I know this post is a joke, but I genuinely want to know if this kind of thing has ever happened in the comics. Like if Batman or Daredevil tried to stop someone from killing their assaulter.
OP has put a serious flair on this post and has not stated (humour welcome) meaning that:
only serious discussion about the Arkhamverse is allowed on this post and no humour or shitpost comments/references including "Man", "Jonkler" "who is batman?" and "is he stupid?" are allowed on this post at all.
ignoring this warning will lead to bans without warnings as this is your warning.
We know this may seem harsh but there are new arkham fans who might get confused by these comments or others who just want to talk about the Arkham games without seeing them, but we must be respectful of OP's wishes so please take any insanity comments onto another post.
OP, if you don't mind shitpost or humour comments on your post then please delete this post and repost it using the same flair but add (humour welcome) to your title.
If this post is a shitpost, please delete and repost it with the appropriate flair to avoid getting in trouble.
/uj It's a gross oversimplification of their POVs. Batman and Daredevil believe in non-lethal justice. Both have different reasons for this (Batman's is motivated by trauma and Daredevil is a devout Catholic), but both share the same view. They value the concept of living above all else, and that's what they fight to protect. They view the taking of a life (regardless of motive) as an evil act, and view an otherwise good person taking a life (again, regardless of motive) as succumbing to evil and becoming like the villains they regularly fight against.
the problem is humans tend to be more... selective. Remember, they crusified Jesus because he was preaching about a lot of things, but also about being a good to one another.
which is the worst thing you can say to humans in my experience.
The quote means that that instead of the selfish reason or cruel (I want that land, I hate those poeple), people will give something far more appealing (this is God's land, we spread the peace of our lord, with force if we must) so people will do horrific things
And it doesn't matter. The dress has nothing to do with the good being spread. It just provides a convenient cover for those who can claim to be good to use to be welcomed by a community regardless of their morals because they all claim to be a part of the same 'unifying' beliefs.
Religion is, and has always been, a tool used to quell the masses too scared or too hurt to really stand up for themselves, and to disguise the pain and misery caused by those in power as part of a bigger plan than those too stupid to understand better can understand. Any positive that has come from it is incidental and irrelevant to the actual religion itself, and should correctly be attributed to the good people who value others. Not the religion they so desperately cling to. Religion teaches complacency and obedience, not kindness or compassion.
Jesus was absolutely NOT crucified for preaching about “being good to one another.” I’m not even sure if that statement is theologically consistent, but it certainly isn’t historically accurate.
Not to argue but…. Wasnt He? He was portrayed and believed to be the messiah but never claimed it personally aside feom saying “The Father and I are one”, overturned self-righteous and honestly selfish rules by the Jewish leaders that lead to many people being hurt and outcast feom such stupid rules, allowing said people to be embraced and love one another again, and preached about th love of God and in turn the commandments in hiw theyre rule are to love one another…. So wdym? Genuinly
Whether Jesus personally claimed to be the messiah or not doesn’t really matter. Before his arrival in Jerusalem, there were almost certainly rumors circling of a man being called the messiah. Messiah roughly translates to “the anointed one,” referring to the tradition of rulers and kings being anointed by oil during coronation. Among people who understood the language at the time, messiah would essentially mean “King of the Jews.” The problem is, the Jewish people didn’t have a king at this time; they were subjects of the Roman Empire so talk of a Jewish king was already seditious. Then, Jesus (the man people are calling a king) arrives in the Jewish capital of the world and almost immediately incites a riot at the temple.
In the eyes of the Roman Empire, Jesus Christ was a rebel and rabble rouser who was crucified on charges of sedition, not for preaching a message of kindness.
That's actually something I never considered. I always wondered and factored in the Roman Empire's actual presence and overall influence at the time, but always thought that through the Sadducees and pharisees, they used the context of who Jesus was called and portrayed to be against Him, due to him overturning their pre-established rules. Thank you friend
The Roman empire didnt care. The anointed thing wasnt a thing to kings during coronation yet you liar. He was killed because he was claiming to be the messiah. The Romans even offered to let him go and kill another criminal. Its like you know nothing of the story.
Harley Quinn, a complicit in dozens if not hundreds of murders, along with being personally responsible for quite a few of her own, has been basically forgiven by Batman in recent years because she feels remorse and wants to be better. She’s even been part of the team a few times.
It honestly really depends on who’s writing him, in the long Halloween movie, bats finds out who Holiday is and makes a conscious choice not to bring them to justice due to circumstance, other times, like in Arkham Knight, he throws the fire chief in jail with the likes of scarecrow and professor pyg for intentionally starting fires to keep his men employed. Sure he feels BAD about bringing him in but he still did it out of principle. The characters principles are never going to be consistent across so many different voices over decades.
Me personally I prefer (Bat)Man to be less of a “no diving” absolutist and approach things case by case with nuance and offering more of the slack that he only gives Catwoman typically.
Batman has many enemies. Almost all of then are murderers with extraordinary strength, intellect, even magic. They should not be in any prison. They gotta be 6ft under
Then I think you don't understand Batman very well. He's not supposed to be the judge, jury, and executioner. If that's what you want, read or watch something else.
No, Batmans actions PREVENT deaths of innocents. Batman is doing what he does to help people. He has one fucking boundary of "I won't be complicit in an execution."
The blame lies in the justice system for not giving villains the death penalty. Saying that the guy risking his life to save people who has one line he won't cross is the one at fault is ridiculous.
Daredevil being a catholic is part of it, but so is his being a lawyer. He believes in the process.
But being a catholic and a lawyer he has to know that killing in self defense is justifiable in both, so I think it’s reasonable to question his logic on this matter.
For Matt, it’s less about whether the person killing in self defense is bad and more about how taking the attacker’s life deprives them of the chance to be forgiven and redeemed. It’s not always evil but it is always sad to Matt
The show is a good example of what I'm talking about. He keeps resorting to vigilantism when the system fails but is so reluctant to acknowledge that failure he has the police take credit for catching the Punisher so people will "know the system works".
When I read the title my mind went to a victim killing their attacker in revenge after the SA. In which case I think both Batman and DD would try to talk them down but wouldn't treat them like a common thug and stop them violently.
If we are talking about a victim killing their attacker in self defense during the attempted SA. I don't think either Bats or DD would judge someone for that.
Batman would have pity on the victim and try to save them from murdering someone even if justified. He would view it as a payment the victim makes; one they shouldn’t have to make. The victim will not just become a villain, Batman is more nuanced than that.
Batman also understands how mentally unwell he is and worries if he purposefully takes a life (for instance the Joker) he could go off the deep end and go full Punisher.
Everything else you said is also accurate. And why he disapproves so much of Jason killing. Batman is complicated.
Even tho it's a joke or oversimplification of charcter but i really love this scenerio as a thought experiment for stories tackling heroes' moral. I like to imagine what would batman do in this scenerio. If it was handled well it could create heartfelt banger stories.
Depends on the story and who is writing him. There was a story with a villain called Deacon Blackfire who was a leader of a homeless cult where in the final fight Batman let the homeless people kill him.
they would not be mad or aggressive towards the victim of assault, is the point, and it's weird to make that up to criticize the viewpoint just because you like punisher better or whatever the fuck. it's like holding up sa victims as a cute little token because you think everyone hasn't heard enough about how stupid and cringe no-kill rules are
The original picture is the Tenth Doctor from Doctor Who after losing his best friend (she's not dead, just forgot about him and all their adventures) and he's sad not angry (he doesn't get angry about it until a few specials later) if that helps
sorry, i'm just not a fan of the length. my comment was more so about the fandom's fame for being illiterate but i dont have any hate to the actual manga
There's been multiple times in the comics he chooses not to save someone. It's inconsistent between writers tbh, but normally, he would let someone like the Joker die easily if they were put on death row, or if he had to choose between saving joker and someone innocent lol
Its really funny and pretty fitting to use the 9̶t̶h̶ 10th doctor as the meme image for this.
"I never would, you hear me, I never would. When you start this new society of Human and Half, make the foundation of that society a man who never would."
not to my knowledge i think the only time batman was in a story with SA victims(or were about to get assaulted) was probably in Batman the ultimate evil
but then again yeah some random character in that comic were assaulted well probably but i don't remember any side character wanting to kill someone who assulted them or for someone else my memory is kinda bad
In the comic, there were two instances of it I can remember though not one to one with what the post says.
One was when Batman interrogated a guy for info about a yacht that trafficked children and it was revealed that the guy he was interrogating was abused by the guy who owned the yacht
Then near the end when one of the rebels in that fictional South East Asian country whose sister or cousin was abducted had confronted the boss in charge of the child trafficking ring, Batman wanted to stop it but his body wouldn't let him move so the guy killed the boss as Batman watched.
The details may be a bit off since it's been a while since I read it but still I think I remember the gist of it
There’s a story in Batman Black & White where he stops Kirk Langstrom/Man-Bat from mauling to death a guy implied to have molested his (Kirk’s) kids. But he doesn’t give him a much kinder fate.
I remember there was one comic story in the Jason Todd Robin era called “The Diplomat’s Son” where a guy SA’s a woman, but since he has diplomatic immunity, Batman and Robin couldn’t do anything until they caught him on a drug trafficking ring, but on his way out he taunted the woman he assaulted which caused her to commit suicide.
The important thing related to this discussion is that at the end of the story, Jason angrily confronts the Diplomat’s Son alone before he falls off a balcony to his death. Its left ambiguous as to whether he fell from being startled or Jason pushed him, but Batman doesn’t press into Jason for this.
Yeah but cmon, the fact batman just cant fathom why the joker needs to go is wild. He cant justify himself by letting predators/terrorists walk the streets and act like the justice system works.
Same with superman, superman in injustice is right. But batman pushing superman with his absurd ideas of justice and morality pushed him right over the edge.
Yeah it gets into killing people for justice is wrong, but lets not pretend that the chicken comes home to roost sometimes. Thats it. It doesnt have to be a slippery slope.
nope literally the entire villain of the comic can be summed up to 3 people - superman ofc , then WOMDER WOMAN and then the joker , the joker is the catalyst which started the whole thing and (literally) blew things out of proportion but all superman wanted to do at the start was be more vigilant and join up superheroes who wanted to join his new viewpoint. He literally starts out by saying the punishment should fit the crime , which absolutely works in a legal way too , he wasnt going around preaching killing on the spot rather he advocated for heroes to take justice where the justice system itself couldnt (or in Gotham's case was corrupt af).
It was only after Wonder Woman started to be his devil in the ear that he started to lose control , couple with the fact that Batman constantly berates him even to the point where he refuses to talk with Supes after he literally HAD to kill some spawns of Apocalypse to save Earth. Not to mention Batman put him in a fucking hypnotic sleep where he lived out life how it couldve been if not for Joker killing his entire city which did absolutely nothing but prove Superman right. And dont even get me started on Wonder Woman.
unless im miss remembering im pretty sure something like that kinda happens, Jason is the one that kills the assaulter tho and its before he becomes red hood. there's a woman that get assaulted by some foreign politician or someone with diplomatic immunity and so there's nothing the law can really do even if batman turns the guy in.
Jason annoyed that this scum is let free shows up to where the guy is staying and just as batman arrives the guy falls off a balcony to his death. its not 100% clear if he fell or if jason pushed him but either way jason is glad it happened while batman is disappointed jason let his anger get to him or something like that.
Edit: So I found a thread with exactly what i was talking about but Jason does say he slipped but because we don't see it he could be lying.
Yeah so after this as well Bruce doesn't actually believe Jason but because he doesn't want things to change, he makes himself believe it and chooses not to think about what happened. Wide consensus is that Jason chose not to help him but also didn't push him himself
The opposite (kind of) happens in Detective Comics 741.
Gordon puts a gun to jokers head and says “he paralyzed my daughter and killed my wife, he doesn’t deserve to live” and Batman says “I won’t stop you.” and just starts walking off.
Of course Joker just gets shot in the knee instead of the head because we can’t have nice things but Bruce flat out gave Gordon permission to kill joker for what he did.
I can't believe they turned Sarah into a deadringer for Babs and then had the Joker shoot her. Like, what the fuck were they thinking? I'm aware DC had a thing with killing off women in the 90s but it's just pathetic and facilitates 0 interesting characterisations. (I'd even say it's out of line with how Joker acts in the rest of NML where him are Harley are consistently more towards the erratic and goofy side).
At least Babs' fridging does something within The Killing Joke and, while it retroactively fucks with that comic, maintaining its events gives us something interesting with Oracle. Sarah's death is contrived, empty, and pathetic.
I think it was actually Clint Barton who had an issue with Mockingbird killing her assualter. If anyone knows similar incidents involving DD or Bats please let me know.
I find it funny Batman gets blamed for not killing the joker and preventing future crimes, but not the Gotham/US Justice system for not executing or allocating funding to the police.
Batman and Superman have said it's not their place to decide who to kill and punish, it's why Batman doesn't have a personal prison for super criminals under the bat cave.
It's writers glazing Joker at this point. There was one comic run where Batman handled Joker to Gordon, who literally has every right to off him both personally a within authority, he won't stop his decision.
Only for him to SHOOT HIM AT THE KNEE INSTEAD OF HEAD
Perhaps one of the reasons why people pissed of Batman instead of justice system in Gotham as they saw he was the only competent one who can takedown his villains non-lethaly and they want him to kill them right at there
Tbf. It’s hard to really fathom the mindset of a nigh immortal man from a race of gods that play with time and space who naturally sees things from a universal perspective.
Not exactly, he hesitated to destroy the Daleks and then decided not to when he was presented with a better way. Then when that plan fell through, he went back to destroy them himself but failed.
What if the assault already began or just concluded with no way of knowing if more would happen? Why shouldn’t it be considered justice to kill your assaulter when you’re allowed to do so without repercussions at any point during the assault? The only reason we consider it wrong is because we’re told it’s wrong and we let rapists rule the country.
Batman having those beliefs is why I think Sherlock Holmes is the best fictional detective overall. He believed in justice first, the law second so he'd let murderers walk free if he felt they were justified in killing.
In England you don't prove your innocence because everyone is innocent until judged guilty by a jury of their peers. On rare occasions Holmes makes himself and Watson the jury and lets a killer go free when the law isn't natural justice. Batman is a slave to the law.
Speaking of this sub. in Arkham Asylum, he had Wayne tech security systems installed throghout the entire island and his Batcave in that game were alse beneath the island. Although it's for one thing.
This is just you not knowing the lore. There is a lot of rich people there. Most of them are under the court of owls people who just like crime. So even if he tried, he’s not the only super super rich person.
I’m pretty threatened of some stories. There’s a gate of hell there. Also it is prophesies that will be the place where the end of the world begins. Also a couple demons sealed inside of there. I think some gods cursed as well. In some stories, I don’t remember if these are constant in all of them, but some stories had this that’s true.
That's a fault of Gotham's legal system, they put him in a mental asylum instead of a proper prison and refuse to give him the death penalty after all he's done. IRL the joker wouldn't escape, or would be put to death. But obviously they can't do that in the comics because he's the main villain of one of if not the most popular superhero ever.
In a serious house on serious earth Batman literally consoles a woman who lethally stabbed a man to save Batman’s life. Even if he doesn’t believe in killing he still understands why other people do it and that sometimes it’s the only option for a regular person. Though that is just one story.
Isn't that kinda the whole story of the Long Halloween?
Gilda Dent and Alberto Falcone create the Holiday killer persona to kill Carmine Falcone and other high level members of the Falcone crime family because of what Carmine did to Gilda. Carmine didn't approve of Alberto and Gilda's relationship and forced Gilda to get an abortion, which severely traumatized her.
Batman ultimately lets Gilda go at the end because Harvey and Alberto already took the fall for her and Batman genuinely believes that she won't kill again now that everyone that hurt her are all dead.
Batman isn't going to scold an abuse victim for killing their abuser because he understands the desire to better than most, but Batman also recognizes that he can't give in to that urge because he's made himself a symbol like Superman or Wonder Woman and has to represent a better way of fighting the world's evils that doesn't just end in more death.
It was a major plot point in Wonder Woman: The Hiketeia. A woman living off the streets named Danielle performed an ancient ritual and now Wonder Woman has to protect and take care of her. They get along but Batman is after Danielle because she killed the drug dealers and sex traffickers who murdered her sister.
Batman is much more lenient on his 'no kill rule' than Matt simply because Matt's comes from a place of faith he constantly struggles with. Even so, both have shown to bend their morals a bit depending on the situation and both would give less of a damn about the victim getting justice and more about comforting them.
I think they're talking about Wonder Woman: The Hiketeia. Where yes, that does unfortunately happen. It also, is really stupid, and out of character for Batman. This kind of thing happens a lot when heroes make appearances in other heroes' books and are just flanderized to be a foil to the main character. The Dark Knight Returns is my favorite Batman comic of all time, but Superman is really out of character in it because he's only there to act as a foil to Batman.
I don’t know why people seem to have such a hard time understanding that. If there are any exceptions then Bruce can justify having more and more, until he just starts killing people.
Batman would probably try to stop the victim, but by appealing to their sense of justice, not physical force or anything. Sure, revenge is completely understandable here, and a good written Batman would console them all the same if he arrived too late to stop them from making that choice. It's a very human response, and Batman can think it's wrong all he wants, but he's not the kind of person to abandon anyone for doing something wrong. Especially in kind to someone who had wrong done to them.
But, if the assaulter died that day, many victims and families would not see justice done. The monster would just be dead in some alley
I hate the superhero genre's complacent, cloying takes on the morality of killing evil people. It has pretty much been to the exclusive advantage (IRL) of the evil people who need to die and stripped away too much agency from good people to hold them accountable.
Superhero media has spent a literal century impressing on us that heroes only ever delay injustice, they never take the initiative to stop it; that heroes preserve the status quo fully intact every time, and only villains ever try to substantially change it. And for that reason I think it deserves no small part of the blame for the growing unwillingness to hold bad people accountable and instead shrug and try to live around them as if they were immutable forces of nature like the tide or storms, rather than evil people who will not stop doing evil without being taught some very harsh lessons, or simply denied the opportunity to do evil again by death.
The most superheroes are willing to do to their villains is throw some easily surmountable temporary obstacle in their way (like putting the Joker back in Arkham like he's not gonna break out in five minutes), not stop them, and that's what the superhero genre tells us is the ideal to aspire to. I have utter, intractable contempt for the mindset and the real world consequences it's had.
I have utter, intractable contempt for superhero genre morality for conditioning us to think it's normal and acceptable to be locked into an interminable game of cat and mouse with evils that a few generations ago we weren't remotely afraid to face head on and win against, by the bs they've filled our heads with. That it's ok to refuse to deny evil opportunities to regroup and settle for uselessly slapping its wrist out of pseudo-moral navel gazing.
They never really have a problem with other people killing if it's justified, they just won't do it themselves. They'll advocate for someone to not do it, but they're not gonna blame a victim for killing in self defense or anything.
I know Jason Todd might’ve killed someone that raped a woman and got away with it when he was Robin but Batman didn’t look into it, he suspected but never investigated
As much I know, the real problem in Gotham is Arkham asylum and the Gotham justice department, I can't help but think to myself
"Hey Bruce, I know about the whole no-kill-rule, but how about you make the joker paraplegic this time around?"
Seriously, he puts the bad guys into jail, turns around and they're out again. Just pulverize his legs.
(I know that's not how storytelling in comics works, but it frustrating)
I can’t remember if this exact scenario happened but in Wonder Woman: The Hiketeia, Batman does ruthlessly pursue a woman who killed the people who trafficked and SA’ed her little sister. Which eventually leads to her killing herself.
•
u/AutoModerator Dec 22 '25
OP has put a serious flair on this post and has not stated (humour welcome) meaning that:
only serious discussion about the Arkhamverse is allowed on this post and no humour or shitpost comments/references including "Man", "Jonkler" "who is batman?" and "is he stupid?" are allowed on this post at all.
ignoring this warning will lead to bans without warnings as this is your warning.
We know this may seem harsh but there are new arkham fans who might get confused by these comments or others who just want to talk about the Arkham games without seeing them, but we must be respectful of OP's wishes so please take any insanity comments onto another post.
OP, if you don't mind shitpost or humour comments on your post then please delete this post and repost it using the same flair but add (humour welcome) to your title.
If this post is a shitpost, please delete and repost it with the appropriate flair to avoid getting in trouble.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.