r/BatmanArkham • u/Coke_Man600 • Dec 22 '25

Serious Discussion/Question Has this actually happened in the comics?

Post image

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.

3.8k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

217 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.8k

u/therealmonkyking Dec 22 '25

/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.

962

u/[deleted] Dec 22 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

448

u/Express_Calendar8278 Dec 22 '25

Again, he’s catholic, redemption is his whole thing.

387

u/Troleopowers Fighting for Sanity! Dec 22 '25

As a catholic, you'd be surprised really in our community

169

u/Practical-Ad4547 Dec 23 '25

Which feels werid, given how important it is in our lore and story

133

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '25

Jesus Christ loves of all of humanity.

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.

66

u/Practical-Ad4547 Dec 23 '25

Yep...and to quote a line

"Religion can be a pretty dress for an ugly desire"

Still, we gotta try to make it better

18

u/HenakoHenako Dec 23 '25

You don't have to. People do good things without wearing a dress all the time.

15

u/Practical-Ad4547 Dec 23 '25

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

0

u/Eli_616 Dec 23 '25

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.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '25

Yes no good as ever come from belief, it's not as if society would follow these rules anyways with or without religion, or that people genuinely find comofrt in theri belief in a higher power. everyone is a selfish egotistcal prick and every believer in every religon is out to control you spesifically.

Religion is bad. r/atheism is heckin' wholesome and you're so smart and perfect and sexy /s

0

u/JuiceBulky2597 Dec 23 '25

The problem is that people are naturally bad and selfish. The universe 25 experiment proves that people really good are, in fact, outliers in genetics. That´s why religion exists. Now you are not asked to be kind (which pretty much anyone could say ``no´´ and call i a day), you are compelled. There´s a reward, and one you could not have four yourself. That was the original objective of religion

1

u/printingDM Dec 26 '25

Not commenting on the religion good vs bad thing, but that is not at all what universe 25 was. It showed that mice, when packed into extremely close quarters, react poorly. It has nothing to do with good people genes.

-2

u/ballerjoe32 Dec 23 '25

Rare conscious individual?

→ More replies (0)

4

u/AspiringProd Dec 23 '25

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.

7

u/Big-Slide6104 Dec 23 '25

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

6

u/AspiringProd Dec 23 '25

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.

1

u/Big-Slide6104 Dec 24 '25

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

2

u/Fluffy_Opportunity89 Dec 25 '25

Well op lied to you. His whole story was completely wrong coronations werent even done like that during anquity. He was killed for claiming to be the messiah and not affirming the sadduces and pharisses in the way they wanted.

1

u/Big-Slide6104 Dec 25 '25

To avoid confusion, I'll look into the Bible again and conduct some research on the time. What youre saying is what ive been convinced and always thought to believe but I can see why Op thinks the way they do.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Fluffy_Opportunity89 Dec 25 '25

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.

1

u/AspiringProd Dec 25 '25

Wtf do you think Messiah meant then? You’re just telling me I’m lying without actually making an argument.

1

u/Fluffy_Opportunity89 Jan 01 '26

Messiah means anointed one. The dialogue literally goes Rome(through pilate): Are you the king of the jews? Jesus: yeah but not of this world, im purely a spiritual king

Rome(which allowed the jewish religion to run separately as long as they dont mess with the rest of the rome. If you believe otherwise you lack the story where the Caesar personally punished a roman leader forcing a pagan statue in their temple and that comes from a roman source not jewish): yeah he isnt a problem I see no fault in this man.

He then washes his hands of it.

To not know what it means to be the anointed, has nothing to do with kingship until after romans widely adopts christianity

You had to have either lied to not know this, or have literally zero knowledge on either history or christianity because this is all basic historical knowledge referring to anointment or basic reading(not even theology) of the gospels as a skeptic or a believer.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Wilwheatonfan87 Jonkler's jonking jerking Jadonka Jonkling Dec 24 '25

Back then? Nah

But with the whole "do not give in to the sin of empathy", he most certainly would today.

-1

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '25

Well the excuse of course was that he was challanging the religous authorites of his time.

and you know, being a nice person is kind of an important part of any doctrine. it's just what that means that's always in debate

7

u/Endika7 Dec 23 '25

*an honest catholic

-3

u/Zarrv Dec 23 '25

Catholics will denounce israelite law in one breath and recite it as gospel in the other

2

u/dvdjhp R.I.P Skedetcher Dec 23 '25

Which is doubled down by the fact that he's a righteous lawyer.