that you should write suspense sequences that require action to resolve rather than action sequences. In the context of superhero movies this is often forgotten somewhat. While it is never a question of whether our hero will survive, it can be a question of what he will have to give up to get there. This element is what made TWS such a entertaining film and will likely be somewhat effective in Civil War. Captain America will give up something he truly values, his friend Bucky, in an effort to save the world.

[Gandalf]

In most interpretations of the character, the former- he starts actively hoarding his weapons technology and trying to limit it so that it cannot be used by anyone, including organizations he approves of. Basically, he doesn't become a pacifist but he does decide that he's the only person he can trust to use his own weapons properly.

SHIELD still ended up with most of his tech in TWS in their helicarriers. The ones run by Hyrda.

Indeed, and at the time of Avengers, he knew about their global surveillance network and arms program. Perhaps the events in New York scared him back into his old Merchant of Death persona? SHIELD as of Winter Soldier certainly seems to be a snug for the philosophy he espouses in the start of Iron Man.

[Knife]

I'm ok with the no kill thing as long as it fits the character and the 'powers'. Like Batman, he pretty much beats the shit out of people and his gizmo's for the most part are for finding them and for mobility. It's people who's powers are weapons that don't kill that erk me a bit.

If you're super power is shooting death rays out of your belly button but you don't kill people, that's dumb. Or hero's who use weapons like guns or bow and arrows that never actually shoot people; instead using the gun or arrow to shoot other weapons out of the hands of badguys, or to trip them with tripping bullets or rope attached to their arrows.

[Simon_Jester]

In most interpretations of the character, the former- he starts actively hoarding his weapons technology and trying to limit it so that it cannot be used by anyone, including organizations he approves of. Basically, he doesn't become a pacifist but he does decide that he's the only person he can trust to use his own weapons properly.

SHIELD still ended up with most of his tech in TWS in their helicarriers. The ones run by Hydra.

I didn't say he started doing so immediately, only that he started doing so. It took multiple films for Marvel Cinematic Stark to reach this point, but the sequence of events is very clear.

1) Stark realizes in the very first movie, the one that begins his character development, that he is responsible for what is done with his technology. He fights to regain control of this technology and has to do so by defeating some of his company's customers- and enemies within his own company who don't want to return control to him.

2) Stark refuses to release his technology to the US government (which he previously worked very well with), then gets into further conflict in Iron Man 2 with people who want to duplicate his technology, or who are taking his technology under their control because they don't trust him.

3) Stark does share the repulsor engine technology with SHIELD some time between Avengers and The Winter Soldier... and is immediately given reason to regret it. SHIELD turns out to be untrustworthy and compromised, even though he'd worked with them before... so he pulls back, and essentially turns the Avengers into his privately funded project as far as I can tell.

4) By the time of Avengers 2, Stark isn't sharing his technology with anyone whatsoever. When his technology is needed to contain a threat (e.g. the Hulk), he works out his own private solution that involves him personally going in there with a mecha suit and beating the shit out of the Hulk himself. When he thinks "how can I protect the world" he no longer even considers designing and selling weapons for mass production... he tries to build an AI system and drones that he controls, or that "the Avengers" control when in reality he's the only Avenger who has the skills and resources needed to directly operate the system.

So we see a steady evolution away from Stark as an arms dealer, and toward Stark as a secretive arms-hoarder.

Which is still a very right wing position

Er... what is? Stark thinking that only he could be trusted with his own weapons? I wouldn't call that "right-wing." I'd call it apolitical, it's a purely individualistic decision.

It is neither leftist nor rightist to believe that humans are untrustworthy and should not be given special weapons, but that I-who-is-thinking-this am uniquely reliable and trustworthy. It may be paranoid or delusional, but it's not political.

Plus, you're coming pretty close to embracing a contradiction here. We cannot simultaneously think that arming the government is right-wing and that refusing to arm the government is right-wing.

---

Yea, I have an issue with that too. I mean, I think the idea that heroes should always if possible avoid killing is a good one. That they should go to absurd lengths to minimize casualties. But not without limit- someone like the modern interpretation of the Joker? Should go down.

Though in some cases like the Joker it is simply a matter of 'they want to keep writing him,' they should come up with better ways than 'actively decide not to kill him a lot.'

The catch is that they used to do this, back in the Comics Code days, by making the Joker less of a murdering lunatic and more of a buffoon who'd trap people in giant jack-in-the-boxes or whatever. A lot of the movement away from that may have just been because frankly, it was hokey and stupid- the kind of thing we like to laugh at when it shows up in the Adam West version of Batman.

Or they'd have Superman going up against relatively petty criminals, which just made him look like a bully, but which made it utterly impossible for them to ever threaten him, so he could effortlessly restrain them and there was an endless supply of new ones for him to go after.

It's easy to hold to a code of "no killing" when you're dealing with petty crime and have a massive advantage in powers. It's easy when your villains are farcical and campy and endlessly use their gimmick powers to rob the same jewelry stores over and over. But at some point, people got tired of reading such stories, and wanted more credible conflict.

The problem is that in a credible conflict, if it gets violent, people can die. Because it's not a contrived boxing match or obstacle course. And at the level most superheroes operate at, if the main characters can get killed, bystanders usually DO get killed.

I think it makes sense for certain characters not to kill, regardless of ones' feelings about the morality of killing in general. Take Batman- As someone outside the legal system, it would be utterly wrong for Batman to play judge or executioner. Of course, he violates loads of laws as part of his mission, but their needs to be that line he won't cross.

Even in a case of clear cut self defense? Look at the scene in The Dark Knight in which the Joker stands in the middle of the road and goads Batman into hitting him. Would it be unreasonable for him to do so?

The problem is that this isn't how self defense statutes work. You can't plead self defense if you killed someone in a situation you sought out.

Suppose Bob were to climb into a cage with someone and agree to get into a 'kill or be killed' fight with machetes. If Bob wins, Bob cannot claim self-defense because he agreed to do that. He explicitly made a decision of his own free will to enter an environment where he would have to kill another human. And if he'd wanted to defend himself, he could have simply not climbed into that cage.

Likewise, there are lots of situations where violent morons claim they were "defending themselves..." but the camera footage reveals that they ran closer to the person they wound up fighting. Or that they hit the victim when he was already on the ground. Or hit him when his back was turned. In a situation like that all you have to do in order to 'defend yourself' is walk away.

If Batman were put on trial for killing a villain in 'self defense,' the prosecutor would probably argue that Batman cannot plead self defense while running around picking fights with armed criminals as a costumed vigilante. That's a fight he provoked, and/or one which could not have occurred without his willing cooperation.

Now, if the villain attacks Wayne Manor, things might be different. And Batman could legitimately claim 'defense' (not sure if lawyers call it 'self defense') if he used deadly force to protect an innocent bystander.

But in general, for superheroes to claim self defense is always going to be problematic at best, because superheroes actively court violent conflict with dangerous criminals. Plus, self defense is an affirmative defense- to use it you have to admit you committed the act of violence in question, so if you use self defense and fail, you're going to jail for sure because you just signed your own confession.

This is one reason I prefer the vigilantism shown on Person of Interest to most superheroes. The characters recognize that extreme violence is sometimes necessary and are willing to use it when it is required. Though they almost always avoid killing when possible. That show also neatly gets around a fundamental problem of such characters by giving them an AI that guides them towards specific problems.

Plenty of protagonists have computers, spy networks, or shadowy seemingly omniscient organizations that 'guide' them to the villainous targets they go after...

Then, of course, their's the personal motivation. His parents were murdered in front of him. Its the driving motivation for everything he does as a vigilante. He doesn't want to become like the people who killed his parents. His aversion to guns, in particular, comes off at times as more of a gut revulsion born out of childhood trauma than a reasoned moral/philosophical conclusion. But it makes sense for that character.

That is one of the problems with Batman. That he is fundamentally immature as a person. A consequence of the fact that the character was written for children. If you are willing to engage in the game of violence, you need to be willing to kill your enemies when necessary.

For many superheroic characters, it isn't about a game of violence, it is about doing what they can to protect others.

I don't think it's inherently wrong to:
1) Want to protect others, and
2) Be willing to throw a punch, but
3) Not be willing to kill anyone.

But part of it, of course, was also probably due to comics being aimed at young audiences and having to have an anti-killing message to appease would-be censors.

I'm sure that is the case. For an extreme example, look at the GI Joe cartoon in which no one actually dies. As Jeff pointed out in the Community episode in which they parodied this: "Isn't Cobra a ruthless terrorist organization committed to ruling the world? And if we kill them, aren't we basically on their side? And won't this war last forever unless we finish killing Cobra, or start killing ourselves?"

I would suggest that this is in many ways a bad message as it leads to the idea that it is possible to have violence without serious consequences. Which leads to things like the decision to invade Iraq.

Now that is an interesting criticism- the idea that children raised on the idea of violence where nobody actually dies may end up MORE inured to violence than children raised on the idea that where there is violence, there is death, and the death can be traumatic.

[Gaidin]

In most interpretations of the character, the former- he starts actively hoarding his weapons technology and trying to limit it so that it cannot be used by anyone, including organizations he approves of. Basically, he doesn't become a pacifist but he does decide that he's the only person he can trust to use his own weapons properly.

SHIELD still ended up with most of his tech in TWS in their helicarriers. The ones run by Hyrda.

His weapons tech is the small power sources he can fit in a hand. Not the large ones that he was literally doing PR with in the first Iron Man. That's what they ended up with in TWS.

[madd0ct0r]

@Simon.earlier on in the thread I defined right wing as the politics derived from the assumption that people will behave as badly as they can get away with.
Tech hoarding is compliant with that.

[Purple]

@Simon.earlier on in the thread I defined right wing as the politics derived from the assumption that people will behave as badly as they can get away with.
Tech hoarding is compliant with that.

That's the strangest definition of right wing I have ever heard.

[Simon_Jester]

While it may not be literally the strangest definition, it certainly is an unusual one. There are some versions of political theory that would claim this as the foundation of right-wing politics. But there are a lot of people on the left who do not think that humans behave super-well "when they can get away" with behaving badly, too, so the claim doesn't seem well founded in reality.

His weapons tech is the small power sources he can fit in a hand. Not the large ones that he was literally doing PR with in the first Iron Man. That's what they ended up with in TWS.

His weapons tech also includes compact repulsors as both a propulsion system (which SHIELD gets) and a weapon (unclear whether they got that or not). And it includes compact laser weapons. And extremely powerful micro-missiles (compare Stark's tank-buster from Iron Man 1 to the comically ineffective "Ex-Wife" missile from Iron Man 2). Also, what appear to be fully self-aware AI in the form of JARVIS.

Any of those would be a potential game-changer in the hands of a military power.

[Gaidin]

His weapons tech is the small power sources he can fit in a hand. Not the large ones that he was literally doing PR with in the first Iron Man. That's what they ended up with in TWS.

His weapons tech also includes compact repulsors as both a propulsion system (which SHIELD gets) and a weapon (unclear whether they got that or not). And it includes compact laser weapons. And extremely powerful micro-missiles (compare Stark's tank-buster from Iron Man 1 to the comically ineffective "Ex-Wife" missile from Iron Man 2). Also, what appear to be fully self-aware AI in the form of JARVIS.

Any of those would be a potential game-changer in the hands of a military power.

They got a huge propulsion system. And all of War Machine's weapons came from a rival company. Miniaturization is its own bag of cats here. If he gave them a huge propulsion system to fly the carriers he didn't give them Iron Man system. And if there's still only one War Machine, which, by the way, Rhodey was careful to hide key systems from people, then they haven't figured those out either.

[Adam Reynolds]

Plenty of protagonists have computers, spy networks, or shadowy seemingly omniscient organizations that 'guide' them to the villainous targets they go after...

I meant in the context of a vigilante operating alone. It justifies how they keep gaining new targets.

But in general, for superheroes to claim self defense is always going to be problematic at best, because superheroes actively court violent conflict with dangerous criminals. Plus, self defense is an affirmative defense- to use it you have to admit you committed the act of violence in question, so if you use self defense and fail, you're going to jail for sure because you just signed your own confession.

I wasn't making a legal point as much as a moral one. Would it have been anything other than morally justified for Batman to have run over the Joker(or for Gorden to have shot him)? It would have certainly solved the problem of the rest of the movie after he escapes from police custody. That was the point of the above criticism, that if the police cannot possibly hold onto people like the Joker, it defeats the argument that they should simply be arrested.

For many superheroic characters, it isn't about a game of violence, it is about doing what they can to protect others.

I don't think it's inherently wrong to:
1) Want to protect others, and
2) Be willing to throw a punch, but
3) Not be willing to kill anyone.

In a sense it is understandable, but it is not reasonable in the sense that it is impossible. In reality knocking out someone for more than a few seconds will almost certainly cause severe trauma. If you are willing to take out enemies in the fashion that superheroes do, then you must be willing to kill them, even if your fists are your only weapons. That is not to mention the fact that Batman is willing to do things like put missiles on his car and drive over police cars in an armored car that would likely kill innocents if not for writer's fiat. That doesn't do much to protect others.

Another related problem is that Batman is always right, even when there is no reason for him to be. Look at the scene in which he takes on an entire SWAT team. He just knew that it had to be a trap, instead of convincing Gorden of this, he has to engage both sets of enemies simultaneously. It is the same problem that was mentioned previously on this board of the tactical(or whatever fits the plot) straw man, the character that realistically should be effective but is neutered to make our hero more effective.

Now that is an interesting criticism- the idea that children raised on the idea of violence where nobody actually dies may end up MORE inured to violence than children raised on the idea that where there is violence, there is death, and the death can be traumatic.

As per my original point, this represents a childish view rather than a political one.

[Simon_Jester]

They got a huge propulsion system. And all of War Machine's weapons came from a rival company. Miniaturization is its own bag of cats here. If he gave them a huge propulsion system to fly the carriers he didn't give them Iron Man system. And if there's still only one War Machine, which, by the way, Rhodey was careful to hide key systems from people, then they haven't figured those out either.

Yes; that's a pretty good summary. Point being, Stark has been holding tight control over important parts of his technology, and there is little or no evidence that anyone else is using Stark's miniaturized repulsors, explosives, energy weapons, and ultra-hardened armor- in other words, the technology that goes into his suits.

The only person in the Marvel Cinematic setting who use that kind of Starktech are War Machine (who stole it and later got retroactive permission to use it) and Ultron (who stole it). So I don't think I'm out of line in saying that Stark is, true to form in many versions of his character, hoarding his technology.

Plenty of protagonists have computers, spy networks, or shadowy seemingly omniscient organizations that 'guide' them to the villainous targets they go after...

I meant in the context of a vigilante operating alone. It justifies how they keep gaining new targets.

There is little practical difference between a vigilante with a computer telling them what to do, and a vigilante with a shadowy organization telling them what to do... until you have the shadowy organization reveal its own agenda. But the computer can have an agenda too.

But in general, for superheroes to claim self defense is always going to be problematic at best, because superheroes actively court violent conflict with dangerous criminals. Plus, self defense is an affirmative defense- to use it you have to admit you committed the act of violence in question, so if you use self defense and fail, you're going to jail for sure because you just signed your own confession.

I wasn't making a legal point as much as a moral one. Would it have been anything other than morally justified for Batman to have run over the Joker(or for Gorden to have shot him)? It would have certainly solved the problem of the rest of the movie after he escapes from police custody. That was the point of the above criticism, that if the police cannot possibly hold onto people like the Joker, it defeats the argument that they should simply be arrested.

But then the proper argument is that the judiciary should respond by increasing their security measures (which in comic book settings they do; they can restrain supervillains at least for a time). The judiciary might also reasonably consider the death penalty.

We ask why Batman doesn't kill the Joker... but why don't we ask why the courts don't? There is no reasonable doubt that the Joker is responsible for numerous murders, and will commit many more murders if when he escapes custody next time.

So try him and execute him. Simple.

Don't put the power to decide whether he lives or dies in the hands of a costumed vigilante; that is not a real solution to the problem because it empowers the vigilantes to start making life-or-death choices for others, in a way that will eventually make them almost indistinguishable from the villains.

Conversely, if the state refuses to put the Joker to death no matter how many people he kills, who is Batman, a private citizen, to argue with them?

For many superheroic characters, it isn't about a game of violence, it is about doing what they can to protect others.

I don't think it's inherently wrong to:
1) Want to protect others, and
2) Be willing to throw a punch, but
3) Not be willing to kill anyone.

In a sense it is understandable, but it is not reasonable in the sense that it is impossible. In reality knocking out someone for more than a few seconds will almost certainly cause severe trauma. If you are willing to take out enemies in the fashion that superheroes do, then you must be willing to kill them, even if your fists are your only weapons.

There is a difference between inflicting serious injury in the process of trying to restrain someone nonlethally, and making a considered decision to murder them.

That is not to mention the fact that Batman is willing to do things like put missiles on his car and drive over police cars in an armored car that would likely kill innocents if not for writer's fiat. That doesn't do much to protect others.

Different portrayals of Batman approach this issue differently.

Some of them are up-front about using lethal weapons.

Others use NO lethal weapons, ever.

Still others fall into the hypocritical middle ground of using lethal weapons such that realistically you know they are killing people with explosions and so on, but keeping up a pretense of not killing anyone.

Another related problem is that Batman is always right, even when there is no reason for him to be. Look at the scene in which he takes on an entire SWAT team. He just knew that it had to be a trap, instead of convincing Gorden of this, he has to engage both sets of enemies simultaneously. It is the same problem that was mentioned previously on this board of the tactical(or whatever fits the plot) straw man, the character that realistically should be effective but is neutered to make our hero more effective.

This true but I don't see how it fits into the overall conversation we're having.

Now that is an interesting criticism- the idea that children raised on the idea of violence where nobody actually dies may end up MORE inured to violence than children raised on the idea that where there is violence, there is death, and the death can be traumatic.

As per my original point, this represents a childish view rather than a political one.

Er... what do you mean? Do you mean what I said is childish, or that the "nobody dies" vision is childish?

[Elheru Aran]

Conversely, if the state refuses to put the Joker to death no matter how many people he kills, who is Batman, a private citizen, to argue with them?

I think there's a legitimate argument to be made that there can only be a few reasons why Joker continues to go on living:

--He's being held extrajudicially whenever arrested, indefinitely without trial. This appears to be how Arkham works. Catch a super-villain in the act, undeniable proof of what he's done, etc, literal 'blood on their hands', arrest him and fling him into Arkham. Similar protocols seem to be followed by most comic-book universes; we rarely see the super-villains being tried, and when they do get tried, it's usually an occasion for escape or judicial farce. This gets more specious when one considers that there are a number of villains in the Batman universe that cannot be (on the face of it) linked directly with their crimes. Penguin, for example, is a gangster leader; he doesn't do crimes himself, he has other people do it for him (depends on incarnation). Hugo Strange is a doctor and psychologist; if you can't find proof that he brainwashes people to commit crimes for him, you can't necessarily link him to it.

--Another possibility is that, for whatever reason, the DCU doesn't have a death penalty law. This is probably false as I believe there's occasional mentions of sending people to the chair or whatever. Still, this may vary per state in the DCU America as it does here.

--Finally, the easy answer for Arkham: It's for the 'criminally insane', people who are considered mentally incompetent to stand trial. In which case one would think the security at Arkham wouldn't be as laughable as it is... anyway, Joker doesn't get executed because he's obviously insane. But where is the line drawn? How many people does he have to kill before the court decides to put a permanent end to it? (Possibly more proof for the 'no death penalty' thing?)

One of the more interesting episodes of the 'Injustice' comic happens when Superman has an induced-coma dream of a 'perfect world' version of his life. He manages to stop Joker from tricking him into killing Lois (in the Injustice universe Superman kills Lois by accident as Joker brews a gas that deceives him into thinking Lois-- pregnant with their child-- is Doomsday and he launches her into orbit before it wears off), and on the drive to the Gotham police department, Batman kills Joker and surrenders himself to the police. He spends a few years in jail, Superman has his child and spends many happy years with Lois, things go all lovely and sweet. Too bad it's just a dream.

EDIT: Fuck, I lost my train of thought. Here's trying to hop back onto it...

IF, however, the courts in Gotham (or whomever would try someone like the Joker) DO have a death penalty, and Joker is ruled competent to stand trial... I see no way, other than a broken court/obscenely bribed or corrupted jury, that he would escape the death penalty. And if there's a 'no double jeopardy' rule like we have in the US, the prosecutor wouldn't necessarily be able to appeal unless a mistrial was declared.

[Adam Reynolds]

]There is little practical difference between a vigilante with a computer telling them what to do, and a vigilante with a shadowy organization telling them what to do... until you have the shadowy organization reveal its own agenda. But the computer can have an agenda too.

Indeed it can, and Person of Interest started to feature that idea more and more as time went on. Though the problem with an organization is that it has resources and if those resources aren't used it begs the question of why. It's like the criticisms of Iron Man 3 not featuring SHIELD. There really was no good reason for them to become involved even after Killian abducted the US President. Iron Man may have been taking care of things, but that hardly stopped them from getting involved the last time.

But then the proper argument is that the judiciary should respond by increasing their security measures (which in comic book settings they do; they can restrain supervillains at least for a time). The judiciary might also reasonably consider the death penalty.

That would be the ideal situation, but it is terrible writing to have a bad guy continually escape from custody and still have our heroes(including Gorden, a sworn police officer who is legally authorized to use force in such a situation) refuse to kill them, even when they are a reasonable threat in the moment(as in that particular scene). Had Gorden simply shot the Joker it would have been a perfectly justified shooting as he was armed with a knife and about to cause great bodily injury to another.

Though it would of course be superior if they would have proper security in something like a prison, or at least have cops who pull the trigger when Joker attempts to escape and is holding another officer hostage. My problem here is ultimately more with the incompetence of the police force rather than Batman. That related to my previous comments about the tactical straw man and Batman versus the SWAT team, that incompetence of this sort exists because it allows our hero to appear even more awesome with less work from the writers. The problem is that Batman still relies on those same incompetent organizations to deal with things like imprisonment, which they then fail at until they don't.

It is the same issue with the World Security Council deciding that the best solution to an unknown portal was to launch a nuke at it in The Avengers. It allowed Iron Man and to a lesser extent Nick Fury to be awesome. Most audiences really don't even seem to notice this occurring. The problem in such stories is that our heroes are still reliant on that organization. While SHIELD fell apart due to Hyrda's involvement, it wasn't Hydra members that ordered a nuclear strike, it was the council that Hydra mostly killed(Jenny Agutter's character survived because Black Widow impersonated her).

We ask why Batman doesn't kill the Joker... but why don't we ask why the courts don't? There is no reasonable doubt that the Joker is responsible for numerous murders, and will commit many more murders if when he escapes custody next time.

So try him and execute him. Simple.

I'm sure that they could reasonably get the death penalty against someone like the Joker in something of a realistic setting. If nothing else, the Feds could try him on terrorism charges and get a much quicker death penalty than any state other than Texas.

But the underlying problem with comic book stories is that they never do anything like this. Though Captain America Civil War just might with Bucky, causing Cap to rebel in order to save his friend from being tried and put to death.

There is a difference between inflicting serious injury in the process of trying to restrain someone nonlethally, and making a considered decision to murder them.

That is true, but if someone like Batman goes up against enough enemies and is willing to knock them out for a period of time, then he will eventually kill someone or at least cause brain damage. This is however a problem with the overwhelming majority of fiction, including supposedly more realistic settings like noir, characters can be bashed upside the head and knocked out long enough for the plot to more forward without any serious medical concerns. It isn't just a problem in superhero comics, though the fact that many of them are willing to engage in violence while claiming to be peaceful is an inherent contradiction.

Different portrayals of Batman approach this issue differently.

Some of them are up-front about using lethal weapons.

Others use NO lethal weapons, ever.

Still others fall into the hypocritical middle ground of using lethal weapons such that realistically you know they are killing people with explosions and so on, but keeping up a pretense of not killing anyone.

The last one is really what I have a problem with. The idea that it is possible to use explosives without killing but guns are horrible.

Er... what do you mean? Do you mean what I said is childish, or that the "nobody dies" vision is childish?

Sorry, I suppose that was ambiguous. I meant the idea of no one dying in such a scenario is childish.

[Gaidin]

They got a huge propulsion system. And all of War Machine's weapons came from a rival company. Miniaturization is its own bag of cats here. If he gave them a huge propulsion system to fly the carriers he didn't give them Iron Man system. And if there's still only one War Machine, which, by the way, Rhodey was careful to hide key systems from people, then they haven't figured those out either.

Yes; that's a pretty good summary. Point being, Stark has been holding tight control over important parts of his technology, and there is little or no evidence that anyone else is using Stark's miniaturized repulsors, explosives, energy weapons, and ultra-hardened armor- in other words, the technology that goes into his suits.

The only person in the Marvel Cinematic setting who use that kind of Starktech are War Machine (who stole it and later got retroactive permission to use it) and Ultron (who stole it). So I don't think I'm out of line in saying that Stark is, true to form in many versions of his character, hoarding his technology.

Yes, but you can't help but notice at the same time he was drinking his own kool-aid. The Avengers, he says, will handle the big threats, maybe even set up a system so they can draw down as he wants a system that can handle the big threats before THEY are needed, who knows. But for the smaller threats, he will help SHIELD put in place a system to analyze, predict, and handle the small threats before they happen.