Why doesn't Batman kill Joker? Because this.

I dunno, the TV series Angel, which drew on many of the same tropes as Batman, got some pretty good mileage out of the idea that its Big Bad could never be truly defeated, making them a metaphor for the struggles of life.

Of course, in that show the Big Bad was a large organization controlled by unseen demonic forces, not an individual you could actually punch in the face.

Arresting the Joker doesn't permanently take him out of the picture, but it does keep him off the streets for a few weeks/months. It's a short term solution, but since humans are inherently mortal, all attempts to save lives are short term solutions. How is that a False Dichotomy?

edited 8th Jun '13 11:44:43 AM by RavenWilder

Kind of pessimistic, aren't we?

No, a pessimist expects the worst possible outcome, while an optimist expects the best possible outcome; when it comes to human mortality, there's only one possible outcome, so optimism and pessimism don't come into play.

Hence, my First Rule of Adversarial Storytelling - Never make the hero more powerful than the villain. You might end up with the unlikely combination of an Invincible Failure Hero. Also, Buffy was much more sarcastic and self-aware in tone - something the Bat could seriously use. Accepting the Joker's Immunity and Arkham's Cardboard Prison status with a straight face is nothing short of a Deus Angst Machina that's getting really old really fast.

@Raven: The Joker is not like Wolfram & Hart or the hearts of mortals. The Joker is akin to someone like Lindsay MacDonald, Lyla Morgan, Jasmine, or the Circle of the Black Thorn - one person who, while evil, can be put down.

However, apart from Jasmine for one season, there was no actual big bad in Angel; the evil ultimately spawned from the darkness within every human. That isn't a villain - that's an abstract concept, a Jungian archetype that you can't just defeat. Sure, you can eliminate those who perpetuate it, even kill those who mastermind and exploit it for their own ends to show they don't control you, but ultimately you're just making a stand against an invincible, abstract entity which won't truly go away until everyone joins you in embracing the good, rejecting the evil, and standing up for what's right.

The Joker is not that. He's an evil clown who can be physically defeated and eliminated.

Hmm.

You know, several well-regarded Batman writers made names for themselves writing Judge Dredd. Perhaps it would have been good for Batman if those people had brought some of Mega-City One to Gotham. Remove the focus from the maniacs per se and instead emphasise that Batman's true enemy is ultimately Gotham itself. Sure, the courts can execute the Joker, and while they're at it also do in the Scarecrow, Riddler, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, Ra's al Ghul, Two-Face, and whoever else happens to be around, but as long as Gotham is as shit as it is, it will keep spawning maniacs who have to be dealt with, and whose insanity is a particularly efficient and destructive meme, constantly growing and becoming ever more infectious and deadly.

But that would require Bruce Wayne to stop dressing as a bat, donate his equipment to the police department to use lawfully, and spend his money on social problems.

Ukrainian Red Cross

And that wouldn't sell comics.

You know, while I'm seeing many 'comics should be fun'-arguing posts, several posters who say that also tend to get themselves too wrapped into the technicalities of trying to apply real world logics into vigilante-fights-violent-maniacs escapism.

You know, I'd actually like to see a year long or so subplot arc where Joker is released on a technicality and then, just to mess with Batman's mind, chooses to NOT pull crimes off. Like, Batman has him watched 24/24 and all Joker is doing is trolling people in the Internet and selling his tell-all autobiography. And just the paranoia over it drives Batman even crazier than if Joker actually was commiting crimes.

I feel it's more of a response to the current "realistic" trend some of the comics themselves are going through. I mean, if the comic tries to take itself seriously, I'll try to take it seriously. But if it fails to deliver, it's only natural to comment on its failings. Some Necessary Weasels just don't work in a more serious tone. Even Judge Dredd is closer to a parody of the man-versus-city conflict rather than a straight example.

Concerning the Joker, his "clown prince of crime" years are much more suitable for escapist entertainment than the strap-on-face Ted Bundy we're stuck with today, played dead serious, and yet still benefiting from Joker Immunity and Batman's enforced Thou Shalt Not Kill policy. In real life, Ted Bundy got the chair, and didn't come back afterwards. "Realistically", I'd expect nothing less for the clown. DC can't have that particular cake and eat it too.

Conversely, if he got a slightly Lighter and Softer makeover, and Batman gained at least some sense of self-awareness about the whole Gotham situation, then people would lay off their back, relax, and enjoy the ride.

Imperfect example, since it did have the Jokerz, and they were lots of fun to watch. :P

I don't think Bane works well in the ideological villain role he had in DKR, but under other circumstances I agree very much.

As for Black Mask... This entire conversation was making me think of the Arkham games enough as it was already. ;)

The Revolution Will Not Be Tropeable

That's a False Dichotomy. Being willing to bend or break certain laws to keep the peace and protect the innocent doesn't mean you automatically leap to the laws not meaning anything. Even in Real Life, the American ideal is for someone to do the right thing even if it means standing up to an incompetent or unjust law, and then submitting oneself to a review of their peers. No, it isn't perfect, but it's better than anything else we've tried.

That being said, as I said before, the fact that no such peer review exists in comics (except for when superheroes put other superheroes "on trial") is stupid. It would make perfect sense for the authorities to officially deputize Batman, or authorize kill-on-sight orders for The Joker. Since Batman has proven that the police are utterly inept without him, it makes no fucking sense for this NOT to be the case. I swear to God, if I see another story where a criminal goes free because Batman or Spider-man or somebody "didn't read him his rights", I'm going to punch a goat.

OK, let's say Batman brings in someone to the police and presents evidence that they're responsible for a crime.

How does anyone know this is the same Batman? It's far from impossible for someone else to copy his costume, as seen at the start of The Dark Knight. Even if you restrict yourself to comic canon, there have been at least two other people who took on the Batman identity over the years.

Ukrainian Red Cross

Batman's identity issues are more a case of Depending on the Writer. He bounces between being an unconfirmed urban legend, Jim Gordon's on call private investigator, or a highly visible member of the Justice League. In the latter, he would have some legal recognition. In JLU it was hinted that government higher-ups like Amanda Waller do know who he is and keep tabs on him.

I'm personally more concerned about just how far the writers can push the Bat down the Darker and Edgier drain before it starts getting ridiculous, especially in contrast to his more idealistic coLeagues. How far can Gotham sink into despair and corruption before Superman or the Flash raise an eyebrow to the cowl's counterproductive handywork? I know that Superman Stays Out of Gotham, but that excuse too is wearing out its welcome.

Well, if Superman starts mucking around in Gotham, we'll just have a The Dark Knight Returns on our hands, and then we'll have a The Dark Knight Strikes Again, and no-one wants that, do we?

edited 9th Jun '13 5:59:09 AM by kkhohoho

Oy vey... Seriously, anything but that.

In fact, I feel the problem with Batman writers nowadays is in trying too hard to avoid Schumacher-level Camp, and inadvertently crashing into Miller-level melodramatic self-importance. The Nolanverse almost dove straght in, and was mercilessly parodied for taking itself a bit too seriously. From what I've seen, The New 52 has also taken this route, with Death Of The Family going well over into Darkness-Induced Audience Apathy in how much of a pointless, utter cop-out it turned out to be.

edited 9th Jun '13 7:59:52 AM by indiana404

He still wouldn't have legal recognition unless he's willing to expose his identity to a jury of somewhat randomly-selected civilians. It's not the government that needs to be willing to accept the idea that only the man here in the courtroom can be the same masked man who caught the villain; it's the judge presiding over the case and the people in the jury stand. A courtroom frowns heavily on anonymity.

edited 9th Jun '13 9:05:01 AM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

That's only if you need Batman actually in the courtroom to make a case, which I would imagine would be a rarity. When The Joker goes on National TV and announces "hey everybody, I'm gonna kill you all!" that's really not necessary anymore.

Further, this makes the mistake of working Batman into an incompetent legal system instead of working an incompetent legal system around Batman. The entire point to the legal system is to provide justice and safety to the population. In the DCU, particularly Gotham, it has clearly failed to do that. There is no point in keeping something that doesn't work.

If Batman is literally the only thing standing between your city and total destruction, who gives a fuck if he never identifies who he is? Recognize "Batman" as a legal entity. Make "Batman" a person with special privileges. There are countless was to prove that this particular person in front of you is THE Batman. (He has a shitload of technology, and he has an alien friend that can pop in and go "Yup, that's him" and go about his business. You can use voice-recognition software. You can ask him the fucking password. Hell, use all of the above. whatever.)

edited 9th Jun '13 9:58:33 AM by KingZeal

Point. Then again, DC's world seems arbitrarily trusting when it comes to its capes, no matter how many Brainwashed and Crazy rampages they've been on. Apparently, aside from Hero Insurance, they're also covered for Hero Legal Recognition. And as I said, this works in a more casual and self-aware setting, but not in the Grimdark Crapsack World the D Cn U is shaping up to be.

Conversely, if the Bat isn't recognized by the court... then what's the point of him anyway? One guy beating up random crooks is actually pretty useless on a citywide scale, without something to actually keep them behind bars for good. Memetic Badass status notwithstanding, the Bat's actually batting close to zero, making all his dramatic posturing and pathos feel for naught.

edited 9th Jun '13 9:59:46 AM by indiana404

Wall of text time!

The problem here is that Batman != Bruce Wayne.

Bruce Wayne has a birth certificate, social security number, passport, and driver's license. Batman has none of those things. So, if Batman were to testify or present evidence, it would be worth nothing, since he's completely anonymous - Batman can be anybody. Perhaps he's a millionaire who wants to help fight crime. Perhaps he's a cop who wants to cut through due process. Perhaps he's a gangster who wants to eliminate the competition. We simply don't know.

In contrast, Bruce Wayne has a well-established, verifiable, legal identity. If he happens to bring in a criminal, he can testify and give evidence no problem.

We the readers know that, with the exception of a couple of blips, Bruce Wayne is playing the part of Batman all the time. However, in the DC Universe, there are maybe 20 people who know that, and half of them don't legally exist either.

---

I've been pondering secret identities over the past couple of days, especially that of Batman. I think this might be a case where Comic-Book Time ends up wrecking plausible continuity.

The idea of a secret identity goes back to The Scarlet Pimpernel, the first novel of which appeared in 1905 and was set in the 1790s. The Scarlet Pimpernel resembles Batman in many respects - both are masquerade as rich idiots with no day jobs, only to secretly become badass anonymous shadows by night.

In this case, the secret identity was in there as little more than a pulp plot device which allowed Orczy to pull off a big reveal - Percy Blakeney was the Scarlet Pimpernel all along! However, his secret identity does serve a purpose - since he is basically working to undermine the activities of the French government, that makes him an international criminal. Hence, he actually needs the mask to avoid legal persecution.

The Scarlet Pimpernel inspired Franchise/{[Zorro}}, the first novel of which was published in 1919 and was set in the 19th century. It used many of the same tropes while managing to present a somewhat inverted scenario. While the Scarlet Pimpernel rescued kind, sympathetic aristocrats from ravening hordes of evil peasants, Zorro was a hero to the oppressed, fighting for the common man against the evil nobleman Ramon. Even so, Zorro is a lot like the Pimpernel - foppish, wimpy nobleman who dons a mask and costume to fight evil anonymously.

Zorro famously inspired Batman, but there are differences. Both Zorro and the Pimpernel have great need of disguises. As I have already mentioned, the Scarlet Pimpernel is a criminal. Zorro is also a criminal, since Ramon is the legal governor of California and has personally filled the police, army, and regional governorships with men loyal to him who stand to profit by oppressing the common man. Hence, for Zorro, anonymity is critical.

Another early hero with a secret identity was The Shadow, which first appeared in 1931 and was set around the same time. The Shadow in the original stories was an anonymous manipulative chessmaster who used a variety of secret identities to manipulate both criminals and the police. The radio series changed this up quite a bit to better fit the format, turning him into a dude with a single secret identity and just one sidekick instead of a wide network of informants and agents.

Also appearing around this time was The Lone Ranger, whose use of a mask was tied to his origin - he was the sole survivor of an ambush, and he wore the mask to prevent the bandits knowing which of their victims had lived to tell the tale.

Finally, there's The Phantom, which began in 1936 The Phantom is established as a legacy character with origins in the 16th century; when one Phantom dies, another takes up the mantle. In this way, while the DNA may be different, the mask can never die, and so unlike those who wear the mask, the Phantom himself is in a sense immortal.

Unlike Zorro or the Scarlet Pimpernel, but in common with the Shadow as well as, interestingly, pre-Crisis Superman and post-Crisis Batman, the Phantom is the character's primary identity. When a man becomes the new Phantom, he gives over his identity fully, becoming the Phantom at all times. If he needs to go out among normals, he does not remove the Phantom layer; rather, he puts on the identity of Mr. Walker.

So, when DC and Timely were getting started in the late 30s, secret identities were already a popular trope in pulp fiction. DC embraced the Shadow/Phantom approach with Superman (1938), who put on the identity of Clark Kent, mild-mannered journalist, so he could hear about crimes as they happened.

A fact commonly overlooked today is that Superman was originally a social hero. He didn't fight supervillains, and rarely even tangled with bank robbers. Rather, his enemies were crooked politicians and businessmen who made life difficult for the common person, somewhat reminiscent of Zorro. Seriously, just look at the sort of thing he got up to before America entered WWII.

That same year, The Crimson Avenger debuted in Detective Comics. Taking extensive inspiration from Zorro and The Green Hornet, the Crimson Avenger was a wealthy but self-satisfied newspaper tycoon who decided to take a more proactive role in fighting crime and injustice after a journalist who criticised him died in his arms. I haven't been able to find any good reason why he needed to be anonymous, so it would seem that even at this stage the idea that pulp heroes needed secret identities and masks was becoming standard regardless of justification.

Captain America is another masked hero who appeared during this time. In this case, the costume served a double purpose. First of all, since Steve Rogers was assigned to ferret out Nazi spies in the US military, anonymity was critical lest the Nazis look him up and discover the Captain America Program. Secondly, by dressing in the flag, he became a symbol of how Naziism could never triumph over freedom, because America would always find and cast out those who sought to subvert her.

And then there's Batman. First appearing a year after the Crimson Avenger, Batman was a character very much in the Scarlet Pimpernel/Zorro tradition - a supposedly foppish dandy who secretly uses his money to operate as a badass vigilate.

Now, the thing about Batman is that he first appeared during the Great Depression. During this time, the Mafia had infiltrated and gained influence over most facets of society, and the police were routinely in the mobsters' pockets. Hence, in this milieu, it would actually make sense for someone to operate under an anonymous mask, as the cops would often be gangsters themselves.

Batman owes its longevity to an abundance of camp, which gave it an edge over The Crimson Avenger, making it the most popular strip in Detective Comics and thus allowing it to in turn become the headliner series and later take over the entire comic book. This also meant that it required only minimal retooling when the Comics Code was introduced, which also contributed to its long life.

However, the world today is very different to that of the 30s and early 40s. The Mafia isn't as huge or omnipresent as it once was, with the crimes due to the RICO act and much-increased integration of ethnic Italians into American society; most of what the Mafia did do is now performed by loose networks of small, local gangs. Police corruption, while still a significant problem, is much less.

And this is where the problem sets in for Batman. Due to comic book time, DC is now claiming that he started operating in 2007, at a time when police had become much, much better at catching criminals than they were when he canonically began. Hence, working as a masked vigilante, while making sense during the Great Depression, is nowhere near as good an idea during the Credit Crunch.

This could actually be fixed in three ways, all of which require acknowledging the passage of time. Either way, Batman has been active since around 1929.

In one scenario, Batman is a legacy character a la the Phantom, with the cowl passing on to Robin when the current Batman is injured or gets too old. The new Batman then takes on a Robin of his own to train as his successor.

In the second, Batman is and always has been Bruce Wayne. However, due to magic, alien rays, special treatments, and various other things, has had his aging retarded and reversed at various points, which means he can keep doing strong physical stunts even after 80 years.

The third scenario is the most parsimonious. Admit and acknowledge that people haven't aged since 1930, and for some unknown reason, everybody born since then ceases to age at a seemingly random point. Nobody is quite sure why this is, but they also don't especially mind because hey, immortality!

This third approach eliminates the absurd situation where a story that clearly took place in the 70s or 80s is declared to have happened in the 2000s, until 2020, when it suddenly happened in the 10s all along, as well as all those stories which actually did take place in the 10s.

Ukrainian Red Cross

Actually, it's not so much "corruption" that's the problem now so much as it's simple abuse of power. Take the current digital age. Both the government and corporations have so many ways of tracking you (cell phones, rental cars, GPS, internet browsing, social networking, etc) that the ability to abuse power is always there. For example, although technically illegal, the FBI and law-enforcement have used some of these methods to catch criminals. Using illegal methods to catch a criminal apparently isn't a problem if you have a strong case outside of the illegal stuff.

Batman's problem nowadays is that what he is has began to matter more than what he does - a route that a superhero can't afford to go on. Especially in Joker-related incidents, the notion that if he kills him, he'll be no different from him always has me raise an eyebrow and say: "Dude, you're supposed to be protecting innocents, not rationalizing why you won't; get over yourself already, and put other people's lives before your own ego for a change". Killing may be illegal, sure, but there's no jury on Earth that'll condemn him in that particular case.

Conversely, Gotham has to remain a 30's-esque Vice City Noir, in spite of all economic progress that would discredit it as such in a modern setting. Quite the contrary - modern awareness of power abuse is what would turn a mask-wearing violent one-percenter vigilante into a villain. Society Marches On, it seems.

edited 9th Jun '13 10:23:02 AM by indiana404

I don't know about that last part.

I've noticed as of late that you really can't make comparisons to modern society to comic book worlds. I've mentioned this before, but superheroes are reminiscent of feudal systems: a system which basically acknowledged that life isn't "fair", and sometimes people are just "better" (or at least, more meritous) than others. That's something hard for us nowadays to get our heads around, because we believe in the idea that every person is equal or should be.

But superhero stories try to have both; they try to tell a story in which someone is clearly better than the rest of us, but still give lip-service to the idea that they're not really better than us. There's usually some sort of argument that society as we know it is worth preserving at any cost, which is why we see so much of Reed Richards Is Useless and Status Quo Is God. There's a simultaneous attempt to show us that superheroes are necessary, but at the same time say that modern society is absolute.

edited 9th Jun '13 10:39:50 AM by KingZeal

I don't really see superheroes as better, mostly because in such cases I always ask "better at what?" - and the Superhero Paradox means that whatever they're better at, it ain't crime fighting. Rather, I see them as equivalents to the Super Robot or the Kaiju - larger than life figures fighting over real world concerns. Think about it: Superman - the social justice people's champion; Batman - the vicious avenger of unpunished crime; the X-Men - social outcasts for being born different; the Fantastic Four - a dysfunctional yet loving family (with Doom as the Black Sheep uncle); and Deadpool - the fallen man desperately trying to do better.

However, at some point the supernatural powers and storytelling elements surrounding them have become self-serving, with tropes like Joker Immunity and Hero Insurance being addressed seriously in-universe, when there isn't any need to. And the heroes themselves get treated as anything from feudal overlords to objectivist ubermenschen, or even Gods Among Us - a far cry from the escapist light entertainment they started as. At least Marvel has people like Squirrel Girl to deflate and lampshade the hell out of such developments, while DC seems to openly embrace them as important plot points, which I think makes for Fantastic Aesops at best.

edited 9th Jun '13 1:20:43 PM by indiana404

But that's beside the point. You've made it clear in past conversations that you like dark and edgy characters. What I'm talking about is a setting where superheroes actually do make the world better—but the process of doing so would typically turn the comic setting from a world that's like ours into a model for what our world could be.

Superhero worlds have to change, for either the better or worse. Characters like you describe—the faulty, imperfect anti-heroes— are problematic because eventually they just don't work with any long-term. Darkness-Induced Audience Apathy either sets if the characters get too dark, or the characters never change. Spider-man and Batman are perfect examples; how many stories have been about them learning the exact same lesson over and over again?

Actually, I like consistent characters. I like the Punisher and Deadpool not because they're edgy, but because they practice what they preach and hold nothing back. I also like Green Lantern and the Flash because their ideals match their attitude. Batman, however, I don't get - he's supposed to be dark and scary, but his staunch moral code means he'll never make good on a threat; he's brooding and tragic due to losing his parents, but being orphaned can only be milked for so much drama before it starts looking self-absorbed and melodramatic. Both he and his petty-crime ridden city stick out like sore thumbs in a world casually dealing with alien overlords and ancient monsters.

In contrast, at least Spider-Man lives in a New York similar to ours, where crime rates have been dropping steadily for decades, new technology enters our lives on a daily basis, and the flawed, imperfect people populating it can always aspire to be better - the same aspiration that makes those flawed, imperfect heroes relatable and inspiring... not to mention the villains. If it's gotten old for Peter Parker to keep relearning how with great power Comes Great Responsibility, I'm interested to see how the same lesson will turn out for Otto Octavius.

The Punisher and Deadpool practice what they preach? Meaning what?

And if you believe that someone can't be scary and have a strong moral code, you've never been in an actual interrogation.

Depending on what kind of interrogation you're in, the person interrogating you is often entirely willing and able to do everything he's trying to threaten you with. Batman isn't. His words are empty, his threats are meaningless. The criminal has all the power because Batman won't kill him, and Batman won't Fate Worse than Death him because his pacifism is the result of a staunch moral code, and Fate Worse than Death is even more immoral than killing someone. So as long as his morals are holding him back, there is only so far he can go, and he's so famous that everybody knows it.

As an aside, one thing that's bothered me over the course of this discussion is people advocating the idea of, "You'd be surprised what you can live through," as if it's some kind of moral high ground. It's true that yes, Batman could cut out someone's eyes and tongue, stitched their ears shut, cut off their legs while they're alive and screaming, then set them to work in a slave mining camp where they're forced to dig jagged rocks out of the dirt with their bare knuckles for the rest of their short, miserable life, and it wouldn't be killing him. But I fail to see how that would be a morally acceptable alternative to putting a .22 slug between their eyes.

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.