#-sees it but he also knows that Batman doesn’t do much to actively dissuade them but he also knows PSAs are not how barman operates and that | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

idkwhoiamanymorebutwtf · 4 years

Photo

Below imma put my reasoning for each of these if you were confused about why I put certain characters where I did.

(note that this is about the show Harley Quinn 2019 so most things outside of this show won’t be taken into account when discussing the character’s alignments)

James Gordon as Lawful Good: He’s group and order oriented, and will cooperate with authority in all cases. You’ll never see Gordon team up with anyone who isn’t strictly on the ‘good’ side of things. He’s convinced that order and laws are absolutely necessary to assure that goodness prevails and continued to uphold the law even when Batman was gone. A lawful good being kills whenever necessary to promote the greater good, or to protect himself, his companions, or anyone whom he's vowed to defend. In times of war, he strikes down the enemies. Gordon was very much willing to kill Two Face and basically went into an all out war against Harley. He admitted himself that he got into the police force to shoot bad guys. So long as it’s within the letter of the law and the people in question deserve it, he’s very much willing to maim and kill. Gordon responds to authority and when there is no authority figure around he does his best to uphold the law on his own.

Bruce Wayne as Neutral Good: He, like most neutral good characters, values life and freedom above all else, and despises those who would deprive others of them. Neutral good characters, including him, sometimes find themselves forced to work beyond the law, yet for the law, and the greater good of the people. Multiple times throughout the series he teams up with people the law dictates he ought to be fighting, like when he helped Harley in season one and even sacrificed himself to save Harley and Ivy, or when he helped Harley and The Joker get the Justice League back in season two. He’s a super hero, he tries to stay within the law, but he’s willing to work with those who aren’t strictly on the side of ‘good’ if it’s for the sake of goodness.

Barbara Gordon as Chaotic Good: A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. Babs, within the context of the show, does work with law enforcement, but she isn’t exactly bound by codes and laws. She worked with Harley and Ivy to take down the Riddler in Season 2 (and lets be real lawful characters...probably wouldn’t work with criminals) and she actually tries to befriend and hang out with the two. Working with them wasn’t just because she had to and there was no other option, she actually wanted to be friends with two criminals which again shows that she isn’t exactly bound to the law. In fact, she actively goes against it when she warns Harley about Gordon coming to take her down and tries to dissuade her father from going through with it, actively sabotaging the police to do what she believes is the right thing.

Pamela Isley as Lawful Neutral: A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government. Traditionally, when people think ‘lawful neutral’ they think the latter of those possible motivations, someone who believes in the law and government, however in Ivy’s case she’s much more dictated by a personal standard. A lawful character trusts someone or something better than he trusts themselves, but they still pick which thing that is, it doesn’t have to be the laws of the land, it can be anything so long as it’s a solid principal or code or set of ideals rather than “whatever I feel like at the time”. Ivy’s moral code focuses mainly on saving the earth and she doesn’t every stray from that. She has a strong ideal that she’s completely dedicated to and doesn’t ever really change. She’s an eco-terrorist, and terrorism is usually enacted over incredibly strong beliefs. She isn’t exactly ‘good’ because although her goal is respectable she does things that most people consider immoral to get there, showing she isn’t too concerned about doing what’s good towards people. However she also doesn’t exactly go out of her way to harm or do evil (i mean she hurts people who try and hurt harley or the environment but this is moreso a form of vigilante justice than doing something ivy sees as immoral because she inherently believes that most of humanity is below the environment and below harley too “she’s my only friend but that’s by design, because she’s the only human I think is worth a shit”.)

Harleen Quinzel as True Neutral: True Neutral character’s fully think of good as better than evil. After all, they would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. They’re just not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way. True neutral characters are known to behave in a good, moral way towards friends and allies. They support the people who support them, often out of genuine love. True neutral characters also typically only go out of their ways to hurt people who they think deserve it. Basically people who tried to hurt them or their loved ones first. Beyond that they don’t care. They don’t go out of their way to hurt people who don’t deserve it but if these people haven’t done anything to earn this character’s affection then these people don’t really matter. True neutrals often believe in lex talionis forms of justice. True neutral individuals do not lack interest, ambition, or passion--they value their own well-being and that of friends and loved ones. They may struggle passionately on behalf of themselves or others, as well as feel compassion for those they barely know. But overall they aren’t bound with any loyalty to doing what’s good. They aren’t bound to the law. They don’t feel an obligation to go against morality or law just for the sake of it either, though. I honestly think this is the most fitting for Harley. She doesn’t see any reason to follow the laws so she doesn’t. When someone fucks with her she’ll fuck right back, but generally she isn’t known to go out of her way to hurt people. It really feels like she’s mostly out to protect herself and her own. She’ll fight for things her friends care about and to help the people she loves. She has no qualms about lying and killing when the people in question hurt her or someone she cares about, though. She said herself that she can’t really even be considered a bad guy. Harley turned down the chance to take over the world because she isn’t evil and doesn’t want to inflict unwarranted suffering on random people, but at the same time she’s taken down multiple people who mess with her with little remorse for doing so. The broader conflicts between ‘good’ and ‘evil’ and ‘law’ and ‘chaos’ don’t seem to mean much to her, she’s just out to protect her and her own.

Selina Kyle as Chaotic Neutral: She, like all chaotic neutral characters, strives to protect her freedom first and foremost. Chaotic neutral characters follow their whims without any regard for good or evil or law. They often don’t have much actual concern for personal relationships. Chaotic neutral characters do not necessarily want others to suffer as a result of their actions, but do not care if others do suffer. They tend to behave in a good manner towards friends and allies, unless their friends and allies do not agree with them. Within the show, Selina has betrayed her allies multiple times, first abandoning her to steal a blood diamond and leaving Ivy to pay for her hotel bills, then stealing the the diamond Kiteman wanted to use to propose. She generally isn’t concerned with the wellbeing of Ivy, Harley, or any other allies, and prioritizes her own interests over all else with very little loyalty to...well...anything.

Darkseid as Lawful Evil: A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. Darkseid is difficult to please and demands grand gestures of obedience and power in order for people to prove themselves, as was the case of Harley and Doctor Psycho offering to conquer planet Earth for him. Any acts of betrayal or disloyalty towards him is met with anger on his part and an oaf of vengeance. Despite this, he is not without a sense of restraint, as was the case of him returning to Apokolips after Harley refused for a second time to rule over Earth. He keeps his promises (when he offered harley the ability to rule earth after she showed her strength, for example), but doesn’t take kindly to disobedience or disloyalty and is undoubtedly evil, going out of his way to maim, kill, and conquer.

Edgar Cizko as Neutral Evil: Neutral evil characters are primarily concerned with themselves and their own advancement. They have no particular objection to working with others or, for that matter, going it on their own. Their only interest is in getting ahead. If there is a quick and easy way to gain a profit, whether it be legal, questionable, or obviously illegal, they take advantage of it. Although neutral evil characters do not have the every-man-for-himself attitude of chaotic characters, they have no qualms about betraying their friends and companions for personal gain. These characters willingly cooperate with anyone who will further their own ends. They often seek the easy road to fame and fortune, with little concern for the people they trample along the way. They value strength and ability alone. If the neutral evil can use laws to weaken those who stand in the way of his success, he will use them. He may betray a family member, comrade, or friend if it is convenient to do so and it advances his agenda. Dr. Psycho was fully willing to completely betray Harley over an offer of power, something that everyone else on the team viewed as reprehensible (this is why he’s the only one who i’d consider ‘evil’, btw, because king, clayface, harley, and ivy all value their friends/allies over power and control and view each other as friends wheras Dr. Psycho was willing to betray all of them even after everything they’d all gone through together). He does whatever it takes to elevate himself and goes out of his way to hurt people (like trying to take over the world or broadcasting revenge porn of harley and ivy into the sky).

The Joker as Chaotic Evil: As Harley said, he’s a sociopathic narcissist. As with all Chaotic Evil characters, he is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. Thankfully, these character’s plans are haphazard, and any groups they join or form are poorly organized.The Joker may be a ‘genius’ but he often fails to really think things through or execute plans successfully (I knowwww I said we were just analyzing this show and not the character’s other appearances but there’s such a good example from another show to what i mean when i say the joker isn’t as effective as he could be. remember when harley literally came closer to killing batman than joker did and improved his original plans? and the only reason batman survived was because joker threw her out a fucking window and screwed everything up? yeah.) He’s smart and powerful and rutheless and all that but he doesn’t think things through or organize his thoughts well enough. The major precepts of this alignment are freedom, randomness, and woe. Laws and order, kindness, and good deeds are disdained. Life has no value. By promoting chaos and evil, those of this alignment hope to bring themselves to positions of power, glory, and prestige in a system ruled by individual caprice and their own whim. The chaotic evil creature holds that individual freedom and choice is important, and that other individuals and their freedoms are unimportant if they cannot be held by the individuals through their own strength and merit. Thus, law and order rends to promote not individuals but groups, and groups suppress individual volition and success. The Joker abused his girlfriend ruthlessly, goes out of his way to hurt innocents, tries to kill people on a regular basis weather they deserve it or not, and generally goes out of his way to exert his power over other’s simply for the sake of proving he’s dominant to them.

#harley quinn 2019 #harley quinn #harleen quinzel #selina kyle #catwoman #poison ivy #pamela isley #darkseid #dr psycho #the joker #joker #james gordon #barbara gordon #batgirl #batman #bruce wayne

41 notes · View notes

hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger · 7 years

Link

Let me explain in copious detail why the OP’s statements are complete BS.

This boils down a lot to a fundamentally flawed understanding of what Spider-Man’s goals are as well as not taking into account the restrictions placed upon the character by virtue of genre and dramatic necessities.

The OP codifies that Spider-Man’s goals is to combat crime and irresponsibility but has flanderized the former to make Spider-Man out to be like Batman levels of trying to deter crime when...that isn’t the case.

A lot of people use Batman as a comparison for this but it just doesn’t hold up. For starters crime in Gotham city is NOT the way it is in Marvel New York city. Gotham when Batman’s career began was CORRUPT to it’s core and infected with street crime. The citizens of Gotham were in effect prisoners in their own home unless they were members of the elite. The poorer, or even middle class citizens, categorically lived in fairly frequent fear of crime, whether it posed a threat to their property and livelihoods or their lives. The death of the Waynes made this point hardcore because they were the elite of the elite and the smallest of criminals took their lives.

The point was no one was safe and worse the system was broken.

Batman arose and used the methods he used to combat crime under these extenuating circumstances.

And he succeeded to a point. He has yet to eradicate corruption in the police department or the system as a whole, and street crime still exists in Gotham. This is to say nothing of the rise of super criminals after Batman appeared who were a thousand times worse than the regular street punks

He did majorly alleviate the problem though.

Marvel New York City and DC’s Metropolis were NOTHING like that and so never necessitated Batman’s methods of fear and intimidation to build a legend and frighten criminals.

Metroplis in most incarnations is NEVER depicted as particularly crime ridden. At worst it’s in the behind the scenes grips of Luthor. Superman has off and on removed Luthor’s influence over Metroplis but never permanently. And he has never put a halt to all street crime (hence Intergang is a thing), despite every criminal knowing he could apprehend them even if he is literally another country away.

Spider-Man in contrast lives in Marvel NYC. Crime and corruption exist but it’s not like one big bad dude controls 2/3 of the workforce whether they know it or not or where crime and corruption have such a choke hold on the city no one is safe.

I should also point out Spider-Man neither possesses powers on Superman’s scale nor the resources of Batman. Batman could never have achieved what he achieved without a shitton of technology at his disposal, even if he had Spider-Man’s powers. His vehicles allowed him quick access around the city. His corporation could provide all the tech he needed and money was never an issue. If he needed medical attention or a loved one needed it hey no problem. These resources also allowed him to better conceal his identity and gather vast intelligence for his activities.

Now compare and contrast that to Spider-Man who whether as an adult or a teenager basically had to earn a living to support himself and his family (including a mother with expensive health problems) and be a superhero in addition to that. He also had obligations to family and friends which took up his time. Batman has had these too but never to the same degree. Most of his close abiding relationships exist with people within his inner circle and who’re involved in crime fighting themselves. And Peter obviously doesn’t have supersonic speed to get where he needs to be whenever he wants more or less.

He’s the working class superhero who can’t afford to dedicate himself solely to superheroing but also hasn’t got powers and resources that prevent superheroing from having a detriment upon his normal life.

But lets get back to goals.

Spider-Man’s goal has never been to eradicate all crime. I don’t think Batman’s is either and if it is that’s stupid and impossible without becoming a monster himself. Spider-Man does NOT seek to eradicate all crime.

He’s your friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man.

It’s not just a catchphrase, its a descriptor of who he is. He’s the little guy superhero who helps out the little guy. His focus is smaller scale. He goes on patrol and stops crimes as he sees them, pursues leads on crimes he gets a whiff of or otherwise intervenes as he comes across crimes by chance.

Which to begin with isn’t that dissimilar to ACTUAL methods of policing except he can’t do much as far as intelligence gathering is concerned because

a) He is one man and

b) He lacks resources to do that and

c) He does have other obligations

Spider-Man’s mantra stemming from his origin story is simply this:

If you have the power to help it is your duty to help.

He DIDN’T help when he saw a crime in progress and it resulted in something tragic. He does his best to not repeat that mistake.

However on a broader level his story is about living up to his responsibilities but those extend BEYOND crime fighting. His family’s welfare, his friendships, his education, his own well being, these are all his responsibilities as they are all of OUR responsibilities.

Does he always succeed at them? No. Because few of us succeed at them all the time. frequently we have to juggle and things can and do go wrong just as they can and do go right. Example: my father is constantly stressed because the type of man who does things for everybody and to an exent he’s let his health suffer for it. At the same time things with his work can take abrupt unexpected turns which have knock on effects on other parts of his life (and by extension my own). Often times he is constantly stressed due to living up to all these burdens. Now not EVERYONE is like this, but a lot of people are.

This is who Spider-Man is. It’s really unrealistic and cheap to say “Well if he only did this then it would fix everything and him not doing it shows he’s bad at his job and stupid!”

Returning to what I said was his ACTUAL goals, like I said Spider-Man doesn’t WANT to remove all crime in NYC. Not only is that impossible, not only are there OTHER heroes working on that at the same time as him, but his goals is simply to help where he can.

And...it works!

In Sacasa’s Senssational Spider-Man run we see a beach full of people who represent a tiny number of people who’s lives Peter has saved. In ASM #500 Peter decides NOT to change history by preventing the spider from biting him because he knows how many people could be hurt because he wasn’t there to save them. Doctor Strange, Sorcerer Surpeme that he is stated in the same issue that the greatest gift anyone can give another human being is the chance to make a difference just once and went on to say Spider-Man has no idea how many times HE has made such a difference.

Want some proof? ASM #3 Spider-Man averts a nuclear disaster. Spec #75 he averts ANOTHER nuclear disaster. PPSM #98 he literally saves the whole planetary population from being wiped out by Norman Osborn.

Want some more proof? You say Spider-Man does NOTHING to deter crime. Well again...that’s not his goal. He knows crime won’t be deterred by him. Crime isn’t deterred in NYC despite it having the single highest concentration of superheroes of any city in both Marvel AND DC. Crime isn’t deterred by Batman OR Superman’s presence, at least not completely (and is still siginifcant enough to be a real danger). So what’s Spider-Man going to do really? Not to mention that Spider-Man was a kid when he began his career. How was he even going to THINK of deterring crime on a large scale?

More than this once he got older to comprehend that idea (which again was stupid and pointless anyway) it was too late as his reputation had been established. Sure he COULD’ve switched to a new identity but again that’s dramatic contrainsts at work and we can’t hold that against the character. It’s called Spdier-Man so the protagonist has to be SPIDER-MAN!

Does Spider-Man intimidate and scare his opponents? Depends. Sometimes he can do that. Michelinie issues of Spider-Man had him bend metal and frighten some thugs into surrender. The black costume was also pretty scary.

But again...scaring people isn’t Spider-Man’s deal. Jameson already made people hate and fear him and it made his criem fighting career HARDER not easier. It’s also not who he is as a person. He doesn’t operate as a force of fear like Batman (again this is a lot of the bullshit ‘Batman is the best hero ever!’ mentality at play which condemns other heroes who doesn’t operate the same way he does). Many heroes don’t use those tactics and again Peter is a pretty friendly person and nice guy. He doesn’t want to frighten innocent people which is exactly what would happen if he did employ those methods. Given how he also operates in the day in a bright costume intimidation isn’t much of an option the way it is for Batman, who cultivated an urban legend which by nature relies on staying out of the limelight. Spider-Man can’t do that since he needs money to survive and earns it from literally making himself famous through pictures.

But even taking AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALL that into account...Spider-Man DOES deter crime in NYC. In the Spec cartoon Tombstone states that Spider-Man scares criminals off of the streets before they’ve committed any crimes in the first place. And in ASM #50, you know the comic book Spider-Man friggin 2 was based on, it was PROVEN that Spider-Man’s absence saw an increase in crime rates. So Obviously his efforts were reducing crime.

Now as for his humour? Does it dissuade criminals from villainy? No. Does it make them hate him more? Maybe.

But to begin with criminals are gonna hate ANYONE who captures them so the latter point isn’t a big deal. As for the second...who the fuck in Batman’s rogue’s gallery was ever deterred from being a super villain by him scaring them? No one I know of? Street punks maybe but none of the major villains.

But even then...Spidey isn’t the only humourous superhero out there. Silver Age Daredevil cracked jokes at villains too just not to the same extent.

More importantly Spider-Man isn’t fighting villains for the long term and shouldn’t be either. His goal is to rectify the IMMEDIATE emergency right then and there.

A mugger is threatening a civilian. So he cracks a joke and gets under their skin causing them to make mistakes which he can then use to resolve the situation more quickly whilst also putting the victim and possibly himself at ease, the latter being a good thing as it allows him to fight better and the former being he good thing because it reduces any trauma the victim might have later on. Meanwhile the punk goes to jail and spends a few years rotting there before MAYBE resuming a career of crime.

But again...he’s fighting someone with SUPERHUMAN powers. Is he scared? No, but he also knows his chances of capture are VERY significant and his chances of success very low against that person. Meanwhile if he doesn’t run into the unthreatening and humourous Spider-Man again he might run into Daredevil, the FF, Punisher, Moon Knight, Dark hawk, Nightthrasher or any of the other DOZENS of NYC based superheroes and vigilantes he stands absolutely no hope of overcoming.

Now for the costume, again this is a stupid argument against the character since it’s tied up with superhero conventions. Yeah it’s easy to spot but

a) Suspension of disbelief

b) It’s more entertaining for him to wear a costume like that because it looks cool

c) Daredevil wore fucking Yellow to begin his career

d) He then switched to bright (not dark, bright) red which is also easy to spot

e) Moon Knight walks around in white

f) Wolverine’s main outfits have been different combinations of bright blue and bright yellow and he literally worked as a spy

Moving onto his public persona, again...COUNTLESS heroes operate this way. Batman is the exception NOT the rule and even he doesn’t succeed entirely at his goals it is arguable.

More than this Spider-Man ALREADY had a public persona because he was a goddam wrestler and TV star! He isn’t cultivating anything he’s already been established as what he is.

The claim that he is daring people to come after him is also a major extrapolation by the OP. No one is saying that is how criminals tthink regarding him due to his outfit. It’s especially bullshit given how the black costume didn’t change that much at all.

Additionally is daring people to come after him a bad thing in a fight where it distracts them from hurting civilians?

Now to address the ‘it makes him a target and gives his enemies a common threat to rally around’...again EVERY hero has this. Dude...Batman was MORE of a urban legend and stealthy ninja in the Nolan movies where his costume was solid black and people debated his very existence. But the entire plot of the Dark Knight was that the criminal underworld rallied together and even trusted a mad man to end a threat to their business ventures despite his public appearances and persoinality being more reserved than his comic book counterpart.

EVERy superhero more or less has a time where their enemies team up to take them down. Friggin SUPERMAN has that and he’s probably more powerful than most of his enemies one on one and is even MORE public than Spider-Man. he has an even flashier costume and is a globally recognized and revered figure. And he also has a Superman Revenge Squad who’re more active against him in many versions than the Sinister Six have ever been against Spider-Man. Hell the second Sinister Six story didn’t even have the Six form against Spidey specifically. In fact they didn’t even do that in their debut. I mean you are saying criminals and villains would unite to take down their common enemy Spider-Man but the actual Spider-Man comics mostly dispprove that. not only has that not happened all that often but it rarely works, either because they are unable tow work harmoniously because they are bad guys or because Spider-Man is able to beat them.

In fact Spider-Man’s powerset and abilities make his chances of success BETTER when he fights groups since he’s faster than most of them and can turn their abilities on one another. Frequently Spider-Man has fared worse in one-on-one battles than in group villain battles.

If we wanna go comics....how many tiems have the Batman rogue’s gallery teamed up against Bruce in various combinations seriously? Like the Trial episode from the animated series doesn’t prove this idea to be bullshit?

As for his villain don’t have a reason to stop what they are doing...this is illogical.

Thier reasons for stopping should be that Spider-Man will kick their asses (Spidey once beat Doc Ock so bad he developed an outright phobia of him) or that they will go to jail. And again let me ask which villains, yes even batman’s, actually have ever ceased being bad guys because of their heroe’s intimidating them? Certainly not Joker or Poison Ivy that’s for sure? Luthor or Toyman? Fuck no. Jigsaw? Nope. Kingpin? Hahahahahahaha.

This is thus a foolish line of reasoning. As is the idea that repeatedly being beaten by Spider-Man makes them stronger in the long run. Like...why? Where is the A>B>C logic of them growing stronger through repeated defeats? Not to mention...it’s literally not true. There is no evidence to suggest Shocker grew stronger as a villain through his battles with Spider-Man. Nor did Kraven or Doc Ock. But Spider-Man with his immense experience and frequent battle experience sure as fuck was growing more powerful whilst they rotted in jail. He’s one of the greatest street level MU fighters.

Now for the loved ones angle. You know who else the laws of probability are working against? Superman. Batman. The Flash. Daredevil. Police officers. Judges. Politicians. Political activists. Gangsters. People who testify in court. You. Me.

Spider-Man has a secret identity which protects people and a Spider sense to help maintain that. does this guarantee safety? No. But Spider-Man is far from alone in this regard and has kept his identity safer than most people. His identity provides BETTER protection from criminals with axes to grind than people in real life who put criminals away without the benefit of anonymity.

Plus again they live in New York. COUNTLESS super villains put the citizens in danger all the time, much as they do on Gotham. But in Peter’s case FREQUENTLY his loved ones have been endangered by things which had nothing to do with him.

Doctor Octopus lived with Aunt May for reasons independant of him being Spider-Man.

Jonathan Caesar kidnapped Mary Jane because SHE was famous and he was obsessed with her

The Hobgoblin targeted Harry Osborn because his Dad was the Green Goblin

Betty Brant and Ned Leeds’ wedding was interrupted by Mirage because he happened to be pulling a heist there

Eddie Brock happened to be batshit insane and delusion ally picked Peter as the target of his hatred

The Scorpion has beef with J. Jonah Jameson because HE created him

And FYI, Gwen died because PETER made a mistake in the way he saved her. Goblin was still at fault though.

And just what exactly is the OP trying to say here?

That if only Peter had adopted a less bright costume and a scarier demeanor *coughbeenmorelikeBatmancough* his loved ones could’ve been spared. Because you know that worked so well for Rachel Dawes in the Dark Knight and Alfred was 100% not at risk from Bane in Knightfall obviously.

Or is the OP saying Peter just shouldn’t have loved ones? Which you know is OBVIOUSLY the healthy thing to do right?

Finally explain to me with SPECIFIC examples how precisely ‘the more he does the worse things get’?

Lets move onto the whole ‘its stupid that he doesn’t kill people and that’s inept’.

Dude...he’s not LEGALLY sanctioned to kill people. He already bends the law in pursuit of addressing immediate dangers he encounters and sparing dangers posed to other members of law enforcement.

He’d 100% go to jail if he killed someone. That is not his role in the legal system. He is a glorified special officer. He intervenes in crimes as he sees them and halts the immediate threat. The legal work and legal system is then left to deal with it and it’d be a gross ABUSE of power for him to decide to act as judge jury and executioner. It crosses a line and puts him on a slippery slope to say nothing of the psychological toll that takes on a person. Killing deliberately can be incredibly psychologically damaging and is partially why many police officers and soldiers develop mental issues in life, including PTSD or alcoholism to cope with what they’ve seen and done. For someone with raw physical power the temptation to abuse it is always there but he doesn’t give into it or risk becoming as bad as the bad guys.

Whatever else he may be no one man should EVER have the power to decide life or death unless in cases of self defence or defence of another.

So in the grand scheme of things the OP doesn’t know what they are talking about, has taken things out of context, failed to do much research, has defined an illegitimate set of criteria through which the situation (hinging upon using Batman and Punisher as a valid basis for comparison) through and over all taken a needlessly cynical aapproach to the character.

I mean for God’s sake. Please tell me how Spider-Man is such a massive failure compared to fucking Daredevil? Elektra and Karen Page’s deaths along with other’s and MULTIPLE examples of his identity going public tell an entirely different story. Like seriously when you have to fake your own fucking death because you are that bad at keeping your identity secret (despite having the obvious alibi of being blind) the fuck do you suck more than a guy who’s identity only wnet public when he decided to make it so? Like goddam.

Some final points to finish up

· Spider-Man isn’t seriously going to wound his opponents? Tell that to Kingpin in Back in Black

· Its not Spider-Man’s fucking job to actually try and REFORM his enemies. Shit Batman to my knowledge rarely if ever does that. Same with Superman and MOST superheroes. It’s not their job the same way MOST cops don’t actively try to reform the criminals they capture. That’s the job of OTHER people in the legal system. Laying the blame for everything on the superheroes’ shoulders is disgustingly cynical and short sighted.

· Spider-Man carries himself with the maturity of a 13 year old? Not in the comic I’ve read which by the way is a shitton. And you exemplify this by posting a picture of Ultimate Spider-Man. I.e. the Spider-Man that is 100% non-canonical to the mainstream version. How well researched of you

· You realize the Fantastic Four render themselves even bigger targets than Spider-Man right? And they have much more powerful enemies. Doctor Doom alone has sent the Baxter Building into space and Frankling Richards to Hell.

· Batman’s enemies gang up together all the time, often to fight him. they mostly know he isn’t super human so they could in theory kill him with a mere gun. And they sure as shit aren’t afraid of him

· Well I actually DO know a fair amount about social psychology. So I know that when you have that many big egos as supervillains with raw physical power have or crime lords they are far from guaranteed to unite harmoniously towards a major cause. Shit, the debut of the Sinister Six saw them unable to fight together to the point where they just decided to fight Spider-Man one on one...and he beat them all...at age 18....

· Spider-Man doesn’t ‘fight irresponsibility’ you know that right?

· You codify that ‘being responsible is deterring those types of villains’. But...it’s not. NOTHING sets in stone that THAT is the responsible thing to do. The responsible thing to do is to just stop crimes when he sees them. Because given how most of his enemies are power hungry, power mad, stupid assholes reform is unlikely. The Sandman is an exception not the rule. Most of his villains have spent their careers in prison where logically they would’ve been exposed to rehab programs which have never worked. Some criminals are lost cuases and since Spider-Man began his career as a kid and lacks any formal training in this field is is idiotic to discredit him or reprimand him for ‘not trying to change their behaviours’. And again BATMAN and Daredevil have categorically failed in this regard too. Penguin has never been reformed nor has Kingpin. Nor Mr Hyde nor Joker. They also haven’t been deterred from lives of crime.

· David Michelinie stated he created Venom specifically because no other Spider-Man villain actually WANTS to tangle with him. Even Doc Ock only rarely conspired plans specifically to get rid of Spider-Man. Mostly Green Goblin and Venom were is. Most other villains would rather just avoid Spider-Man than go after him. most of them were NOT bent on revenge, they just wanted payback if given the opportunity.

· It is continually brought up how intimidating Daredevil and Batman are. And I will thus keep brining up how at times that wasn’t always true and how being intimidating does little to honestly deter crime since it is still around in Gotham and Hell’s Kitchen. I will also keep bringin up how OTHER characters are not intimidating in their looks or personalities but MANY criminals are intimidated by the mere prospect of you know...fighting super powered beings. No one knows Daredevil has powers, and by now most people know Batman doesn’t either. Spider-Man though really does not seem human at all and has been shown to intimidate criminals but just not outright scare them. But again, he isn’t trying to combat ALL crime in NYC. That’s stupid and would never work. He is just trying to help out where he can is all. At the same time we know from ASm #50 that his presence does deter criminals so in theory there are people who avoid crime because of his presence...and you know...every other hero’s in NYC.

Long story short the premise and arguments laid out by the OP are bullshit and hinge upon worshipping Batman, Daredevil and Punisher and their methodologies despite all of them having major problems on par with or greater than Spider-Man’s.

Or to put it another way the OP doesn’t know what the Hell he is talking about.

#Spider-Man #Peter Parker #bullshit #Daredevil #Batman #Bruce Wayne #Matt Murdock #DC #DC Comics #Marvel #Marvel Comics

32 notes · View notes