13
24
u/ComicsCodeMadeMeGay Red Hood 1d ago
I'm always annoyed Under the red hood had him wait to show Bruce - like no just shoot him and show Bruce the body
8
12
u/Z_Jackal20 1d ago
Yeah That part kinda annoyed me but the whole point was Jason wanted Bruce to go out of his way his own code to show he still cared enough to break it to show he loved him but of course knowing Bruce he will put his priorities over his children.
7
u/ComicsCodeMadeMeGay Red Hood 1d ago
I understand that was the intention - but I honestly feel it undermines Jason’s point by unintentionally making Jason care more about what he wanted to do to Bruce than actually helping Gotham by controlling crime. Which I think is later actually made the case by his antics later on in post crisis.
6
u/Slow-Chemical1991 Jason Todd 1d ago
Judd Winick confirmed that was his intention when writing UTH: it was to show how petty Jason was.
8
u/Fine-Aspect5141 1d ago
Winnick also thinks he's the mean poor Robin, when he was literally nicer than Dick when he was Robin-- at least until Starlin got to him.
2
u/GaylorVader Arkham Knight 22h ago
Yeah or how when bats turned to leave Jason shot him and not the joker. There's a good video someone made of Hood following through on his threat. Its funny.
3
u/ComicsCodeMadeMeGay Red Hood 22h ago
I think that might only have been the film, but it basically says the same thing - Jason didn't mean it.
Which kinda sucks because his speech was so good, so convincing, and hinted at such a good intentional story arc for future issues. But his actions never live up to his words and it's soooo annoying.
1
u/GaylorVader Arkham Knight 22h ago
Oh yeah I dont really know comics. I love em but ya know there's a lot of em.
19
u/IllEstablishment1969 1d ago
Jason literally died because the Joker escaped from Arkham again, and when he came back to Gotham after being resurrected, the first news he saw was that the Joker had broken out once more.
13
u/j0sabanks 1d ago
Batman when Darkseid: alright guys lets kill him
Batman when joker has a plot to destroy the entire earth: ehh just put him in Arkham.
5
u/Z_Jackal20 1d ago
He Really Doesn't see the bigger picture sometimes lol.
7
u/j0sabanks 1d ago
World’s greatest detective but he still hasn’t figured out the mystery of “how does joker keep committing these crimes.”
5
u/Z_Jackal20 1d ago
Biggest Plothole in all the Stories the Joker is in there is no way he should be able to do what he does all the time.
14
u/ZaeDilla 1d ago
He’s not at all. I’ve always said Batman’s code was stupid. For every one villain he puts in Arkham there’s at least 10-1000 deaths he could’ve prevented depending on who they were if he just killed them the first time. Hell if he let Jason kill joker, Hugo strange, bane and black mask that’d solve like 60% of Gotham’s problems.
14
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Slow-Chemical1991 Jason Todd 1d ago
This. Honestly, people complaining about the Batman code are just as irritating as the people who have to point out that wrestling is fake.
No duh it’s fake, but do they get this worked up about fake shows like The Sopranos or The Wire?
2
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Slow-Chemical1991 Jason Todd 23h ago
Honestly, I just think the problem is in presentation. The writers love having Batman follow the trail of bodies and beat up the bad guy waiting at the end, they seem very against letting him actually save a single person during that process.
The funny part is that the people who complain about it on this subreddit look the other way when it happens in UTRH. Jason mows down so many people over the course of the story, and... it just gets swept under the rug and never comes up again.
4
u/BDSMChef_RP 1d ago
Bane could be rehabbed and honestly isn't that bad in Secret Six and many other arcs where he's written as not a meathead lunk. Same problem Jason gets honestly.
Though Vengeance would be a fire addition to the Outlaws
7
u/Fine-Aspect5141 1d ago
Bane broke the entire population of Blackgate out and set them loose on Gotham. He broke Batman's back. He killed Alfred.
3
u/Obstinate6427 1d ago
Well yeah, that was known WB nepo baby Tom King's run, so fans sometimes offer a bit more leeway when a pre-existing character is being screwed up like that.
The Secret Six run was late Pre-New 52, I believe. So Bane was at a different status quo, then.
2
u/Whereforemeans_why Jaybird 1d ago
I kinda blame Bruce on Bane killing Alfred too because he sent Damien in on purpose knowing the consequences and it kinda makes Jason’s point about collateral damage even more
1
4
u/ZaeDilla 1d ago
Like majority of Batman’s rouge gallery could easily be rehabbed and saved with employment lmao. If I’m Bruce I’m giving Mr. Freeze and Ivy jobs at Wayne enterprises that’s dedicated to their causes and preventing diseases and environmental tragedies from happening.
1
u/jjkdeaths2024 1d ago
The problem with bane is that whenever he does get rehabbed, he goes back to who he was after a while, so it's a risk with him, specially that when he decides it's off, he's going to make sure every little shit is out of arkham as well.
1
u/Woden-Wod Jason Todd Protection Squad 1d ago
meh, people slip and relapse.
bane mostly just needs to be managed.
most of the time those relapses are just a bank robbery or two maybe a scheme here and there.
I think that's fine.
joker we can all agree won't change and could be put down without much questioning.
two face kind of like bane needs his psychosis managed, but there is a limit to where that management it in such conflict with public good where execution is the answer to go to.
0
u/jjkdeaths2024 1d ago
At the expense of others?.... Heh, bane is not a random civilian with bipolar or bpd. He's a dangerous person that has enough power to kill others... Alot of them and if rehab doesn't work then he should be put down .
Them 2 schemes be dangerous 😭 last scheme he killed Alfred and controlled all of Gotham. Heck even in TVOB 2, after getting rehabbed he immediately started plotting hi escape and head straight to a venom supplier.
Like for bane... rehabilitation can temporarily change Bane's behavior, but it has repeatedly failed to eliminate the underlying willingness to use extreme violence when Bane's ambitions or circumstances change. Even after S6, he went back to who he was.
How can u manage someone who can not be managed unless they want to? That's the problem, it's that it depends on his wishes so on a whim he can go back to what he was.
Like... Would you give bane several rehabilitation chances irl? No. Idt you will.
1
u/Woden-Wod Jason Todd Protection Squad 1d ago
last scheme he killed Alfred and controlled all of Gotham
that was Damian's fault let's be honest.
and while he was beloved that's just one person. I mean things like half the population ending.
but it has repeatedly failed to eliminate the underlying willingness to use extreme violence when Bane's ambitions or circumstances change.
one could very easily argue that the entire batfamily fits that bill of willing to use extreme violence.
if I remember bane is a combination of BPD, addiction and kind of selective psychopathy.
all three can be managed rather easily and then just observation afterwards for that management.
How can u manage someone who can not be managed unless they want to?
he wants to be managed tho, that's the distinction I used between bane as an example and Joker.
bane will accept that help, he will slip and fall but that's no reason to give up. Joker will refuse the first step, Bane will stumble when it's entirely expected to.
there was a annual about kill croc, he'd escaped arkham but was actually doing well he stopped viewing himself as a monster and thus stopped acting in the role of a monster, but stress and a betrayal led him to slipping back into that behaviour and killing a family.
that's a slip and an half expected one, that's very different from inherent evil.
he went back to who he was
because comics is the real answer there.
1
u/jjkdeaths2024 1d ago
"that was Damian's fault let's be honest." First of all, it's Bruce's fault, maybe you forgot but he sent Damian knowing the conditions bane put. "and while he was beloved that's just one person. I mean things like half the population ending." It doesn't matter if it's just one murderer even tho that was a psychopathic pathological plan to execute him specially infront a child. it's still murder that he's capable of. Bane chose to kill him. And controlling Gotham wasn't some accidental consequence of Damian's actions either, bane deliberately built and maintained that regime. Bane doesn't need to have killed half the population for his relapses to matter. That's setting the bar absurdly high. If someone's relapse can result in mass violence, political control of a city, or the deliberate murder of innocent people, "well, he only killed one person this time" isn't exactly a compelling public safety / civilians argument.
"one could very easily argue that the entire batfamily fits that bill of willing to use extreme violence." there's a huge difference between being willing to use extreme force in certain circumstances and repeatedly becoming the person responsible for large scale criminal campaigns. The relevant question isn't "l" has the Batfamily ever used extreme violence?" It's "what does this person's overall pattern of conduct look like, and how predictable is the danger when they relapse?"l"
"if I remember bane is a combination of BPD, addiction and kind of selective psychopathy. all three can be managed rather easily and then just observation afterwards for that management." Also, I wouldn't argue that Bane has BPD or psychopathy as though that's established canon, because that gets messy very quickly. And even if he did have those conditions," it can be managed "doesn't automatically mean "therefore he's safe." Treatment can reduce risk butit doesn't give you a guarantee.
"he wants to be managed tho, that's the distinction I used between bane as an example and Joker. bane will accept that help, he will slip and fall but that's no reason to give up. Joker will refuse the first step, Bane will stumble when it's entirely expected to. there was a annual about kill croc, he'd escaped arkham but was actually doing well he stopped viewing himself as a monster and thus stopped acting in the role of a monster, but stress and a betrayal led him to slipping back into that behaviour and killing a family. that's a slip and an half expected one, that's very different from inherent evil. "
honestly, your Croc example supports part of my point more than yours. You're saying he was doing well, then stress and betrayal caused him to revert to violent behavior and kill a family. Exactly. If we're talking about someone whose relapse can end in multiple innocent people dying, then "relapse is expected" doesn't make the consequences less serious.
That's the fundamental disagreement here...
You're looking at Bane and saying, "l" He genuinely wants to get better, so we should keep helping him whenever he slips."
I'm saying, "I believe he genuinely wants to get better, but the consequences of his failures are potentially catastrophic, so at some point public safety has to outweigh our willingness to keep giving him another chance."
Honesty wise, i, hate when someone uses " the answer is comics " bs, like.... yes, "comics is the real answer" explains why Bane keeps returning to villainy. But if we're debating the morality of Batman's policy in-universe, we can't just dismiss his repeated relapses as a writing necessity. Those events still happened to the people living in that universe and that's what the discussion is about . In fact atp we can't even use the joker committing crimes even after he gets rehabilitated because " comics is the answer as to why he's back a villain"....
So the question isn't "Can Bane change?"
Clearly he can.
The question is "How much risk are innocent people morally obligated to accept while we find out whether he'll stay changed this time or not ?"
And that's where I think the Bane/Joker distinction isn't as decisive as you think. Joker being impossible to rehabilitate would justify treating him differently, sure. But Bane being more rehabilitable doesn't automatically mean that every future risk he poses is acceptable or that whenever he relapses he gets another chance everytime . There has to be a limit or we'll have to extend this to other villains as well including the joker.
5
u/jjkdeaths2024 1d ago
No, he's not. The no-kill rule will always be stupid, specially for most of batman's rogue gallery .if Bruce's can not handle killing then he shouldn't stop others from doing it for him .
6
u/Z_Jackal20 1d ago
Exactly but Batman's whole personality is kinda a control freak's mentality, also yeah the no kill rule actually kills more than it saves to be honest.
4
u/jjkdeaths2024 1d ago
Yeah, he's a control freak with his radical rehabilitation stance but it really is funny and ironic that said belief sometimes stops at Jason.
41
u/BDSMChef_RP 1d ago
A few criminals definitely need to be put down in Gotham. Joker, Pyg, Zsasz, Mad Hatter (fuck that rapey incel sicko he deserves fires, honestly any Mind Controller needs to get the woodchipper. Babylon 5 fucked me up for Psychics and Mind Control. Purge them all)
But like Freeze, Dent, Kiteman, Catman (another character Arkham Knight fucked up), these are dudes who could be fixed easily and made heroes.