#if you're only accountable to yourself then Jason and Bruce are equal liabilities

[spite-and-waffles]

"Why do you want Jason to keep killing and why are you so down on Bruce for not killing the Joker?? Do you really think vigilantes should take it on themselves to kill people?"

I think that wealth hoarding is an act of brutality, crime is the result of systemic violence and is also a social construct, legality has nothing to do with morality, and all cops are bastards. I think anything that tries to "fight crime" instead of addressing its systemic causes is copaganda, and society's most heinous atrocities on a mass scale is inflicted by the pen pushers in mega corporations and government, in perfectly legal ways. I think that it is the very function of the state as an entity to create marginalization and poverty. I think that having minors as sidekicks, super-powered or not, is reckless child endangerment.

But we have decided to fuck all of that and agree to the conceits of the Batverse, i.e cops are good but underpaid and underfunded, billionaire philanthropy is a thing that exists and Bruce's wealth isn't directly correlated to Gotham's poverty and crime, child superheroes are fine, and Batman doesn't permanently maim or accidentally kill people on a regular basis.

But Batman still doesn't ever resolve anything. Arkham and Blackgate both have revolving doors, organized crime still flourishes. The Joker regularly gets out and murders hundreds of people before being corralled and taken in. Rinse, repeat. It's the same unending grind of real life, except nothing works like real life. Whom is this empowering? Where is the satisfaction or vindication? What is the fucking point?

Given this state of affairs, why is it wrong for real life abuse survivors and marginalized people used to being collateral for profit or ideology, to want our own power fantasy? Why shouldn't Jason shoot rapists, decapitate mob bosses and actually protect and avenge innocent people? Jason, who, unlike Bruce, is a survivor of poverty and abuse himself and comes from the same community he wants to protect. Why is it wrong for him to kill his own murderer and give his audience the vindication and justice we deserve?

And in what universe is it wrong for a child to want a parent that will kill for them?

I suspend both my disbelief and beliefs to engage with the Batverse, but "if you kill a serial killer, you become as bad as a serial killer" is NOT A THING. There is absolutely no moral philosophy or ethical foundation you will find anywhere that will make that a legitimate argument. DC Comics pulled that one out of their ass for the express purpose of trying to justify the Joker's continued existence, which DOES NOT WORK because it has no narrative coherence. It is BAD STORYTELLING to overpower both your protagonist and your Villain Sue, paint yourself into a corner, and then slap on whatever rationale you can to keep that cash cow spinning for decades more.

TL;DR Batman should maybe solve some actual problems once in a while instead of expecting an A for effort, and Jason Todd should get to kill whichever scum of the universe crosses him. The end.

#dont have children if you're not willing to kill someone to keep them safe #either by birth or adoption #if my child came back from the dead and begged me to kill his murderer #i would do it with my bare hands #and if you're so close to the edge that offing this one guy opens the door to killing anybody else #it means you are not in possession of your faculties enough #to be out justicing in the first place #the danger of vigilanteism is the lack of accountability #and oversight #if you're only accountable to yourself then Jason and Bruce are equal liabilities #the principle shouldnt be 'killing is wrong' #it's 'do I have someone empowered to step in if Im making a mistake and stop me?' #jason todd #red hood #bat meta #dc meta #batman #dc comics #anti bruce wayne #dcu #character study #gotham #spite waffle