Jason and Dick chat

[benicio127.insanejournal.com]

A moment between these two that doesn't involve either getting their junk punched.

I don't know about you, but I would say this is a clear anti-hero moment for Jason. (And then along came ... well, you know.)



From Outsiders 44 & 45. Eight scans.

 Is that last panel pretty much a slasher's fantasy or what?



















As written by Winick, pre- BftC, (obviously, since now Jason eats babies or the souls of young cherubic children or something.)

Comments

[runespoor7.insanejournal.com]

He has to endure being reviled as someone who makes a mockery of the law while privately binding himself within the law. You just can't have it both ways. Either you can get your hands dirty or you can't.

And he's picked his fights and drawn his limits. Batman catches bad guys. That's what he does. He doesn't follow due procedure and that is that as far as things he doesn't obey go. He doesn't judge. He doesn't make the laws. The system that he's criticizing by his existence is the police, not separation of powers as a whole.

I maintain that killing someone like the Joker or Zsas wouldn't be murder, it would be a "putting down".

Maintain all you like, legally it wouldn't mean squat. They're human beings, they get exactly the same rights as other human beings.

If you decide to work above the system because its broken, then you're supposed to go the whole hog and make sure they can't escape either.

Well, no, your 'supposed' doesn't carry a lot of weight since you're not 'supposed' to put yourself above the system either.

You can't tell me Bruce couldn't have done the same, if he were willing to bend the rules a bit more.

I don't doubt that if he wanted to he'd be an excellent fascist leader, and I am very glad that so far he's been able to stop himself from it. Incidentally, the sort of scenario you're describing is also why I am so opposed to Tim as Batman.

[ladymirth.insanejournal.com]

The system that he's criticizing by his existence is the police, not separation of powers as a whole.

I'm not critizing the separation of powers. I'm saying that crime is rampant in Gotham not only because of a corrupt police force, but also because the legal system is rigged in favour of the mobs and DAs, judges and mayors can all be bought and sold. In which case, addressing only one facet of corruption makes Batman ineffectual.

Maintain all you like, legally it wouldn't mean squat. They're human beings, they get exactly the same rights as other human beings.

I think you use the term "human being" rather loosely here, but in any case, can you honestly see any jury in the world condemning Batman (or anyone really) for offing any of these repeat offender sociopaths? Of course, the jury never gets a say in what should happen to the Joker because he's never given a chance to appear in court.

Well, no, your 'supposed' doesn't carry a lot of weight since you're not 'supposed' to put yourself above the system either.

I'm saying there's no point in breaking the rules if you don't achieve your objective in doing so at the end of the day. Batman going out and playing bad cop night after night in the hope of making a dent in the crime rate is as effective as slapping a bandage on an open artery wound.

I don't doubt that if he wanted to he'd be an excellent fascist leader, and I am very glad that so far he's been able to stop himself from it. Incidentally, the sort of scenario you're describing is also why I am so opposed to Tim as Batman.

This is where you and I diverge, because it is the same reason that I am in favour of Tim becoming Batman - he's more practical and less emotionally fettered by his past than Bruce is, and a LOT less idealistic than Dick. I personally don't see how this makes him a fascist leader, since he's operating under the same sort of unofficial sanction Bruce does save that he's assuming the role of both cop and jailer. But your reservations are actually shared by the rest of the superhero community in my fic, who consequently treat Tim with disapproval because they perceive his methods to be a slippery slope to world domination as well as unethical for a superhero.

I don't want to argue about this ad infinitum with you, since it's clear that our moral outlooks are very different. But just to sum up, what I'm saying is this: Monsters walk among us in human clothing. If they cannot be contained, they need to be put down. One cannot bring order into complete chaos through democratic means. Sometimes, you have to work completely outside the system to right its wrongs. Sometimes, you can either protect your ideals or you can protect people. If you aren't superpowered, it usually means you can't do both. And there should be exceptions to every rule - including the "no kill" one.

[sistermagpie.insanejournal.com]

I think Tim's "fascist leader" problems aren't about his willingness to kill, they're about his oft-shown desire to want to control people in order to have order. He sets his enemies up as Death and Chaos, two things he will never beat, and strives to think of people more like chess pieces than people so that he's not distracted by emotion. That's what gives him the possible road to supervillain-dom.

[ladymirth.insanejournal.com]

I know and well put! He wants to micro-manage the whole world, and I LOVE the little freak to death for it. Hee! Oh, Bats, you're all batshit crazy obsessive-compulsive paranoid control freaks. Except Dick, who just has too many Daddy issues than he can handle, poor boy. Well, up until recently.

Tim Drake = making control freak Voldemortesque ambitions seem like adorable character quirks since 1987.

[taggerung301.insanejournal.com]

I'm going to sneak into the whole killing morality discussion if no one minds too much.

Here's my humble little thoughts on it:

Killing the joker isn't a moral action. Killing is never moral. However, it can be a good solution. I don't want Batman to start killing people, but can you seriously say that killing the Joker would be a horrible thing?

To put things in a more realistic perspective (well, sort of), think of this scenario:
You're driving to work one day, and you hear on the radio that a convicted killer has escaped from jail somehow and has been running around killing and seriously wounding multiple people and has been able to avoid the cops so far. They don't know where he is, and although you are concerned, you continue to drive to work.
When you arrive, you find a dead cop lying halfway in and out of the front door. You cautiously glance inside and see several other dead bodies, several of whom you recognize as coworkers and friends. The killer is standing in the middle of the reception area with his back toward you, firing at various screaming people. You notice that the dead police officer has a gun in his hand.
So here's the question: Do you run away from the building and call the cops, or do you call the cops and then pick up the gun and at least try to kill the man. This is assuming that you are not proficient with firearms, and you most likely cannot get in a shot that merely incapacitates the killer without killing him.
Granted, this frightening situation may not give you much chance to think through your actions, and running away would be a natural reaction. However, assuming that you have some clarity, could you really completely rule out the possibility of picking up that gun and trying to end the massacre? Can you justify saving one life while risking countless others? If you succeed in cutting the killer down, you may feel immense guilt (hopefully at least some anyway - killing shouldn't be an easy act), but I would assume that you would rather feel an immense burden over you for the rest of your life than seeing more people die.

And as someone said before, in DC comics things are very different. People don't stay in jail for good. We shouldn't have killing vigilantees today because people DO stay in jail and they don't have super powers that they can use to break out and kill hundreds of people.


But anywho, that's just my thoughts on it