Despite Garth Ennis's well-documented disdain for superheroes, I actually think he handled Daredevil's character pretty well in his Marvel Knights run. Can't say the same for his depictions of Spider-Man and (especially) Wolverine though.
Garth Ennis has to be one of the most overrated comic book writers ever. His portfolio is his run on the Punisher, and his "Totally not Punisher kills the Marvel Universe", but now the Punisher is British. (The Boys)
7:13 For those wondering, this art depicting Batman holding a gun is from the "Year Two" storyline, in which the vigilante is forced to work with none other than Joe Chill, the killer of his parents. Throughout the story, a furious Batman mentally plans to kill him once their mutual need ends, but, just as he confronts the killer and reveals his secret identity, Chill is killed by rival mobsters. Bruce then, horrified at the thought of almost becoming the evil he promised to destroy, vows to never take another person's life.
And Batman exhibited an error in judgment there. How many people’s lives would be better had Batman decided to murder The Joker after he became a mass murderer?
@Ironcabbit It's up to the city to judge the criminals, they just dumped Joker in Arkham instead of trying him and giving him capital punishment, the city failed itself
What if you are the second one? The point is that if your answer to a killer is to become one, you are just as deserving of that fate yourself, and so you continue an endless cycle. For all the good he has done, Frank Castle is not a good man, by his own standards. If there were two Punishers, they would fight eachother to the death.
I love the argument between the Punisher and Daredevil honestly. Many deaths could've been prevented with the death of one, which is where the Punisher's ideals come into play. But with most heroes, they don't kill because they don't believe anyone should be allowed to choose whether someone lives or dies, or they believe they're no better than the criminals they put away if they kill, but one of my favorite reasons that heroes don't kill is because they believe people can change.
One of my favorites is the reasoning Batman gives at one point. He tells someone not blame him for the villains escaping. Blame the system. He catches them but it's not his fault the Gotham system can't hold them and won't execute them. I thought it was an interesting point of view.
My favorite reason is that Daredevil is just catholic. On a serious note I think that DD’s perspective is really unique. Most of the “No-killing” rules are based upon the idea that everyone deserves a second chance or Batman being mentally ill, but Matt’s main reason is the justice system itself. The dude would’ve killed a lot of people had he disregarded it. Sure, every so often a hero brings up the whole “nobody’s above the law” shtick but I don’t think there are any heroes that delve as deep into it as Matt. He’s trying to do more than he alone ever could by trying to fix the root of the problem. Instead of waging a one man war against crime he’s trying to fix the system itself. But Punisher is his foil. And seeing him prove Daredevil wrong by actually being effective is such a cool conflict. The whole DD mythos is honestly awesome.
@@ThisisKyle A valid point. And I'm not saying Bats is 100% right on this. But the criminals aren't getting out because he's a vigilante. They're getting out because Arkham's walls are made of swiss cheese. He's like pest control that keeps catching the rats and putting them into their designated cages. It's not his fault that someone else keeps opening the cages.
Another thing which needs to be challenged with these super hero stories, is the idea that because these criminals are so powerful, and so connected with people in positions of power, the law effectively does not apply to them. How many times have people like Lex Luthor, or Kingpin, or whoever else gotten let off for their crimes, despite the fact that pretty much everybody knows they are guilty as hell? Daredevil says that acting like the Punisher makes the laws society is built upon meaningless. But if the system which is designed to enforce those laws has been corrupted at the highest levels of office, then they are already meaningless.
@sneedfeedandseed2410"An eye for an eye makes the world blind", ironically I do kind of agree with you. But as you said, it's a band aid solution until something better can be done.
Who draws the line though? Let's say that Supes kills Lex, because as you mention, the law basically doesn't apply to him because of his wealth and political power. Does he off Deathstroke too? He's an stupid rich mercenary with patrons ranging from business moguls to dictators, he's more than capable of greasing palms to dodge punishment. What of regular-ass heads of organized crime? They're known for that kind of thing. I'm sure all it would take is a couple of hours and a dozen or so corpses to ruin the Falcone family beyond repair, so why not? Or how about petty pickpockets and thieves that bribe beat cops to look the other way? One good super punch and that's all over.
I like to think of this of how Red Hood thinks it, not every villain is irredeemable, like Mr. Freeze for example, but then some are irredeemable, like Joker, someone who deserves to die, someone who shouldn't be let alive, someone who really challenges the no kill rule
Frank Castle is the Punisher. Not a super hero. He is judge, jury and executioner. He is a monster. It takes a monster to kill monsters. These Super villains are monsters. They have forsaken their humanity the moment they (sometimes even gleefully) murder, brutalize and torture innocent people. Castle introduces a much needed greyscale into the idea of never killing a villain.
that's why we need heroes who won't cross that line. Castle should be the only punisher, because as an angry women once said "sometimes, angels need a sharp sword too"
But we’ve seen moments in comics when villains have come to their senses and recognized the horrors they’ve committed. It’s because of these moments that heroes don’t kill, to give them a chance to have that revelation.
The fact that Punisher does kill his enemies has to make Jigsaw, the Russian and Barracuda some of the toughest viillains in Marvel for sticking out so long
I never really saw a problem with heroes killing villians that constantly evade the justice system or puts them in a situation where there is little choice. However killing juat because you feel like they deserve it doesn't sit right with me. I believe everybody has a right to a fair trial and having power doesn’t automatically give someone authority. Now if the justice system fails to contain someone dangerous then it's up to the people. Also it's unrealistic that so many villians avoid the death penalty
The thing to keep in mind in both DC and Marvel often times the story takes place in democracies. If they can't get their penial code together, they actually want death and destruction.
In some aspects that is evil in itself. Super heroes decide that their own principles is more important than the lives of the people they try to protect. So instead of finishing off a villain they would rather let the villain go and potentially let them kill more people.
@erikm8707 do the heros decide their principles are above those that they are trying to protect or the principles of the people are higher than their own?
The thing I really like about this story is that it doesn't just go the obvious, "Lol superheroes are so stupid for not killing". It gives a realistic take on the gray area. It's not as simple as just killing people like the Joker or other supervillains. Society has rules for a reason, and everyone is meant to abide by them, so everyone receives equal treatment. The moment you take away that fair justice, other people simultaneously lose that right (at least in terms of the US). If I can kill the Joker, why can't I kill Two-Face or the Penguin too? These are all terrible people, no matter how unfortunate their backstories are. And then it will keep spiraling. Perhaps Punisher can distinguish the difference and stop himself, but not everyone, as seen in the comic series. Obviously, the meta solution would be that the justice system in comics is just fucking terrible and seemingly have never heard of the death penalty. You get the best of both worlds if criminals could be sentenced to death but obviously that won't happen because it undermines the entire point of the debate.
It's kinda the weird thing with comic books. You just can't have death penalties or heroes killing villains if you want reoccuring villains. I'm sure even the author are aware that some of the things the villains have done are so fucked up that even countries in the real world who have abolished the death penalty would make an exception.
why doesnt daredevil try to shoot the gun at the sniper punisher has and why did daredevil actually try to knowingly kill punisher in the first place I hate it when writers make characters dumber to prove a point
@@John-Doe-Yo That dude was Bullseye and he was standing behind a bulletproof glass. If I remember correctly, he was either mocking Frank (who wanted to kill him), or was just buying time for something else.
@@etanabu2232 Nothing else would've worked. If Daredevil shot Frank in the leg or arm, he would've dealt with the pain and still killed the criminal. If Daredevil tried to shoot the gun out of his hand, he would've risked Frank missing the shot and killing an innocent instead. Eitherways, the gun had no firing pin, meaning it wouldn't work regardless of what Daredevil did. That being said, I can agree. I've seen way too many heroes get dumbed down just to prove a point for the story.
I love the type of moments in comics that can be reflected in other media, like TV shows. This moment of Daredevil and Punisher's argument, being one of them.
Here's the thing. Punisher isn't wrong about his vendetta. The problem is he's a one man army, who just looks up information on his own. He's a skilled fighter, clever tactician, but I honestly wouldn't say he's great at gathering intelligence. While he can get many targets right, the problem is when he gets the targets terribly wrong, because of faulty info. What he needs is maybe a partner who excels at gathering intelligence, research, and provides proof and info for his targets. There are a lot of series that involve vigilantes going out to get revenge, but a lot of them have a sort of resource network who can confirm identities and crimes committed. Personally, I don't mind the whole vigilante deal, but Punisher is not one I'm really all for, just because of this one flaw.
Netflix massively improves upon this story, showing Daredevil’s arguments properly and delves into his thoughts about how people can change, that even if someone has done horrible things they can always be better and try to make up for the harm they’ve caused, something they can’t do if they’re dead. As usual Garth Ennis overly leans into edge at the expense of nuance due to his desire to tear down superheroes whereas the Netflix show has Daredevil acting like a hero and discovering a third option, shooting the chains to escape.
@MattAnd Netflix's Daredevil is incredible. Just watched it for the first time and it's some of the best MCU content out there. If you do watch it, just know that The Defenders takes place between seasons 2 and 3, and you'll be a little lost at the start if you skip it like I did (season 3 was phenomenal though)
Jameson is kinda funny. He's an incredibly ethical reporter... Until it's about Spiderman, then he just becomes Alex Jones, screaming about how they're putting chemicals in the Spiders to turn the friggin teenagers evil
@@noelmejias552 The conspiracy nut grifter known most for his gay frogs rant. Now bankrupt because he kept lying about the victims of a school shooting
The fact that Punisher uses himself in that scenario is actually pretty damn cool While the circumstances may be different it really shoves the point in question
It's hard to root for the heroes when guys like Joker and Green Goblin keep doing what they do. They've already made up their mind. There's no point in trying to reform them. And people argue "that means the writers have to keep making more villains." So? That just sounds like you wrote yourself into a wall. I love punisher, and I like the Spider-Man variants that do kill, justly of course. All in all, great video, man. You should check out a Batman story called Cycle of Violence. It has Scarecrow as the main villain.
@droovy9044 I always wanted more Punisher stories in the combos of Matthew Rosenberg’s War Machine run, Garth Ennis stuff, and Punisher Kills the Marvel universe where Punisher (war machine outfit) and other powerful Marvel anti heroes target and hunt down Marvel’s worst: Norman Osborn, Jackal, Purple Man, Raol Bushman, Jeri Hogarth, The Kree, Nitro, Carnage, Kingpin, Bullseye, Sabertooth, Shadow King, Arcade, Calypso, etc. each anti hero finds a worst of the worst villain to target.
I think the problem isn't just making more villains but also that villains like the joker and green goblin(?) are too iconic to just kill off. I'm pretty sure they did in some issues but most of the time it's not lasting.
you’re seriously becoming my favorite comic book youtuber, that killer croc video was amazing! and so is this one, plz keep doing great videos like this, you have great deep videos and stuff that no one else is doing about the most obscure comics
One of the reasons some superheroes don't kills is because they are vastly stronger than most of their opponents, this allows a privilege of not taking a life while most of us usually don't have that choice. Let's be real it's not like Spider-man gonna call a cop who shot someone a killer, because that's just how life is for regular people, but as we know ... with great power comes great responsibility hence superheroes must do what they can to live up to the values that we all aspire to. Also, my take on a Punisher is that he's just a really broken dude, he doesn't really care about avenging his family, it's a reason for him to get back into a war, because that's what his life is and this is a thing with quite a few soldiers who come back from war, they just can't adapt to the regular life, they need to go back and Frank's family being killed was an excuse for him to go back.
That's what I think of the punisher too. He even said that he doesn't want all crime to end so that he doesn't run out of criminals to kill, I just don't remember where he said that.
Honestly, to me The punisher is proof of The "If you kill The villain Then you're not better Than them", dude is using The death of his family and justice as an excuse to kill people, and people believe when he says it's for The greater good, this comic kinda proves that, he killed a convicted criminal that was on his way to jail, way to Go punisher, you Just invalidated The justice system's ruling (which was correct) and made your own justice, proving daredevil's point
@@nicholassgobero but also prevents that man from ever stepping out of that jail (which he would of most definitly) and killing another. Imagine joker was killed after his first murder spree, injustice wouldnt of happened, no metropolis nuke, and many murders wouldnt of occuered. Joker has had 671 on screen (on page) kills and way way more off screen if you include bombs and time spent out of jail that dont have a documented kill count. Jokers first appearnce had him kill 4 people, if he was killed after that then 667 on screen deaths that he himself did would of been prevented
@@skellybonz5467 have you considered that he might not kill another person after getting out of prison? He might be too old, or hell, he may have a change in perspective and abandon a life of crime. Heroes are meant to inspire and make us see the best in people, If you're willing to take The life of a Common criminal because "he might kill more people" then you don't get that. Sure, he might kill less people, but Someone Else Will Just rise and take his place, you might kill them, but The cycle repeats, until you've killed even more people then They would've, or They kill you. There's gotta be Hope and there's gotta be a chance for Second chances or Else you truly are no better than them
Interesting. It didn't play out the way I was expecting. I figured DD was going fire the gun in the air a second before Frank fired, thus giving the perp warning.
the killing thing is honestly a problem that only exists in comics IRL most killers go away for life and stay for life, but because comics need a marketable face they constantly bring back the same 10 villains for heroes to fight, for example Batman, admittedly tons have been redeemed and rehabbed, many of his villains have found redemption or died but because they sell issues they are brought back, killer croc has been rehabilitated multiple times and has stayed that way for years but whether due to a writer change or someone got bored people have reverted him back to square one, batman has let the joker die countless times but because batman's most popular villain is also his most sadistic and vile the joker continues to exist making batman look like a moron, harvey dent has flip flopped on being a good guy and a bad guy loads of times, penguin in modern comics actually serves more of a benefit than a hinderance at times proving to be useful for information, harley quinn, poison ivy and catwoman all have been mostly heroes for almost a decade, clayface WAS a hero for a bit and he was more interesting than he had ever been, bane through the suicide squad had become a better person somehow but was reverted once writers wanted to do a batman vs bane story, mr freeze by all accounts should be a good guy but his one popular good story means that he is always bring shifted back to being an Anti villain,
The amazing Punisher comics (along with other great works, like the Peacemaker one-shot) written by Garth Ennis make me wish he was the author hired to write the Comedian miniseries for the "Before Watchmen" project instead of Brian Azzarello, whose writing in that story was quite convoluted and without an apparent direction. Ennis would have surely given Edward Blake a much more badass indepedent story
idk garth ennis' own comic run is fairly directionless other than "GOD DAMN IT I HATE SUPERHEROES", no real themes other than through butchers story which is just kinda fine, and no real plot either, dat shit is "look its professor X but hes a pedophile, we gotta kill him now", he definitely would have written an edgier story, but remember he is still at his core a writer who hates superheroes and cannot let anger go in any capacity, although im not sure his takes on watchmen as its essentially an inverse of every superhero story
I respect TF out of punisher, even if other HEROES hate him- he takes out pedos, corrupt politicians and more. Something the heroes won’t do cause of their code
and that is why he's a terrible role model. Sure you can keep up the body count, keep telling yourself you won't stop at one. the number of killers will remain the same cos you were added to the list
@@1eyeddevil929 That's just psychological manipulation at this point He's the perfect role model I don't see nothing wrong with him Deleting people who keep getting away with pure Evil shit I just don't see myself feeling sorry for the people he's deleted I don't even call them victims
The thing about Batman's rhetoric is that the capital punishment shouldn't be done by vigilantes, but by a justice system... Now why they jail and put the Joker in the arkham asylum so much and not being capital punished with death is weird... But they needed to have more comic and episodes with said villain. In Injustice, had Superman not be the judge, jury, or executioner, but can influence them, he could have ensure that truly irredeemable people will not come back to society...
My take is not on whether or not they deserve to die, because they do,but do the heroes have the right to do the deed. I’d argue no because it is the law’s job to end monsters like the joker and carnage and not heroes like Batman or Spider-Man. While yes they’re slightly responsible for keeping such people alive in a sense, these superheroes, especially the more grounded ones are more like glorified police in the fact that it is their job to take these superpowered criminals down and hand them over to the law so that they can be punished. It is not the heroes fault, it’s the law for not giving these criminals the chair after their first offense. Imagine if joker got the chair after batman defeated him the first time, no dead Jason, no paralyzed Barbara, thousands of less deaths, and Gotham would be a safer place to live. It would be a net positive for these criminals to be put to true justice with rehabilitation an option for those who could be actually redeemed. Some might argue that the police do take lives when on duty and due process is never achieved, and that’s the problem, look at what happens almost every time someone is shot in America by a cop, riots and chaos because they had no due process and was never truly proved guilty. In conclusion the law should end these criminals, not the heroes, since heroes are just the contingency for villains. Would Spider-Man have any use for his powers if no supervillains existed? Would batman exist for even three years if there were no costumed criminals justifying his existence?
YES! My jaw dropped with excitement when you brought up The Punisher agitating that polar bear for it to attack his pursuers. Seeing videos like this makes me sad and mad that Marvel has decided to kill off Frank Castle. And uh...you do look like a young Matt Murdock.
I mean realistically the punisher is just an edge lord with lots of guns. I feel like anytime he fights anything stronger then a gangster it only makes sense he'd die.
I totally agree with the punisher. Although I couldn't kill anyone, in the super hero world, there danger levels are through the roof so some criminals need to get weeded out.
The no killing debate runs into the meta-textual walls of producing long running, serialized stories. Killing off a character is filling in a well: if a character believes a psychotic killer should get their day in court and manages to take them in alive, there's no problem there. The issue comes up when they can't be executed or permanently detained because they're popular and they move books. Which creates the trouble that at a certain point their strict dedication becomes irresponsibility. Particularly when their personal codes were cemented in a lighter era of silly heists and lackadaisical adventures, but now their hunting down cannibalistic serial killers. Their desire to operate as a vigilante committed to half measures is outdated and puts blood on their hands if that villain happens to be popular. How many times does a super villain need to break out of prison before someone accepts that no prison can hold them? By turning this person over to the law all a hero is doing is putting their next murder on hold. The problem is baked into the cake.
Well said. They can always tell elseworld or prequel stories to sell the popular villains but in the main timeline villains like Green Goblin and Joker need to die. Hell Marvel and DC retcon and reboot so often it would be easy to kill off a bunch of villains every once in a while.
@@bigbear4120 The issue is that they want to keep the main issues selling and popular, and killing off major villains is going to directly affect sales. If Batman killed the Joker I guarantee you that sales would see a *major* drop until the inevitable "oh whoops, Joker isn't actually dead" plot point, and DC knows that too. Superhero media exists in a paradoxical state where superheroes are incapable of being effective, because being effective means decreasing sales, and this will exist until they stop being treated as cash cow franchises and start being treated as stories that have a beginning and an end. If this happened they wouldn't even need to die, the system could just actually work, and villains that go into prison could stay there, and these heroes could hold onto their ideals.
Let me preface the following with this: For the most part, I think you put this excellently, but I think a point could be made that many heroes may actually subscribe to the idea that some supervillains should die. It's just that if many superheroes are either so powerful compared to their villains that killing them would be so easy that it would come across as irresponsible because of the difference in power rendering killing them immoral because they both have no means to defend themselves. Imagine if a toddler came at you with a knife. You'd technically be in the right to kill them if they were trying to kill you, but the difference in capability is so large that killing them is wrong when you don't have to. Same logic behind cops catching murderers unarmed and whatnot. Many superheroes subscribe to the idea that they're not so much a vigilante in that they dispense vengeance, but that they dispense justice. And it's not justice to kill people even if they're clearly a murderous psychopath without first irrefutably proving that they did it and were in control of their faculties. They don't view themselves as vigilantes committed outdated codes of honour. They view themselves in the same way as police officers do: All they do is deliver criminals for judgement, not judge them themselves. If you judge them for not killing the supervillains at that point, you should be blaming cops for not killing supervillains after they were recovered after the second or third breakout, not just the heroes. You should be directing your ire to the justice systems of superhero media, not just the superheroes themselves, although they're still definitely to blame in some cases. Batman for example as a normal human being clearly has been threatened enough physically to warrant morally being able to kill some of his foes and then claim that it was necessary for him to survive. Again, like many police officers do. But imagine superman killing every single one of his enemies. Many of them are literally incapable of harming him even on the atomic level, so you have to consider whether or not that if he's in the position to let the justice system work normally. (which would ideally prove a murderer was guilty, and then would execute them)
The no kill rule is stupid. This why I like Invincible, Mark realize that no kill rule is unrealistic but learns that kill every villain/criminal is just irresponsible. As he grows, he learns to balance both sides by concluding kill as a last resort only.
From my point of view, the more you kill the more you become willing to kill. You kill all the really bad guys, then the bad guys, then the lesser bad guys until you get so used to it that you don't care anymore. As the saying goes, "when you have a hammer, everything is a nail". Now imagine if you are Superman and you do this. You get Injustice Superman or worse, Ultraman. You get the Punisher with Superman's powers. Now imagine if you influence society and they start doing this? Where will it lead too? Won't some people abuse it? That's what is Batman really afraid of.
@@chongwillson972but it’s literally correct. That was the whole point with the punisher fan club vigilantes. As you keep killing, it gets easier and your reasons for killing a “wrongdoer” become less solid and reasonable
@@chongwillson972--It's also something that we've seen outside of fiction to be true of many people though. Serial killers in many interviews state it gets easier and more mundane with every victim.
Pasha Nosrat · Follow 6y It is easy to criticize someone for taking revenge or asking for justice, only cause we aren’t that person, i think most of the time it’s rather easy to declare whats bad, just close your eyes and think about some of the bad things that happened to you. Would it be morally right or wrong to kill all the bad people? With all do respect i think thats a false question, as if the Bad or Evil wont be there once we are finished with the killing. No my friends, good and evil is all around us, and we as beings are constantly choosing.
The problem with the heros kill the villain debate is less with the debate itself and more with the way these stories tend to be written. When your watching show, playing a game, or reading a book and you see the horrible things that the villain does and the lives they ruin only for the main characters to at the end be like "we would be just as bad as him" falls flat because we wouldnt be as bad as the villain. The core problem is not the heros being dumb by the writer who wrote a scenario with trying to say the world wouldnt be better if we killed the guy who tried to take over the world and burned down villages. This is why people people love the punisher so much because garth ennis writes villainess like human traffickers or corrupt officials who have ruined thousands of people lives and would be better off without. The issue isnt that heros are wrong for not killing the villainess its that the writer of the story didnt create a good reason for the heros not to. Its also why people love stuff like the batman under the red hood movie because it did a good job of justifying batman's no kill rule beyond "kill am bad".
i think the point isn't that killing is stupid, more that the slope is slippery when it comes to when killing is acceptable, and punisher is a great example of this. guy isn't really doing for justice, or even a twisted sense of justice now, he has no code and no one to keep him in check, and so we see people looking up to him and justifying his sense of bloodlust. taking a life, even an evil life, is something that shouldn't be taken lightly not because death is rare, for everyone dies, but because the moment that taking a life loses its significance, you turn the view of "ends justify the means" to its logical extreme, and push the limits in the name of "justice"
Despite common belief the heros of the Marvel universe would waste no time on carnage and kill him, and any other crazed threat that embodies pure evil. It's the DC universe where heros don't care and will honor their sense of justice over preventing mass casualties.
The problem ISN'T the superheroes not killing, the problem is our sudden aversion to the Swift Death Penalty as a punishment in the law. If they said "Okay Joker, this is the 3rd time you've recorded yourself killing people, you CAN'T get off on insanity pleas anymore, you *WILL* be executed." That would have likely stopped the Injustice universe from going to hell. Same thing here, killers get off due to technicalities or they trade information or whatever, but they avoid actually facing death for the deaths they have caused. When someone kills with intent, such as a planned murder, or they willingly took drugs reasonably known to cause violent outbursts and then kill, they have already violated the root right of life, and as such should reasonably have their rights forfeited. There is a reason the saying is "Judge, Jury, and _Executioner."_ because we need to punish these people. But the only way to fix things is to update our laws to actually PUNISH the criminals, rather then just letting them get a slap on the wrist, sure some criminals will slip through since we can't prove their ties to a crime, but the majority would get caught.
These are among my favorite Punisher stories too. I really like when writers make him a cunning individual instead of just "going Rambo". It's one of the reason why I really enjoy the 2004 Punisher film.
Frankly (hehe, get it) this is why I never cared for Punisher. He's a Supervillain and the only reason he isn't part of a rogues gallery is because people like his gritty and brooding aesthetic, alike 'The Elite*', despite how much it clashes with the rest of the universe and other heroes. "So maybe ordinary people don't always crack. Maybe there isn't any need to crawl under a rock with all the other slimey things when trouble hits... Maybe it was just you, all the time." -Batman, 'The Killing Joke' *The Elite were one time villian group in the comic, "Superman vs The Elite", who acted as murderous 'heroes' and decried Superman's philosophy, only to be praised by the rest of the world until Superman showed how dangerous and disturbing it would be if he and people like him had this mindset in a staged 'Superman goes crazy evil moment'.
I personally think the same, however I actually do like the punisher, not because I think he's justified or anything like that, but because I enjoy seeing him just... Act and do stuff you know? I find punisher interesting because he's literally insane, he's a guy who believes that there are only two types of people in the world, good people, and bad people, and the bad people need to go because they can't be redeemed. I think it's just interesting to see the worldview and life of a man who's genuinely insane but still thinks he's doing the right thing. Even though I also consider him a Supervillain.
@@ThisisKyle Yes, because acting as a crazed gunman shooting people he brands as evil would never spill over to innocent people, undercover cops, the mentally unwell, or just people in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I always wanted more Punisher stories in the combos of Matthew Rosenberg’s War Machine run, Garth Ennis stuff, and Punisher Kills the Marvel universe where Punisher (war machine outfit) and other powerful Marvel anti heroes target and hunt down Marvel’s worst: Norman Osborn, Jackal, Purple Man, Raol Bushman, Jeri Hogarth, The Kree, Nitro, Carnage, Kingpin, Bullseye, Sabertooth, Shadow King, Arcade, Calypso, etc. each anti hero finds a worst of the worst villain to target.
although I agree, the topic of “should superheroes kill their enemies” is very complex, I have to say in general, I tend to favor superheroes that do everything in their power to avoid killing. Sure some villains like the joker, or the green goblin deserve to die, but killing them isn’t going to bring back any of their victims. They should be allowed a chance to be reformed, or at the very least have their day in court. (also let’s remember the superheroes are not aware that they are in a story that necessitates that the most popular super villains always return to crime.) It’s also worth noting that a fair amount of super villains have actually become heroes over the years. Just look at Hawkeye. He was once a criminal, and if Iron Man had killed him, he would’ve never had a chance to become an Avenger. I will say, though, the Killing thing really comes down to “does it suit the character?” as I have no problem with characters like red hood, or punisher using lethal force. But characters like Batman and Spider-Man should avoid killing as much as possible, as it goes against everything they stand for.
That all makes sense but why dose the state and government let them get away with like I agree let them have a chance but how many innocent dose he have to kill before they say ok he’s never changing and just ship him off somewhere where he can be killed and send the super heroes with him cuz Batman wants him to die it’s just not his place and no kill rule but if it’s his job to just get him there I think he will be fine with it I know the real reason is money but like what’s the canon reason lmao
Oh no Spiderman has no problems killing under circumstances, when Doctor Octopus took over Spiderman, he found out for himself that Spiderman all this time could've easily wiped out someone's jaw or ripped a heart out without worry but doesn't because he believes in reform. On the OTHER HAND, Spiderman HAS shown that he WILL kill someone if they hurt his family in any way, I mean Kingpin can vouch for that as he was almost suffocated to death for attempting to pull a hit that had gone wrong and hit Aunt May.
Otherwise though your points are pretty spot on as I personally believe that superheroes killing crooks is like if cops killed crooks, in the real world if a cop killed someone out of anger rather than self defense (and even if it is self defense) the public gets enraged and goes out with their signs protesting about how the criminals never get due process. And if all that is the case, what gives heroes the right to kill crooks either? It's why Frank Castle is flawed in his belief as killing people without due process is basically the same as killing an innocent person and how when he kills criminals about to face time for their crimes, the laws themselves at that point don't matter as they won't operate when someone else is using their biased belief to do it for them.
"Evil is Evil. Lesser, greater, middling… Makes no difference. The degree is arbitary. The definition’s blurred. If I’m to choose between one evil and another… I’d rather not choose at all."
This is why The Punisher makes A LOT of sense, and is also why he is one of my favorite characters. He DOES get rid of the trouble once and for all, saving MILLIONS of people in the proces.
Except not really, since people keep coming after him in revenge for killing people that they loved. In fact a lot of the time all he does is create power vacuums that result in more dangerous people rising to power.
@@jordanloux3883 but every other superhero doesn't? Because while I absolutely love characters like Batman, Captain America, and even Dare Devil you are not gonna convince me or anyone that by Cap not killing Red Skull it somehow doesn't lead to the same thing you criticize Punisher for, this is why arguments or counter points like this are dumb and useless cause it can be applied to LITERALLY every hero ever created. Sorry to tell but your argument was dog shit with no actual provable points.
Hello, it is not to create controversy but as a fan of the Punisher, personally, I do not recommend Garth's era of comics at all, they are crap (and more if you like a little other super heroes from the marvel universe), punisher it's a Gary Stu who can beat the Hulk or Wolverine with his arms tied according to this writer. I personally recommend that you read Punisher Volume 9, with Greg Rucka as a writer and Marco Checchetto as an artist, this could be the best era of Frank's comics!! Where he is seen as a believable part of the Marvel universe, when he has to fight a Super Human, the Punisher uses cunning and battles are won by the skin of his teeth, and not because he is the selft-insert of Garth Ennis himself.
Not really a marvel fan overall, more of a DC fella myself, but the idea of a normal ass guy like Frank beating the fucking hulk is ridiculous. There's a comic panel of hulk lifting a 900 quadrillion ton mountain or something. Frank can't even lift *one*.
can someone explain to me the logic behind dare devil's whole "society will collapse" argument? vigilante justice and self-defense are only necessary when the law isn't effective enough to prevent murderers from being a threat to society. if the law is so corrupt or fangless that it can't effectively punish criminals, not only is it already completely worthless, but it's also directly contributing to the collapse of society that would supposedly come from "lawless" vigilante justice. they treat this like it's dirty work, or morally grey to some extent, but it seems to me that he's just enforcing natural law.
This entire scenario is solely based on comic style redemption bullshit. If you shot an active child rapist serial killer, no one irl is really gonna try and say you’re a bad person. Lots of the villains are also literally stronger than an entire army, how could you justify sparing that when you know they aren’t staying locked up.
Killing all people who you see as bad can quickly lead to an authoritarian society if not careful. Yet not killing can kill so many. I believe the best way is to kill if needed, but only if needed, and to do work to make it so you never need to kill.
Punisher is a good concept, but I think most authors just ruined him, turning him from “dark twisted misunderstood antihero” to “fucked up psychopath who just want to murder everyone it the most gruesome way possible”.
I personally love Garth Ennis' writing because it's atypical to the usual superhero stuff. But then I suppose the "typical superhero stuff" has also been getting somewhat darker and grittier as a whole so I wonder how much longer that will stick.
Sure, both sides have a point, but the real issue is just the extremities. Killing everything that could be a threat, yeah that's the vigilantes at the end. Never killing, that's why supervillains keep returning. Kill the supervillain established to be a recurring threat... Not really so much grey. A villain like, say, Carnage has been beaten and sent to the asylum before, has shown no intention of reform, and has returned to cause problems again. Not so gray after the villain returns.
the punisher giving daredevil a gun with a blank round in the chamber is emblamatic of the false choice the punisher is trying to point out. It doesn't matter what happens, if the punisher kills dino gnuchi, people will die, if daredevil kills the punisher, people will die, if the punisher does nothing, people will die. All the punisher is trying to say here is that, if people are going to die regardless of the choices we individually make, then the responsibility of a hero is actually to help decide who it is that dies, and who gets to live, not to try and fight against the inevitable
Punisher is right here especially in the context of the comic universe. Once a supervillain is allowed to escape over and over the blood is on the hands of the heroes. Daredevil would be right if the legal system was at all effective.
The funny thing about Daredevil is that his whole schtick is that he's a man of the law, but the fact that he exists in the first place already shows how worthless laws are. Both IRL and in comics, laws really are just a social construct, and if you look at it objectively there's really no difference between a criminal being shot or locked up forever.
Honestly i think Daredevil has one of the better cases for his no Killing rule. It's not Because of the whole "if you kill a killer" thing (im pretty sure even Batman hasn't said that to be honest). It's not because he'd go insane and would be unable to stop. It's because of the Law. It's because if he takes down a Mob boss legally,he can set a precedent for other Mob Bosses to be taken down long after he's gone. Or far away from where he is. Killing criminals won't change much. Yes these particular criminals won't hurt anyone again,but others will. And you can't kill them all. You won't be alive forever and you won't be everywhere. So trying to improve the System. To the point it doesn't need a Vigilante like Batman or Daredevil is what these heroes are trying to do. And that will save a lot more people in the long run than simply killing the Joker. Because there will be another Joker, another Riddler, another Kingpin. So the System has to learn how to deal with them. Without the Crutches that are the Vigilantes
I side with Punisher on this to an extent. For example: The Joker. You can’t tell me every second of his existence isn’t a threat to an entire city. Batman’s morals will never pay off with him because Joker’s already too broken to return. The law seems way too slow at killing him too. People like the Joker just need to be gone ASAP. On the other hand, taking a life from a person is to deny them every future they can have. If there’s hope of any good, I’d say the spare is worth it. No matter what, this is always going to be a slippery slope of morality and opinions.
@aurawmerald8434 I always wanted more Punisher stories in the combos of Matthew Rosenberg’s War Machine run, Garth Ennis stuff, and Punisher Kills the Marvel universe where Punisher (war machine outfit) and other powerful Marvel anti heroes target and hunt down Marvel’s worst: Norman Osborn, Jackal, Purple Man, Raol Bushman, Jeri Hogarth, The Kree, Nitro, Carnage, Kingpin, Bullseye, Sabertooth, Shadow King, Arcade, Calypso, etc. each anti hero finds a worst of the worst villain to target.
Joker has actually died numerous times in mainline continuity. In fact Batman is directly responsible for several of them. But the writers keep bringing him back. Heck, there was a time the justice system actually worked and gave Joker the electric chair. But he still came back from the dead. It doesn't matter how many times Batman stops him, arrests him, or even killed him. The writers will still just keep bringing him back because he's too profitable to let go. That's the problem with most comic book supervillains. It's not that the heroes won't kill them. It's that they'll always come back.
One thing that was fun about the Vigilante Squad, is that when Frank confronts them and calls them out, he actually has zero issue with Mr. Payback offing CEO's for the evils they and their corporations perpetrate, its that Mr. Payback was just a sloppy armed gunman who didn't put the care into his hits that Frank does, which caused innocent casualties.
@@TheStreamThatJakeBuiltIt's funny how you aknowledge that there are tons of people who have the responsibility of making sure the Joker doesn't hurt anybody ever again, and yet you still blame the vigilante.
@@dominickeijzer5844 you do know that literally every person you mentioned deserved to die right?😅 If bats knows right and wrong well enough to beat the shit out of people then he knows well enough when those people deserves to die, at the bare minimum of the person is a mass murdering lunatic who constantly breaks out of prison off em.
@@TheStreamThatJakeBuilt "im a nut job who justify his sadist thirst for blood with a facade of being "justice",i will even kill the least deserving criminals ever stole food boom dead,jay walk get shot bitc" punisher
@@TheStreamThatJakeBuilt comic serial killers dont die by the justice system bc of plot im sure ppl like carnage would have been killed a loong time ago with an eletric chair or whatever,thats why criminals go unpunished on batman or why ppl like carnage are a thing plot
I think its insane that the writers or publishers of these comic books can not see the difference between exicuting a murder, and exicuting someone running a hotdog stand in the rich part of town.
I think one of the most interesting things about Punisher is that he not only understands what he does, but he understands the ideology that his actions represent, and ge hates it.
The punisher is just a edge lord no offense, he is regularly held way above people who actually have work put into him, and yet he himself just feels like a lazy murder hobo who acts like he is right Under his own logic he would have no reason not to kill himself
As an edge lord kid, I loved the Punisher. Years later I felt his character was overly violent and I cringed when thinking about how much my younger self loved him. Now though, I actually think he's an amazing character when you analyse his psyche, motivations and behaviours, and when written well he's a really enjoyable character. A lot of Punisher stories portray Frank as the edge lord killer, but given the right treatment he could be a really compelling character. I feel a writer like Tom King could create one of the best Punisher stories ever written.
The dilemma (to me) comes down to the inevitable suffering and/or killing that a criminal in question is causing. That's to say that there's avoidable suffering like someone being obnoxiously loud (where you can wait for them to leave/go somewhere else, get them kicked out, etc.) versus inevitable suffering like a single person or small group of people threatening your only livelihood/wellbeing to the point that you can't live outside of constant anxiety. So if someone exhibits a pattern of that (and/or killing other people for their gain), then I can understand the argument that suffering and killing is reduced by that person being killed. That being said, you'd also have to measure the positive impact that person's life continuously has on others (granted those impacted don't only benefit from others' suffering/death), which is usually tougher. The answer to the moral dilemma seems to be weighing whether a person's impact is net positive or net negative.
I think, if the people are so upset about villains getting away with their lives, they should push for government action. That way, the power is still in the hands of the people. When superheroes start killing, they put their own judgement above the law, which is why most of them don’t do it.
the thing I think about superheroes is that they dont have to make the choice. They could save everyone in that case. They simply never bother to look for that option
When an innocent person kills a killer, the amount of killers remains the same. But if a person like the Punisher kills a killer, the amount of killers goes down.
I really wish Marvel would portray the real Punisher: an irredeemable sociopath who uses his family as an excuse to have a war. That's a lot more compelling to me than what Netflix had done.
The Netflix Punisher had potential, especially with season 2. The entire season hints at the question "does Frank act in necessity or does he enjoy what he does?". The entire plot wouldn't have happened if Frank didn't go looking for fights, and he's questioned about it through the entire season. It even ends with him accepting that he is a psychopath looking to kill criminals in his own war, in other words he is the Punisher. It just sucks that the overall writing wasn't as good, but it definitely had potential and left the door open for a true Punisher adaptation.
I can understand Daredevil's plight with the feeling of, if we cant take down the bad guys legitimately/legally, than these laws we have, the society we've built is all for nothing/completely worthless. But likewise daredevil, you need to acknowledge and realize that the systems weve created arent perfect and that the have failed us as a society. There are plenty of laws that are important, helpful, and keep people/the public safe. But we got just as many laws that are unfair, have massive loop holes in them that can be abused and manipulated, and others that benefit the people that arent suffering/dont need help, while screwing over and making the people already in need of help, suffer more. If you truly value the systems society has put in place to attempt to keep order and peace Daredevil, then you need to see/realize that it ia broken and how and why that is. If you truly care, youd be willing to try to change the law into a better one.
The way I've always seen it, is that heroes like Batman, Daredevil or Spiderman simply don't have a personal or moral obligation to kill. Frank Castle on the other hand, feels that it should be the primary method because it's easiest and 100% effective. Both standpoints are equally valid. Not everyone has an obligation to commit murder, and not everyone has an obligation to mercy.
Batman doesn't kill in his code but Spiderman doesn't because he believes that it isn't a good option although he will do it with no regrets if the person is either deemed irrecoverable or hurts Spiderman's family in any way.
Here’s an example of a actual misunderstood villain: A man who’s parents were murdered and thus he hunts down criminals to prevent anyone else from suffering a similar fate.
I agree that sometimes killing would be necessary as a her (though preferably as a last resort) However I sort of hate the punisher because to me it never felt like he was killing villain's to actually save lives. It almost always feels like its for selfish and sometimes sadistic reasons and he uses the whole "preventing further harm" thing as an excuse for his actions.
Heroes don’t kill because there’s a destructiveness to it that’s similar to the destructive consequences of hate, when hate isn’t such a strong driving reason. The Punisher *is* hate, written to show that we shouldn’t desire or idolize butchers, especially in our heroes.
Batman when you say "What if i kill 2 killers?": 🤯🤯🤯 The Punisher when he realises that "the number of killers stays the same" was not referring to him but the increasing deranged followers of his: 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯
I honestly kind of agree with the punisher, I always hate people who kills others, like if it’s family, friends, relationships, etc, since if they kill those people, then the punishment is to get the killer killed, why you may ask, because jail is just nothing but to spend your time in there and soon you will be free, but when the killer kills somebody, they already got what they wanted, and if the killer is still living, then he is going to continue his killing spree, so to prevent it, the killer should get killed, so they will NEVER get the chance to kill someone again.
This is a cool moment, but Matt totally could have beat this situation and should have. If "Daredevil" happened to be the title of that issue instead of the word "Punisher" then how it would have happened is, after not being able to convince Frank to stop, Matt would have just been like okay, Frank and then "listened" intently, using the rain to aid him in getting a perfect perception of the environment around him, and then would have shot frank in the kevlar just as he was about to take the shot. Frank would have missed, Dino would have been pulled into security custody and then Frank would smack Matt around a bit but then it all would have been okay. I honestly think that's very clearly how this situation would have played out, but as much as i love the Punisher, writers really do be giving him sime freaking ridiculous passes when it comes to interacting with superpowered beings in Marvel u. Its like hes got a power-dampening/stupifying field emitter built into that combat suit or something. Edit: matt would try this anyway. But there was no firing pin. W Frank
I don't have a problem with the hero's no kill rule. My problem is the citizens. You're telling me at no point has a citizen, cop, or soldier said "enough is enough, the psycho dies tonight". Not one DC or Marvel cop felt tempted or tried to kill the villain while in custody?
Funny enough in the Batman comics(forgot which run it was) there was a kid who actually took it upon himself to try to kill the Joker for killing his parents. He only took it upon himself when Batman told him he will take care of it,spoiler alert he doesn't. And that kid became the ClownHunter.
Tbf what's a normal dude going to do against people like tombstone, or kingpin, or carnage? I'm sure many people probably have tried but it probably didn't end well.
The adaptation of this scene in the Daredevil series is further pushed with the idea that some criminals, those in the lowest of the underbelly, are just doing it to get by, are they proud of it? Maybe yes maybe not, and then there are also those who may wanna change and just call it quits, it's all arbitrary, but the point is, some people deserve a second chance, and that's actually something Matt Murdock stands for as representative of the legal council and also the more vigilante side of things. Ultimately, I prefer the reinterpretation once again than the source material, but Garth Ennis does have a point that some people does not need to adhere to the same thing he does, providing more complexity in this already morally gray question whether one should kill as a form of verdict for criminals.
This story is a breath of fresh air from the Spider-Man, Batman, etc. stories that just seem to mock the characters and provide shock value rather than present multiple sides of a difficult core moral issue.
My take on this is if they’ve taken a life or is responsible for taking a life then punisher can go off, but if, say, they robbed a store of bank or whatever then the law can do what the law does
![ปฏิเสธไม่ไหว (Crush on you) - LIPTA feat. No One Else [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NBw1jF342vw/mqdefault.jpg)
Despite Garth Ennis's well-documented disdain for superheroes, I actually think he handled Daredevil's character pretty well in his Marvel Knights run. Can't say the same for his depictions of Spider-Man and (especially) Wolverine though.
Wolverine is a bit of a contradiction as he’s killed thousands and revels in it.
Garth Ennis has to be one of the most overrated comic book writers ever.
His portfolio is his run on the Punisher, and his "Totally not Punisher kills the Marvel Universe", but now the Punisher is British. (The Boys)
@@ArmetzgerNo no it’s just Marvel, it’s DC as well and everyone is a rapist or sadist in some way
He’s way more annoying than the people he’s mocking
@@ArmetzgerAnd don't forget crossed
7:13
For those wondering, this art depicting Batman holding a gun is from the "Year Two" storyline, in which the vigilante is forced to work with none other than Joe Chill, the killer of his parents. Throughout the story, a furious Batman mentally plans to kill him once their mutual need ends, but, just as he confronts the killer and reveals his secret identity, Chill is killed by rival mobsters. Bruce then, horrified at the thought of almost becoming the evil he promised to destroy, vows to never take another person's life.
So that's when it all started?
Yep. That story was awful.
thats dumb
And Batman exhibited an error in judgment there. How many people’s lives would be better had Batman decided to murder The Joker after he became a mass murderer?
@Ironcabbit It's up to the city to judge the criminals, they just dumped Joker in Arkham instead of trying him and giving him capital punishment, the city failed itself
"If you kill a killer, the number of killers in the world stays the same."
"Kill two."
"Holy shit, he's right!"
*Stains of time starts playing*
What if you are the second one? The point is that if your answer to a killer is to become one, you are just as deserving of that fate yourself, and so you continue an endless cycle. For all the good he has done, Frank Castle is not a good man, by his own standards. If there were two Punishers, they would fight eachother to the death.
@@BadFiendkill three
@@omeletteflicker43 Read a book
@@BadFiendA necessary evil is still better than just... evil.
I love the argument between the Punisher and Daredevil honestly. Many deaths could've been prevented with the death of one, which is where the Punisher's ideals come into play. But with most heroes, they don't kill because they don't believe anyone should be allowed to choose whether someone lives or dies, or they believe they're no better than the criminals they put away if they kill, but one of my favorite reasons that heroes don't kill is because they believe people can change.
One of my favorites is the reasoning Batman gives at one point. He tells someone not blame him for the villains escaping. Blame the system. He catches them but it's not his fault the Gotham system can't hold them and won't execute them. I thought it was an interesting point of view.
@@atomicgator5207It kind of his fault because they can't be judged as a normal criminal because batman brings them in and he's not a law officer
@@ThisisKyle not really, even when officers bring real monsters in, they can still be released and allowed to be released to hurt again
My favorite reason is that Daredevil is just catholic. On a serious note I think that DD’s perspective is really unique. Most of the “No-killing” rules are based upon the idea that everyone deserves a second chance or Batman being mentally ill, but Matt’s main reason is the justice system itself. The dude would’ve killed a lot of people had he disregarded it. Sure, every so often a hero brings up the whole “nobody’s above the law” shtick but I don’t think there are any heroes that delve as deep into it as Matt. He’s trying to do more than he alone ever could by trying to fix the root of the problem. Instead of waging a one man war against crime he’s trying to fix the system itself. But Punisher is his foil. And seeing him prove Daredevil wrong by actually being effective is such a cool conflict. The whole DD mythos is honestly awesome.
@@ThisisKyle A valid point. And I'm not saying Bats is 100% right on this.
But the criminals aren't getting out because he's a vigilante. They're getting out because Arkham's walls are made of swiss cheese.
He's like pest control that keeps catching the rats and putting them into their designated cages. It's not his fault that someone else keeps opening the cages.
Another thing which needs to be challenged with these super hero stories, is the idea that because these criminals are so powerful, and so connected with people in positions of power, the law effectively does not apply to them. How many times have people like Lex Luthor, or Kingpin, or whoever else gotten let off for their crimes, despite the fact that pretty much everybody knows they are guilty as hell? Daredevil says that acting like the Punisher makes the laws society is built upon meaningless. But if the system which is designed to enforce those laws has been corrupted at the highest levels of office, then they are already meaningless.
as thanos once said, reality is quite often disappointing.
Commentary on real life.
What good are laws when they're selectively enforced by criminals?
@sneedfeedandseed2410"An eye for an eye makes the world blind", ironically I do kind of agree with you. But as you said, it's a band aid solution until something better can be done.
Who draws the line though? Let's say that Supes kills Lex, because as you mention, the law basically doesn't apply to him because of his wealth and political power. Does he off Deathstroke too? He's an stupid rich mercenary with patrons ranging from business moguls to dictators, he's more than capable of greasing palms to dodge punishment. What of regular-ass heads of organized crime? They're known for that kind of thing. I'm sure all it would take is a couple of hours and a dozen or so corpses to ruin the Falcone family beyond repair, so why not? Or how about petty pickpockets and thieves that bribe beat cops to look the other way? One good super punch and that's all over.
I like to think of this of how Red Hood thinks it, not every villain is irredeemable, like Mr. Freeze for example, but then some are irredeemable, like Joker, someone who deserves to die, someone who shouldn't be let alive, someone who really challenges the no kill rule
"If you kill the killer, the number of killers in the world stay the same"
".... Just kill 2, problem solved"
the rebutlu to that is some will take over look at carnage cletus was dead and a new guy became carnage
congrats. youve just added frank to that list
".... Holy shit, I never thought about that."
Frank Castle is the Punisher. Not a super hero. He is judge, jury and executioner. He is a monster.
It takes a monster to kill monsters. These Super villains are monsters.
They have forsaken their humanity the moment they (sometimes even gleefully) murder, brutalize and torture innocent people.
Castle introduces a much needed greyscale into the idea of never killing a villain.
that's why we need heroes who won't cross that line. Castle should be the only punisher, because as an angry women once said "sometimes, angels need a sharp sword too"
The only difference frank became monster to hunt other monsters
And never forgets that
But we’ve seen moments in comics when villains have come to their senses and recognized the horrors they’ve committed. It’s because of these moments that heroes don’t kill, to give them a chance to have that revelation.
The fact that Punisher does kill his enemies has to make Jigsaw, the Russian and Barracuda some of the toughest viillains in Marvel for sticking out so long
I never really saw a problem with heroes killing villians that constantly evade the justice system or puts them in a situation where there is little choice. However killing juat because you feel like they deserve it doesn't sit right with me. I believe everybody has a right to a fair trial and having power doesn’t automatically give someone authority. Now if the justice system fails to contain someone dangerous then it's up to the people.
Also it's unrealistic that so many villians avoid the death penalty
but the people don,t have to resourse to decide that and be right
Fr, if they killed ppl all willy nilly, we wouldn't have Plastic Man
The thing to keep in mind in both DC and Marvel often times the story takes place in democracies. If they can't get their penial code together, they actually want death and destruction.
In some aspects that is evil in itself. Super heroes decide that their own principles is more important than the lives of the people they try to protect. So instead of finishing off a villain they would rather let the villain go and potentially let them kill more people.
@erikm8707 do the heros decide their principles are above those that they are trying to protect or the principles of the people are higher than their own?
The thing I really like about this story is that it doesn't just go the obvious, "Lol superheroes are so stupid for not killing". It gives a realistic take on the gray area. It's not as simple as just killing people like the Joker or other supervillains. Society has rules for a reason, and everyone is meant to abide by them, so everyone receives equal treatment. The moment you take away that fair justice, other people simultaneously lose that right (at least in terms of the US). If I can kill the Joker, why can't I kill Two-Face or the Penguin too? These are all terrible people, no matter how unfortunate their backstories are. And then it will keep spiraling. Perhaps Punisher can distinguish the difference and stop himself, but not everyone, as seen in the comic series.
Obviously, the meta solution would be that the justice system in comics is just fucking terrible and seemingly have never heard of the death penalty. You get the best of both worlds if criminals could be sentenced to death but obviously that won't happen because it undermines the entire point of the debate.
I'm really glad that this channel comments have civil conversations. They wrote complex moral stories for us to internalize and interpret how we will.
Never mind I scrolled down a bit. 🤣
It's kinda the weird thing with comic books. You just can't have death penalties or heroes killing villains if you want reoccuring villains. I'm sure even the author are aware that some of the things the villains have done are so fucked up that even countries in the real world who have abolished the death penalty would make an exception.
The world of DC would have a presedent that any place that didn't have the death penalty to be backwards.
What's wrong with also killing Penguin and Two Face? They are also dangerous criminals that have killed or had people killed.
Damn, I never saw Daredevil acting so desperate and scared against a threat. Frank is truly a monster
NOOOO YA THINKS
What’s happening here? 7:55 whys dude asking his favorite color
why doesnt daredevil try to shoot the gun at the sniper punisher has and why did daredevil actually try to knowingly kill punisher in the first place I hate it when writers make characters dumber to prove a point
@@John-Doe-Yo That dude was Bullseye and he was standing behind a bulletproof glass. If I remember correctly, he was either mocking Frank (who wanted to kill him), or was just buying time for something else.
@@etanabu2232 Nothing else would've worked. If Daredevil shot Frank in the leg or arm, he would've dealt with the pain and still killed the criminal. If Daredevil tried to shoot the gun out of his hand, he would've risked Frank missing the shot and killing an innocent instead. Eitherways, the gun had no firing pin, meaning it wouldn't work regardless of what Daredevil did.
That being said, I can agree. I've seen way too many heroes get dumbed down just to prove a point for the story.
I love the type of moments in comics that can be reflected in other media, like TV shows. This moment of Daredevil and Punisher's argument, being one of them.
Punisher vs Daredevil is One Of My Favorite Fights I've read in Comics
Easily 💯
Here's the thing. Punisher isn't wrong about his vendetta. The problem is he's a one man army, who just looks up information on his own. He's a skilled fighter, clever tactician, but I honestly wouldn't say he's great at gathering intelligence. While he can get many targets right, the problem is when he gets the targets terribly wrong, because of faulty info.
What he needs is maybe a partner who excels at gathering intelligence, research, and provides proof and info for his targets. There are a lot of series that involve vigilantes going out to get revenge, but a lot of them have a sort of resource network who can confirm identities and crimes committed. Personally, I don't mind the whole vigilante deal, but Punisher is not one I'm really all for, just because of this one flaw.
So basically, he needs someone to play Oracle for him, to get him that intel to let him clean up effectively. Yeah I agree.
@@Sorain1 Yeah, he’s effective at getting the job done. But not exactly the best at verifying information.
He used to have that in his partner Micro.
Netflix massively improves upon this story, showing Daredevil’s arguments properly and delves into his thoughts about how people can change, that even if someone has done horrible things they can always be better and try to make up for the harm they’ve caused, something they can’t do if they’re dead. As usual Garth Ennis overly leans into edge at the expense of nuance due to his desire to tear down superheroes whereas the Netflix show has Daredevil acting like a hero and discovering a third option, shooting the chains to escape.
Yeah and daredevil in the show did a cool trick by shooting the chains. I don't get how Ennis didn't think of that at all...
That sounds far better then what was shown here, which tbh seemed like Daredevil was written as an idiot so he could be a straw man
time to change is a luxury not a privilage while they are waiting on this one soul to change that soul might take away many others
@MattAnd Netflix's Daredevil is incredible. Just watched it for the first time and it's some of the best MCU content out there. If you do watch it, just know that The Defenders takes place between seasons 2 and 3, and you'll be a little lost at the start if you skip it like I did (season 3 was phenomenal though)
It misses the whole point. It’s circumventing the answer when sometimes there is no other way
It's kind of funny how Garth Ennis is like, a real life J. Jonah Jameson. Accept instead of hating just Spider-Man he hates all superheroes
Jameson is kinda funny. He's an incredibly ethical reporter... Until it's about Spiderman, then he just becomes Alex Jones, screaming about how they're putting chemicals in the Spiders to turn the friggin teenagers evil
@@zipzapper0 who's Alex Jones?
@@noelmejias552 The conspiracy nut grifter known most for his gay frogs rant.
Now bankrupt because he kept lying about the victims of a school shooting
@noelmejias552 A reporter who uses yellow journalism alot and who over exaggerates everything.
The fact that Punisher uses himself in that scenario is actually pretty damn cool
While the circumstances may be different it really shoves the point in question
It's hard to root for the heroes when guys like Joker and Green Goblin keep doing what they do. They've already made up their mind. There's no point in trying to reform them. And people argue "that means the writers have to keep making more villains." So? That just sounds like you wrote yourself into a wall. I love punisher, and I like the Spider-Man variants that do kill, justly of course. All in all, great video, man. You should check out a Batman story called Cycle of Violence. It has Scarecrow as the main villain.
@droovy9044 I always wanted more Punisher stories in the combos of Matthew Rosenberg’s War Machine run, Garth Ennis stuff, and Punisher Kills the Marvel universe where Punisher (war machine outfit) and other powerful Marvel anti heroes target and hunt down Marvel’s worst: Norman Osborn, Jackal, Purple Man, Raol Bushman, Jeri Hogarth, The Kree, Nitro, Carnage, Kingpin, Bullseye, Sabertooth, Shadow King, Arcade, Calypso, etc. each anti hero finds a worst of the worst villain to target.
I think the problem isn't just making more villains but also that villains like the joker and green goblin(?) are too iconic to just kill off. I'm pretty sure they did in some issues but most of the time it's not lasting.
@@minze202 why don’t they do elseworlds? What’s wrong with changing the status quo and tormenting an iconic villain?
EXCEPT GG TURNED GOOD
@@Maskedmenace8267 🙄
you’re seriously becoming my favorite comic book youtuber, that killer croc video was amazing! and so is this one, plz keep doing great videos like this, you have great deep videos and stuff that no one else is doing about the most obscure comics
One of the reasons some superheroes don't kills is because they are vastly stronger than most of their opponents, this allows a privilege of not taking a life while most of us usually don't have that choice. Let's be real it's not like Spider-man gonna call a cop who shot someone a killer, because that's just how life is for regular people, but as we know ... with great power comes great responsibility hence superheroes must do what they can to live up to the values that we all aspire to. Also, my take on a Punisher is that he's just a really broken dude, he doesn't really care about avenging his family, it's a reason for him to get back into a war, because that's what his life is and this is a thing with quite a few soldiers who come back from war, they just can't adapt to the regular life, they need to go back and Frank's family being killed was an excuse for him to go back.
That's what I think of the punisher too. He even said that he doesn't want all crime to end so that he doesn't run out of criminals to kill, I just don't remember where he said that.
Honestly, to me The punisher is proof of The "If you kill The villain Then you're not better Than them", dude is using The death of his family and justice as an excuse to kill people, and people believe when he says it's for The greater good, this comic kinda proves that, he killed a convicted criminal that was on his way to jail, way to Go punisher, you Just invalidated The justice system's ruling (which was correct) and made your own justice, proving daredevil's point
@@nicholassgobero but also prevents that man from ever stepping out of that jail (which he would of most definitly) and killing another. Imagine joker was killed after his first murder spree, injustice wouldnt of happened, no metropolis nuke, and many murders wouldnt of occuered. Joker has had 671 on screen (on page) kills and way way more off screen if you include bombs and time spent out of jail that dont have a documented kill count. Jokers first appearnce had him kill 4 people, if he was killed after that then 667 on screen deaths that he himself did would of been prevented
@@skellybonz5467 have you considered that he might not kill another person after getting out of prison? He might be too old, or hell, he may have a change in perspective and abandon a life of crime. Heroes are meant to inspire and make us see the best in people, If you're willing to take The life of a Common criminal because "he might kill more people" then you don't get that. Sure, he might kill less people, but Someone Else Will Just rise and take his place, you might kill them, but The cycle repeats, until you've killed even more people then They would've, or They kill you. There's gotta be Hope and there's gotta be a chance for Second chances or Else you truly are no better than them
He does care about his family at least under ennis. He likes war more but he still loves his children
Interesting. It didn't play out the way I was expecting. I figured DD was going fire the gun in the air a second before Frank fired, thus giving the perp warning.
Because that would’ve been clever, and Daredevil wasn’t allowed to be so the writer could have a straw man argument
the killing thing is honestly a problem that only exists in comics IRL most killers go away for life and stay for life, but because comics need a marketable face they constantly bring back the same 10 villains for heroes to fight,
for example Batman, admittedly tons have been redeemed and rehabbed,
many of his villains have found redemption or died but because they sell issues they are brought back,
killer croc has been rehabilitated multiple times and has stayed that way for years but whether due to a writer change or someone got bored people have reverted him back to square one,
batman has let the joker die countless times but because batman's most popular villain is also his most sadistic and vile the joker continues to exist making batman look like a moron,
harvey dent has flip flopped on being a good guy and a bad guy loads of times,
penguin in modern comics actually serves more of a benefit than a hinderance at times proving to be useful for information,
harley quinn, poison ivy and catwoman all have been mostly heroes for almost a decade,
clayface WAS a hero for a bit and he was more interesting than he had ever been,
bane through the suicide squad had become a better person somehow but was reverted once writers wanted to do a batman vs bane story,
mr freeze by all accounts should be a good guy but his one popular good story means that he is always bring shifted back to being an Anti villain,
My favorite Riddler run was when he was a legit private detective trying to compete with Batman to rid Gotham City of crime.
The amazing Punisher comics (along with other great works, like the Peacemaker one-shot) written by Garth Ennis make me wish he was the author hired to write the Comedian miniseries for the "Before Watchmen" project instead of Brian Azzarello, whose writing in that story was quite convoluted and without an apparent direction. Ennis would have surely given Edward Blake a much more badass indepedent story
idk garth ennis' own comic run is fairly directionless other than "GOD DAMN IT I HATE SUPERHEROES", no real themes other than through butchers story which is just kinda fine, and no real plot either, dat shit is "look its professor X but hes a pedophile, we gotta kill him now", he definitely would have written an edgier story, but remember he is still at his core a writer who hates superheroes and cannot let anger go in any capacity, although im not sure his takes on watchmen as its essentially an inverse of every superhero story
@@bigandhairyrichard6333he loves watchmen but would never work on it out of respect for moore
I respect TF out of punisher, even if other HEROES hate him- he takes out pedos, corrupt politicians and more. Something the heroes won’t do cause of their code
Same here he goes straight to the source of the problem
and that is why he's a terrible role model. Sure you can keep up the body count, keep telling yourself you won't stop at one. the number of killers will remain the same cos you were added to the list
@@1eyeddevil929
That's just psychological manipulation at this point
He's the perfect role model
I don't see nothing wrong with him Deleting people who keep getting away with pure Evil shit
I just don't see myself feeling sorry for the people he's deleted I don't even call them victims
He’s also killed children.
Punisher isn’t a hero he’s a Serial Killer who targets criminals.
The thing about Batman's rhetoric is that the capital punishment shouldn't be done by vigilantes, but by a justice system... Now why they jail and put the Joker in the arkham asylum so much and not being capital punished with death is weird... But they needed to have more comic and episodes with said villain.
In Injustice, had Superman not be the judge, jury, or executioner, but can influence them, he could have ensure that truly irredeemable people will not come back to society...
My take is not on whether or not they deserve to die, because they do,but do the heroes have the right to do the deed. I’d argue no because it is the law’s job to end monsters like the joker and carnage and not heroes like Batman or Spider-Man. While yes they’re slightly responsible for keeping such people alive in a sense, these superheroes, especially the more grounded ones are more like glorified police in the fact that it is their job to take these superpowered criminals down and hand them over to the law so that they can be punished. It is not the heroes fault, it’s the law for not giving these criminals the chair after their first offense. Imagine if joker got the chair after batman defeated him the first time, no dead Jason, no paralyzed Barbara, thousands of less deaths, and Gotham would be a safer place to live. It would be a net positive for these criminals to be put to true justice with rehabilitation an option for those who could be actually redeemed. Some might argue that the police do take lives when on duty and due process is never achieved, and that’s the problem, look at what happens almost every time someone is shot in America by a cop, riots and chaos because they had no due process and was never truly proved guilty. In conclusion the law should end these criminals, not the heroes, since heroes are just the contingency for villains. Would Spider-Man have any use for his powers if no supervillains existed? Would batman exist for even three years if there were no costumed criminals justifying his existence?
YES! My jaw dropped with excitement when you brought up The Punisher agitating that polar bear for it to attack his pursuers. Seeing videos like this makes me sad and mad that Marvel has decided to kill off Frank Castle. And uh...you do look like a young Matt Murdock.
I mean realistically the punisher is just an edge lord with lots of guns. I feel like anytime he fights anything stronger then a gangster it only makes sense he'd die.
@@logemcdoge4620Guess you could say that being killed wasn't exactly what Frank was **gunning** for.
Budum tss... Please laugh.
I totally agree with the punisher. Although I couldn't kill anyone, in the super hero world, there danger levels are through the roof so some criminals need to get weeded out.
The no killing debate runs into the meta-textual walls of producing long running, serialized stories.
Killing off a character is filling in a well: if a character believes a psychotic killer should get their day in court and manages to take them in alive, there's no problem there. The issue comes up when they can't be executed or permanently detained because they're popular and they move books.
Which creates the trouble that at a certain point their strict dedication becomes irresponsibility. Particularly when their personal codes were cemented in a lighter era of silly heists and lackadaisical adventures, but now their hunting down cannibalistic serial killers. Their desire to operate as a vigilante committed to half measures is outdated and puts blood on their hands if that villain happens to be popular.
How many times does a super villain need to break out of prison before someone accepts that no prison can hold them?
By turning this person over to the law all a hero is doing is putting their next murder on hold.
The problem is baked into the cake.
Well said. They can always tell elseworld or prequel stories to sell the popular villains but in the main timeline villains like Green Goblin and Joker need to die. Hell Marvel and DC retcon and reboot so often it would be easy to kill off a bunch of villains every once in a while.
@@bigbear4120 The issue is that they want to keep the main issues selling and popular, and killing off major villains is going to directly affect sales. If Batman killed the Joker I guarantee you that sales would see a *major* drop until the inevitable "oh whoops, Joker isn't actually dead" plot point, and DC knows that too.
Superhero media exists in a paradoxical state where superheroes are incapable of being effective, because being effective means decreasing sales, and this will exist until they stop being treated as cash cow franchises and start being treated as stories that have a beginning and an end. If this happened they wouldn't even need to die, the system could just actually work, and villains that go into prison could stay there, and these heroes could hold onto their ideals.
Let me preface the following with this: For the most part, I think you put this excellently, but I think a point could be made that many heroes may actually subscribe to the idea that some supervillains should die.
It's just that if many superheroes are either so powerful compared to their villains that killing them would be so easy that it would come across as irresponsible because of the difference in power rendering killing them immoral because they both have no means to defend themselves.
Imagine if a toddler came at you with a knife. You'd technically be in the right to kill them if they were trying to kill you, but the difference in capability is so large that killing them is wrong when you don't have to. Same logic behind cops catching murderers unarmed and whatnot.
Many superheroes subscribe to the idea that they're not so much a vigilante in that they dispense vengeance, but that they dispense justice. And it's not justice to kill people even if they're clearly a murderous psychopath without first irrefutably proving that they did it and were in control of their faculties.
They don't view themselves as vigilantes committed outdated codes of honour. They view themselves in the same way as police officers do: All they do is deliver criminals for judgement, not judge them themselves. If you judge them for not killing the supervillains at that point, you should be blaming cops for not killing supervillains after they were recovered after the second or third breakout, not just the heroes.
You should be directing your ire to the justice systems of superhero media, not just the superheroes themselves, although they're still definitely to blame in some cases. Batman for example as a normal human being clearly has been threatened enough physically to warrant morally being able to kill some of his foes and then claim that it was necessary for him to survive. Again, like many police officers do.
But imagine superman killing every single one of his enemies. Many of them are literally incapable of harming him even on the atomic level, so you have to consider whether or not that if he's in the position to let the justice system work normally. (which would ideally prove a murderer was guilty, and then would execute them)
Hey my dude, I love your videos and how in-depth you are with them. Would love to see more punisher if you can !!!
The no kill rule is stupid. This why I like Invincible, Mark realize that no kill rule is unrealistic but learns that kill every villain/criminal is just irresponsible. As he grows, he learns to balance both sides by concluding kill as a last resort only.
From my point of view, the more you kill the more you become willing to kill.
You kill all the really bad guys, then the bad guys, then the lesser bad guys until you get so used to it that you don't care anymore. As the saying goes, "when you have a hammer, everything is a nail".
Now imagine if you are Superman and you do this. You get Injustice Superman or worse, Ultraman. You get the Punisher with Superman's powers. Now imagine if you influence society and they start doing this? Where will it lead too? Won't some people abuse it?
That's what is Batman really afraid of.
@bellcross9985
you're using the Slippy slope augment which is rather awful thing to base your argument off of.
@@chongwillson972but it’s literally correct. That was the whole point with the punisher fan club vigilantes. As you keep killing, it gets easier and your reasons for killing a “wrongdoer” become less solid and reasonable
@@chongwillson972--It's also something that we've seen outside of fiction to be true of many people though. Serial killers in many interviews state it gets easier and more mundane with every victim.
Pasha Nosrat
·
Follow
6y
It is easy to criticize someone for taking revenge or asking for justice, only cause we aren’t that person, i think most of the time it’s rather easy to declare whats bad, just close your eyes and think about some of the bad things that happened to you. Would it be morally right or wrong to kill all the bad people? With all do respect i think thats a false question, as if the Bad or Evil wont be there once we are finished with the killing. No my friends, good and evil is all around us, and we as beings are constantly choosing.
The problem with the heros kill the villain debate is less with the debate itself and more with the way these stories tend to be written. When your watching show, playing a game, or reading a book and you see the horrible things that the villain does and the lives they ruin only for the main characters to at the end be like "we would be just as bad as him" falls flat because we wouldnt be as bad as the villain. The core problem is not the heros being dumb by the writer who wrote a scenario with trying to say the world wouldnt be better if we killed the guy who tried to take over the world and burned down villages. This is why people people love the punisher so much because garth ennis writes villainess like human traffickers or corrupt officials who have ruined thousands of people lives and would be better off without. The issue isnt that heros are wrong for not killing the villainess its that the writer of the story didnt create a good reason for the heros not to. Its also why people love stuff like the batman under the red hood movie because it did a good job of justifying batman's no kill rule beyond "kill am bad".
Fr
Btw, I swear i knew someone on Runsecape with that username.
i think the point isn't that killing is stupid, more that the slope is slippery when it comes to when killing is acceptable, and punisher is a great example of this. guy isn't really doing for justice, or even a twisted sense of justice now, he has no code and no one to keep him in check, and so we see people looking up to him and justifying his sense of bloodlust.
taking a life, even an evil life, is something that shouldn't be taken lightly not because death is rare, for everyone dies, but because the moment that taking a life loses its significance, you turn the view of "ends justify the means" to its logical extreme, and push the limits in the name of "justice"
@@sovietunion7643yeah but then you take this logic to some of the more crazy villains in DC and the argument falls flat on its face.
Despite common belief the heros of the Marvel universe would waste no time on carnage and kill him, and any other crazed threat that embodies pure evil. It's the DC universe where heros don't care and will honor their sense of justice over preventing mass casualties.
I just thought it was the 2 big bois who didn't kill
The problem ISN'T the superheroes not killing, the problem is our sudden aversion to the Swift Death Penalty as a punishment in the law.
If they said "Okay Joker, this is the 3rd time you've recorded yourself killing people, you CAN'T get off on insanity pleas anymore, you *WILL* be executed." That would have likely stopped the Injustice universe from going to hell. Same thing here, killers get off due to technicalities or they trade information or whatever, but they avoid actually facing death for the deaths they have caused.
When someone kills with intent, such as a planned murder, or they willingly took drugs reasonably known to cause violent outbursts and then kill, they have already violated the root right of life, and as such should reasonably have their rights forfeited. There is a reason the saying is "Judge, Jury, and _Executioner."_ because we need to punish these people. But the only way to fix things is to update our laws to actually PUNISH the criminals, rather then just letting them get a slap on the wrist, sure some criminals will slip through since we can't prove their ties to a crime, but the majority would get caught.
These are among my favorite Punisher stories too. I really like when writers make him a cunning individual instead of just "going Rambo". It's one of the reason why I really enjoy the 2004 Punisher film.
This part was phenomenally done in the show
Frankly (hehe, get it) this is why I never cared for Punisher. He's a Supervillain and the only reason he isn't part of a rogues gallery is because people like his gritty and brooding aesthetic, alike 'The Elite*', despite how much it clashes with the rest of the universe and other heroes.
"So maybe ordinary people don't always crack. Maybe there isn't any need to crawl under a rock with all the other slimey things when trouble hits... Maybe it was just you, all the time." -Batman, 'The Killing Joke'
*The Elite were one time villian group in the comic, "Superman vs The Elite", who acted as murderous 'heroes' and decried Superman's philosophy, only to be praised by the rest of the world until Superman showed how dangerous and disturbing it would be if he and people like him had this mindset in a staged 'Superman goes crazy evil moment'.
I personally think the same, however I actually do like the punisher, not because I think he's justified or anything like that, but because I enjoy seeing him just... Act and do stuff you know? I find punisher interesting because he's literally insane, he's a guy who believes that there are only two types of people in the world, good people, and bad people, and the bad people need to go because they can't be redeemed. I think it's just interesting to see the worldview and life of a man who's genuinely insane but still thinks he's doing the right thing. Even though I also consider him a Supervillain.
Except Superman was acting in a way that would put civilians in danger. So it's not the same
@@ThisisKyle Yes, because acting as a crazed gunman shooting people he brands as evil would never spill over to innocent people, undercover cops, the mentally unwell, or just people in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The issue with this argument is that the real issue is laws (or dissregard of them) that let horrible people not face justice for their actions
I always wanted more Punisher stories in the combos of Matthew Rosenberg’s War Machine run, Garth Ennis stuff, and Punisher Kills the Marvel universe where Punisher (war machine outfit) and other powerful Marvel anti heroes target and hunt down Marvel’s worst: Norman Osborn, Jackal, Purple Man, Raol Bushman, Jeri Hogarth, The Kree, Nitro, Carnage, Kingpin, Bullseye, Sabertooth, Shadow King, Arcade, Calypso, etc. each anti hero finds a worst of the worst villain to target.
although I agree, the topic of “should superheroes kill their enemies” is very complex, I have to say in general, I tend to favor superheroes that do everything in their power to avoid killing.
Sure some villains like the joker, or the green goblin deserve to die, but killing them isn’t going to bring back any of their victims. They should be allowed a chance to be reformed, or at the very least have their day in court. (also let’s remember the superheroes are not aware that they are in a story that necessitates that the most popular super villains always return to crime.)
It’s also worth noting that a fair amount of super villains have actually become heroes over the years. Just look at Hawkeye. He was once a criminal, and if Iron Man had killed him, he would’ve never had a chance to become an Avenger.
I will say, though, the Killing thing really comes down to “does it suit the character?” as I have no problem with characters like red hood, or punisher using lethal force. But characters like Batman and Spider-Man should avoid killing as much as possible, as it goes against everything they stand for.
Finally Someone with actual common sense! not filled with hatred and bloodlust
FR, definitely should be a per character basis. Could've sworn it already was tho.
That all makes sense but why dose the state and government let them get away with like I agree let them have a chance but how many innocent dose he have to kill before they say ok he’s never changing and just ship him off somewhere where he can be killed and send the super heroes with him cuz Batman wants him to die it’s just not his place and no kill rule but if it’s his job to just get him there I think he will be fine with it I know the real reason is money but like what’s the canon reason lmao
Oh no Spiderman has no problems killing under circumstances, when Doctor Octopus took over Spiderman, he found out for himself that Spiderman all this time could've easily wiped out someone's jaw or ripped a heart out without worry but doesn't because he believes in reform. On the OTHER HAND, Spiderman HAS shown that he WILL kill someone if they hurt his family in any way, I mean Kingpin can vouch for that as he was almost suffocated to death for attempting to pull a hit that had gone wrong and hit Aunt May.
Otherwise though your points are pretty spot on as I personally believe that superheroes killing crooks is like if cops killed crooks, in the real world if a cop killed someone out of anger rather than self defense (and even if it is self defense) the public gets enraged and goes out with their signs protesting about how the criminals never get due process. And if all that is the case, what gives heroes the right to kill crooks either? It's why Frank Castle is flawed in his belief as killing people without due process is basically the same as killing an innocent person and how when he kills criminals about to face time for their crimes, the laws themselves at that point don't matter as they won't operate when someone else is using their biased belief to do it for them.
"Evil is Evil. Lesser, greater, middling… Makes no difference. The degree is arbitary. The definition’s blurred. If I’m to choose between one evil and another… I’d rather not choose at all."
This is why The Punisher makes A LOT of sense, and is also why he is one of my favorite characters. He DOES get rid of the trouble once and for all, saving MILLIONS of people in the proces.
Except not really, since people keep coming after him in revenge for killing people that they loved. In fact a lot of the time all he does is create power vacuums that result in more dangerous people rising to power.
@@jordanloux3883 but every other superhero doesn't? Because while I absolutely love characters like Batman, Captain America, and even Dare Devil you are not gonna convince me or anyone that by Cap not killing Red Skull it somehow doesn't lead to the same thing you criticize Punisher for, this is why arguments or counter points like this are dumb and useless cause it can be applied to LITERALLY every hero ever created. Sorry to tell but your argument was dog shit with no actual provable points.
Hello, it is not to create controversy but as a fan of the Punisher, personally, I do not recommend Garth's era of comics at all, they are crap (and more if you like a little other super heroes from the marvel universe), punisher it's a Gary Stu who can beat the Hulk or Wolverine with his arms tied according to this writer.
I personally recommend that you read Punisher Volume 9, with Greg Rucka as a writer and Marco Checchetto as an artist, this could be the best era of Frank's comics!! Where he is seen as a believable part of the Marvel universe, when he has to fight a Super Human, the Punisher uses cunning and battles are won by the skin of his teeth, and not because he is the selft-insert of Garth Ennis himself.
Not really a marvel fan overall, more of a DC fella myself, but the idea of a normal ass guy like Frank beating the fucking hulk is ridiculous. There's a comic panel of hulk lifting a 900 quadrillion ton mountain or something. Frank can't even lift *one*.
can someone explain to me the logic behind dare devil's whole "society will collapse" argument? vigilante justice and self-defense are only necessary when the law isn't effective enough to prevent murderers from being a threat to society. if the law is so corrupt or fangless that it can't effectively punish criminals, not only is it already completely worthless, but it's also directly contributing to the collapse of society that would supposedly come from "lawless" vigilante justice. they treat this like it's dirty work, or morally grey to some extent, but it seems to me that he's just enforcing natural law.
This entire scenario is solely based on comic style redemption bullshit.
If you shot an active child rapist serial killer, no one irl is really gonna try and say you’re a bad person. Lots of the villains are also literally stronger than an entire army, how could you justify sparing that when you know they aren’t staying locked up.
the main thing I get from batman is that he is not against killing criminals, he is just not the one to decide it.
Killing all people who you see as bad can quickly lead to an authoritarian society if not careful. Yet not killing can kill so many. I believe the best way is to kill if needed, but only if needed, and to do work to make it so you never need to kill.
That sounds like SJW talk
Punisher is a good concept, but I think most authors just ruined him, turning him from “dark twisted misunderstood antihero” to “fucked up psychopath who just want to murder everyone it the most gruesome way possible”.
0:15 I'm getting false backs of Drax saying in Gardens of the galaxy vol 2 "how could he make a baby with your mother he would smush her"
We need a superhero that represents and balances the pros of both sides of this debate and avoids the cons of both sides as much as possible.
Invincible
Let’s be honest, heroes don’t kill because of publishers, not ideals.
this is why both the daredevil and the punisher are important to the narrative
I personally love Garth Ennis' writing because it's atypical to the usual superhero stuff.
But then I suppose the "typical superhero stuff" has also been getting somewhat darker and grittier as a whole so I wonder how much longer that will stick.
Sure, both sides have a point, but the real issue is just the extremities. Killing everything that could be a threat, yeah that's the vigilantes at the end. Never killing, that's why supervillains keep returning. Kill the supervillain established to be a recurring threat... Not really so much grey. A villain like, say, Carnage has been beaten and sent to the asylum before, has shown no intention of reform, and has returned to cause problems again. Not so gray after the villain returns.
Spiderman would never be koed by the punisher
the punisher giving daredevil a gun with a blank round in the chamber is emblamatic of the false choice the punisher is trying to point out. It doesn't matter what happens, if the punisher kills dino gnuchi, people will die, if daredevil kills the punisher, people will die, if the punisher does nothing, people will die. All the punisher is trying to say here is that, if people are going to die regardless of the choices we individually make, then the responsibility of a hero is actually to help decide who it is that dies, and who gets to live, not to try and fight against the inevitable
man this just goes to show how people see things in black and white rather than seeing the terrifying grey fog that they are observing
Punisher is right here especially in the context of the comic universe. Once a supervillain is allowed to escape over and over the blood is on the hands of the heroes. Daredevil would be right if the legal system was at all effective.
A killer killed can no longer claim anymore victims
-some guy somewhere
i kill you, your boys kill me, my boys kill your boys. the murder-go-round never stops till we all die.
But the killer that killed the killer claimed yet another victim.
@@Mark12434not an innocent victim though
The funny thing about Daredevil is that his whole schtick is that he's a man of the law, but the fact that he exists in the first place already shows how worthless laws are. Both IRL and in comics, laws really are just a social construct, and if you look at it objectively there's really no difference between a criminal being shot or locked up forever.
Honestly i think Daredevil has one of the better cases for his no Killing rule.
It's not Because of the whole "if you kill a killer" thing (im pretty sure even Batman hasn't said that to be honest). It's not because he'd go insane and would be unable to stop.
It's because of the Law. It's because if he takes down a Mob boss legally,he can set a precedent for other Mob Bosses to be taken down long after he's gone. Or far away from where he is. Killing criminals won't change much. Yes these particular criminals won't hurt anyone again,but others will. And you can't kill them all. You won't be alive forever and you won't be everywhere. So trying to improve the System. To the point it doesn't need a Vigilante like Batman or Daredevil is what these heroes are trying to do. And that will save a lot more people in the long run than simply killing the Joker.
Because there will be another Joker, another Riddler, another Kingpin. So the System has to learn how to deal with them. Without the Crutches that are the Vigilantes
I side with Punisher on this to an extent. For example: The Joker. You can’t tell me every second of his existence isn’t a threat to an entire city. Batman’s morals will never pay off with him because Joker’s already too broken to return. The law seems way too slow at killing him too. People like the Joker just need to be gone ASAP. On the other hand, taking a life from a person is to deny them every future they can have. If there’s hope of any good, I’d say the spare is worth it. No matter what, this is always going to be a slippery slope of morality and opinions.
@aurawmerald8434 I always wanted more Punisher stories in the combos of Matthew Rosenberg’s War Machine run, Garth Ennis stuff, and Punisher Kills the Marvel universe where Punisher (war machine outfit) and other powerful Marvel anti heroes target and hunt down Marvel’s worst: Norman Osborn, Jackal, Purple Man, Raol Bushman, Jeri Hogarth, The Kree, Nitro, Carnage, Kingpin, Bullseye, Sabertooth, Shadow King, Arcade, Calypso, etc. each anti hero finds a worst of the worst villain to target.
Joker has actually died numerous times in mainline continuity. In fact Batman is directly responsible for several of them. But the writers keep bringing him back. Heck, there was a time the justice system actually worked and gave Joker the electric chair. But he still came back from the dead. It doesn't matter how many times Batman stops him, arrests him, or even killed him. The writers will still just keep bringing him back because he's too profitable to let go. That's the problem with most comic book supervillains. It's not that the heroes won't kill them. It's that they'll always come back.
One thing that was fun about the Vigilante Squad, is that when Frank confronts them and calls them out, he actually has zero issue with Mr. Payback offing CEO's for the evils they and their corporations perpetrate, its that Mr. Payback was just a sloppy armed gunman who didn't put the care into his hits that Frank does, which caused innocent casualties.
I always loved Steve Dillons art especially the punishers comics
"It always starts with one. That's how justification works. But once you justify something once, you can do it again. It becomes easier.
*-Batman*
@@TheStreamThatJakeBuiltIf he kills the Joker, why not the Riddler? Why not Bane? Who not Penguin? Where do you draw the line?
@@TheStreamThatJakeBuiltIt's funny how you aknowledge that there are tons of people who have the responsibility of making sure the Joker doesn't hurt anybody ever again, and yet you still blame the vigilante.
@@dominickeijzer5844
you do know that literally every person you mentioned deserved to die right?😅
If bats knows right and wrong well enough to beat the shit out of people then he knows well enough when those people deserves to die, at the bare minimum of the person is a mass murdering lunatic who constantly breaks out of prison off em.
@@TheStreamThatJakeBuilt "im a nut job who justify his sadist thirst for blood with a facade of being "justice",i will even kill the least deserving criminals ever stole food boom dead,jay walk get shot bitc"
punisher
@@TheStreamThatJakeBuilt comic serial killers dont die by the justice system bc of plot im sure ppl like carnage would have been killed a loong time ago with an eletric chair or whatever,thats why criminals go unpunished on batman or why ppl like carnage are a thing plot
I think its insane that the writers or publishers of these comic books can not see the difference between exicuting a murder, and exicuting someone running a hotdog stand in the rich part of town.
I think one of the most interesting things about Punisher is that he not only understands what he does, but he understands the ideology that his actions represent, and ge hates it.
Wow, a Garth Ennis comic that has nuance? How crazy
… The number of killers stay the same” Batman -Injustice 2
Carnage was a nad example because he has been killed several times only to be resurrected by a symbiote
The punisher is just a edge lord no offense, he is regularly held way above people who actually have work put into him, and yet he himself just feels like a lazy murder hobo who acts like he is right
Under his own logic he would have no reason not to kill himself
As an edge lord kid, I loved the Punisher. Years later I felt his character was overly violent and I cringed when thinking about how much my younger self loved him. Now though, I actually think he's an amazing character when you analyse his psyche, motivations and behaviours, and when written well he's a really enjoyable character.
A lot of Punisher stories portray Frank as the edge lord killer, but given the right treatment he could be a really compelling character. I feel a writer like Tom King could create one of the best Punisher stories ever written.
@yannickvaz694 you see I can actually agree to that, as he has a very interesting story that caused this yet he just turns into "ha goofy murder man"
@@yannickvaz694 hell no keep tom king the hell away from punisher.
Batman is edge lord and people like him. Wolverine, deadpool, red hood are all edge lord characters as well with big fandoms.
The dilemma (to me) comes down to the inevitable suffering and/or killing that a criminal in question is causing. That's to say that there's avoidable suffering like someone being obnoxiously loud (where you can wait for them to leave/go somewhere else, get them kicked out, etc.) versus inevitable suffering like a single person or small group of people threatening your only livelihood/wellbeing to the point that you can't live outside of constant anxiety.
So if someone exhibits a pattern of that (and/or killing other people for their gain), then I can understand the argument that suffering and killing is reduced by that person being killed. That being said, you'd also have to measure the positive impact that person's life continuously has on others (granted those impacted don't only benefit from others' suffering/death), which is usually tougher. The answer to the moral dilemma seems to be weighing whether a person's impact is net positive or net negative.
I think, if the people are so upset about villains getting away with their lives, they should push for government action. That way, the power is still in the hands of the people.
When superheroes start killing, they put their own judgement above the law, which is why most of them don’t do it.
the thing I think about superheroes is that they dont have to make the choice. They could save everyone in that case.
They simply never bother to look for that option
When an innocent person kills a killer, the amount of killers remains the same. But if a person like the Punisher kills a killer, the amount of killers goes down.
I really wish Marvel would portray the real Punisher: an irredeemable sociopath who uses his family as an excuse to have a war. That's a lot more compelling to me than what Netflix had done.
You should read the most recent punisher run by Jason Aaron! It sounds like what you're looking for
The Netflix Punisher had potential, especially with season 2. The entire season hints at the question "does Frank act in necessity or does he enjoy what he does?". The entire plot wouldn't have happened if Frank didn't go looking for fights, and he's questioned about it through the entire season. It even ends with him accepting that he is a psychopath looking to kill criminals in his own war, in other words he is the Punisher. It just sucks that the overall writing wasn't as good, but it definitely had potential and left the door open for a true Punisher adaptation.
Beautifully portrayed in Punisher: Born (The one about him in Vietnam) Imo
So this was almost 1 to 1 in the daredevil show. Insane.
Garth Ennis resurrected this franchise with two very different styles of telling Punisher stories.
I can understand Daredevil's plight with the feeling of, if we cant take down the bad guys legitimately/legally, than these laws we have, the society we've built is all for nothing/completely worthless.
But likewise daredevil, you need to acknowledge and realize that the systems weve created arent perfect and that the have failed us as a society. There are plenty of laws that are important, helpful, and keep people/the public safe. But we got just as many laws that are unfair, have massive loop holes in them that can be abused and manipulated, and others that benefit the people that arent suffering/dont need help, while screwing over and making the people already in need of help, suffer more.
If you truly value the systems society has put in place to attempt to keep order and peace Daredevil, then you need to see/realize that it ia broken and how and why that is. If you truly care, youd be willing to try to change the law into a better one.
Garth Ennis when a superhero is happy 😡
The way I've always seen it, is that heroes like Batman, Daredevil or Spiderman simply don't have a personal or moral obligation to kill.
Frank Castle on the other hand, feels that it should be the primary method because it's easiest and 100% effective.
Both standpoints are equally valid. Not everyone has an obligation to commit murder, and not everyone has an obligation to mercy.
Batman doesn't kill in his code but Spiderman doesn't because he believes that it isn't a good option although he will do it with no regrets if the person is either deemed irrecoverable or hurts Spiderman's family in any way.
I think we can all agree it's possible to give joker the death penalty without society falling apart.
"Sir, you are under arrest for being a serial killer."
Bro, I literally killed the people who almost blew up Metropolis.
Man, the way you say Dino is making me think hes a T-Rex mob boss lol
Here’s an example of a actual misunderstood villain: A man who’s parents were murdered and thus he hunts down criminals to prevent anyone else from suffering a similar fate.
Batman was put in the same circumstance, except he wasn't tied up. XD
I agree that sometimes killing would be necessary as a her (though preferably as a last resort) However I sort of hate the punisher because to me it never felt like he was killing villain's to actually save lives. It almost always feels like its for selfish and sometimes sadistic reasons and he uses the whole "preventing further harm" thing as an excuse for his actions.
Heroes don’t kill because there’s a destructiveness to it that’s similar to the destructive consequences of hate, when hate isn’t such a strong driving reason. The Punisher *is* hate, written to show that we shouldn’t desire or idolize butchers, especially in our heroes.
Comparing mass murderers to petty crines is ridiculous. The no kill rule is stupid.
They did this storyline in the show and it was one of the best
The number of potentional innocent lives being lost will go down
Batman when you say "What if i kill 2 killers?": 🤯🤯🤯
The Punisher when he realises that "the number of killers stays the same" was not referring to him but the increasing deranged followers of his: 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯
I honestly kind of agree with the punisher, I always hate people who kills others, like if it’s family, friends, relationships, etc, since if they kill those people, then the punishment is to get the killer killed, why you may ask, because jail is just nothing but to spend your time in there and soon you will be free, but when the killer kills somebody, they already got what they wanted, and if the killer is still living, then he is going to continue his killing spree, so to prevent it, the killer should get killed, so they will NEVER get the chance to kill someone again.
This is a cool moment, but Matt totally could have beat this situation and should have. If "Daredevil" happened to be the title of that issue instead of the word "Punisher" then how it would have happened is, after not being able to convince Frank to stop, Matt would have just been like okay, Frank and then "listened" intently, using the rain to aid him in getting a perfect perception of the environment around him, and then would have shot frank in the kevlar just as he was about to take the shot. Frank would have missed, Dino would have been pulled into security custody and then Frank would smack Matt around a bit but then it all would have been okay.
I honestly think that's very clearly how this situation would have played out, but as much as i love the Punisher, writers really do be giving him sime freaking ridiculous passes when it comes to interacting with superpowered beings in Marvel u. Its like hes got a power-dampening/stupifying field emitter built into that combat suit or something.
Edit: matt would try this anyway. But there was no firing pin. W Frank
I feel like Punisher and Butcher are just as likely to get in a shootout/punch off as they are to grab drinks and swap stories
I don't have a problem with the hero's no kill rule. My problem is the citizens. You're telling me at no point has a citizen, cop, or soldier said "enough is enough, the psycho dies tonight". Not one DC or Marvel cop felt tempted or tried to kill the villain while in custody?
Funny enough in the Batman comics(forgot which run it was) there was a kid who actually took it upon himself to try to kill the Joker for killing his parents. He only took it upon himself when Batman told him he will take care of it,spoiler alert he doesn't. And that kid became the ClownHunter.
Tbf what's a normal dude going to do against people like tombstone, or kingpin, or carnage? I'm sure many people probably have tried but it probably didn't end well.
The adaptation of this scene in the Daredevil series is further pushed with the idea that some criminals, those in the lowest of the underbelly, are just doing it to get by, are they proud of it? Maybe yes maybe not, and then there are also those who may wanna change and just call it quits, it's all arbitrary, but the point is, some people deserve a second chance, and that's actually something Matt Murdock stands for as representative of the legal council and also the more vigilante side of things.
Ultimately, I prefer the reinterpretation once again than the source material, but Garth Ennis does have a point that some people does not need to adhere to the same thing he does, providing more complexity in this already morally gray question whether one should kill as a form of verdict for criminals.
This story is a breath of fresh air from the Spider-Man, Batman, etc. stories that just seem to mock the characters and provide shock value rather than present multiple sides of a difficult core moral issue.
My take on this is if they’ve taken a life or is responsible for taking a life then punisher can go off, but if, say, they robbed a store of bank or whatever then the law can do what the law does