Lurker > Donomark

thronedfire2 posted...

Omega Hunter posted...

Who the fuck cares that someone who graduated top of his fucking class and has had a stellar career got too drunk 30+ years ago. This is absurd.

yeah who cares about a judge lying under oath?

I know, right? It's almost like that's a law or something...
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

No, no one "deserves" a Twitter or YouTube account.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Zikten posted...

Donomark posted...

other two deny that they were at the party. They don't deny that she was assaulted

yea and they weren't there so they wouldn't know.

Well, clearly.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

The Admiral posted...

Donomark posted...

I could be completely wrong, and would welcome correction, but my understanding is that none of the people whom she named deny what happened (with the exception of the perpetrators, Judge and Kavanuagh); they deny that they attended the party.

Everything she mentioned pertaining to other people at the party that can be falsified is contradicted by those people. From your article:

- Judge, Kavanaughs classmate who Ford has also implicated in the incident, has said he has no recollection of it. Ford claims that Judge and Kavanaugh were stumbling drunk when they pushed her into a bedroom at the party in question.

- She also says that Judge was in the room while Kavanaugh forced himself on her and intermittently offered his encouragement during the encounter. Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Dr. Fords letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the manner that Dr. Ford describes, Judge has said.

- Patrick J. Smyth, another individual who Ford named as being at the party, has denied attending as well. Both Smyth and Judge have signaled that they are not interested in providing further testimony.

- A fourth person who Ford is believed to have said was at the party, a woman named Leland Keyser, said she does not recall attending the event, according to a New York Times report.

- Keyser informed the Senate Judiciary Committee that she does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.

So none of the external evidence corroborates her accounts. In fact, none of it even corroborates that Kavanaugh was at a party with her at all, something his calendar also indicates.

Yeah, I can certainly understand people not believing her account. However, two of the people that contradict her are the two people she alleges assaulted her. Obviously, Kavanaugh has his calendar, and that helps his case. However, the other two deny that they were at the party. They don't deny that she was assaulted. It's not difficult for me to believe that she could be mistaken as to who attended a party 35 years ago, whilst still being 100% sure of who assaulted her. It's a judgment thing. I don't know. You don't know. We'll see what comes up with the testimony.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

I could be completely wrong, and would welcome correction, but my understanding is that none of the people whom she named deny what happened (with the exception of the perpetrators, Judge and Kavanuagh); they deny that they attended the party.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Zikten posted...

Didn't the person she claimed witnessed the attack say it's not true? That is a huge blow against her story. How can anyone say her accusation has more credibility than his denial after that?

Yes, but she also claimed that he (Mike Judge) encouraged the assault. Naturally, one would not anticipate that he'd admit to that. Of course, that doesn't mean that he did what she claims, but he's not a neutral party, here.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Zikten posted...

Didn't the person she claimed witnessed the attack say it's not true? That is a huge blow against her story. How can anyone say her accusation has more credibility than his denial after that?

Here's a link summarizing what is known at this point.

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/22/17886814/supreme-court-brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford

One person she claims was at the party claims to have not been at the party. Another individual she is believed to have claimed was at the party, claimed that she was not at the party.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Plus, Marvel has several sub-franchises each containing it own web of characters. SW, at least the films, don't really have that bench.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

All jest aside, MJW is underutilized. I bet if he were White Hollywood would've known more of what to do with him.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Jagermeister513 posted...

Because no one wanted to see a Han Solo movie without Harrison Ford in it.

Yup, and no one asked for it.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

FLUFFYGERM posted...

rikasa posted...

Her accusations are far more credible than anything he's come up with. His prior comments, and the prior comments of their peers corroborate her story. Of course he's going to lie and his friend is going to lie for him. They have every reason to and she has none.

No one has ever made false accusations before, and any denial is just more evidence that he did it.

No one has ever been assaulted and not gone to the authorities before.

Anyone can play this game.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

The Admiral posted...

Donomark posted...

This proves absolutely nothing. Most people don't put high school parties on a schedule. All it proves is that it wasn't written down.

You're right, it proves nothing. Something his legal team team admits themselves in the second paragraph of the article.

But if Congress is being asked to make a judgment call based on the best evidence available, and a guy who was meticulous enough to record his "basketball games, movie outings, football workouts and college interviews" didn't record this event, that should be considered in his favor.

Yeah, but like you yourself mentioned, if eyewitnesses put him at the party....who cares?
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

....Why not Spawn?
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

This proves absolutely nothing. Most people don't put high school parties on a schedule. All it proves is that it wasn't written down.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Nope.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

FortuneCookie posted...

Donomark posted...

If we want to talk overrated Disney films, we can talk Lion King.

*puts up flame shield*

If anything, I'd say it's a bit underrated.

Now that is bold.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

It's just not as impressive of a roster--by damn near any stretch. To even attempt to balance this vis--vis Smash, you'd need a significant cache of Square characters, and even their stock isn't what it was in the PSX era.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

If we want to talk overrated Disney films, we can talk Lion King.

*puts up flame shield*
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

voldothegr8 posted...

I don't get the love for Mulan, probably one of my least favorite animated Disney films.

I haven't watched it since the nineties, but I remember enjoying it.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

I've never read any of the books, and I haven't watched Fellowship's two sequels since they were in theaters, but I watched Fellowship a few months ago and was a bit surprised at how inert the film and some of it's performances were (Elijiah Wood). It works as a wonderful visual interpretation of Tolkien, and Ian McKellan is great as Gandalf, but it drags as a film, and Boromir felt underwritten.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Pretty blah. Her costume is eh and she's supported by a dull background. Otherwise, it's fine, but nothing to really get excited over.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

He has no credibility on this issue. Is there a recording of Mark Burnett confirming that no such tape exists?
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Veggeta X posted...

At least Japanese Cell don't sound like Plankton from SpongeBob Square Pants.

That doesn't bother me at all (maybe because I don't watch SpongeBob Squarepants).
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Get him some self-defense classes.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

"And gordon has killed many people while on the job. He'd be a hypocrite and very narrow-minded if he can't see the reasoning that execution/assassination of some criminals are as comparable to murder as his killing of criminals on the job."

In the context of this discussion, I've used the word murder to refer to legal murder (i.e. intentional killing with malice aforethought), not murder as in "a morally unjustified killing." Gordon wouldn't sanction it because it's a killing that's against the law. In the instances where Gordon has killed, I'm sure it was legally permissible (either self-defense from imminent deadly force or defense of others from such imminent threats of force). However, once again, (perhaps fairly) that would bring the discussion toward the inevitable rebuttal of "Well, he permits Batman's existence and if that's a permissible extra-legal exception, then why isn't this one, too?" I think that brings us to the corporate directed fiat of the The Joker May Never Die, whereby circumstances exist such that the Joker is ostensibly human and capable of containment, but nevertheless always escapes.

So, I'm answering your question from the perspective of how Jim Gordon in the established (albeit contrived) continuity would answer your question, not how Jim Gordon in a realistic setting might answer your question. A real-world Jim Gordon would probably agree with you, the Jim Gordon as established in the continuity wouldn't (his attitude being the way it is likely because the writers have a predetermined mandate that the Joker can never really die). Ostensibly, if Gordon wanted the Joker dead, he would kill the Joker. That's a problem. Therefore, the writers say that Gordon doesn't want the Joker dead, thus he doesn't kill him.

Yeah, I was only arguing in the context of gotham, (not the DC universe. The kinds of superpower Phlebotinum and magical doodads they could use to permanently incapacitate the Joker or completely rewrite his personality into a good one are everywhere yet of course none of them are used on any of gotham's villains because the stories are considered seperate)"

Right, which is a silly contrivance on behalf of the writers because the stories aren't separate. Gotham is fully within the DC continuity (at least most times within non-film media).

"Even in-universe looking at the pattern, at just how many minions and allies the joker has, his abilities and feats, they should know at the very least that nothing bar permanent restraints, surveillance and detainment in Batman's room with the most advanced technology possible would hold. (I mean, we all know the Joker would still escape with extremely convenient newly introduced technology when the writers realize they need their villain back) but the current way they imprison him is just a disgrace, both horrible in-universe, and horrible narratively because it's just an excuse for the writers to make things easy. "

Yeah, basically.

"And yeah, while I recognize that my tone isn't always the greatest, so I apologize if I may have sounded brash anywhere to you, I do think this was an intriguing discussion which you've made very good points on. I also did find your interpretation of Batman's mindset informative so while I still believe he's flawed (which something I think we all can agree on) I appreciate you giving me a new understandable angle to see it from."

No worries, man. I've enjoyed the discussion.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

"Your comparisons of misconduct was missing my point that many cops, gotham cops especially would be averse to pointlessly risking their well being to someone exponentially more powerful than them and and who is helping their jobs as well as making their lives safer (however I will admit there's another factor that I admittedly should have brought up earlier-the fact that no one innocent gets hurt too). In short, they don't have much to lose for this particular brand of misconduct."

Okay, point well taken. The police don't really have an incentive to bring Batman in beyond "No man is above the law; let's do things by the book."

That would be a massive plot contrivance/ass pull. With all his feats and abilities shown in universe the realistic chances of him being caught by cops normally is basically nil.

Yes and no. The issue here is that there are multiple Batmans in multiple universes. In some iterations, Batman has resources (i.e., technological and otherwise) that make him nigh-godly and seemingly beyond capture of law-enforcement. In other versions, B:TAS or DKR, for example, he and the police (I'm talking the entire apparatus of law-enforcement, not a few individual officers) are on a more equal footing, where his ability to invariably avoid capture is less assured. I would argue that it depends on which iteration of Batman we're talking about, with some iterations being less powerful than others. So, in same continuities you would be correct; in other continuities, you wouldn't be.

"Same as this lmfao. When has this ever happened?"

Keep in mind that I mentioned kill and not capture. There is no (in-universe) reason to suggest that the police are factually incapable of killing the Joker. Of course, the reason that they haven't killed the Joker is because we're not dealing with the world of probable and logical consequences, but instead a fictional world with the extra-narrative contrivance of Status Quo is God and Too Popular to Kill.

"Honestly, taking reputation and credibility if you're found out into account, I can't think of many instances where killing an innocent or filing false charges would make things easier and safer."

In a world with a corroded justice system where police misbehave with impunity and are otherwise largely beyond traditional accountability, ostensibly reputation and credibility are lesser constraints on police behavior than they ordinarily would be. Gotham has been depicted as such a city in some continuities. That said, I think that this point is largely tangential to the main point of discussion, and acknowledge (as I have earlier) that allowing Batman to kill is not the same thing as committing such conduct, nor does it inevitably lead to such conduct.

I was referring to how they portray the concept of Batman killing and the other characters' attitudes towards it as intentionally biased and aesop/agenda pushing."

Okay, I see what you mean. I don't agree that it is necessarily agenda pushing or an Aesop (as I understand the term, I may be misunderstanding it), because I don't think the writers have an interest in promoting the viewpoint that killing unstoppable monsters are wrong. I agree with you that the is contrived, and somewhat influenced by an anti-violence message, but I think that the ultimate reason that Batman and law-enforcement don't kill the Joker is because the Joker is too popular.

Though I guess they'd need to pursue him after in order to set up a trial and get all the details sorted out. That's another thing, Batman can just let himself be tried. He'd surely be acquitted under his circumstances and with a lawyer he can afford with his billion of dollars.

Well, in order to stand trial he would have to reveal his identity, something he would not do, because it would hinder his effectiveness and is contrary to Status Quo is God etc.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Of course, in the story, the Joker's escape from imprisonment is not perceived as inevitable. Otherwise, there would be no reason to attempt to contain him. However, readers out-of-universe, know better.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Okay, GiftedACIII. Fair enough. You've argued vigorously and well. At long last, I'll concede (at least with respect to certain points, I still disagree on others, but I'll grant you perhaps the most important, overall point), you win.

"Either way someone like the joker who's shown to be incapable of being restrained needs to be put down, either by aiming to kill in a fight or assassinating him while he's asleep (having made legal exceptions for it and everything)"

That's the silly thing about this and what I think ultimately tripped me up. In the real world, the Joker would never invariably escape. If it's a contrivance that Batman would never kill, then it's an equal contrivance that the Joker possess the one trait that would make his murder justifiable, his utterly predictable unstoppablility. His talent for consistent escape places him beyond the nature of human. I was looking at this issue from the lens that the Joker was an ordinary human being comparable to real-life serial killers. However, given his actual history (perhaps hundreds of escapes), I realize (despite DC Comics' protests to the contrary) he's really not the equivalent of a skilled Charles Manson (at least with respect to this point). Real-life figures like Manson and Bin Laden are capable of being contained. Contrarily, given the fact it is a practical certainty that the Joker cannot and will not be restrained, (a characteristic that has no analogue among real world serial killers) I do think that his killing would be morally justified, and further, I think that a better written Gotham would craft laws to permit the killing of such persons (those incapable of containment) in limited circumstances. So, to your point, the reason he's incapable of being contained is the same reason why Batman doesn't kill him, the characters exist only in the realm of fiction.

And I wouldn't be against a random civilian ambushing and headshotting an escaped Joker while he's having a meeting with his henchmen (even though that would also be technically illegal) would you?

With the above in mind (which, in fairness, you have mentioned) , no, I wouldn't.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

"You're still not getting my point."

No, I get it. I just disagree. I think you're (in good faith) misinterpreting the manner in which I'm using the word comparable. I'm not saying comparable as in "similar," I'm using it the word as in "capable of comparison."

They calculate whether the result and reward is worth the effort and risk they take into doing something. You think cops would also go after something like Superman or Living Tribunal if they were ordered to? Duty isn't worth your life to many people, especially if that duty might not even morally be in the right like stopping someone from killing uncontainable threats to the public. Like I said this is something real life authorities do which is why murderers of gang members aren't as much of a priority. And most blatantly illegal and immoral things aren't much more practical and logical.

I said (paraphrasing), illegal action that makes their job easier and safer. Naturally, that would exclude instances where killing innocents, filing false charges, and otherwise abusing civil rights wouldn't make their job easier and safer.

No, that's like saying jailing someone which is taking away their right to movement is comparable to torture. Which contradicts what you yourself previously said about why killing shouldn't be compared to his assault."

No, it doesn't contradict anything. Comparable /= no difference. It's comparable to the degree that it's on the same sliding scale of misconduct. Furthermore, assault and killing are comparable (i.e. able to be likened to one another), whilst still having distinct qualitative differences.

"Because one takes active effort and makes you go out of your way to actively do it while the other is just passive inaction from self-preservation?"

I'm talking about instances where it would make their job easier.

"If they're corrupt, they're on the villains side, just another mook. They're not really "the police" that's being referred to because we're assuming the police are "innocents"."

I am not making that assumption. Perhaps you have been. Police officers can simultaneously be both police officers and corrupt police officers (i.e., uncharged criminals). That said, I think this point is tangential and probably a product of us talking past each other.

"They're badly written plot contrivanced stories that are intentionally made to portray batman killing as wrong. In a logical well written story, while I wouldn't think Jim Gordon would cheerlead it, he'd hear him out and be able to understand the basic and moral logic that uncontainable mass murdering threats to society should be put down before anyone else gets hurt."

Police doing their job (i.e. pursuing a murder suspect) is not a badly written plot contrivance, regardless of whether you feel the victim deserved it.

Further, that's your interpretation versus the entire canon of Jim Gordon's published history. So, Gordon would abandon a principle deeply held moral and legal principle (which he has steadfastly followed throughout his career in the face of severe personal sacrifice) once Batman reveals the efficiency and efficacy of murder to him (which has thus far evidently eluded Gordon). There would be nothing for Batman to explain because the convenience of killing criminals is self-evident.

Gordon disagrees with you.

Why try to punish someone you have no capability of stopping

The cops can stop Batman. He's eluded in prior occasions in part due to luck.

and who you're lucky to have on your side to begin with for killing threats no one else in the world can

The cops, as you yourself have mentioned, can kill the Joker.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

"ie needs illogical bad writing and inexplicable plot contrivances in order for it to happen."

You're arguing that it's illogical for the police to pursue a mass murdering masked vigilante? Interesting. Why stop there? Why not allow every civilian to murder offenders? Would such an action also be illogical?
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

The difference between killing civilians, creating false charges etc. and not going after Batman is that the former takes effort and needs them to actively go out of their way to do evil things while the latter is merely inaction out of self-preservation.

It doesn't matter. Inaction? They have a job to do. We're talking about cops and their legal duties. They have a legal duty to intervene if Batman murders someone, even a villain. Plus, if we're being logical and practical, following your rationale, why wouldn't the cops do other illegal, self-interested behavior that makes performing their job safer and easier?

They're not comparable in the slightest.

Don't overplay your hand. Of course they're not the same, but they are comparable.

Doing something technically unlawful doesn't mean you have to do worse things.

I didn't say that they had to do anything, I mentioned going by your logic, given how awful, corrupt, and self-interested the cops are, why wouldn't they?

B. A corrupt officer would mean they'd be in league with the villains, as their henchmen, and are usually getting the same type of fate or worse as the villain. Those types of villains are usually unceremoniously offed whether by accident or by the main villain themselves anyway.

This posts suggests that you may not understand why I brought up the point. That's all right, perhaps I was unclear. I won't address it again.

"C. And those "non-scum" officers would be appreciating all the work Batman has done in saving the city and their lives in the past and wouldn't instantly go GOTTA TAKE EM DOWN mode because he's suddenly offing serial killers who threaten their lives instead of going the extra mile in sparing them. "

Strongly disagree. Have you ever read the Killing Joke or seen The Mask of the Phantasm? Do you think that Jim Gordon and his loyalists would cheerlead Batman and turn the other way if he started massacring his rogues' galleries? If you do, then you don't understand his character.

"Like I said, superheroes and anti-heroes have killed plenty of times without the police putting pointless targets on them."

'Well, if they didn't do it before, clearly there's no reason for them to ever do so'

Is that your argument, here?

Anyway, we're talking about murder, not killing. Killing in and of itself isn't a reason to arrest and charge a character.

"And there's another thing too. Even if the police is ungrateful enough to forget all the things they owe Batman, and dumb enough to attack someone whose power far exceeds them and who is doing something that not only helps them but is arguably not immoral, Batman can still just gently incapacitate the few idiots who do so and save killing for the actual villains."

Right, because the characters in the fictional world ignore their duties and know that Batman is never wrong.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

SauI_Goodman posted...

I think one thing to keep in mind is that the show is pretty much voiced by just a handful of people. They are really talented and can do multiple voices. Otherwise they would have to pay a boatload of people.

I thought about that, but you have to keep in mind the actors' salaries. They are through the roof. I would be surprised if it were impossible or impracticable to replace them at a cheaper price, even considering that several of the actors voice dozens of characters.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

ArchiePeck posted...

Donomark posted...

On a side note, I've got to say, I'm surprised that Fox pays the cast as much as they do. I remain unconvinced that, after thirty years of the characters' voices seeping into the public consciousness, no voice actor could credibly fill their shoes for less scratch. I mean, Mel Blanc is obviously not performing Bugs Bunny.

The actors (and writers) guilds would probably pull a boycott on the show if that happened. I mean, your workplace has a union so that they can't just fire you all and hire cheaper staff too...

I'm an at will employee. They can get rid of me whenever they want to.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

GiftedACIII posted...

Donomark posted...

The cops could have several beefs with him.

a) They don't want his help and disagree with you that he's needed. They may even think that he generates, attracts, and inspires lunacy.

b) The corrupt ones don't want him.

c) It's their duty to enforce the laws, which he's breaking.

A. That makes zero sense. Batman is clearly more competent and achieves more than entire stations combined. Batman taking down and killing the serial killing rogue gallery not only makes everything easier for them, it makes their lives safer since those serial killers won't be able to target them... and we all know just how fond of using cops as fodder the villains are. It's a do whatever you can to survive world in Gotham. There is absolutely no practical or logical reason for them to go after someone who is making both their jobs easier and making their lives safer other than pure braindead Darwin Award winning levels of stupidity.

B. No one sheds tears of corrupt ones dying. Even fucking Disney has shown corrupt officials getting killed in a positive light.

C. This is the only good argument out of all of them... except you yourself said that Gotham cops aren't known for their affection, loyalty, and fairness. Why would they give a shit about abiding the law when it actively hinders them? Because of "principles"? Not by Gotham cops of all people. You said it yourself. Not even real life cops care much about the murderers of gang members.

Okay. If it wasn't clear, my post was addressing the point of view of some hypothetical officers on a narrative level (i.e. psycho-emotional). In both that post and in this one I'm not alleging that the cops' arguments are unassailable or persuasive, merely fathomable as attitudes in a creative work. Obviously, the deck is stacked in favor of depicting an ultra-competent and necessary Batman (and a correspondingly beleaguered city law-enforcement). Clearly, there would be no stories if Gotham had no need for an effective Batman.

A. If we're going by the logic of "makes things easier," killing civilians, ignoring civil rights, creating false charges, etc. all are actions that break the rules (just like allowing an unaccountable masked vigilante to freely murder). Those actions make cops safer and also make things easier. So, why wouldn't cops do those things as well? Also, several plots revolve around villains creating havoc solely as acts of vengeance against Batman/to get Batman's attention. It's not a stretch to imagine an officer perceiving Batman's presence as inspiring crime and driving escalation. In support of this worldview, coincidentally, (or not) the vast majority of Batman's rogues gallery weren't active before he was. Additionally, individual police officers who do not have personal experience with Batman (not everyone is as privileged in such regard as James Gordon), probably do not have the most accurate or reliable intel with respect to his motivations, methods, or behaviors. Simply put, they don't have our information.

B. Again, here I was just mentioning the officer who wouldn't appreciate Batman's presence.

C. They're a diverse group. A higher than average number are scum, but others want to do their job by the book.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Scotty_Rogers posted...

It's one thing for Batman to not want to kill Joker out of some "thou shall not kill" philosophy

But to actually BRING HIM BACK TO LIFE AFTER NIGHTWING KILLED HIM. Shit like this is why mos American comics suck ass.

I haven't read that story, but that seems utterly ridiculous. Comics are notoriously shamelessly terrible and non-committal when it comes to dealing with characters' deaths.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

The cops could have several beefs with him.

a) They don't want his help and disagree with you that he's needed. They may even think that he generates, attracts, and inspires lunacy.

b) The corrupt ones don't want him.

c) It's their duty to enforce the laws, which he's breaking.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

HylianFox posted...

Donomark posted...

On a side note, I've got to say, I'm surprised that Fox pays the cast as much as they do. I remain unconvinced that, after thirty years of the characters' voices seeping into the public consciousness, no voice actor could credibly fill their shoes for less scratch. I mean, Mel Blanc is obviously not performing Bugs Bunny.

eh, nobody could replace Phil Hartman or Marcia Wallace.

They retired their characters, correct? It's pretty hard to conclude that they're irreplaceable if no one's ever tried to replace them.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

On a side note, I've got to say, I'm surprised that Fox pays the cast as much as they do. I remain unconvinced that, after thirty years of the characters' voices seeping into the public consciousness, no voice actor could credibly fill their shoes for less scratch. I mean, Mel Blanc is obviously not performing Bugs Bunny.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Gotham cops are not especially known for their affection, loyalty, or fairness. Sure, they don't care about Joker, but that doesn't mean that they would protect Batman.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

I also disagree with your assessment that Batman only joined the League so that he can be the final arbiter of right and wrong. He joined the League so that he can assist other heroes in protecting people against threats and develop intel against powerful members in the event they turn rogue. I disagree that his motivation is as authoritarian and selfish as your say.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

A_Good_Boy posted...

Donomark posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

Donomark posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

Donomark posted...

Here's the thing. If Batman kills the Joker, why would he not kill the Scarecrow, or Black Mask, or Mr. Zsaz (assuming he's not already dead) etc.? I get that he wouldn't necessarily become an uncontrollable killing machine, but what limiting principle would exist whereby killing the Joker is justified and permissible, but killing half of his other rogues gallery (who are serial killers) isn't?

I don't see anything wrong with that either. Batman positions himself to be in conflict with terrorists and mass murderers. He'd have an excuse for not killing them if his conflicts with them would actually make their sprees stop, but they don't. The most Batman ever seems to do is prepare to put them away once they've escaped and committed more murders. It's just ridiculous that his writers insist on how intelligent he is while at the same time insisting that he's incapable of telling the difference between Hitler and a dude that ticks the wrong box on his taxes.

Okay, well that would make him a murderer. He has no authority whatsoever to determine who is and is not worthy of life. He is not a judge. He has not been elected by the people to pass such judgment. Batman is not a murderer, and I prefer him that way.

This has always been a pretty poor argument to me to. If dude cared about respecting laws so much then he wouldn't be a vigilante that routinely goes to war with the cops. At best he'd be a lobbyist or someone that contracts his surveillance tech out to the government. But he doesn't do any of that. He goes out at night in a mask and fucks people up, commits dozens of crimes each night, and refuses to place himself under any oversight that he can't easily undermine. Even in joining the Justice League he only does it only so that he can be the final authority over right and wrong, where anyone that disagrees with him can be subject to one of his contingency plans. If he was gonna blink when confronted with the reality of being judge, jury, and executioner; he shouldn't pride himself on how effective he is at being judge and jury.

Hmm. Your argument seems to boil down to "Why be a control-freak vigilante if you're not also going to be a murderer?" There is a finality to killing which differentiates it with the other crimes Batman commits (aggravated assault etc.). Batman does not want to be a killer, because he thinks that if he were, that's all he would ever be. That's not who he sees himself as.

That's a pretty piss-poor summation of my argument. My posts are all there, you can paraphrase my argument a lot more accurately than you're attempting.

Okay. If you don't like it, why don't you spell out exactly what disservice I'm doing to your point of view? You seem to be saying "Batman is a control freak. He doesn't care about the law because he breaks laws. So, since he is breaking laws, why doesn't he break the law against murder?" Tell me exactly what I'm getting wrong.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Funkydog posted...

Donomark posted...

nemu posted...

I can get that Batman doesn't want to kill people. What I don't get is the easily escapable asylum instead of a death penalty.

Arkham is the home of the criminally insane; they ostensibly meet the strictures of the insanity defense for their jurisdiction. Would they in real life? Perhaps not.

I can buy that the first time.

The hundredth after so many mass killings? I just don't buy it at that point. Not in a place that very much likely has it. Or how, as someone else said, a cop didn't just kill them on transit/capture.

Surpirsingly, the frequency of the conduct may actually enhance their defense. Part of one definition of the insanity defense is the inability to conform conduct to the requirements of law. That said, obviously the primary rationale here is that DC doesn't want to shred Batman's rogues gallery. Readers are just going to have to accept that.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

nemu posted...

I can get that Batman doesn't want to kill people. What I don't get is the easily escapable asylum instead of a death penalty.

Arkham is the home of the criminally insane; they ostensibly meet the strictures of the insanity defense for their jurisdiction. Would they in real life? Perhaps not.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

A_Good_Boy posted...

Donomark posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

Donomark posted...

Here's the thing. If Batman kills the Joker, why would he not kill the Scarecrow, or Black Mask, or Mr. Zsaz (assuming he's not already dead) etc.? I get that he wouldn't necessarily become an uncontrollable killing machine, but what limiting principle would exist whereby killing the Joker is justified and permissible, but killing half of his other rogues gallery (who are serial killers) isn't?

I don't see anything wrong with that either. Batman positions himself to be in conflict with terrorists and mass murderers. He'd have an excuse for not killing them if his conflicts with them would actually make their sprees stop, but they don't. The most Batman ever seems to do is prepare to put them away once they've escaped and committed more murders. It's just ridiculous that his writers insist on how intelligent he is while at the same time insisting that he's incapable of telling the difference between Hitler and a dude that ticks the wrong box on his taxes.

Okay, well that would make him a murderer. He has no authority whatsoever to determine who is and is not worthy of life. He is not a judge. He has not been elected by the people to pass such judgment. Batman is not a murderer, and I prefer him that way.

This has always been a pretty poor argument to me to. If dude cared about respecting laws so much then he wouldn't be a vigilante that routinely goes to war with the cops. At best he'd be a lobbyist or someone that contracts his surveillance tech out to the government. But he doesn't do any of that. He goes out at night in a mask and fucks people up, commits dozens of crimes each night, and refuses to place himself under any oversight that he can't easily undermine. Even in joining the Justice League he only does it only so that he can be the final authority over right and wrong, where anyone that disagrees with him can be subject to one of his contingency plans. If he was gonna blink when confronted with the reality of being judge, jury, and executioner; he shouldn't pride himself on how effective he is at being judge and jury.

Hmm. Your argument seems to boil down to "Why be a control-freak vigilante if you're not also going to be a murderer?" There is a finality to killing which differentiates it with the other crimes Batman commits (aggravated assault etc.). Batman does not want to be a killer, because he thinks that if he were, that's all he would ever be. That's not who he sees himself as.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Authentic_fan posted...

Donomark posted...

Also, I like that Batman doesn't kill. Turning him into a killer, even temporarily, seems predictable and easy. The fact that, irrespective of how much it frustrates readers or other characters, Batman refuses to kill, is actually a distinctive and admirable aspect of the character. He's not the Punisher, he's not Wolverine. You have to understand, Batman doesn't have the authority to kill. He's already a vigilante; being non-homicidal is perhaps the only thing that gives him a shred of legitimacy.

I like that he doesn't kill as well, but the Batman comics are all about mental illnesses and shit.

The fact that Batman, as a completely... bat shit crazy person, is completely incorruptible in a universe full of super criminals is stale to me.

He doesn't necessarily have to have an arc where he goes on a killing spree but for God's sake can he make ONE immoral decision?

He does make immoral decisions. There are comics where Batman is a sadistic torturer. Also, isn't the existence of Robin arguably immoral? Certainly, it's highly questionable.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Zikten posted...

yea and it's the only thing that keeps the GCPD off his ass. the only reason Gordon is able to work with Batman is cause Batman never kills. if he did kill, Gordon would be forced to go after him

Yup. Technically, they should go after him already, but openly allowing him to commit murder would be totally indefensible.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

A_Good_Boy posted...

Donomark posted...

Here's the thing. If Batman kills the Joker, why would he not kill the Scarecrow, or Black Mask, or Mr. Zsaz (assuming he's not already dead) etc.? I get that he wouldn't necessarily become an uncontrollable killing machine, but what limiting principle would exist whereby killing the Joker is justified and permissible, but killing half of his other rogues gallery (who are serial killers) isn't?

I don't see anything wrong with that either. Batman positions himself to be in conflict with terrorists and mass murderers. He'd have an excuse for not killing them if his conflicts with them would actually make their sprees stop, but they don't. The most Batman ever seems to do is prepare to put them away once they've escaped and committed more murders. It's just ridiculous that his writers insist on how intelligent he is while at the same time insisting that he's incapable of telling the difference between Hitler and a dude that ticks the wrong box on his taxes.

Okay, well that would make him a murderer. He has no authority whatsoever to determine who is and is not worthy of life. He is not a judge. He has not been elected by the people to pass such judgment. Batman is not a murderer, and I prefer him that way.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Also, I like that Batman doesn't kill. Turning him into a killer, even temporarily, seems predictable and easy. The fact that, irrespective of how much it frustrates readers or other characters, Batman refuses to kill, is actually a distinctive and admirable aspect of the character. He's not the Punisher, he's not Wolverine. You have to understand, Batman doesn't have the authority to kill. He's already a vigilante; being non-homicidal is perhaps the only thing that gives him a shred of legitimacy.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

Here's the thing. If Batman kills the Joker, why would he not kill the Scarecrow, or Black Mask, or Mr. Zsaz (assuming he's not already dead) etc.? I get that he wouldn't necessarily become an uncontrollable killing machine, but what limiting principle would exist whereby killing the Joker is justified and permissible, but killing half of his other rogues gallery (who are serial killers) isn't?
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/

I haven't seen anything with the other two actresses, but why cast Kristen Stewart? She just seems anti-charisma to me. In fairness to her, I haven't a seen a single movie with Kristen Stewart in it either, but that's my impression based on her interviews and various pop-culture periphery.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/