As a longtime gamer and avid comic book fan, I’ve spent countless hours immersed in the rich worlds of Batman and other superheroes. The iconic clash between the Dark Knight and the Joker is a tale as old as time itself, a dance between good and evil that has captivated audiences for generations. However, the events that transpired between these two icons in “Punisher/Batman: Deadly Knights” have left me pondering the morality of their actions.
Batman and the Joker have been arch-nemeses for decades, clashing in comics, video games, and various film and TV productions. The Joker consistently cooks up wicked plans, which Batman feels compelled to thwart. Despite frequently bending other rules, Batman usually refrains from taking the Joker’s life, even when his own ethical code isn’t at stake – as proven when he respected the Joker’s life during an encounter with Marvel’s deadliest antagonist, Frank “The Punisher” Castle.
In “Punisher/Batman: Deadly Knights” from 1994, published by DC Comics, the Punisher confronted Batman’s most iconic foe-ally, the Joker. Throughout Chuck Dixon’s crossover storyline, the Punisher pursued the Joker but was met with the latter’s amused dismissal. However, when the Punisher aimed his gun at the Joker’s head, the villain’s laughter ceased as he understood the situation was far from a joke. Fortunately for the Joker, Batman appeared out of nowhere and stopped the Punisher from pulling the trigger, giving the Joker an escape route instead.
After thirty years, the scene from “Deadly Knights” where Batman chose to spare the Joker continues to provoke annoyance among comic book fans.
Not all fans buy Batman’s no-kill rule
In most portrayals of Batman, he adheres to a firm policy against taking lives. Regardless of the nature of the crime or the identity of the criminal, Batman leaves it to the Gotham City law enforcement to decide on their fate. This approach allows criminals like the Joker to wreak havoc in Gotham for extended periods, as Batman doesn’t deliver a fatal blow. While this strategy was possibly the motivation behind “Punisher/Batman: Deadly Knights,” not all fans support this or any other instance of it.
In simpler terms, a villain who poses a threat to people’s lives while committing a crime can be stopped by taking their life to prevent the crime from occurring. This action adheres to due process as self-defense is protected under Constitutional law. In this context, Batman is acting within his rights when he kills the Joker without compromising his trust in the legal system. Furthermore, if only the Joker is killed and not his other adversaries, numerous lives in Gotham would be spared from the harm he would cause. As u/MojaveMilkman puts it, “Just kill the Joker to save all the lives he would otherwise take.”
From a devoted fan’s perspective, I ponder over the creative decisions made by directors like Zack Snyder, who seemingly disregarded Batman’s unwavering no-kill rule. Yet, this principle continues to be a significant part of Batman’s rich history and mythology. In retrospect, should Batman have given the Punisher the green light to eliminate the Joker? Or was it more fitting for Batman himself to carry out this act? Debatably, there are strong reasons supporting both options. However, the reality is that these events didn’t unfold as we anticipated in “Deadly Knights.”
Read More
Sorry. No data so far.
2024-07-26 03:59