Superheroes DO NOT KILL (but...)

Adding to the 1,000+ videos on this topic.
SOCIAL MEDIA
twitter: / mgbeanie
instagram: goo.gl/v3G8ho
#dccomics #marvel #superheroes

[@JustCallMeKart]

I have a somewhat different approach to this, how about make Arkham Asylum/Blackgate actually work? Batman in a lot of stories doesn't kill because he refuses to be like the man who killed his family. In others, he's afraid that it would be too easy to cross that line. In some case, it's a lesson for the audience, that being that you can always choose mercy and compassion, for everyone, even if it's a lot harder than just killing your enemies. But obviously, there's a problem. When the villains are fusing babies into balls of flesh or whatever insanity they're up to, isn't killing them going to prevent anyone from suffering by their hands again? Is killing them not infinitely more helpful than leaving them alive for little reasons other than moral superiority? That's correct. But do you know how we can do both if those objectively good things at the same time? If WE ACTUALLY KEEP THE JOKER BEHIND A CELL. Joker is in my mind an incredibly egregious example of this, as much as I love the character, he is quite literally just a guy in makeup with a cartoonishly high pain tolerance. Realistically, him escaping from behind bars at all shouldn't be conceivable in the first place, but for some ungodly reason he's always able to just waltz on out like the prisons are more hotels than actual places to keep people like the Joker at bay. Maybe instead of committing murder or letting murderers run off scott-free, WE GET THE PRISONS SOME BETTER LOCKS "But what if Joker gets help from Freeze and Grundy or something?" KEEP JOKER AWAY FROM THE PRISONERS WHO CAN GET HIM OUT "But what if he outlives his sentence?" ANY Joker from a modern Batman story you can point out that Batman would need to consider killing in the first place is NOT outliving his sentence. "But aren't prisons in DC comics notoriously corrupt?" THEN WRITE STORIES ABOUT THE PRISON HAVING INTENTIONALLY BAD LOCKS, THAT'S A GREAT WAY FOR BRUCE WAYNE TO DO LITERALLY ANYTHING USEFUL Or, if you absolutely have to get Batman to kill someone to approve your desperate need for cynical murderous realism, then just do what Alan Moore did with Superman, and let that be where Batman ends. Batman has killed the Joker, and now he knows he can't be the hero he used to be. Then he passes on the cowl to his family and enjoys a private island with Selena Kyle or something. (If you didn't notice, that's pretty much his entire character arc in Batman Beyond!) I genuinely grow really tired of the hypercynical attitude towards merciful heroes because I think these stories about compassion and mercy are IMPORTANT, especially now in a time when the world is practically searching for excuses to hurt people. It's a lot harder to teach a lesson about mercy and accountability in a story where Batman kills the Joker than in a story where he doesn't. But it's also hard to teach lessons about how important that mercy and accountability is when the writers are constantly making Batman's efforts completely useless since the Clown can clock out of Arkham practically whenever he wants. Either don't bother writing an utterly heinous Joker story, or actually make Batman's compassion ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING SO YOU CAN ACTUALLY ATTRACT PEOPLE TO THE MESSAGE YOU'RE TRYING TO PUSH IN THE FIRST PLACE

[@alexferrana3979]

GOod points, but unfortunately, it won't work in comics.

[@JustCallMeKart]

@@alexferrana3979 Comics are the whole problem

[@keegobricks9734]

In my mind, the joker escapes ONCE. That goes with all the villains. Batman locks them up, and eventually there's a mass prison break, so batman has to do it all again. I think that's a reasonable thing to happen. A jail break is okay, it's the regularity of it that makes it into a joke.

[@JustCallMeKart]

@@keegobricks9734 Based and batpilled

[@iceonthesun8880]

Good comment Imo, people now are too busy getting their panties in a bunch over realism in stories that are clearly fictitious. Stop overthinking it and just enjoy the comic. This whole "well, actually in real life..blah, blah, blah" mindset is so pretentiously stupid

[@morphingninja]

Best answer that I can give is that the Death Penalty has been going away in many areas, this would make Heroes be even further above the laws of those they protect and even bring the question of who is actually in charge if Heroes don't work with the law. The age old "where do you draw the line" and "who are you to choose who lives and dies?" are good conflicts of character for when things hit closer to home for the protagonists. The real questions should be put more towards the systems which let these villains escape, create them and to what solutions should be considered to those problems. The small-time goons of Gotham are a great example of this point, Gotham itself creates them by its own flaws and issues of power balance between factions. Batman knows some of his villains can be better, and that many of the goons have families, it doesn't mean he won't use force though. If the Heroes have issues with villains finding loopholes and such, perhaps they need someone better for handling these cases and providing evidence.

[@MysticalGreenBeanie]

This is the schizophrenia wanting to keep the heroes as private institutions with their own agency, but also maintaining the silver age "duly deputized citizen" status quo. It only works if the bad guys the heroes are facing are the equivalent to the Paul brothers or other tiktok public prankers. But when the villains are murderers and rapists etc, and you position the heroes as agents chaotic good who operate outside the system, the "line" of not wanting to kill becomes silly when dealing with repeat dangerous offenders. And even the systems itself failing constantly becomes parodic lol.

[@morphingninja]

@MysticalGreenBeanie if you want Thomas Wayne Batman or the Punisher shooting you over a parking ticket, be my guest. Citizens living in fear and anger at their "heroes" is what happens. Look at what happens in the real world when a cop shoots someone and now have it as a recognized figure that gets all of that focused on them. It isn't just going to stop at the Joker. Besides, the real reason behind this is so they can keep using recognizable villains instead of having to make one-off villains for the darkest crimes. These are part of a character flaw in the heroes, and flaws make things more interesting than being perfect.

[@Halo3ninja28]

​@@morphingninjaNot sure how we got to being shot over a parking ticket. If heroes did that, then you have a lot more problems than people being in fear of them. You need to worry about all of your lives given their power. But in this whole theoretical, heroes should still be able to walk the line using their brains much the same way your military knows not to invade their own country and start shooting tank rounds into your house because you did a crime. The cops can handle small stuff. If something arises that a hero needs to step forward for, let him do his job! Fear? Sure, same way we fear an RPG sitting around knowing if it gets fired we will die. But they still have their uses.

[@hamizanyunos1502]

@@MysticalGreenBeanie Yeah it does get ridiculous over time. But regarding your point about villains becoming increasingly evil while heroes still refusing to kill them is also why I like the Flash's Rogues precisely because they are much less heinous than other supervillains. Their crimes are limited to heists and they actively avoid killing civilians thus Flash doesn't want to kill any of them because he sees it as unnecessary.

[@MysticalGreenBeanie]

@@hamizanyunos1502 The Rogues are interesting, because they still have those silver age notions of a "code of honor", even when the world around them fell apart. It's why Captain Boomerang is no longer allowed to be a member, because he's a killer, and got too grimey for them.

[@user-zx9yc7sm1z]

The answer is disgustingly simple: The income of these stories relies on the preservation of the statu quo. Nothing more, nothing less.

[@redherringoffshoot2341]

the status quo of a story must consistently be changing bit by bit for a story to still feel new and fresh whilst not alienating its audience

[@2g4u56]

Except this is a retarded take cus it's such an unsatisfactory cop-out

[@JustCallMeKart]

Stories profit more from being nonconfrontational, in way simpler words

[@GenericProtagonist118]

Here's a simple answer though: Make a story with a beginning and and end and don't have a Crisis event that reboots it all, just reboot it and say *"Here's a new universe with a clean slate".* Then go nuts. Unfortunately the Marvel and DC characters are too recognizable and both fans and corporates are hesitant of new IPs.... It's a shame but it's gotta at least be acknowledged.

[@user-zx9yc7sm1z]

@@GenericProtagonist118, I've been saying this for years.

[@jonathanathor117]

4:25 my personal crackpot theory on the comic code authority is that it choked out competition from more mature and darker comics from both inside america itself as well as international (UK, Japan, China, France, Italy etc). The reasons for said choking out competition are not deliberate but the consequence still happened unintentionally. So in a sense the anime and manga boom that the west experienced could have been a thing a few decades earlier. We could have had competition of other types of stories like horror comics, noir, fantasy, sci fi, crime etc from other countries besides. I don't agree with Garth Ennis's hatred of superheroes but he might be on to something. Sure the CCA didn't have power on other publishers but strict enforcing of the code can deter people from selling their product. Besides the CCA rules are simple, straightforward and don't have loopholes to exploit. A similar can said for the Hay's code in movies. However all this is just a dumb theory so don't take this seriously.

[@MysticalGreenBeanie]

It's not that far fetched TBH

[@AstraFulminous]

This got thinking and helps me wonder: Is the question really why they need to kill their villains? Or rather how have they avoided so far and why aren't the stories they have more involved in their villains defeats. In anime usually whenever the hero kills a villain it's often by happenstance and unintentional, a measure of things. If they don't the villain is locked away for a long time and the world changes and or backs the heroes decision evolving with the villain's defeat. But the same doesn't seem to happen in the world of comics. And then on top of that you have these heroes who always have to go all out in these battles and yet somehow with each encounter their rogue's gallery are still unchanged from the encounter. Poison Ivy doesn't respect humans more, Joker isn't in maximum security and or Batman doesn't just mess up Joker whole stick by giving up the role, convincing Gotham to transfer Joker to somewhere like Central City or Gotham itself just being tired of it all.

[@MysticalGreenBeanie]

For the latter question, everytime Joker steps outside of Gotham, he's reminded just how outlcassed he actually is. And Poison Ivy has had a "redemption arc" over the past decade or so, but it's felt lackluster to me personally. There was a time pre-New 52 when DC was trying to rehab Riddler after Hush. And Joshua Williamson is doing a thing now with Supercorp where the villains all work for Superman as part of their parole.

[@omniframe8612]

I also think another layer to explore with the no kill rule in superhero comics is that it is very much tied to Judeo Christianity, i.e. God has all this power but doesn't vanquish the devil he only banishes him to Hell. Now replace God with any traditional American superhero [ Batman, Superman, Flash etc] and replace the devil with [ Joker, Lex Luthor etc] and replace vanquish to Hell with Batman sending villains to Arkham or BlackGate or Flash sending villains to Iron Heights. The framework that American superheroes are built on are deeply Christian...noble and altruistic figures coming from the sky and acting in response to evil as opposed to preemptively eliminating threats. Great video as always

[@MysticalGreenBeanie]

"Thou shalt not kill" I also think the moral sanctification of being one who bares life rather than harbors death comes from post-war American propoganda. With an abundance of wealth, we give life and opportunity, unlike our enemies (who are thinly veiled allegories for communists).

[@omniframe8612]

@@MysticalGreenBeanie Fax on fax

[@feywinterfox9630]

My Biggest problem with this has always been not the fact that I am so much against a Hero killing the bad guys as much as I am at the fact of two things both in the comics and in real life. *Every time a hero does kill a villain, then everyone and their mom both in the comics and irl fit the hell out.* You outright have both characters in the comics AND irl wanting the hero to kill the villain but every time that happens people lose their minds, it's like crying, begging, and screaming for something and yet when you get it people lose their collective minds. Keep in mind also that when a hero does this suddenly that law that had a hard time pinning down the villain is now all over the hero like white on rice in a glass of milk on a paper plate in a snowstorm. I have always said it's not Batman's job to kill the Joker because I known the moment he does he is in big trouble, what I never got was with all the stuff Joker has done why hasn't some officer or anyone else killed him? More so in the comics now days with all he has done to the city? Outside of Batman, anyone else that walks up and shoots him (without batman around) is pretty much going to be a hero. The only person who would be upset at this current point in the comics is Batman....maybe Punchline (no idea where that whole thing went), everyone else even the other villain would he happy as all hell! Then comes the last problem I have with this is the fact that SOME Heroes everyone is okay with killing villains, but other heroes for as much talk as everyone is, better stay to that Golden Age way OR ELSE! People constantly want Batman to kill off his villains for the greater good, but if Superman harms a fly, everyone loses their mind and are suddenly all afraid of him and stuff. By everyone's logic at that point Injustice Superman was 1,000% right and the only reason anything bad happened after killing the Joker is because people kept getting the way for some odd reason. The real answer at the end of the day? These people are trying to sell comics and death in comics has kinda become meaningless when people will be back within a year or restart of the comic universe and what not. I would say to fix this maybe stop writing the villains like the pure embodiment of evil, but I don't see that happening....ever, but I do see eventually the heroes one day will catch up, if that is a good or bad thing? (shrug)

[@pvthitch]

Batman killed a guy in his very first comic.

[@MysticalGreenBeanie]

That he did. And a few more after that.

[@The_Blue_Otaku]

Yep Batman did kill mostly with his bare hands there were the few time he used a gun but he mostly used it on enemies like the Mad Monk's undead experiments or any type of monstrous henchmen.

[@user-zx9yc7sm1z]

I would like to see an iteration of the typical Marvel or DC Universe in which the heroes kill the bastards, but they are still heroic, and kind, and all that jazz. Oh, wait! They already exist and they are called the MCU and the X-Men Fox Universe. Yeah, they are not perfect, they have a lot of flaws that we as fans and cinephiles can see and have talked about, but they proved that a universe with such a presentation is indeed possible.

[@MysticalGreenBeanie]

And it DOES workm the heroes still feel heroic despite breaking the 6th commandment.

[@alexferrana3979]

I agree. Wonder Woman has killed sometimes, but she isn't a bloodthirsty murderous villain after that.

[@trevturp6891]

There are a lot of heroes in The Marvel Universe that do kill their enemies. For example, Captain America, Ironman, Black Panther, and The Punisher.

[@MysticalGreenBeanie]

@@trevturp6891 Context matters a little here. Iron Man actively tries to avoid killing if necessary. It's all part of his "futurist" mentality. Captain America is often written the same way. But Black Panther isn't really a "superhero". He's more like Thor or Aquaman where they're royal protectors of their people. So if killing is necessary, they'll do it. And Punisher is serial killer who just needed an excuse (as seen by Punisher vs the Marvel Universe, and Punisher Born).

[@trevturp6891]

@@MysticalGreenBeanie If Cap and Ironman actively try to avoid killing, if necessary, then why did they not try to do that in the movies?

[@NotMyRealName6]

In addition to upholding the status quo, I'd say most heroes refuse to kill on grounds of trying not to become just as bad as the villains they fight. Look at characters like the Punisher. While you can't argue that his motives are in the right place, his methods are supposed to leave readers shocks. He's the perfect dark mirror to Batman in that respect. Both lost their families to senseless violence, both chose to dedicate their lives to putting an end to crime, but one chose a much darker route to accomplish his goals. Castle knows he's irredeemable, but as long as nobody else has to watch their family get gunned down in a gang war, a riot, or some other act of senseless violence, he doesn't care.

[@omniframe8612]

This was excellent!!! Also why you have my mans hitting the crack pipe 😂😂😂😂

[@MysticalGreenBeanie]

Because it was "R 3 A L" 😂

[@AstraFulminous]

Side note I forgot how in universe Gotham is technically cursed so that might be while Batman's villains can keep going

[@kingofnerds1841]

Batman gave a pretty good answer to the "not killing the Joker" question in under the red hood. He knows his own mental instability to where If he were to let himself kill the Joker, he would start killing all of his rogues gallery!

[@MysticalGreenBeanie]

I never liked that explanation. It makes Bruce feel too much like he relishes in the violence as opposed to using violence as a reluctant necessity to carry out his mission of helping people.

[@keegobricks9734]

I'd still prefer it if batman didn't kill, but when the joker is leaving forests of tombstones... even if batman refuses to do it, SOMEONE at GCPD would have taken him out back and just finished him. The villains need to be toned down. Maybe they don't need to be turned back into bank robbing pranksters, we need a bit of edge to make you want to see him brought to justice, but the villains are now just so far beyond the point of "no kill mmkay?" that it makes no sense. It also leaves a lot of non-kill options left out that also beg the question, such as blinding the joker, breaking his back so he'll never walk again, removing his hands, etc. Maiming, that although I personally don't want to see it, is at least logically consistent with someone who has a no-kill rule. A character like scarecrow is therefore more interesting, he can cause mental pain, and even permanent damage, but he isn't necessarily leaving swathes of bodies behind him. This is more along the lines of how _some_ villains need to be. On the other hand there's characters like darkseid where, perhaps he doesn't get killed not for lack of trying but he's simply too strong to die in battle, or perhaps someone who surrenders at some point.

[@TBathory]

I think the no kill should be looked at in terms of what the heroes are in relation to law enforcement. Most or in some for either deputized or sanctioned by the police and/or government. They get more latitude than police do but if they were to start killing, executing judgment which is the province of the courts and not law enforcement, the people and government would turn against them. We say we are a nation of laws and while there is suspension of disbelief with these stories, and as most these heroes operate in the present day society, they must act as a form of law enforcement and never as judge and executioner lest they see the society they are trying to protect turn on them.

[@MysticalGreenBeanie]

Ideally, I don't want standard superheroes to be the 21st century pinkertons. But in reverting comic book supervillains to their golden age roots of being killers, rapists, genocidal dictators etc, maybe the response SHOULD be reverting the heroes back to their golden age roots as well. I dunno.

[@tommyfishhouse8050]

Forgive me if I don't believe in writing 'heroes' who care more for the well being of murderers than the people they hurt.

[@GenericProtagonist118]

Previously I posted two overly long paragraph rants and deleted them both after actually finishing your video. For that I am really sorry, because you have an excellent point. The problem is simple: Tonal Imbalance. Heroes that are too good and Villains who are WAAYYYY too evil. That's how you get Gross Modern Joker, Major Force shoving Green Lantern's Girlfriend into a fridge, Dr. Light.... Jesus Christ *Dr. Light.....* So far despite hiw violent the series is known to be, Invincible manages to have to have the only decent balance.

[@MysticalGreenBeanie]

Invincible is really good because it plays with the idea of a sikver age style superhero universe with real workd consequences, and how people and governments would react to said consequences.

[@cyborghercules]

Great video but that joker situation was wild

[@MysticalGreenBeanie]

Just calling it like I see it lol

[@eddyviews1427]

The best I could say it depends on who your writing around with a situation based on the tone your going for, whether they make or break. For example, Frank Miller’s Batman have committed a couple murders which one is around a kidnapping of a kid which was changed for the animated movie as the other during a tussle against the joker which cost him to look bad but prevented even further deaths. There’s no true winners in this position: heroes may have the best of humanity, but chances are they only delay the worst that’s yet to come; they can stop the horrible things their villains could potentially commit, but no one is gonna let it slide that it violates their belief of hope in heroism

[@MysticalGreenBeanie]

In the case of DKR, Bruce Wayne is presented as, at best, an unreliable narrator. So I always wince when people take everything he says in that book as gospel as if they themselves were the sons of Batman lol. But in the case of standard superhero comics, it's not that I WANT heroes to be GI Joe killers at all. But this near constant push to make the villains analogues for real world monsters, like school/church shooters and serial killers; at that point, you've elevated the treat, so the response must be met in same. Anything else is parodic, and does break immersion a bit.

[@ranwolf7650]

Batman has killed, tried to kill or made decisions that got people killed in every mainline continuity from last 80 years. To say Batman doesn't kill is just not true, he does his best not to find himself in that situation, but he's failed that multiple times throughout his history.

[@matthewschwartz6607]

The Joker makes too much money for DC. He’s a cash cow. That’s pretty much it.

[@RakaiThwei]

Well, it's a good thing that my heroes, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, outright killed their villains without any question! At least, that's what they did in the original Mirage comics!

[@MysticalGreenBeanie]

Well, they didn't "kill without question". They still honored the Bushido. In the first issue of TMNT, they don't straight up murder Shredder. They offer him an honorable death through sepiku, before he spazes out and tries to kill everyone.

[@RakaiThwei]

@@MysticalGreenBeanie That's right! I completely forgot about them giving Shredder an honorable out. However... I wouldn't say Bushido as that's more of a Samurai thing, but maybe honor works differently in the Foot clan, and the TMNT studied Foot style ninjutsu considering their Martial Arts lineage. But even before the Shredder, they killed the Purple Dragons without any question, and even prior-- to when they were thirteen years old, when they had to rescue the grandson of a dying Samurai, they were already killing ninjas (these ninjas weren't associated with the Foot) while attempting this rescue. The TMNT, the Mirage TMNT anyway, to me are more effective than say... Batman or Spider-Man because they actually deal with their rogues rather than capturing them and having them repeat offend.

[@nobodyknowsforsure]

At this point I refuse to lay it on the heroes at all. When the villain who as you put it had a murder fest is held by the government it's on them. They by all counts could end the threat and they NEVER do, to the level of incompetence. The difference between Superman and the Government is they literally have authority to put villains to death and nobody could bat an eye if by law these villains could be incarcerated or worse. Not to mention how many police have killed ppl because they 'feared for their safety' yet in none of these instances that never occurs?? Nah not buying it, blame the government.

[@MysticalGreenBeanie]

The government is always responsible for society's ills, so I second this statement.

[@Angel-Dust-The-Prostitute]

Should superheroes kill? Iron man doesn't kill the assessor... But he is planned to torture the assessor regardless, and that is exactly what he will do...

[@genericcommentor1111]

Idk if ill get seen posting this but ill say this anyway Personally i think these heros or most of them (especially superman) should not kill the ones in marvel and the few in DC i think are perfectly fine in different ways. The reason i think this is because superheros are suppose to be pillars of good and people should look up to them Kingdom come and superman vs the elite are perfect examples of this more so the later bc im a superman fan lol But i get the points made in the video and yeah it can be outdated in areas but i think thats where the heros who kill come in bc well moral complexity will always exist in this world That being said i dont have an easy answer for this but to me having these heros kill and dimming their light in a sense just doesnt feel right to me bc while things are jaded and cynical (especially now) we still need these ideals to look up too we will always need a reminder to be better in anyway we can The best superhero stories arent the ones where they punch the bad guys in the face or deal with some moral questioning of "what do we do in this situation?" To me the best stories are the ones where they go out and help people and just be those pure and good superheros we know and love Maybe at the end of the day superman should kill lex luthor but to me that superman wouldnt be superman even if its justifed to me that just betrays the character and what he repsesnts. Maybe its outdated thinking since I lean on this but that speech at the end of superman vs the elite is what defines him as not as hero but as symbol A symbol that no matter what a better and just world is still worth fighting for But thats my 2 cents

[@MysticalGreenBeanie]

Even if I don't respond, I always make sure to read every comment. And thanks for your input. But this video is less about the the oedipal conflict of a morality that came before, and more highlighting where the idea of the superhero has come from, and where it is now, while also contrasting the villains. I think it's interesting how supervillains went from being allegorical horrors to fantasy pranksters, and the heroes followed suit. However, when the villains cycled back to being allegorical monsters, the heroes remained their fantasy selves. I don't mind the "no kill rule". But context within an overall narrative matters. Silver Age superheroes are reactionary in nature. But that reactionary response is respected because the threats are not all that dire. Golden age heroes were proactive, because the threats WERE dire. So positioning the villains as golden age threats, but having the heroes maintain silver age sensibilities makes their dynamic feel incongruent.

[@genericcommentor1111]

@MysticalGreenBeanie oh no, I get that. I think the reason they didn't change it would be the reason I mentioned paragons of good bc once they changed back in the silver age that's when heros went more mainstream. However woth the bronze and modern ages they added the anti hero for the counter balance

[@moracomole8090]

Because writers are too lazy to come up with new villains literally no other reason

[@elongatedmanforever1252]

ironman killed his villains didnt he??

[@MysticalGreenBeanie]

Aside from that neo-nazi dude from Extremis, and the Mandarin a bunch of times (although he's practically immortal, so that hardly counts) no. Not normally. In fact, he's successfully reformed some of them.

[@alancarnell2747]

If killing is bad then if heroes do it, they are as bad as the villains. Kingdom Come answers a lot of your questions.

[@MysticalGreenBeanie]

Yeah...not the biggest Kingdom Come fan here lol.

[@alancarnell2747]

@@MysticalGreenBeanie how many super villains has the Punisher killed? He kill lackeys like it's whack a mole but their bosses not so much. It's bad to kill period. It's the damn justice system that fails the heroes.

[@MysticalGreenBeanie]

@@alancarnell2747 I see your point, but this video isn't a debate as to whether or not heroes should kill villains. It's about how the villains went from being relatively harmless crooks to psycho killers, and how that made the "no kill rule" seem narratively silly, despite it making sense at one point.

[@ikevann753]

​@@alancarnell2747I only know about the Punisher from the movies and he would kill both the goons and the boss he was after. Does comics Punisher really not kill the bosses? Isn't that supposed to be what his entire character is about.

[@alancarnell2747]

@@ikevann753 he has a rogues gallery. He'll kill low level punks but not their super villain bosses usually.

[@Chriso22]

Dumb argument they shouldn't kill

[@MysticalGreenBeanie]

I think you skipped the first 30 seconds of the video. No prob, just start here 0:00

[@fishertheadore6095]

4:59 The Comics Code Authority should make a come back.

[@MysticalGreenBeanie]

I don't agree, but fair enough.

[@fishertheadore6095]

@MysticalGreenBeanie Why wouldn't You agree? What is there to Disagree with?

[@MysticalGreenBeanie]

@@fishertheadore6095 CCA gutted the comics industry to the point where there was nothing but neutered capeshit and romance. I like the variety that's returned.

[@fishertheadore6095]

@MysticalGreenBeanie But there's way more nonsense and weird shyt now. But I see Your point of View King.

[@Israfel36]

I understand what you're saying, but this is a dumb argument, it doesn't matter how silly the crime is. Did people get hurt or even die? Then the consequences are going to be the same. It doesn't really matter if someone was shot or crushed by a giant candygram. For some reason people put the responsibility of what the system should be doing on the hero themselves. Like the Joker for example: has killed hundreds of thousands, it is on Gotham to put him to death, not Batman. Batman is not the Justice system he's dedicated himself to filling in the cracks where there isn't enough and making sure the corrupt don't succeed within that system. It is Gotham's job to keep him locked up, Gotham's job to prosecute, and finally Gotham's job to execute. It's really weird that we never see the prosecuting part, don't you think? Because it's implied that he's guilty. It's so weird that this is hoisted upon superheroes shoulders for some reason. If Batman didn't exist and the Joker did, they would _still_ have that responsibility.

[@MysticalGreenBeanie]

Yes...that is what I said in the video.

[@Israfel36]

@MysticalGreenBeanie At no point do you say that executing villains should be left to governing bodies. You mention Lex Luthor having lawyers, and that's it. So, no-- you didn't.

[@MysticalGreenBeanie]

@@Israfel36 I brought up Lex having near legal impunity to highlight how ineffective Superman seems in not just tossing him into the sun, but that was in relation to modern Lex Luthor iterations. But such punishment would be needlessly cruel for a more silver age approach to Lex Luthor. That's what I said.

[@Israfel36]

@MysticalGreenBeanie Lex Luthor has gone to prison. Both in comic and cartoon show, which is what was playing when you what you said. That was one of the earlier episodes of Superman the Animated Series, which isn't a part of the silver age and of course wouldn't have killing because it was made specifically for kids. Either way, that doesn't change the fact that you absolutely didn't say what I said. It isn't a "silver age sensibility" to send someone to the chair. You did not say what I said, not even close.

[@keegobricks9734]

... I wish we'd go back to that silver age of censorship...

[@elongatedmanforever1252]

Nope that's a cringe era.

[@keegobricks9734]

@@elongatedmanforever1252 the gay saturation today is far worse.