Slight Correction- Read Before Commenting- At the end, the choice Frank gives Matt is to shoot him to save Grotto or he will kill Grotto anyways. Not as I said in the video that Frank wanted Matt to shoot Grotto himself. Frank saying Matt would be held morally responsible as a murderer for either outcome is the main point of contention that I think is still valid. Also people keeping pointing out that Frank wasn’t going to shoot that veteran. Before Frank walks over to him he tells Matt to be quiet or he’ll kill the vet, he then walks over and has the convo and cocks back the hammer, and then tells Matt that the hammer cocking was for show for him. Frank says the cocking of the hammer was for show but at the very least he would have injured that vet if he had been persistent. Without added knowledge of the character from the tv show that takes place after this, The Punisher who is presented here seems like one that would hurt this man to protect the situation he has going on with Matt. That’s just how I interpreted it but other outcomes are possible. Lastly, I feel like it’s fairly evident but just because I bring up a topic or argument, it doesn’t mean that’s my personal opinion or what I’m trying to convince you of. People keep talking about the small gun argument I mention and I say several times in this section, neutral phrases like “you could say” or “some might argue” so just because I address a topic to fully cover the debate, it doesn’t mean that’s what I personally think. Again this seems fairly evident but I have to address other’s opinions whom I don’t personally agree with to cover this topic fully.
The point of Frank’s test is not to make Matt morally responsible for grotto’s death. Its to demonstrate how ineffectual his methods are. Here, Frank basically assumes the role of the criminalat least from Matt’s point of view. Grotto is the “victim”, and Matt is Frank himself. Having grotto tell the story of the old lady is just to show Matt, and the audience, why Frank is going to kill him and maybe give Matt a reason to consider both options, kill Frank or let grotto die. Yes, Matt is being held hostage by frank, and he can’t control Frank’s actions. Similarly, Frank is held by his personal code. He can’t turn a blind eye to the wicked ways of the world, and he can’t run from them, a sentiment both he and Matt share. Nor can he control the actions of those that would conduct such wickedness. All he can do is choose whether to act, or not too. If he does nothing, the victim dies. If he does anything but kill the criminal the victim dies. As he made clear earlier, sooner or later the criminal returns to crime. Those that don’t are replaced, and he’s more than willing to kill them too. So the two choices he gives Matt are to kill him, or let grotto die. Matt attempts to do things his way, but fails to save grotto. Thus proving Frank’s point. One thing most people people get confused often, especially in regards to the punisher, is morals vs. ethics. That is whether one’s goals are just, or if the actions one takes to achieve one’s goals are appropriate. Frank knows he’s no angle, but I will concede that he believes himself to be on the moral high ground, but he’s never claimed that his methods ethical. Daredevil believes that because Frank’s methods are unethical, they are also immoral. Personally, I agree with frank.
Haven’t finished the video but so far it’s pretty great but don’t forget in season 3 we get a very very brief no words cameo of the corrupt Mexican police officer from season 1 of DD but I still don’t know who’s morally right but I know the cop did NOT get rehabilitated cuz Matt beat his ass a couple times and got him arrested but once Fisk was back he got his badge back
@@TheFalconCaptain The moral part, I can understand. To be honest both of these men deserve to go to jail. If you wanna play that game they both have broken the law both, have assaulted police, and both have resisted arrest. Now if you want to get philosophical I’m game. I don’t believe you should kill anyone. You are not God and you do not have the power to decide who lives who dies for you are no different if not worse than the people you kill. The problem with these antiheroes is that often times they are simply lashing out at the world that wrong them. Similar to a bully at school who is a delinquent only acting like that because he’s abused at home and that is the only way he can express what’s happening to him. Men like red hood and punisher are cool in the fiction world, but are nightmares in real life simply because they are deranged maniacs who believe what they’re doing is right, simply because of their own personal vendetta and vengeance. Look at it this way, they got burned by the world so now they’re going to burn the world a.k.a. “scorched earth.” Everyone Burns…. Would you consider someone like that a hero? Yes, they killed bad guys but now they’re bad themselves. A monster is still a monster, even if it murders monsters. Although I believe daredevil deserves to go to jail too similar to Batman, I believe people like punisher and red hood, or no different than the criminals they kill, especially when they perform the same actions, if not worse. I won hundred percent agree with daredevil because he is correct. He gives everyone a chance, religious or not. God gives everyone a choice to do the right thing. And when you snuff the light out simply because you have a vendetta and a personal Deathwish, I don’t believe you were in the right for that.
@@CasualCasimir I’ve actually watched the entire series of Daredevil over 30 time’s minimum no joke and my favorite part is Matt’s struggle to not kill and how he needs a northstar like Bullseye did and his northstar is god and sometimes he beats fbi agents into a coma but he definitely feels bad for it and I loved everything you said except I don’t agree Matt is a bad person for his ruthless vigilante justice because he does more good then harm and the crime sorta fits the punishment with him except for season 3 where he’s upset with god because if you do something no that bad he’ll kick the shit outta you but if you human traffic, rape children, murder; then you’re not getting him off of you for a while cuz he’s going hammer time on that face
This is why i love red hood, he's like a perfect balance between daredevil and the punisher, he'll kill the serious offenders like the punisher, yet will let minor offender's live and rehabilitate. Yet he also doesn't dehumanise those he kills, he sees it as a necessary evil.
@JadedJester Winter Soldier; Genetically augmented former soldier in WW2 who's been brainwashed and turned into a cyborg assassin. Red Hood; Former superhero, murdered by the Joker, resurrected by the enemy using magic, nope's out of becoming an assassin. Yeah, I can totally see the similarities.
I feel like it’s more about Daredevil’s religious beliefs, he’s a catholic so he believes there is good in people no matter how bad they are. Punisher is also right because he’s seen just how evil people are, but he also has a soft side as he doesn’t kill women or men who love their families and aren’t too rotten to the core.
I'm Catholic but I'm with Punisher. Matthew 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Frank is just desperate for a reason to kill people while seeming righteous .He will murder for any reason .If he wanted to draw an "intelectual challenge" from it instead of some sensation of Moral Superiority , he would be the Riddler . Everything he says is meaningless and is just an after thought justification .Matthew means what he says and thinks it through .
Daredevil's way works for petty criminals: thieves and vandals. The Punisher's way works for more hard-core criminals: Murderers, rapists, pedophiles. I think that the best way to "stop" crime would be to control what criminals are in power in the underworld.
That's what Kingpin does. He control the underworld. In comics Kingpin says he is controlling crime to help contained it. So even a person like Kingpin has the right intentions. So in a way Daredevil way, Punisher way, and Kingpin way. Are all valid ways to go about crime.
Not really my father once thought when that WW2 ended that people would learn then there wouldn't be no war's. Evil can never truly stopped as long there is free will or remove the sociopathic, psychopathic tendecies from people and maybe crime would go drastically. No normal person would commit crime's anyone who can feel sympathy and empathy wouldn"t wannna be near a criminal.
@@theoutsiderjess1869 That's exactly who I thought about. But even he has flaws. I mean, you control the crime, but you become a PART OF ALL the responsibility that it entails. That's called Militia Mindset here in Brazil. We know we can't destroy all crime and all evil since it's a systemic thing that it's rooted in all things we have as a society, but rehabilitation SHOULD BE the real option. It doesn't matter who, when or where, we should see even the worst criminal as a human being who can be part of a society again and, if they don't, we can make sure they are confined to a small portion of a society that does align with him. No Vigilantism is really good for any system of crimes and punishment. We should improve everything to pin down every potential criminal to be at least a functioning part of society. That comes from a place without corruption and real engagement for the betterment of the whole. Sounds like and Utopia, but so does everything every Vigilante thinks they are doing.
Both are right, in my opinion. You need people like Daredevil who believe that no matter how far you fall you can always get back up again, because it shatters people’s personal perspectives that they are too far gone. It creates a path for people to begin to change themselves. We also need the Punisher to create a line in the sand, and act as a reminder that your actions have consequences. The fact that there are some people who are far less forgiving than Daredevil will incentivize people to change before they come across someone who will make them feel the full force of the consequences of their actions.
Wrong, not even children are dumb enough to believe that people who intentionally commit acts of evil everyday can or will change. If someone believes that then they're clearly not right in the head, they live in their own little world, not the real one.
@@theoutlawking9123 Only children and the very dumb think they understand whether any person actually can change, since we know nowhere near enough about the brain to be able to work it out.
@@theoutlawking9123 did you not read the comment he said one who believes people can change and one who draws a line when people are too evil to change your example is of people who cross the line
Quick correction: At 10:48 it seems more in line that Punisher would just be doing the action in order to keep Daredevil from alerting the man rather than actually be willing to kill him.
Exactly. Frank abhors killing innocents. And despite how it may seem, he is not stupid. He knows full well that Matt would keep his mouth shut, because Matt has no real idea of what The Punisher's code is.
idk why these daredevil fanboys think the punisher is a killing machine, he quite literally inflitrates more controlled crime and not some john doe robbing walmart, he doesn't kill innocents or super low level criminals, he literally chooses to go to areas with more organized crime and kills irredeemable people
It shreds Frank's soul, even in the middle of a bloody haze, when he's confronted with innocents getting caught in the crossfire, which is why he absolutely would not put a bullet in that old man, likely even if the old man drew on him and told him to get the F off his roof, doubly so after recognizing him as a fellow serviceman who isn't embroiled in organized crime. Frank talks real tough when it comes to the lengths he will go to to get his work done, but oftentimes that's a means of throwing off whoever he's speaking to, either to lessen their leverage with hostages, or to manipulate them into acquiescing to his demands under the false pretense he will do evil to bystanders, their family or loved ones. He may imply to a crime boss that the war he brings will destroy everything around him, and play on their instinct to protect their children to move themselves into a vulnerable position, but Frank is never knowingly throwing rounds anywhere near them outside of the "too far gone" stories. The man has such a strong (if twisted) moral compass that when he is getting chiropractic work done all over his body by an enraged Captain America, he tanks through it and continues addressing the man with respect because of what he represents and has done.
I agree with the Punisher not because killing is a good thing but because it's the only option left when dealing with child abusers, human traffickers, and serial killers. Life has shown they don't want redemption because they have zero morals left.
Exactly, the fact is some people are incapable of feeling anything resembling remorse or pity or sympathy, they have no conscience whatsoever, should we let those people "try again" as Matt suggests, knowing they will never change or stop their evil ways? How many innocents need to die just to indulge people like Matt and his self-righteous beliefs.
@@K3vin_L There's a point where whether or not someone can change shouldn't matter. Example, I don't think stealing is something we should kill over, matter of fact, I don't believe in prison. If someone steals something, he/she should pay it back or work it off. On the other hand, if we're talking about serial rapists or murderers or even human traffickers, then yeah, they don't deserve no "chance to change," because it's clear, if you're doing things like that on a daily basis then it's obvious you like it and there's true evil in you, you deserve death, not a changce to "try again."
The problem is that the punisher punishes almost indiscriminately. From the lowest thief to the highest offender. The highest offenders I agree with. A line must be drawn somewhere, but for those lower on the ladder a just system of rehabilitation and second chances should exist. Their souls are not stained so much as to make them inhuman.
@@theoutlawking9123 the thing with that is you'd only apply it when it morally benefits you, if a serial killer is going after pedos or white supremacists your not gonna want him to be killed, you'd encourage it. Law is all based and can easily be thrown out when it goes against someone's morals. People like you don't even want to deal or help with the high level offenders at all, nobody cares, if you look into why they do there crimes and the societal reason you can lower it more. Like for rape, legalize and regulate prostitution, a rapist wouldn't have to rape a woman or man if they can easily go down the street and get themselves off there. Most rapists are unattractive anyway and not getting any sort of sex in there life anyway.
I always wanted The Punisher to have encountered a family member he loved and cherished that was a criminal so he could explore the conflict of “how would you treat your own?” under those circumstances
Punisher scraped Billy Russo’s entire face off on a broken mirror and smashed his face into it so hard multiple times bro forgot the last 15 years of his life… They were childhood friends and honestly Russo was arguably the last semblance of the family he once had. Frank couldn’t give one f**k about that. If you’re endangering peoples lives he WILL kill you without hesitation.
@@Kentashu Irc that was because russo did frank very bad and was going after him. It would be different if it were a truly loved one that has done no harm personally to frank the one who is a criminal.
@@unapersonamas5941 Look more into punisher lore. He wouldn’t care. Peter Parker is still a kid (to him) and when he turned into a cannibalistic monster, Punisher headshotted him in front of a 6 month pregnant Mary Jane.
I would say Punisher is more appealing to those who have experienced or know those close to them who have experienced crimes, and Daredevil more appealing to those who interact frequently or closely know people who have done crimes
I suppose, but feelings and experiences aside, use logic and common sense, in that tv show daredevil universe theres too much irredeemable criminals, punishers logic is much better than his
@@IIIISai Exactly, because we constantly see how Kingpin is basically above the law and he skirts around the law. And by the time you try to stop him by legal means, he will kill a whole group of innocent people and still might get away with it. All of those innocent deaths could have been avoided if Kingpin just died early on. Same reason I hate Luke Cage in the show. He keeps on saving that woman's life and she keeps on committing horrible crimes.
He wasn't going to kill that veteran, he would never do that, it waas just teather for daredevil, he never killed inocent people and when Russo made him believe he killed those woman in S2 he was totally broken and wanted to die, he is a good person and i think that his actions are almost always justified except for things like trying to kill that scumbag at the hospital, not beacuse he didn't deserve but because he scared the shit out of inocent people who didn't even know what was going on exept for Karen
But the punisher still held an innocent life in his hands, he pointed a loaded weapon at someones head just to keep daredevil quiet, thats like a bank robber holding people hostage to keep the police at bay, does that make them a good person still?
@@jamieturner2706your analogy is just wrong. The bank robbers use a civilian as hostage for their crime, and in some cases, they will kill just to make a point. Punisher got framed for taking an innocent life and he broke down for multiple episodes. Context matters.
@Long Ps hang on so you don't think that the punisher chaining someone up and holding them hostage, then threatening to kill an innocent is a crime? Regardless of how you see the punisher he is a criminal, not only does he kill people but he takes immense pleasure in doing so, him feeling bad about 'killing an innocent' doesnt mean shit and certainly doesnt absolve him of his own crimes
@@jamieturner2706 it is a crime to hold someone at gun point, but as readers, we all know he wouldn't actually kill him. I'm just saying that your analogy is wrong because bank robbers and Punisher have different intent and mindsets. A bank robber holding someone hostage might kill their hostage if the situation took a bad turn for them and they feel like taking a life will give them a leverage, but Frank, on the other hand, would knock the old man out. Holding him at gunpoint was just a ruse to keep Matt's mouth shut.
Punisher is one of the “You’re missing the point if your idolizing/glorifying them” starter pack, all you need now is Deadpool, Billy Butcher, and Scott Pilgrim 💀
In the end i think both of them are ineffective in different ways. Punisher kills criminals but does nothing to solve the actual reasons that caused them to exist in the first place which means they just get replaced faster than he can kill them (he also creates new criminals by all the relatives and friends of the people he kills wanting revenge). On the other hand Daredevil tries to solve the problem at the core through rehabilitation but since most criminals are unwilling to change and since the prison system of the US itself isn't actually designed to help rehabilitation it fails more times than not. I think I'll go with Kingpin on that one,if you can't stop or reduce crime you can at least contain it from within. And you can also work to fix the social issues that cause it to exist in the first place
Well said. Kingpin is honestly the best hope for the NYC crime rate to go down, since everything in marvel seems to happen in NYC lol, kind of like how the Mexican cartels subverting and dominated American street gangs to focus on pushing drugs and profits over constant running gun battles over territory, not that it does much good in places like Chi-rag....
That’s more so assuming that everyone becomes a criminal after their parent died from being a criminal lol. The Punisher overall lowers the criminal population by killing and severe punishment. Really the most severe the punishment the less likely people are going to do it.
@@thegifting267 Wrong, this is just statistically straight up wrong, look at countries that focus more on rehab instead of punishment, much lower recidivism rates
the religious side of matt is very important to how he acts as a character. You can see that he doesnt only disagree with frank, he is visually fighting with the side of himself that straight up agrees with frank. Matt almost has to stop himself from killing every evil person he comes across every night he goes out. And i think a lot of that resilience comes from his faith. Its powerful.
Agreed. And this internal conflict becomes even more central in the 3rd season, where he begins to think killing Fisk might really be the only option he has. At that point his lawyer facet had pretty much ceased to exist, he was Daredevil 24/7. So the only thing stopping him from killing was his faith.
That's a distinction many miss, it's not that Matt could never bring himself to kill someone who's done something truly awful, it's that part of him really wants to, and he has to resist the temptation of taking that route, because once he started handling things like that, who knows where his rage may take him some day. Its as much about saving himself as it is about saving the people he fights
There's also the lawyer side, the one that wants to make sure it's justice done right. He checks out what people know, if they're lying and goes after the truth, which will lead to evidence to make sure they'll get taken to jail. He's one of the only people capable of deciding if someone is innocent and if punishment is fair.
I think one of the best examples of the best of both worlds is Jim Gordon. A man who believes in the law and tries to the best of his ability to amend the system and fight for what’s right even though he is surrounded by evil. But he’s also willing to acknowledge that sometimes the law does fail and cannot be relied upon for certain circumstances. It’s this reason that he works with Batman. I think both daredevil and punisher are needed. To keep each other honest. To be the conflicting arguments and maintain a balance
Daredevil's way works when the legal system dispenses justice evenly and properly, like the way you thought it did when you were kids. Punisher's way is for when the legal system doesn't work, and you have to do it yourself in order to scare the system (or the people) into prioritizing justice again.
Yeah, but the excuse I hear most people say that “the justice system is corrupt” no matter what, so correct me if I’m wrong are you telling me that punishers way is the best way 100% using your logic? Because we know even today, the justice system is far from perfect, and is corrupt to a certain degree. Are you now encouraging punisher’s behavior? I would hope that’s not the case.
@@CasualCasimir Corruption is kind of a separate issue... By it's very definition, "corruption" means that the system isn't working properly due to the bias or ill intent of the people running it. So long as the system can still be fixed (the corrupt individuals can be removed and/or punished according to the system's rules, the people still have some sway over who gets to run the system [such as with voting in DAs], the system hasn't been changed to be intentionally unfair or rigged in a way that isolates the corrupt power structure from consequences or removal) then Daredevil is right. Just because the people in charge of the system are corrupt, doesn't mean there is no justice; it means you need to get them out of power and put just individuals in power. The mechanisms for fixing the system are still there and still working, they're just not being used (which is, frankly, the people's fault). Punisher's methods are _premature._ His methods are unfortunately necessary to establish order when tearing down an irrecoverably corrupt and tyrannical system in order to supplant it with a new one. For example, when a legal system allows certain groups to get away with arson, theft, rape, murder, and other violent deeds while doggedly persecuting minor infractions like trespassing or noise violations against other groups, then the people have a duty to overthrow the system and those who corrupted it. It's called "revolution", and we're not there... yet. But if you've been paying attention, then you'd know a lot of places are getting close.
@@cainabel6356 Are you sitting on your phone or in front of a computer able to say that without being arrested or charged? Then you're not "there" yet. Britain's almost there, they get put in jail for jokes the left find offensive. But they don't have a constitutional equalizer (your 2A) to keep the government at bay. They only have the democratic process slowing down the decay. Where you are is extremist/terrorist conflict (like those trans activists shooting kids and calling it justified), not civil war yet (which is where both sides would be killing eachother, regardless of where they are or who they are). You're not there... _Yet._
This is why I love superhero’s. Genuine morale dilemmas and constant hypocrisy which everyone is guilty off. Just makes reading these story’s great because both sides have a point. If you kill your like the criminals and create a even bigger problem. If you don’t kill you can feel morally better but you keep a problem alive and allow them to reoffend like the Joker
I just finished watching Daredevil and I absolutely love how Matt Murdock and Frank Castle interact and oppose each other as separate individuals. I just love the show soo much!
I get into heroes and antiheroes and no killing villains debates a lot and I personally take the side of antiheroes, because their way more realistic , interesting, and even more relatable and entertaining
Ultimately it boils down to this: There are people in this world who are capable of being rehabilitated, Daredevil is right about this but the desire to change and be better HAS to come from within the person. they HAVE to WANT to be a better person. and if they dont, if they only live to serve their own needs and desires, and have little to no regard for the wellbeing or livelihood of others, ESPECIALLY if they desire to harm others, then they cannot be trusted to have their freedoms. Hence the Punisher's stance.
Whay about people who live selfishly but don't break any laws or do anything evil? Do you think lazy, greedy and selfish people should be punished to? You make it sound like selfish people are the ones who should be punished, not genuinely evil people.
@seamusmcarthur666 evil is precisely what i meant.. "and have little to no regard for the well-being or livelihood of others, ESPECIALLY if they desire to harm others" i was referring to selfish harmful behavior such as greed and exploitation, with the DESIRE to do harm as the more despicable variant. Pardon me for not explaining this clearly.
punisher just in search of punching bag , he is an animal not even human, he do not want to eradicate criminals he just wants to waste time killing them, he is very weak surface level thought process just like small child just kill everybody he will never try and find the root of all problem ego he is just doomed ,stupid,weak,surface level, non-religious, he showed how weak as human being we are, we don't even think, we have lost the touch to talk understand,ask,enquire, we have forgot what human being is , we are just voilent animals that's it, this is what punisher symbolizes nothing more nothing less
It makes me happy to still see this series being talked about. Excellent breakdown, I loved the deep dive into the true ethics and morality of both philosophies.
Frank's extreme remorse when he thought that he killed the women in the raid of Russo's hideout shows that he isn't completely immune to his conscience and that he isn't just okay with killing anyone.
The thing is though, daredevil born again is actually getting good writers. These are the same people who wrote episodes when Flash was a good tv show and the good parts of Arrow.
I truly want to acknowledge and defend daredevil's side. I do. The world would be a much more optimistic and forgiving place if he's right. But i just can't justify letting a criminal live when they rob someone else of that chance. What net positive would a criminal have on the world that can repay what they did to someone else?
I have to agree. But then there are other case studies in fiction like Deadshot and Deadpool, where they have literally killed a shit to of innocent people, yet has shown some semblance of humanity.
Part of me does acknowledge daredevil’s side, some people can see the error of their ways, and choose to be better for the sake of their friends, their families, and the world, and even become heroes, but not everyone, and some criminals might even reject the chance at redemption, because they relish in the evil that they do, and that’s when I agree with the punisher, putting them down permanently to not only punish them for their crimes, but to also avenge and bring justice to all the innocent lives they’ve destroyed so they can never hurt or kill anyone else ever again, and doing that doesn’t make frank a sociopath murderer, he’s not just going around shooting random people, whether their guilty or innocent, he strictly believes in punishing the wicked and protecting the innocent, and despite his negative faults , frank is a good hearted soldier with a strong moral code and he takes action when he sees an act that goes against his morals, and he values the lives of the innocent, that’s why he’s eradicating all crime and villainy in New York City and trying to stop villains like the kingpin and the hand, and since Matt and frank both want to fight crime, why can’t they just put aside their differences and work together, especially when stopping a greater threat to save NYC and its citizens and be comrades, and that gives him an uncannily strong sense of morality, that he’s willing to do whatever it takes to stop crime forever so no more innocents need to be afraid or suffer and wanting to live in a world without evil is what motivates him
10:53 I don’t think Frank was really going to kill the old man. I think it was an empty threat to make sure Daredevil wouldn’t yell for help or reveal Punisher’s location.
Bro, he would have never killed that veteran. Considering this was based on Garth Ennis's punisher, he goes to extreme lengths to avoid civilian casulaties.
In his series when Ruso killed those women to make him believe he did it, he refused to move a muscle to defend his life because he believed he has failed, he kills only those who thinks he deserves, those who do bad but not that bad, a good beating daredevil style or a non lethal bullet, and avoids killing or hurting innocent with his life, he is not perfect but i am o his side with no regrets
Used to be super pro Punisher viewpoint, but this video was so well made that it really made me think about the pros and cons of each side. Brilliant job.
There are no pros for DD, he's a coward and a hypocrite, he even broke his precious rule in the same season at the end, when Nobu killed Elektra, Matt then flew into a fit of rage and throw Nobu off the building, killing him. Proving that Frank was right, he was just one bad day away from being like him. Not to mention the fact that Matt would let rapists and mass-murderers live to "try again," aka Kill & Rape again, you would have to be an idiot to think his side is logical.
@@theoutlawking9123 he's way too optimistic unlike batman who is succumbed with darkness and understands that he is letting criminals live and have them doing it again like the Joker... batman doesn't try to make excuses like how daredevil does
@@godzillazfriction Batman does the same thing, despite not being as naive. With Bruce it's worse because he does it out of some misguided sense of honor or code but it's the same exact results: Evil remains alive to commit more evil!
Its funny to me how Netflix made such a compelling argument between legal reform and capital punishment, out of a comic book series. Its seams to me that Netflix is very pro punishment.
@@theoutlawking9123 You're also being close minded and idiotic if you only look at Frank's side. World's a gray blur. Not everything is black and white. Doesn't mean there aren't any black and white aspects. Also Daredevil at that point in time saw Nobu coming back from the dead. So he threw him off the building. And the hand soldiers that he fought and punisher killed were already dead people. That's why they had no heartbeats when he tried to listen to it. Another piss poor observational error from you. In DD S3 it goes over corruption, and punisher kills indiscriminately, so people who are in much more complex situations: Ray Nadeem in S3 DD where he cannot disobey fisk because he has total control over his family or the superior to Ray Nadeem getting her child killed after disobeying fisk. Do you really think those type of people who are FORCED to do evil acts deserve punishment? Sure it may be easy for some to say yes, but they've never been in that position, and their families weren't the one in jeopardy. So punisher's methods would just kill these guys indiscriminately. While Daredevil's methods would at least allow him to understand the nuanced situations. Granted Daredevil's methods does not work against irredeemable people, he's a lot more involved in the personal side of the people.
The moral dynamic between Daredevil and The Punisher fascinates me so much it has actually made me think real hard about this side of life. Both have valid points.
I used to think that everybody could be redeemed and rehabilitated, but after seeing men killing each other and dismembering their bodies, using their heads as soccer balls, how can you redeem someone that commits such horrible acts... how can you rehabilitate people who extortion money out of innocent people.. mothers and fathers getting shot in front of their son's eyes because they refuse to pay... and as the punisher says, they get caught and the same day they get out......
You don't. The idea that killing people that willingly commit atrocious acts is somehow wrong is a convenient "moral lesson" that protects a lot of despicable people these days.
True, I used to watch tons of murder videos, especially the one about cartels, Brazil and Isis.... How can we even rehabilitate this people? It's like something inside their brain that just lose the function of emotions, all they know is just kill and fun (or religion for Isis). Is there a case of very cruel people (someone who kill cause it's fun and in a very brutal) that somehow rehabilitate into a decent person? I don't think so.
"if we kill a criminal fathers, the childs might be a criminals someday" yeah, what if we.... give the kid good education, healthy social environment, affordable housing, and healthcare.
Completely disagree with the premise for the very reasons described in this video. That position completely strips the Joker of moral responsibility for his own actions. Batman is not morally responsible for Joker's choices.
@@Tyler_W no but seeing the joker doesn't want to change trying to force him to change and you see it's not working than you by any mean necessary need to stop him no matter what.
exactly I said in my comment on this video that I hate batman for his no killing rule. he may have the cool gadgets, suit and money, but he's more unhinged than the bad guys he's beaten up and put in the hospital, prison or asylum cause how are you gonna go through all that trouble just for them to get out and do the same thing you stopped them for?
Whole issue with morals is it’s based off of one’s own personal experiences. Someone in a first world country is most likely not going to have the same morals as one in a third world, and then there are some who have the same exact morals despite those differences. Daredevil is an optimist and an idealist, like most heroes he believes people are redeemable and in very rare cases, they are. However, as most people know, people are more likely than not irredeemable. Punisher may not get it done pretty and probably leaves a bad taste in people’s mouths, but you can’t deny he’s doing more good than evil. Neither of them though are doing anything to solve any of the issues
Daredevil: You run around this city like it's your damn shooting gallery. Frank Castle: Yeah, what do you do? What do you do? You act like it's a playground. You beat up the bullies with your fists. You throw 'em in jail, everybody calls you a hero, right? And then a month, a week, a day later, they're back on the streets doing the same goddamn thing!
Frank is the fix for a corrupt system that fails to punish criminals. Daredevil is the fix for a weak system that can't catch its own criminals. When the system has both problems, neither can be perfect.
Punisher's side for me. He actually solves problems. Daredevil... means well, but all he does is push the problem down the line to harm others later. Not saying there shouldn't be mercy, there 100% should, but only for those who genuinely try to do better. For those who don't, Frank's way works better, IMHO.
When Matt said “extinguishing the small spark” lol I laughed . In a 16 year old teen drug dealer? Sure. In a criminal that has killed a dozen people? I don’t give a damn if they have a sun sized spark in them. Trying to save that spark isn’t worth the effort, because that same effort can be put into keeping other people from getting to that point
@j p yea lm not risking lives of people who are benifital to society for some rapist that will rape again once he is out effectively destroying another persons life and then that person might destroy more lifes in the future a never ending cycle
@@jamesbizs also this guy used the "we're someones husbands and sons" argument against dehumanization, you stop being just a husband and a son when you do these vile things, now you're just a rabid dog that needs to be put down immediately before he bites someone again
Daredevil is just as incompetant as Batman. Both only using temporary ways to stop criminals, not permanent. Red Hood was way more effective than Batman in every way so technically Red Hood could b the Punisher of DC a.k.a the one who actually solves problems.
How many civilians does a super villain on the straight up murder spectrum kill every time they break out of jail? How much innocent life is worth sacrificing to give one guy a chance after chance after chance? How come we never give marines the same moral questioning whenever they go on missions that involve killing terrorists on sight?
That's why Frank is awesome, he's not a bad guy really. He just does what he does. Both views are valid, but you often see that The Punisher goes to great lengths to not hurt innocents. When he's caught in the elevator with countless cops, he goes out of his way to not kill or even maim a single one; more than Batman can say lol
it's funny how batman would fight cops especially the corrupted ones intentionally yet punisher wouldn't do that intentionally but sometimes would have to do it like in that elevator scene
The punisher is protecting the innocent and punished the guilty, hence his name, and he’s saving future victims, and deep down he’s good hearted and has good intentions , sacrifices himself for others sake and cares about others, and I feel like heroes and antiheroes need to learn to coexist and fight evil together and heroes need to fight the actual villains instead of seeing the antiheroes as the villains, since their so blinded by their binary morality and hypocrisy in letting the evilest villains go
@@alexanderdixson9956I don’t understand how you could see yourself as a stable human being yet agree with these anti heroes Like the punisher is not a good guy deep down, he’s a deranged killer, I don’t think you guys realise this and that’s concerning
It was moments in comic books like this that prove it's more than just children's media. Its mature and deep with writers and artists trying to convey a story. Not a plot like in Civil War where they just fight and fight without ever actually communicating why this fight is happening. Just my thoughts.
Always sided with punisher I'm afraid. In fact they kinda pointed it out when everyone daredevil arrests seems to always get out and cause more harm AND even when he arrested kingpin he still ruled in prison. Punisher however once he gets his hands on them they won't be causing trouble any longer
Punisher has never killed someone who made me question “Did this guy deserve this?” I can always answer “Yes” pretty quickly. So I trust his judgement NEITHER are WRONG, but only Punisher is RIGHT. Most people he kills would be spending life in prison w/o parole anyway, and our tax dollars would be feeding them 3 times a day for the rest of their lives.
(I'm talking about the idea that the punisher hasn't killed someone innocent) But that's simply unrealistic and wouldn't be applicable in the real world
Punisher is absolutely right, and besides, the worst criminals deserve the death penalty anyway, and I’m certain that the families of their victims would want it to, and plus, who want them to get sentenced to life or get any parole anyway, am I right?
Daredevil's right, but not for the obvious reason. If you're a dangerous career criminal, you've made peace with the fact that you're in a deadly line of work and could die at any time. Punisher crosses your path, your troubles are essentially over. Daredevil crosses your path, you end up with several life-altering (if nonlethal) injuries, years of jail time and physical therapy.
I see it like this, Matt, the Daredevil doesn't kill because he has people he cares about deeply and wants people to be and feel safe with a guardian angel they can trust, he doesn't kill because even though he dresses uo as a monster every night he doesn't sink himself so low that he becomes the real monster but with Frank, the Punisher he lost everything and no one left, he was a man with nothing left to lose, something everyone needs to fear, and with that he wanted to make the world of crime pay for what they did, he became the monster to destroy the monsters, permanently.
Very good points abt giving characters arcs addressing the hypocrisy of the audience criticizing 1 thing yet saying the other is disrespectful 2 the character receiving the arc.
They are both right that's what makes their interactions and arguments so good. People should be given another chance but there are also people who cannot be saved only stopped
Interesting video, something I've always thought about, and I love this season of Daredevil. Daredevil believes in justice. Frank believes in punishment. Justice is at many times false or blind, and punishment can be cruel and in many ways an ineffective deterrent. The truth is, neither are right, and the truth is, both are naive and/or flawed in their own respective beliefs. At an essence this is less a true moral debate, and more the solution to each characters internal moral quandary. They are attempting to equally justify their own flawed system of justice to the other, while also attempting to understand the other person's justification in a way of convincing them otherwise. Both are talking, but neither are listening, and the real thing the scene shows me is that, in this season at least, neither are ever truly listening, at least not yet. Daredevil goes on to be betrayed and has parts of his world crumble around him because of his trust in the justice system, and so realizes that some extremes can and sometimes should be taken to save those who do deserve it morally. He doesn't switch, but he learns. He learns to use his justice to protect his people. Punisher eventually gets his revenge and realizes the morbid truth that it wont bring his family back. But he also turns around, at least in strength of character, by saving peoples lives and holding himself back from killing everyone and anyone he deems worthy (Season 2 of his own show). He learns that he should limit his punishment to a means of avenging the crimes done to his people. (Which is still a rather violent mindset, but it's better than just unregarded and unkempt mass murder of any criminal) Point truly is, this conversation shows us the state of these two characters, and sets up how both realize and eventually settle themselves into that respective middle ground mentioned at the end of this video, and I think that's pretty cool. I think more longterm chracter arcs and internal justifications are great, as they are the things in storytelling which allow us to analyze ourselves through the characters we are watching. Great analysis.
Neither are right. They’re both too extreme. There are times when you need to kill & times when you shouldn’t, but Punisher kills everyone & Daredevil doesn’t kill at all. If anyone’s method is more effective in a technical & non-moral standpoint, I’d easily say Punisher.
You get it. Neither is totally right, and both of them are too personally invested in their own belief systems to change. Also, their inability or unwillingness to concede on either end is in spite of both men recognizing the other has a very valid point. The scene is less about provoking the moral dilemma of who is righteous and more about demonstrating the pitfalls of wholeheartedly subscribing to extreme ideologies, even when those two ideologies are diametrically opposed. One extreme doesn’t justify the other, they’re both fundamentally flawed and therefore ineffective for different reasons.
You know, looking back, ten years ago I was definitely on Daredevil's side, but as I grow up I keep getting closer and closer to Punisher's "policy" in combating crime. Where I live is exactly as Frank describes, and it gets repeated ad nauseum in the news. Underage kills person; gets lower sentence. Criminal kills a father of three; Gets free in 3 years; Reincident rapist is caught for the fourth time. Drunk driver kills a child; released 1 year later and back to driving. It is so common most of us just live under the assumption we will be robbed of our phones, motorcycles and other possessions because that's how things are and you just deal with it. The criminal system is inefficient and the laws are made by corrupt people, so it's like the entire machine is against the common, well-meaning population. So the sentiment of retribution naturally arises. Ideally, the courts would work perfectly, the criminals would get the right punishment, and the incarceration system would work to reintegrate them into society, but this is far from reality. Reality is cold, bleak and brutal, and the only way to deal with that is by taking harsh measures. Yes, violence begets violence, but there's a distinction in the source and motives behind each. One is for selfish reasons, the other is to enact justice. People can change, yes, but they should not be free from the consequences of their actions. You can say it's the environment they live in that pushed them what way, but this is denying individual choice and responsibility, and truly, some people can't change, or even worse, they don't want to. If a person keeps reinciding in crime and getting in and out of jail, to me that's a clear proof that they are not fit to live in society. All those ideas came to me as I grew up and thought more about these topics, trying to analyse both sides, and I think it reflects the views of Matt and Frank pretty well. Matt is idealistic, and he believes in the due process of the legal system, even though he knows it doesn't always works. That's why he acts as Daredevil. Frank is on the other side, he has seen how shitty the world is and is taking the steps towards the logical, cold and brutal conclusions. Ultimately, the more jaded the person, more likely they are to side with Frank, IMO
Agreed, just with the caveat that Punisher is not *meant* to be someone to endorse or encouraged. I think, in their anger, a lot of people kind of miss the point of Frank Castle. He is not a good man waging a brutal war on crime, he never has been. Frank Castle is a monster that just so happens to turn his rage towards other monsters. He doesn’t *want* to be imitated or idolized because he knows what he is is broken, rabid, and ultimately only there to inflict further pain on the world. His war will never end and, despite what he may occasionally *say* to other people, his actions and overall characterization speaks greater volumes. He won’t stop, he won’t ever be stop, and no one can ever change that. That isn’t because he can’t be stopped, Hell Wolverine’s kid literally murdered him before he was, again literally, Frankenstein’d back together, it’s because Frank Castle doesn’t want to stop. TL;DR - Yes, but Punisher bad and not the logical conclusion, just the angry one. You don’t beat monsters by becoming monsters.
Well, from what I’ve learned and gathered throughout the years of antiheroes in comics, and fiction, is that most of them kill mainly because of the trauma of the past and they use it as an excuse to lash out at the world. A.k.a. “reflecting” anything done to you you want to do back at whatever did that to you? So in summary, if the world burned you, you feel it necessary to burn the world right back which may sound logical to you, but the problem… to you it’s personal.. personal is synonymous with vengeance. To an outside perspective in a sense you want scorched earth a.k.a., everyone Burns!! Which is a personal death wish, suicidal and ridiculous. “You don’t want to save anyone you just want to kill the people that hurt you..that is not a hero”
@@stealthbrawler God gave everyone a choice. And you chose to burn them. “You are no different from the other you burn. Burn yourself too and join them for you are no different” Just remover that. .. religious or not you know it’s true. Using the excuse that “they are lesser then us” won’t save you either 🤷🏿♂️
Not really. I mean, who decides wether someone needs killing or not? Some people aren't criminals because they want, but rather because their context and experiences have dragged them out to a life on the streets. People are not black or white and to some, to choose who lives or dies it's never that simple. I can only think of one fictional example of redemption, and that would be Plastic Man. He used to be a criminal and needed a second, third or even fourth chance until he ultimately became a hero. It's not like everyone is willing to redeem themselves, but to deny them the opportunity to even try is also wrong.
punisher just in search of punching bag , he is an animal not even human, he do not want to eradicate criminals he just wants to waste time killing them, he is very weak surface level thought process just like small child just kill everybody he will never try and find the root of all problem ego he is just doomed ,stupid,weak,surface level, non-religious, he showed how weak as human being we are, we don't even think, we have lost the touch to talk understand,ask,enquire, we have forgot what human being is , we are just voilent animals that's it, this is what punisher symbolizes nothing more nothing less
Their is a comic crossover of the pulp heroes The Shadow and The Green Hornet where they have a similar conversation. The Hornet with his sleep gas puts and emphasis the importance of the law while Shadow prefers justice dispensed with his .45 automatics.
Punisher is 102% correct. Repeat Offenders proves the Penitentiary System doesn't work. The only reason Punisher steps in is because the Criminal had every opportunity to not cause suffering to others but does so anyway. They had their Chance, even that Old Man who would have interfered with the delivery of Punishment.
The criminals clearly show they enjoy the evil they do, and when they’re given a chance at redemption, they reject it and openly show they don’t want to change and stay evil forever
Punisher doesn’t care what daredevil says, all he cares about is saving and protecting the city and its people from dangerous criminals and supervillains, and preventing them from killing innocents and destroying the city
I’m on the punishers side, he’s always been my favorite. Even as a child I thought “kill the bad buy so they won’t come back.” Yes it cruel and inhumane but realistically he has a point, as soon as they get out of jail they’ll go back to crime. Look I’m talking about in the fantasy setting of Marvel In the real world I don’t things are definitely not as cut and dry as that.
The legal system doesn’t work. Daredevil’s morals shouldn’t matter in the face of true evil. If I kill 1,000 people and daredevil let’s the system take me there’s a decent chance I’d escape somehow killing a lot more people.(Comic book logic) The lives after the initial catching do wether we like it or not also fall on Daredevil he could’ve and should’ve killed me. With great power comes great responsibility. If I chose to let a murderor live and he murders again it’s atleast partially on me.
The problem with prisons in the US is the fact that they make too much money to really try rehabilitation. If you're in the business of solving a problem, what happens when you solve that problem? You stop making money, and not making money is obviously the worst thing that could possibly happen to a businessman. None of the systems the US have in place are going to change for a long time because money is everything, consequences be damned.
One of my favorite scenes from the series is watching DD/Matt wrestle with his religious beliefs, and then crosses himself as he concedes that sometimes killing might be the only way.
The morality is always interesting when debating fiction, but generally there is a hard line for everyone on this topic. Someone's willingness to commit acts of evil can only be measured realistically after they have committed them, so we consider people who are guilty of various acts. Assault and robbery, yeah most people agree they can get their ass beat but not killed. Child predators and cold blooded murderers, most people agree they should be locked up forever or die for their choices. One hard line everyone has in their head, cross it and that it.
Matt is just naive and unrealistic. Castle is more realistic on how criminals should be deal. Frank Castle is a better hero that Daredevil and Batman. The Punisher make sure he permanently stop countless criminals to commit more crimes. The problem is that most Sanctimonious inividuals such as Matt are prig who like to dictate what others can and cannot do. If the so-called Heroes like Matt don't want to kill then fine. But they have zero rights to tell others what they can and cannot do. Not everyone deserves a second chance! Giving someone a second chance is like giving them an extra bullet for their gun because they missed the first time. Did Osama bin Laden deserves a Second Chance? Did Hitler deserves a Second Chance? Did The Joker deserves a Second Chance? I let you that sink into your head.
The Hitler analogy is just stupid. Hitler is a genocidal freak who would've been stopped in self defense. The Batman would've killed Hitler because he knows the only way to stop the Nazis is to kill them. They can't just be thrown in jail when there's an all out war. Joker can tho. If the Joker breaks out again, that's not on Batman.
@@safcjoe7062 The Hitler Analogy is not stupid. It's stupid for you because you don't have a real counter argument for it. The Joker is a Genocidal Maniac, yet he us treat with care show that Gotham and Batman have poor periorities.
@felixbenitez6169 have you ever killed anyone? And if you ever had that choice what's to say you'd ever stop? That's Bruce and Matt's point. Yeah, Joker being killed would stop him from killing others BUT it wouldn't stop Bruce from becoming a mass murderer. Same with Matt and Fisk, Bruce would kill criminals that CLEARLY have shown signs of good, he wouldn't stop and ppl like Quinn, Dent and Freeze have sympathetic traits. Hitler took over an entire country bro, they had no choice but to kill him to stop the Nazis.
@@safcjoe7062 Your argumentnis poorbly because is the ilogical argument of; If You Kill You’re The Same As Them. A very fallacy argument because is a argument trying to gaslighting anyone to go along with your ilogical belief. It doesn't work, so you better come up with a better argument, or you can swallow your pride and accept you're a wimp.
Honestly this whole video is exactly why I love Daredevil and the Punisher so much because it really makes you think where you would land morally when it comes to justice. Daredevil yes beats the breaks off of criminals but he doesn't kill them. I ain't gonna lie there were scenes where I thought "Jesus is Matt about to catch a body here". While the Punisher doesn't have a problem putting a mobster or a r**ist in the morgue because he believes people like that won't change. Personally, I personally land right in between these two, I agree with Matt with some points but also I agree with Frank. Unfortunately there are people that are absolute scums of the Earth in this life, however, true justice is blind and unbiased. Frank and Matt are two sides of the same coin. When Matt can't get the message to stick, the boogeyman in Frank will. Their relationship is the definition of there is only so far you can push someone till they push back. When Matt fails, Frank makes sure they get it across their thick skulls
You made such a compelling point when you said "If you would condemn a rapist to bring raped in prison, you're not against the act. Just who it happens to." Such a thoughtful thing to say. Bravo.
This is a good point to think about until you ask “why”. Because in this scenario you can justify “why” you would be ok with a rapist being raped. Not because you are ok with the act, but because you see it as retribution. Because that person deserves to feel the pain they caused, and they can understand the damage they’ve done
@@IslandBirdKing Being okay with it as retribution is "being okay with it as an act". That's like, the entire problem with "an eye for an eye". It doesn't solve anything. Heck, it's doubtful that making them go through the same thing would make them understand/regret their actions anyway.
@@Birthday888 You need to have both soft on crime and hard on crime people. Basically a good cop bad cop dynamic. But yeah, may the punishment fit the crime. Destroying someone's entire life, physical, and emotional help needs more punishment than just time in a jail cell.
And that’s why Punisher in his words “puts them down… Permanently.” is better cuz while everyone else is wondering if they’re not against r*pe just who it blah blah blah. The mf that needs to be taken off Earth is taking a forever dirt nap. Case closed
Dude you should pay more attention to the dialogs, you made 2 very big mistakes, first, Frank wasn't going to kill that vet, he himself said that pointing the gun at him was just theather for matt, and second, the choice he gave Matt was to either kill Frank, or do nothing, not to kill the criminal obviusly. still, overall good video, very few people dive into this deep ideas of the show or of life in general so is much aprecciated
Paying even more attention to the dialog, you can see that before Frank has the interaction with the vet, he tells Daredevil to be quiet or he’ll kill the vet. Then he goes over and talks to him, cocks the hammer, and then goes back to Matt. That’s when Frank says cocking the hammer was just for show for Matt. Frank doesn’t ever acknowledge that at the very least, he wouldn’t have beaten the crap out of this old guy to keep him quiet and out of his business. Being optimistic of Frank hopefully he wouldn’t have killed him if needed but he would have definitely hurt him. Second. You’re partly right, I misspoke. The choice punisher gives is for Matt to kill Frank if he wants to save the criminal. Frank does say that he will kill him anyways so the main point of contention of whether Matt should be morally responsible for the death of the criminal still stands. Thanks for the critique and I’m glad you enjoyed the rest of the video!
@@thesolipsistcinema yeah you are right, he obviusly would have knocked him out but being optimistic, he would have hurt him only enough to leave him unconscious wich isn't a big deal. Anyways, i hope you make more videos like this, they are rare to find, you should get more recognition but i guess are too superficial for this topics
One thing i don't like is how in almost every superhero story, they either take one or the other extreme. I would love to see a story where the character finds a middle ground, letting people have second chances in their lives because everyone can change, but also not be naive to the point of believing that a repeating ofender somehow will change this time. And that maybe for major criminals, the ones who are not just commiting petty crimes but are actually harming people and have already escaped prison to do the exact same thing, maybe it's justifiable to kill them and avoid more pain. And also deal with how said character builds their morals and discipline to justify who should and shouldn't be killed. And when
@@iswitchedsidesforthiscat Which one are we talking about? Because the TV series one, while he has desires to do it so, never is able to commit to killing even the Kingpin. When it comes to comics, i tend to disregard comments like this because you have so many different writers that a character can do a 180 in their morals and then a 360, and then a 720. You will always find an issue where Batman Killed a villain, or where he used a firearm, or where he is a fully fledged villain. The same goes for the Daredevil, but it doesn't matter, especially here. Since we're specifically talking about the Netflix series, and on all of the seasons of the series, Matthew Mercer is tempted, multiple times to take a life and is challenged on his belief, but never goes through with it.
There is a point made by Frank at 7:04, but it is not addressed. Which is an ethical and moral discussion made in Avatar as well. When Aang doesn't want to kill the Firelord, and summons his past lifes to give him guidance. And the past airbender Avatar gives him the same argument, which is basically it is selfish to put spiritual and moral purity of oneself above the good of the majority. Here Frank says he does it to feel good, to be praised as a hero but is unwilling to get his hands dirty to do what he thinks gives the best results. Meaning that he is ultimately doing it for himself. Now, we know Daredevil, and know that is not true based on his character. And such line of thinking can open a can of worms which can justify a lot heinous acts. But it is like the saying some villains can have of "only I have the strong will to do this". But it is an strong point I think it should have been addressed. If one where to meet baby Hitler, and killing the baby would save millions of people but would make yourself end up in jail and traumatized for life. Is it selfish to not do it? Is it morally wrong, when you already know the outcome?
The baby hitler thing doesn't even makes sense to bring up here. That's an innocent child that hasn't done anything wrong. The criminals Punisher kills are just that, criminals they've committed acts of injustice. Yes, even with the "he's guaranteed to do all the hitler memes" caveat.
@@Griggs58 The point about baby Hitler does make sense, so you might have not understood the point at all. The point Punisher makes is that it is not just about Punishing people but stopping evil. Punisher believes they cannot be redeemed and letting them live would only make Daredevil feel good about himself, but won't actually change anything. because they will keep causing harm. So the point about Hitler, is that when you have the ability to stop evil at the expense of your own sanity and or wellbeing and you do not. In Punisher's eyes, is like being complicit with evil. He just fights crime to feel good, but is not willing to do what "needs to be done". Now those are not my views, but views of the punisher. I do think redemption is possible, but there are also some that are way past the point of redemption. But the main point is that, if like Batman the main reason they are not willing to kill someone like the Joker or the Kingpin, is to keep a clear conscience and moral superiority. While they keep killing hundreds of innocents. Then they are not really doing it with the intention to make a positive change, but for selfish reasons (According to Punisher). Just like deciding not to kill baby Hitler, despite knowing how much death he would cause, just to sleep soundly. It is all about not willing to sacrifice your feeling of moral superiority, to actually make a change.
You can't rehabilitate psychopaths and placing them in prison doesn't stop them it just relocates them ...sorry Daredevil but until you have a wife and kids who are massacred in front of you bc of BFF , you don't understand what people are going through when they are targeted by a psychopath, you can speculate though lol
In that universe Punisher is objectively correct, everyone he encountered up to that point was noot redeemable, and what daredevil needs to understand is the criminals Punisher kills aren't the ordinary robbers
I think the "3 strikes and you're out" should be a more common philosophy with vigilantes lmao It just makes sense: If this is a one time deal? Sure, let's say it's an accident. You get away with broken ribs. Second time? Okay, I'll break your legs now. Third time? Yeah... Neck snap time. It's all about identifying if the crime is a pattern of behaviour or an act of desperation.
This definitely applies with Daredevil as well. You attempt to save the wrong person and then they destroy several other lives, I think that’s VERY wrong as well. I very much believe in moderation in just about everything, and in very rare cases I think it’s good to choose one side. Though it’s not executed well, this is why we have courts. Some people have it bad, and make a hiccup but the damage they do is negligible and they can be put on the right track. Then there’s people that are too destructive and lost to rehabilitate. They don’t need to see the light of day for the rest of their lives or a big portion of their life. Of course there will be people that are capable of rehabilitation after destructive and heinous crimes, but those that are guilty of those crimes oftentimes need equally destructive punishment… this is out of respect for the victim and the people that cared for the victim, and additionally out of respect for society. It’s a message that disrespecting or disregarding other people’s livelihood voids most or all of your inalienable rights as a human being, deservedly.
@@richardrackley2430 Major difference is that with Punisher is operating in a manner where he doesn’t have all the information, and is pretty much relying on very limited intel. There are times when he rushes in, without knowing everything. Biggest example is the one spin off comic where he killed Spiderman.
@Richard Rackley the more parallel case is when punisher kills someone who is innocent and Matt nearly beats them to death. We know innocent people are mistakenly executed constantly. DNA evidence has shown this. And that's with a trial
@@datemasamune2904 you are absolutely correct. However, all I’m saying is that the consequences of failing in both ways from my perspective is equally tragic and undesirable. If you kill someone innocent it’s horrible. If you don’t use your judgment to put away someone insane and they kill more innocent people, in both scenarios that’s an equal outcome. Innocent people are lost. All I’m saying is not using proper judgment in either scenario is morally incorrect from my perspective. Hence my dogma of “moderation”. To further elaborate, I disagree because the description “very wrong” is subjective here. If the outcome of failing either way is innocent people killed, then one extreme isn’t more wrong than the other and you need to find a middle ground.
Batman only didnt kill because the writers wanted to re-use the same villains. I think it was interesting showing Turk being arrested by Daredevil, only to appear back on the street and that's what ended up saving the day. If Daredevil had killed him; the police and daredevil wouldnt have been able to save the kidnapped people.
I know this was about Daredevil and punisher, but when u mentioned batman, it got me thinking. Batman could just break everyone's backs or legs beyond repair.
He could kill all the criminals in Gotham with ease, NO EXCEPTIONS But, because mothers in 1939 were upset about what children would have seen in the comics -THAT IS THE TRUE REASON -, now Batman Is the Dark Hypocrite Who won't deal seriously with real ethics, since It would no longer be marketable... For Kids, or perhaps their mothers
This is a great analysis. However, one thing I want to point out is I think the scene with the old marine on the rooftop where Frank points his gun at him on the other side of the door was a farce to make Daredevil think he would pull the trigger. The reason I think this was in the later show "the Punisher" when he fights cops doing their jobs, he avoids killing them when he could easily do so. My opinion, maybe another perspective.
11:14 - In Season 2 of "The Punisher" there was an epusode when Frank was framed that he killed two innocents (But in reality they were murdered before). It breaks Frank down so bad, he even couldn't notice that victims have only one accurate bullet wound and bullet hole in the wall behind, while he was shooting with rabid fire from the downstairs so wounds should be multiple and different, and there shouldn't be bullet holes in the wall right behind the victims.
The question that never seems to come up.. it’s not about whether it’s worth rehabilitating really bad people. But if they time and money should be wasted, when it can go to preventing people from becoming bad. So we spend millions housing a murderer. How much would it cost to take and mentor a young man who is going down a bad path? We only have so much time and money.
I get where you're coming from, but that assumes that the two things are mutually exclusive when they're not. Doing one does not preclude you from doing the other.
9:42 you lost me for multiple reasons but one of the largest is that it isn't a way to cope. It's a genuine and sincere belief, independent of the belief in eye for an eye. When someone acts in a way that lacks conscience, morals, ethics, and empathy; they're acting in a way that directly conflicts with many peoples definition of humanity. When someone acts without humanity they, in many peoples eyes, dehumanized themselves. Therefore it's not the public or the "Hero" dehumanizing the villain, but rather it's the "hero" identifying that the villain dehumanized themselves.
Its hard to pick a side with these two because I think in these shows the one that works is where Punisher and Daredevil meet in the middle they put down the scum who deserve it and take in the people who need to learn the lesson, kinda like Red Hood as someone else here said.
Daredevil's way works if you still have reasonably functioning legal system. If people lack faith in the legal system then Daredevil is useless and you might as well have anarchy. There are places in the US where citizens stop reporting crimes because it doesn't do any good. Those are places where things are very close to the point of no return. Punisher time. It isn't a good thing. There is a reason low trust societies punish even petty crimes severely.
Season 3 proved that Frank was right. "Yeah, what do you do? What do you do? You act like it's a playground. You beat up the bullies with your fists. You throw 'em in jail, everybody calls you a hero, right? And then a month, a week, a day later, they're back on the streets doing the same goddamn thing!"
Frank castle does what's needed. It's kinda ignorant to act like what he does is some kinda terrible act. For example almost every person on earth agrees batman should just kill joker. Because he will not stop, he will not become better. But batman just won't do it. He knowingly lets him go because he knows he'll escape. These kinda people exist and these kinda people are what we need a punisher for.
In im not a Bad guy it’s completely valid to hold daredevil responsible for the killers killing . He knows they kill and he knows they will do it again . An invention isn’t comparable as not all guns kill people . Daredevil is realistically only saving people short term
10:55 that is completely a misrepresentation of the scene. Frank threathens the man knowing full well Daredevil is listening. The action taken here was a bluff to shut Daredevill up, and it worked. Since Matt didnt know what kind of a man Frank is at his point, he couldnt risk it. We have scenes in Punisher's own show that Frank spared lives of criminals despite the horrendous acts they've commited just because there was someone else near him that he cared about. He doesnt like being seen doing the things he does, and he would never shoot that Veteran. If that section of your argument is placed on Frank being a hypocrite for bluffing, thats a either outright false or misdirected argument..
That what I was thinking but tbf daredevil knows when someone is lying. Maybe at that point in time he was more on edge at least compared to his series. On the otherhand, really no benefit to matt if he got the old guy involved - not like he could do anything to punisher, prob just get his ass kicked
The fact is that you can have one rule like Batman or Daredevil and still have moral nuance and growth. Also the people who say "Why doesn't Batman just kill the Joker?" are typically less into the idea of that one rule. They're doing the dehumanizing of the Punisher you're talking about. That's why killer Batman doesn't work because it takes the elements of Batman's Deontological ethics and says that the creator can't tell a good story without killing the bad guys.
Yeah. People really don't put much though in the suggestion of Batman going beyond his duties as a partner of law enforcement. Batman isnt the only person capable of making that choice, Revolving door Arkham is at fault cause there's some deep rooted corruption in Gotham. Having the law shine a spotlight to task some lone wolf to enact extrajudicial executions isn't a heroic ideal.
Too bad all of batman's "good" stories end the same, with the villain living so they can kill again. Just say the writers are lazy and spare them to create more stories but don't for one second try to say that batman's way works or is in any way logical, cause all the future victims he helps to create by sparing and saving villains would disagree with you.
@@cdubsb3831 Batman isn't a partner of law enforcement, he's technically a criminal under that same law, just because Jim Gordon bends the law for him, doesn't make him one of them.
@@theoutlawking9123 they build a signal to keep in contact with him and provide information they wouldn't give anyone else. Gordon is not the only one to use it. Everybody in Gotham knows they did this even though there is no official record of partnering with him. Some stories portray this relationship as rocky, but it is most definitely a partnership. It's not lazy writing to hold onto values of court justice when dealing with vigilantism, namely when the series has sone focus on appealing and imparting values to children. A good variety of other DC and Marvel characters don't kill for similar reason. Frano says this is the correct choice for heroes and role models. He is a pained killer, but he's self aware.
@@cdubsb3831 So, ignore the very laws he claims to uphold because comics are made for kids and kids don't fully understand or even care about laws, yeah, great comeback.
If Punisher met Tony Stark when he was selling weapons he wouldn’t of hesitated to put a bullet in him because of his company selling weapons to terrorists. If he did that there would be no Iron Man so Punisher is definitely not perfect but very understandable
![ทุกครั้งที่หลับตา (Lucid Dream) - AYLA's [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4i1OBAQyv58/mqdefault.jpg)
Slight Correction- Read Before Commenting- At the end, the choice Frank gives Matt is to shoot him to save Grotto or he will kill Grotto anyways. Not as I said in the video that Frank wanted Matt to shoot Grotto himself. Frank saying Matt would be held morally responsible as a murderer for either outcome is the main point of contention that I think is still valid.
Also people keeping pointing out that Frank wasn’t going to shoot that veteran. Before Frank walks over to him he tells Matt to be quiet or he’ll kill the vet, he then walks over and has the convo and cocks back the hammer, and then tells Matt that the hammer cocking was for show for him. Frank says the cocking of the hammer was for show but at the very least he would have injured that vet if he had been persistent. Without added knowledge of the character from the tv show that takes place after this, The Punisher who is presented here seems like one that would hurt this man to protect the situation he has going on with Matt. That’s just how I interpreted it but other outcomes are possible.
Lastly, I feel like it’s fairly evident but just because I bring up a topic or argument, it doesn’t mean that’s my personal opinion or what I’m trying to convince you of. People keep talking about the small gun argument I mention and I say several times in this section, neutral phrases like “you could say” or “some might argue” so just because I address a topic to fully cover the debate, it doesn’t mean that’s what I personally think. Again this seems fairly evident but I have to address other’s opinions whom I don’t personally agree with to cover this topic fully.
The point of Frank’s test is not to make Matt morally responsible for grotto’s death. Its to demonstrate how ineffectual his methods are. Here, Frank basically assumes the role of the criminalat least from Matt’s point of view. Grotto is the “victim”, and Matt is Frank himself. Having grotto tell the story of the old lady is just to show Matt, and the audience, why Frank is going to kill him and maybe give Matt a reason to consider both options, kill Frank or let grotto die. Yes, Matt is being held hostage by frank, and he can’t control Frank’s actions. Similarly, Frank is held by his personal code. He can’t turn a blind eye to the wicked ways of the world, and he can’t run from them, a sentiment both he and Matt share. Nor can he control the actions of those that would conduct such wickedness. All he can do is choose whether to act, or not too. If he does nothing, the victim dies. If he does anything but kill the criminal the victim dies. As he made clear earlier, sooner or later the criminal returns to crime. Those that don’t are replaced, and he’s more than willing to kill them too. So the two choices he gives Matt are to kill him, or let grotto die. Matt attempts to do things his way, but fails to save grotto. Thus proving Frank’s point. One thing most people people get confused often, especially in regards to the punisher, is morals vs. ethics. That is whether one’s goals are just, or if the actions one takes to achieve one’s goals are appropriate. Frank knows he’s no angle, but I will concede that he believes himself to be on the moral high ground, but he’s never claimed that his methods ethical. Daredevil believes that because Frank’s methods are unethical, they are also immoral. Personally, I agree with frank.
Haven’t finished the video but so far it’s pretty great but don’t forget in season 3 we get a very very brief no words cameo of the corrupt Mexican police officer from season 1 of DD
but I still don’t know who’s morally right but I know the cop did NOT get rehabilitated cuz Matt beat his ass a couple times and got him arrested but once Fisk was back he got his badge back
@@TheFalconCaptain The moral part, I can understand. To be honest both of these men deserve to go to jail. If you wanna play that game they both have broken the law both, have assaulted police, and both have resisted arrest. Now if you want to get philosophical I’m game. I don’t believe you should kill anyone. You are not God and you do not have the power to decide who lives who dies for you are no different if not worse than the people you kill. The problem with these antiheroes is that often times they are simply lashing out at the world that wrong them. Similar to a bully at school who is a delinquent only acting like that because he’s abused at home and that is the only way he can express what’s happening to him. Men like red hood and punisher are cool in the fiction world, but are nightmares in real life simply because they are deranged maniacs who believe what they’re doing is right, simply because of their own personal vendetta and vengeance. Look at it this way, they got burned by the world so now they’re going to burn the world a.k.a. “scorched earth.” Everyone Burns…. Would you consider someone like that a hero? Yes, they killed bad guys but now they’re bad themselves. A monster is still a monster, even if it murders monsters. Although I believe daredevil deserves to go to jail too similar to Batman, I believe people like punisher and red hood, or no different than the criminals they kill, especially when they perform the same actions, if not worse. I won hundred percent agree with daredevil because he is correct. He gives everyone a chance, religious or not. God gives everyone a choice to do the right thing. And when you snuff the light out simply because you have a vendetta and a personal Deathwish, I don’t believe you were in the right for that.
@@CasualCasimir I’ve actually watched the entire series of Daredevil over 30 time’s minimum no joke and my favorite part is Matt’s struggle to not kill and how he needs a northstar like Bullseye did and his northstar is god and sometimes he beats fbi agents into a coma but he definitely feels bad for it and I loved everything you said except I don’t agree Matt is a bad person for his ruthless vigilante justice because he does more good then harm and the crime sorta fits the punishment with him except for season 3 where he’s upset with god because if you do something no that bad he’ll kick the shit outta you but if you human traffic, rape children, murder; then you’re not getting him off of you for a while cuz he’s going hammer time on that face
@@CasualCasimir he heard everyone’s prayers and thought he was blinded for gods plan and he was meant to answer the prayers he always heard.
This is why i love red hood, he's like a perfect balance between daredevil and the punisher, he'll kill the serious offenders like the punisher, yet will let minor offender's live and rehabilitate. Yet he also doesn't dehumanise those he kills, he sees it as a necessary evil.
@jadedjester82829winter soldier knock off is crazy. Red hood far superior character and it not close
@JadedJester Winter Soldier; Genetically augmented former soldier in WW2 who's been brainwashed and turned into a cyborg assassin.
Red Hood; Former superhero, murdered by the Joker, resurrected by the enemy using magic, nope's out of becoming an assassin.
Yeah, I can totally see the similarities.
🍿
the equivalent of shariaw law in comics
@JadedJester Red Hood is a knock off, of the Winter Soldier?? Lol, wtf are you on mate?
I feel like it’s more about Daredevil’s religious beliefs, he’s a catholic so he believes there is good in people no matter how bad they are.
Punisher is also right because he’s seen just how evil people are, but he also has a soft side as he doesn’t kill women or men who love their families and aren’t too rotten to the core.
I'm Catholic but I'm with Punisher. Matthew 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Frank is just desperate for a reason to kill people while seeming righteous .He will murder for any reason .If he wanted to draw an "intelectual challenge" from it instead of some sensation of Moral Superiority , he would be the Riddler .
Everything he says is meaningless and is just an after thought justification .Matthew means what he says and thinks it through .
Catholics allow war
Frank is also Christian I think catholic too.
But I get what you mean.
Daredevil's way works for petty criminals: thieves and vandals. The Punisher's way works for more hard-core criminals: Murderers, rapists, pedophiles. I think that the best way to "stop" crime would be to control what criminals are in power in the underworld.
That's what Kingpin does. He control the underworld. In comics Kingpin says he is controlling crime to help contained it. So even a person like Kingpin has the right intentions. So in a way Daredevil way, Punisher way, and Kingpin way. Are all valid ways to go about crime.
@@markstriker925 Except the comics are obsolete for the Netflix series, Kingpin wants to DESTROY the city with crime and wage war upon it.
Redhood has to be you ultimate hero cause he is exactly like this he kills those who deserve it and gives chances to those who deserve it
Not really my father once thought when that WW2 ended that people would learn then there wouldn't be no war's. Evil can never truly stopped as long there is free will or remove the sociopathic, psychopathic tendecies from people and maybe crime would go drastically. No normal person would commit crime's anyone who can feel sympathy and empathy wouldn"t wannna be near a criminal.
@@theoutsiderjess1869 That's exactly who I thought about. But even he has flaws. I mean, you control the crime, but you become a PART OF ALL the responsibility that it entails. That's called Militia Mindset here in Brazil. We know we can't destroy all crime and all evil since it's a systemic thing that it's rooted in all things we have as a society, but rehabilitation SHOULD BE the real option. It doesn't matter who, when or where, we should see even the worst criminal as a human being who can be part of a society again and, if they don't, we can make sure they are confined to a small portion of a society that does align with him. No Vigilantism is really good for any system of crimes and punishment. We should improve everything to pin down every potential criminal to be at least a functioning part of society. That comes from a place without corruption and real engagement for the betterment of the whole. Sounds like and Utopia, but so does everything every Vigilante thinks they are doing.
Both are right, in my opinion.
You need people like Daredevil who believe that no matter how far you fall you can always get back up again, because it shatters people’s personal perspectives that they are too far gone. It creates a path for people to begin to change themselves.
We also need the Punisher to create a line in the sand, and act as a reminder that your actions have consequences. The fact that there are some people who are far less forgiving than Daredevil will incentivize people to change before they come across someone who will make them feel the full force of the consequences of their actions.
Wrong, not even children are dumb enough to believe that people who intentionally commit acts of evil everyday can or will change. If someone believes that then they're clearly not right in the head, they live in their own little world, not the real one.
@@theoutlawking9123 Only children and the very dumb think they understand whether any person actually can change, since we know nowhere near enough about the brain to be able to work it out.
@@theoutlawking9123 did you not read the comment he said one who believes people can change and one who draws a line when people are too evil to change your example is of people who cross the line
@@youtubego9143 Learn to use friggin commas and full stops, that's what YOU need to do.
@@theoutlawking9123agreed
Quick correction: At 10:48 it seems more in line that Punisher would just be doing the action in order to keep Daredevil from alerting the man rather than actually be willing to kill him.
Exactly. Frank abhors killing innocents. And despite how it may seem, he is not stupid. He knows full well that Matt would keep his mouth shut, because Matt has no real idea of what The Punisher's code is.
Sams thought i had. Frank wouldn't kill an innocent, let alone a fellow marine
He even says so.
idk why these daredevil fanboys think the punisher is a killing machine, he quite literally inflitrates more controlled crime and not some john doe robbing walmart, he doesn't kill innocents or super low level criminals, he literally chooses to go to areas with more organized crime and kills irredeemable people
It shreds Frank's soul, even in the middle of a bloody haze, when he's confronted with innocents getting caught in the crossfire, which is why he absolutely would not put a bullet in that old man, likely even if the old man drew on him and told him to get the F off his roof, doubly so after recognizing him as a fellow serviceman who isn't embroiled in organized crime.
Frank talks real tough when it comes to the lengths he will go to to get his work done, but oftentimes that's a means of throwing off whoever he's speaking to, either to lessen their leverage with hostages, or to manipulate them into acquiescing to his demands under the false pretense he will do evil to bystanders, their family or loved ones. He may imply to a crime boss that the war he brings will destroy everything around him, and play on their instinct to protect their children to move themselves into a vulnerable position, but Frank is never knowingly throwing rounds anywhere near them outside of the "too far gone" stories.
The man has such a strong (if twisted) moral compass that when he is getting chiropractic work done all over his body by an enraged Captain America, he tanks through it and continues addressing the man with respect because of what he represents and has done.
I agree with the Punisher not because killing is a good thing but because it's the only option left when dealing with child abusers, human traffickers, and serial killers. Life has shown they don't want redemption because they have zero morals left.
Exactly, the fact is some people are incapable of feeling anything resembling remorse or pity or sympathy, they have no conscience whatsoever, should we let those people "try again" as Matt suggests, knowing they will never change or stop their evil ways? How many innocents need to die just to indulge people like Matt and his self-righteous beliefs.
@@theoutlawking9123 that's the thing, people never give those people a chance to change ever, so we don't know if there going to reoffend again.
@@K3vin_L There's a point where whether or not someone can change shouldn't matter. Example, I don't think stealing is something we should kill over, matter of fact, I don't believe in prison. If someone steals something, he/she should pay it back or work it off. On the other hand, if we're talking about serial rapists or murderers or even human traffickers, then yeah, they don't deserve no "chance to change," because it's clear, if you're doing things like that on a daily basis then it's obvious you like it and there's true evil in you, you deserve death, not a changce to "try again."
The problem is that the punisher punishes almost indiscriminately. From the lowest thief to the highest offender. The highest offenders I agree with. A line must be drawn somewhere, but for those lower on the ladder a just system of rehabilitation and second chances should exist. Their souls are not stained so much as to make them inhuman.
@@theoutlawking9123 the thing with that is you'd only apply it when it morally benefits you, if a serial killer is going after pedos or white supremacists your not gonna want him to be killed, you'd encourage it. Law is all based and can easily be thrown out when it goes against someone's morals.
People like you don't even want to deal or help with the high level offenders at all, nobody cares, if you look into why they do there crimes and the societal reason you can lower it more.
Like for rape, legalize and regulate prostitution, a rapist wouldn't have to rape a woman or man if they can easily go down the street and get themselves off there. Most rapists are unattractive anyway and not getting any sort of sex in there life anyway.
I always wanted The Punisher to have encountered a family member he loved and cherished that was a criminal so he could explore the conflict of “how would you treat your own?” under those circumstances
there is something kinda similar with billy russo in the punishers stand alone show
Punisher scraped Billy Russo’s entire face off on a broken mirror and smashed his face into it so hard multiple times bro forgot the last 15 years of his life… They were childhood friends and honestly Russo was arguably the last semblance of the family he once had. Frank couldn’t give one f**k about that. If you’re endangering peoples lives he WILL kill you without hesitation.
@@Kentashu Irc that was because russo did frank very bad and was going after him. It would be different if it were a truly loved one that has done no harm personally to frank the one who is a criminal.
@@unapersonamas5941 Look more into punisher lore. He wouldn’t care. Peter Parker is still a kid (to him) and when he turned into a cannibalistic monster, Punisher headshotted him in front of a 6 month pregnant Mary Jane.
@@Kentashu I am saying the situation would be different. Not neccesarily that he would react different. Also not every punisher is the same
I would say Punisher is more appealing to those who have experienced or know those close to them who have experienced crimes, and Daredevil more appealing to those who interact frequently or closely know people who have done crimes
As both apply to me, I honestly could never agree with the punisher.
Nail on the head
I suppose, but feelings and experiences aside, use logic and common sense, in that tv show daredevil universe theres too much irredeemable criminals, punishers logic is much better than his
@@IIIISai Exactly, DD is like a child hoping there isn't a monster under his bed. Punisher knows there's is and is prepared for it.
@@IIIISai Exactly, because we constantly see how Kingpin is basically above the law and he skirts around the law. And by the time you try to stop him by legal means, he will kill a whole group of innocent people and still might get away with it. All of those innocent deaths could have been avoided if Kingpin just died early on. Same reason I hate Luke Cage in the show. He keeps on saving that woman's life and she keeps on committing horrible crimes.
He wasn't going to kill that veteran, he would never do that, it waas just teather for daredevil, he never killed inocent people and when Russo made him believe he killed those woman in S2 he was totally broken and wanted to die, he is a good person and i think that his actions are almost always justified except for things like trying to kill that scumbag at the hospital, not beacuse he didn't deserve but because he scared the shit out of inocent people who didn't even know what was going on exept for Karen
But the punisher still held an innocent life in his hands, he pointed a loaded weapon at someones head just to keep daredevil quiet, thats like a bank robber holding people hostage to keep the police at bay, does that make them a good person still?
@@jamieturner2706your analogy is just wrong. The bank robbers use a civilian as hostage for their crime, and in some cases, they will kill just to make a point. Punisher got framed for taking an innocent life and he broke down for multiple episodes. Context matters.
@Long Ps hang on so you don't think that the punisher chaining someone up and holding them hostage, then threatening to kill an innocent is a crime? Regardless of how you see the punisher he is a criminal, not only does he kill people but he takes immense pleasure in doing so, him feeling bad about 'killing an innocent' doesnt mean shit and certainly doesnt absolve him of his own crimes
@@jamieturner2706 it is a crime to hold someone at gun point, but as readers, we all know he wouldn't actually kill him. I'm just saying that your analogy is wrong because bank robbers and Punisher have different intent and mindsets. A bank robber holding someone hostage might kill their hostage if the situation took a bad turn for them and they feel like taking a life will give them a leverage, but Frank, on the other hand, would knock the old man out. Holding him at gunpoint was just a ruse to keep Matt's mouth shut.
Punisher is one of the “You’re missing the point if your idolizing/glorifying them” starter pack, all you need now is Deadpool, Billy Butcher, and Scott Pilgrim 💀
In the end i think both of them are ineffective in different ways.
Punisher kills criminals but does nothing to solve the actual reasons that caused them to exist in the first place which means they just get replaced faster than he can kill them (he also creates new criminals by all the relatives and friends of the people he kills wanting revenge).
On the other hand Daredevil tries to solve the problem at the core through rehabilitation but since most criminals are unwilling to change and since the prison system of the US itself isn't actually designed to help rehabilitation it fails more times than not.
I think I'll go with Kingpin on that one,if you can't stop or reduce crime you can at least contain it from within. And you can also work to fix the social issues that cause it to exist in the first place
Well said. Kingpin is honestly the best hope for the NYC crime rate to go down, since everything in marvel seems to happen in NYC lol, kind of like how the Mexican cartels subverting and dominated American street gangs to focus on pushing drugs and profits over constant running gun battles over territory, not that it does much good in places like Chi-rag....
That’s more so assuming that everyone becomes a criminal after their parent died from being a criminal lol. The Punisher overall lowers the criminal population by killing and severe punishment. Really the most severe the punishment the less likely people are going to do it.
@@thegifting267 Wrong, this is just statistically straight up wrong, look at countries that focus more on rehab instead of punishment, much lower recidivism rates
@@wearereal68 That has nothing to do with anything I said lol. I never talked about anything similar to rehab.
@@johndoe8655 It can’t be because those countries usually are garbage and massively corrupt 🤔
The cocking of the gun against the door was Frank putting it on to make sure DD kept quite.
the religious side of matt is very important to how he acts as a character. You can see that he doesnt only disagree with frank, he is visually fighting with the side of himself that straight up agrees with frank. Matt almost has to stop himself from killing every evil person he comes across every night he goes out. And i think a lot of that resilience comes from his faith. Its powerful.
Agreed. And this internal conflict becomes even more central in the 3rd season, where he begins to think killing Fisk might really be the only option he has. At that point his lawyer facet had pretty much ceased to exist, he was Daredevil 24/7. So the only thing stopping him from killing was his faith.
That's a distinction many miss, it's not that Matt could never bring himself to kill someone who's done something truly awful, it's that part of him really wants to, and he has to resist the temptation of taking that route, because once he started handling things like that, who knows where his rage may take him some day.
Its as much about saving himself as it is about saving the people he fights
There's also the lawyer side, the one that wants to make sure it's justice done right. He checks out what people know, if they're lying and goes after the truth, which will lead to evidence to make sure they'll get taken to jail. He's one of the only people capable of deciding if someone is innocent and if punishment is fair.
I think one of the best examples of the best of both worlds is Jim Gordon. A man who believes in the law and tries to the best of his ability to amend the system and fight for what’s right even though he is surrounded by evil. But he’s also willing to acknowledge that sometimes the law does fail and cannot be relied upon for certain circumstances. It’s this reason that he works with Batman. I think both daredevil and punisher are needed. To keep each other honest. To be the conflicting arguments and maintain a balance
Daredevil's way works when the legal system dispenses justice evenly and properly, like the way you thought it did when you were kids.
Punisher's way is for when the legal system doesn't work, and you have to do it yourself in order to scare the system (or the people) into prioritizing justice again.
Yeah, but the excuse I hear most people say that “the justice system is corrupt” no matter what, so correct me if I’m wrong are you telling me that punishers way is the best way 100% using your logic? Because we know even today, the justice system is far from perfect, and is corrupt to a certain degree. Are you now encouraging punisher’s behavior? I would hope that’s not the case.
@@CasualCasimir Corruption is kind of a separate issue... By it's very definition, "corruption" means that the system isn't working properly due to the bias or ill intent of the people running it.
So long as the system can still be fixed (the corrupt individuals can be removed and/or punished according to the system's rules, the people still have some sway over who gets to run the system [such as with voting in DAs], the system hasn't been changed to be intentionally unfair or rigged in a way that isolates the corrupt power structure from consequences or removal) then Daredevil is right. Just because the people in charge of the system are corrupt, doesn't mean there is no justice; it means you need to get them out of power and put just individuals in power. The mechanisms for fixing the system are still there and still working, they're just not being used (which is, frankly, the people's fault).
Punisher's methods are _premature._ His methods are unfortunately necessary to establish order when tearing down an irrecoverably corrupt and tyrannical system in order to supplant it with a new one. For example, when a legal system allows certain groups to get away with arson, theft, rape, murder, and other violent deeds while doggedly persecuting minor infractions like trespassing or noise violations against other groups, then the people have a duty to overthrow the system and those who corrupted it. It's called "revolution", and we're not there... yet.
But if you've been paying attention, then you'd know a lot of places are getting close.
@@Thescott16 - Oh, I think we are there, seeing how our justice system is two tier'd now.
@@cainabel6356 Are you sitting on your phone or in front of a computer able to say that without being arrested or charged? Then you're not "there" yet.
Britain's almost there, they get put in jail for jokes the left find offensive. But they don't have a constitutional equalizer (your 2A) to keep the government at bay. They only have the democratic process slowing down the decay.
Where you are is extremist/terrorist conflict (like those trans activists shooting kids and calling it justified), not civil war yet (which is where both sides would be killing eachother, regardless of where they are or who they are). You're not there... _Yet._
@@Thescott16 are your perhaps referring to the coof summer of love?
This is why I love superhero’s. Genuine morale dilemmas and constant hypocrisy which everyone is guilty off. Just makes reading these story’s great because both sides have a point. If you kill your like the criminals and create a even bigger problem. If you don’t kill you can feel morally better but you keep a problem alive and allow them to reoffend like the Joker
This is why I like and dislike Batman. I like that he fights criminals like the Joker but I hate that keeps him alive.
I just finished watching Daredevil and I absolutely love how Matt Murdock and Frank Castle interact and oppose each other as separate individuals. I just love the show soo much!
I get into heroes and antiheroes and no killing villains debates a lot and I personally take the side of antiheroes, because their way more realistic , interesting, and even more relatable and entertaining
Ultimately it boils down to this: There are people in this world who are capable of being rehabilitated, Daredevil is right about this but the desire to change and be better HAS to come from within the person. they HAVE to WANT to be a better person. and if they dont, if they only live to serve their own needs and desires, and have little to no regard for the wellbeing or livelihood of others, ESPECIALLY if they desire to harm others, then they cannot be trusted to have their freedoms. Hence the Punisher's stance.
Whay about people who live selfishly but don't break any laws or do anything evil? Do you think lazy, greedy and selfish people should be punished to? You make it sound like selfish people are the ones who should be punished, not genuinely evil people.
@seamusmcarthur666 evil is precisely what i meant.. "and have little to no regard for the well-being or livelihood of others, ESPECIALLY if they desire to harm others" i was referring to selfish harmful behavior such as greed and exploitation, with the DESIRE to do harm as the more despicable variant. Pardon me for not explaining this clearly.
punisher just in search of punching bag , he is an animal not even human, he do not want to eradicate criminals he just wants to waste time killing them, he is very weak surface level thought process just like small child just kill everybody he will never try and find the root of all problem ego he is just doomed ,stupid,weak,surface level, non-religious, he showed how weak as human being we are, we don't even think, we have lost the touch to talk understand,ask,enquire, we have forgot what human being is , we are just voilent animals that's it, this is what punisher symbolizes nothing more nothing less
It makes me happy to still see this series being talked about. Excellent breakdown, I loved the deep dive into the true ethics and morality of both philosophies.
Frank's extreme remorse when he thought that he killed the women in the raid of Russo's hideout shows that he isn't completely immune to his conscience and that he isn't just okay with killing anyone.
Isn’t just okey????
When he thought he killed those girls he was suicidal.
the saddest part is MCU is going to ruin everything these characters build on years
I sadly agree.
Probably true, but nothing they do can take away the mostly excellent series we already got.
The thing is though, daredevil born again is actually getting good writers. These are the same people who wrote episodes when Flash was a good tv show and the good parts of Arrow.
@@arish_xo we will see
I wouldn’t be surprised if Disney made those characters into black lesbians.
Frank wouldn’t kill the old vet, he wanted to show Daredevil that he would do it, so that he stops causing sounds.
I truly want to acknowledge and defend daredevil's side. I do. The world would be a much more optimistic and forgiving place if he's right. But i just can't justify letting a criminal live when they rob someone else of that chance. What net positive would a criminal have on the world that can repay what they did to someone else?
I have to agree.
But then there are other case studies in fiction like Deadshot and Deadpool, where they have literally killed a shit to of innocent people, yet has shown some semblance of humanity.
Oh yeah, and Daredevil has attempted to kill bullseye in issue 181
Part of me does acknowledge daredevil’s side, some people can see the error of their ways, and choose to be better for the sake of their friends, their families, and the world, and even become heroes, but not everyone, and some criminals might even reject the chance at redemption, because they relish in the evil that they do, and that’s when I agree with the punisher, putting them down permanently to not only punish them for their crimes, but to also avenge and bring justice to all the innocent lives they’ve destroyed so they can never hurt or kill anyone else ever again, and doing that doesn’t make frank a sociopath murderer, he’s not just going around shooting random people, whether their guilty or innocent, he strictly believes in punishing the wicked and protecting the innocent, and despite his negative faults , frank is a good hearted soldier with a strong moral code and he takes action when he sees an act that goes against his morals, and he values the lives of the innocent, that’s why he’s eradicating all crime and villainy in New York City and trying to stop villains like the kingpin and the hand, and since Matt and frank both want to fight crime, why can’t they just put aside their differences and work together, especially when stopping a greater threat to save NYC and its citizens and be comrades, and that gives him an uncannily strong sense of morality, that he’s willing to do whatever it takes to stop crime forever so no more innocents need to be afraid or suffer and wanting to live in a world without evil is what motivates him
Yeah. World is pretty bad place....
"I don't enjoy killing, but when done righteously it is just a chore like any other."
joshua graham
10:53 I don’t think Frank was really going to kill the old man. I think it was an empty threat to make sure Daredevil wouldn’t yell for help or reveal Punisher’s location.
Unless that old man was innocent, their is absolutely no way that frank was gonna kill him
Bro, he would have never killed that veteran. Considering this was based on Garth Ennis's punisher, he goes to extreme lengths to avoid civilian casulaties.
In his series when Ruso killed those women to make him believe he did it, he refused to move a muscle to defend his life because he believed he has failed, he kills only those who thinks he deserves, those who do bad but not that bad, a good beating daredevil style or a non lethal bullet, and avoids killing or hurting innocent with his life, he is not perfect but i am o his side with no regrets
This was really well done, a hidden gem of the video essay community.
Used to be super pro Punisher viewpoint, but this video was so well made that it really made me think about the pros and cons of each side. Brilliant job.
There are no pros for DD, he's a coward and a hypocrite, he even broke his precious rule in the same season at the end, when Nobu killed Elektra, Matt then flew into a fit of rage and throw Nobu off the building, killing him. Proving that Frank was right, he was just one bad day away from being like him. Not to mention the fact that Matt would let rapists and mass-murderers live to "try again," aka Kill & Rape again, you would have to be an idiot to think his side is logical.
@@theoutlawking9123 he's way too optimistic unlike batman who is succumbed with darkness and understands that he is letting criminals live and have them doing it again like the Joker... batman doesn't try to make excuses like how daredevil does
@@godzillazfriction Batman does the same thing, despite not being as naive. With Bruce it's worse because he does it out of some misguided sense of honor or code but it's the same exact results: Evil remains alive to commit more evil!
Its funny to me how Netflix made such a compelling argument between legal reform and capital punishment, out of a comic book series.
Its seams to me that Netflix is very pro punishment.
@@theoutlawking9123 You're also being close minded and idiotic if you only look at Frank's side. World's a gray blur. Not everything is black and white. Doesn't mean there aren't any black and white aspects.
Also Daredevil at that point in time saw Nobu coming back from the dead. So he threw him off the building. And the hand soldiers that he fought and punisher killed were already dead people. That's why they had no heartbeats when he tried to listen to it. Another piss poor observational error from you.
In DD S3 it goes over corruption, and punisher kills indiscriminately, so people who are in much more complex situations: Ray Nadeem in S3 DD where he cannot disobey fisk because he has total control over his family or the superior to Ray Nadeem getting her child killed after disobeying fisk. Do you really think those type of people who are FORCED to do evil acts deserve punishment?
Sure it may be easy for some to say yes, but they've never been in that position, and their families weren't the one in jeopardy.
So punisher's methods would just kill these guys indiscriminately. While Daredevil's methods would at least allow him to understand the nuanced situations.
Granted Daredevil's methods does not work against irredeemable people, he's a lot more involved in the personal side of the people.
In the real world,Daredevil is who we want,but The Punisher is who we need.
The moral dynamic between Daredevil and The Punisher fascinates me so much it has actually made me think real hard about this side of life. Both have valid points.
I used to think that everybody could be redeemed and rehabilitated, but after seeing men killing each other and dismembering their bodies, using their heads as soccer balls, how can you redeem someone that commits such horrible acts... how can you rehabilitate people who extortion money out of innocent people.. mothers and fathers getting shot in front of their son's eyes because they refuse to pay... and as the punisher says, they get caught and the same day they get out......
Most of the people defending daredevil would want the punishers phone number if a killer was at their door
You don't. The idea that killing people that willingly commit atrocious acts is somehow wrong is a convenient "moral lesson" that protects a lot of despicable people these days.
True, I used to watch tons of murder videos, especially the one about cartels, Brazil and Isis.... How can we even rehabilitate this people? It's like something inside their brain that just lose the function of emotions, all they know is just kill and fun (or religion for Isis). Is there a case of very cruel people (someone who kill cause it's fun and in a very brutal) that somehow rehabilitate into a decent person? I don't think so.
@@IIIISaiI'd call Daredevil
@@jadenmcmillan4306 Alright if someone killed your family would u want the punisher to deal with it or daredevil
"if we kill a criminal fathers, the childs might be a criminals someday"
yeah, what if we....
give the kid good education, healthy social environment, affordable housing, and healthcare.
This would be social, nearly communism and would be evil according to the US.
good idea.
“You hit them they get back up…I hit them and they stay down” Enough said.
Hoo ah!
On God
I do have to mention, Frank was not willing to kill the old man, he was essentially telling Daredevil to be quiet by using a threat.
Punisher is right. How many people has the Joker killed because Batman lets him go.
That's what red hood told batman
If revenge means carrying out justice, is it still revenge? If forgiving an oppressor means creating more victims, is it still forgiveness?
Completely disagree with the premise for the very reasons described in this video. That position completely strips the Joker of moral responsibility for his own actions. Batman is not morally responsible for Joker's choices.
@@Tyler_W no but seeing the joker doesn't want to change trying to force him to change and you see it's not working than you by any mean necessary need to stop him no matter what.
exactly I said in my comment on this video that I hate batman for his no killing rule. he may have the cool gadgets, suit and money, but he's more unhinged than the bad guys he's beaten up and put in the hospital, prison or asylum cause how are you gonna go through all that trouble just for them to get out and do the same thing you stopped them for?
Whole issue with morals is it’s based off of one’s own personal experiences. Someone in a first world country is most likely not going to have the same morals as one in a third world, and then there are some who have the same exact morals despite those differences. Daredevil is an optimist and an idealist, like most heroes he believes people are redeemable and in very rare cases, they are. However, as most people know, people are more likely than not irredeemable. Punisher may not get it done pretty and probably leaves a bad taste in people’s mouths, but you can’t deny he’s doing more good than evil. Neither of them though are doing anything to solve any of the issues
Daredevil: You run around this city like it's your damn shooting gallery.
Frank Castle: Yeah, what do you do? What do you do? You act like it's a playground. You beat up the bullies with your fists. You throw 'em in jail, everybody calls you a hero, right? And then a month, a week, a day later, they're back on the streets doing the same goddamn thing!
At least now we know that you watched thus far!
Frank is the fix for a corrupt system that fails to punish criminals. Daredevil is the fix for a weak system that can't catch its own criminals.
When the system has both problems, neither can be perfect.
Punisher's side for me. He actually solves problems. Daredevil... means well, but all he does is push the problem down the line to harm others later. Not saying there shouldn't be mercy, there 100% should, but only for those who genuinely try to do better. For those who don't, Frank's way works better, IMHO.
When Matt said “extinguishing the small spark” lol I laughed . In a 16 year old teen drug dealer? Sure. In a criminal that has killed a dozen people? I don’t give a damn if they have a sun sized spark in them. Trying to save that spark isn’t worth the effort, because that same effort can be put into keeping other people from getting to that point
@j p yea lm not risking lives of people who are benifital to society for some rapist that will rape again once he is out effectively destroying another persons life and then that person might destroy more lifes in the future a never ending cycle
@@jamesbizs also this guy used the "we're someones husbands and sons" argument against dehumanization, you stop being just a husband and a son when you do these vile things, now you're just a rabid dog that needs to be put down immediately before he bites someone again
Daredevil is just as incompetant as Batman. Both only using temporary ways to stop criminals, not permanent. Red Hood was way more effective than Batman in every way so technically Red Hood could b the Punisher of DC a.k.a the one who actually solves problems.
@@GenericUsername-qp1ww no.
How many civilians does a super villain on the straight up murder spectrum kill every time they break out of jail? How much innocent life is worth sacrificing to give one guy a chance after chance after chance? How come we never give marines the same moral questioning whenever they go on missions that involve killing terrorists on sight?
That's why Frank is awesome, he's not a bad guy really. He just does what he does. Both views are valid, but you often see that The Punisher goes to great lengths to not hurt innocents. When he's caught in the elevator with countless cops, he goes out of his way to not kill or even maim a single one; more than Batman can say lol
it's funny how batman would fight cops especially the corrupted ones intentionally yet punisher wouldn't do that intentionally but sometimes would have to do it like in that elevator scene
@@godzillazfrictiontbf gotham cops tend to be comically rotten
Even though cops are often very corrupt and immoral, just as much as anyone else can be. He's biased, not a good judge.
The punisher is protecting the innocent and punished the guilty, hence his name, and he’s saving future victims, and deep down he’s good hearted and has good intentions , sacrifices himself for others sake and cares about others, and I feel like heroes and antiheroes need to learn to coexist and fight evil together and heroes need to fight the actual villains instead of seeing the antiheroes as the villains, since their so blinded by their binary morality and hypocrisy in letting the evilest villains go
@@alexanderdixson9956I don’t understand how you could see yourself as a stable human being yet agree with these anti heroes
Like the punisher is not a good guy deep down, he’s a deranged killer, I don’t think you guys realise this and that’s concerning
It was moments in comic books like this that prove it's more than just children's media. Its mature and deep with writers and artists trying to convey a story. Not a plot like in Civil War where they just fight and fight without ever actually communicating why this fight is happening. Just my thoughts.
Sadly as long as mcu is making garbage movies and series nobody is really gonna see the potential in comic book movies
channel is underrated as hell, great video
Daredevil does what is right
Punisher does what is necessary
Punisher, simple.
You don't have to justify jack sh-t
We have death penalty for a reason
"Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent" Simple as.
Always sided with punisher I'm afraid. In fact they kinda pointed it out when everyone daredevil arrests seems to always get out and cause more harm AND even when he arrested kingpin he still ruled in prison. Punisher however once he gets his hands on them they won't be causing trouble any longer
Punisher has never killed someone who made me question “Did this guy deserve this?” I can always answer “Yes” pretty quickly. So I trust his judgement NEITHER are WRONG, but only Punisher is RIGHT. Most people he kills would be spending life in prison w/o parole anyway, and our tax dollars would be feeding them 3 times a day for the rest of their lives.
(I'm talking about the idea that the punisher hasn't killed someone innocent)
But that's simply unrealistic and wouldn't be applicable in the real world
Punisher is absolutely right, and besides, the worst criminals deserve the death penalty anyway, and I’m certain that the families of their victims would want it to, and plus, who want them to get sentenced to life or get any parole anyway, am I right?
Daredevil's right, but not for the obvious reason. If you're a dangerous career criminal, you've made peace with the fact that you're in a deadly line of work and could die at any time. Punisher crosses your path, your troubles are essentially over. Daredevil crosses your path, you end up with several life-altering (if nonlethal) injuries, years of jail time and physical therapy.
For some criminals Frank is right and some Matt is
I see it like this, Matt, the Daredevil doesn't kill because he has people he cares about deeply and wants people to be and feel safe with a guardian angel they can trust, he doesn't kill because even though he dresses uo as a monster every night he doesn't sink himself so low that he becomes the real monster but with Frank, the Punisher he lost everything and no one left, he was a man with nothing left to lose, something everyone needs to fear, and with that he wanted to make the world of crime pay for what they did, he became the monster to destroy the monsters, permanently.
Very good points abt giving characters arcs addressing the hypocrisy of the audience criticizing 1 thing yet saying the other is disrespectful 2 the character receiving the arc.
It's really not that complicated or deep
You put petty thieves in jail, you put murderers and rapists in a casket
They are both right that's what makes their interactions and arguments so good. People should be given another chance but there are also people who cannot be saved only stopped
Interesting video, something I've always thought about, and I love this season of Daredevil.
Daredevil believes in justice.
Frank believes in punishment.
Justice is at many times false or blind, and punishment can be cruel and in many ways an ineffective deterrent.
The truth is, neither are right, and the truth is, both are naive and/or flawed in their own respective beliefs.
At an essence this is less a true moral debate, and more the solution to each characters internal moral quandary. They are attempting to equally justify their own flawed system of justice to the other, while also attempting to understand the other person's justification in a way of convincing them otherwise.
Both are talking, but neither are listening, and the real thing the scene shows me is that, in this season at least, neither are ever truly listening, at least not yet.
Daredevil goes on to be betrayed and has parts of his world crumble around him because of his trust in the justice system, and so realizes that some extremes can and sometimes should be taken to save those who do deserve it morally. He doesn't switch, but he learns. He learns to use his justice to protect his people.
Punisher eventually gets his revenge and realizes the morbid truth that it wont bring his family back. But he also turns around, at least in strength of character, by saving peoples lives and holding himself back from killing everyone and anyone he deems worthy (Season 2 of his own show). He learns that he should limit his punishment to a means of avenging the crimes done to his people. (Which is still a rather violent mindset, but it's better than just unregarded and unkempt mass murder of any criminal)
Point truly is, this conversation shows us the state of these two characters, and sets up how both realize and eventually settle themselves into that respective middle ground mentioned at the end of this video, and I think that's pretty cool. I think more longterm chracter arcs and internal justifications are great, as they are the things in storytelling which allow us to analyze ourselves through the characters we are watching. Great analysis.
The simplest reason Frank didn't kill Matt was he knew Matt's not a bad guy.
Neither are right. They’re both too extreme. There are times when you need to kill & times when you shouldn’t, but Punisher kills everyone & Daredevil doesn’t kill at all. If anyone’s method is more effective in a technical & non-moral standpoint, I’d easily say Punisher.
You get it. Neither is totally right, and both of them are too personally invested in their own belief systems to change. Also, their inability or unwillingness to concede on either end is in spite of both men recognizing the other has a very valid point. The scene is less about provoking the moral dilemma of who is righteous and more about demonstrating the pitfalls of wholeheartedly subscribing to extreme ideologies, even when those two ideologies are diametrically opposed. One extreme doesn’t justify the other, they’re both fundamentally flawed and therefore ineffective for different reasons.
You know, looking back, ten years ago I was definitely on Daredevil's side, but as I grow up I keep getting closer and closer to Punisher's "policy" in combating crime. Where I live is exactly as Frank describes, and it gets repeated ad nauseum in the news. Underage kills person; gets lower sentence. Criminal kills a father of three; Gets free in 3 years; Reincident rapist is caught for the fourth time. Drunk driver kills a child; released 1 year later and back to driving. It is so common most of us just live under the assumption we will be robbed of our phones, motorcycles and other possessions because that's how things are and you just deal with it. The criminal system is inefficient and the laws are made by corrupt people, so it's like the entire machine is against the common, well-meaning population. So the sentiment of retribution naturally arises.
Ideally, the courts would work perfectly, the criminals would get the right punishment, and the incarceration system would work to reintegrate them into society, but this is far from reality. Reality is cold, bleak and brutal, and the only way to deal with that is by taking harsh measures. Yes, violence begets violence, but there's a distinction in the source and motives behind each. One is for selfish reasons, the other is to enact justice. People can change, yes, but they should not be free from the consequences of their actions. You can say it's the environment they live in that pushed them what way, but this is denying individual choice and responsibility, and truly, some people can't change, or even worse, they don't want to. If a person keeps reinciding in crime and getting in and out of jail, to me that's a clear proof that they are not fit to live in society.
All those ideas came to me as I grew up and thought more about these topics, trying to analyse both sides, and I think it reflects the views of Matt and Frank pretty well. Matt is idealistic, and he believes in the due process of the legal system, even though he knows it doesn't always works. That's why he acts as Daredevil. Frank is on the other side, he has seen how shitty the world is and is taking the steps towards the logical, cold and brutal conclusions. Ultimately, the more jaded the person, more likely they are to side with Frank, IMO
Perfectly put man 👌
Agreed, just with the caveat that Punisher is not *meant* to be someone to endorse or encouraged. I think, in their anger, a lot of people kind of miss the point of Frank Castle.
He is not a good man waging a brutal war on crime, he never has been.
Frank Castle is a monster that just so happens to turn his rage towards other monsters. He doesn’t *want* to be imitated or idolized because he knows what he is is broken, rabid, and ultimately only there to inflict further pain on the world. His war will never end and, despite what he may occasionally *say* to other people, his actions and overall characterization speaks greater volumes. He won’t stop, he won’t ever be stop, and no one can ever change that. That isn’t because he can’t be stopped, Hell Wolverine’s kid literally murdered him before he was, again literally, Frankenstein’d back together, it’s because Frank Castle doesn’t want to stop.
TL;DR - Yes, but Punisher bad and not the logical conclusion, just the angry one. You don’t beat monsters by becoming monsters.
Well, from what I’ve learned and gathered throughout the years of antiheroes in comics, and fiction, is that most of them kill mainly because of the trauma of the past and they use it as an excuse to lash out at the world. A.k.a. “reflecting” anything done to you you want to do back at whatever did that to you? So in summary, if the world burned you, you feel it necessary to burn the world right back which may sound logical to you, but the problem… to you it’s personal.. personal is synonymous with vengeance. To an outside perspective in a sense you want scorched earth a.k.a., everyone Burns!! Which is a personal death wish, suicidal and ridiculous. “You don’t want to save anyone you just want to kill the people that hurt you..that is not a hero”
@@CasualCasimir I like my policy better: save who you can, burn the rest
@@stealthbrawler God gave everyone a choice. And you chose to burn them. “You are no different from the other you burn. Burn yourself too and join them for you are no different” Just remover that. .. religious or not you know it’s true. Using the excuse that “they are lesser then us” won’t save you either 🤷🏿♂️
Realistically, everyone irl would rather have a Punisher
Not really. I mean, who decides wether someone needs killing or not? Some people aren't criminals because they want, but rather because their context and experiences have dragged them out to a life on the streets. People are not black or white and to some, to choose who lives or dies it's never that simple.
I can only think of one fictional example of redemption, and that would be Plastic Man. He used to be a criminal and needed a second, third or even fourth chance until he ultimately became a hero. It's not like everyone is willing to redeem themselves, but to deny them the opportunity to even try is also wrong.
@@bitsfight9308”dude life is like marvel movie”
NO
punisher just in search of punching bag , he is an animal not even human, he do not want to eradicate criminals he just wants to waste time killing them, he is very weak surface level thought process just like small child just kill everybody he will never try and find the root of all problem ego he is just doomed ,stupid,weak,surface level, non-religious, he showed how weak as human being we are, we don't even think, we have lost the touch to talk understand,ask,enquire, we have forgot what human being is , we are just voilent animals that's it, this is what punisher symbolizes nothing more nothing less
Their is a comic crossover of the pulp heroes The Shadow and The Green Hornet where they have a similar conversation. The Hornet with his sleep gas puts and emphasis the importance of the law while Shadow prefers justice dispensed with his .45 automatics.
"I won't kill the Criminals, but hospital bills will kill them" -Batman, probably
Punisher is 102% correct. Repeat Offenders proves the Penitentiary System doesn't work.
The only reason Punisher steps in is because the Criminal had every opportunity to not cause suffering to others but does so anyway.
They had their Chance, even that Old Man who would have interfered with the delivery of Punishment.
The criminals clearly show they enjoy the evil they do, and when they’re given a chance at redemption, they reject it and openly show they don’t want to change and stay evil forever
Punisher doesn’t care what daredevil says, all he cares about is saving and protecting the city and its people from dangerous criminals and supervillains, and preventing them from killing innocents and destroying the city
I’m on the punishers side, he’s always been my favorite. Even as a child I thought “kill the bad buy so they won’t come back.” Yes it cruel and inhumane but realistically he has a point, as soon as they get out of jail they’ll go back to crime. Look I’m talking about in the fantasy setting of Marvel
In the real world I don’t things are definitely not as cut and dry as that.
Certain people do deserve to be dehumanized. Cause they shouldnt be considered one in the first place
The legal system doesn’t work. Daredevil’s morals shouldn’t matter in the face of true evil. If I kill 1,000 people and daredevil let’s the system take me there’s a decent chance I’d escape somehow killing a lot more people.(Comic book logic) The lives after the initial catching do wether we like it or not also fall on Daredevil he could’ve and should’ve killed me. With great power comes great responsibility. If I chose to let a murderor live and he murders again it’s atleast partially on me.
The problem with prisons in the US is the fact that they make too much money to really try rehabilitation. If you're in the business of solving a problem, what happens when you solve that problem? You stop making money, and not making money is obviously the worst thing that could possibly happen to a businessman. None of the systems the US have in place are going to change for a long time because money is everything, consequences be damned.
One of my favorite scenes from the series is watching DD/Matt wrestle with his religious beliefs, and then crosses himself as he concedes that sometimes killing might be the only way.
The morality is always interesting when debating fiction, but generally there is a hard line for everyone on this topic. Someone's willingness to commit acts of evil can only be measured realistically after they have committed them, so we consider people who are guilty of various acts. Assault and robbery, yeah most people agree they can get their ass beat but not killed. Child predators and cold blooded murderers, most people agree they should be locked up forever or die for their choices. One hard line everyone has in their head, cross it and that it.
Perfect video analysis of these two iconic Marvel characters and there different view points.
Thanks, I’m glad you enjoyed it!
@@thesolipsistcinema glade you posted it !
Matt is just naive and unrealistic.
Castle is more realistic on how criminals should be deal.
Frank Castle is a better hero that Daredevil and Batman. The Punisher make sure he permanently stop countless criminals to commit more crimes.
The problem is that most Sanctimonious inividuals such as Matt are prig who like to dictate what others can and cannot do.
If the so-called Heroes like Matt don't want to kill then fine. But they have zero rights to tell others what they can and cannot do.
Not everyone deserves a second chance! Giving someone a second chance is like giving them an extra bullet for their gun because they missed the first time.
Did Osama bin Laden deserves a Second Chance? Did Hitler deserves a Second Chance? Did The Joker deserves a Second Chance? I let you that sink into your head.
🤝 agreed
The Hitler analogy is just stupid. Hitler is a genocidal freak who would've been stopped in self defense. The Batman would've killed Hitler because he knows the only way to stop the Nazis is to kill them. They can't just be thrown in jail when there's an all out war. Joker can tho. If the Joker breaks out again, that's not on Batman.
@@safcjoe7062 The Hitler Analogy is not stupid. It's stupid for you because you don't have a real counter argument for it. The Joker is a Genocidal Maniac, yet he us treat with care show that Gotham and Batman have poor periorities.
@felixbenitez6169 have you ever killed anyone? And if you ever had that choice what's to say you'd ever stop? That's Bruce and Matt's point. Yeah, Joker being killed would stop him from killing others BUT it wouldn't stop Bruce from becoming a mass murderer. Same with Matt and Fisk, Bruce would kill criminals that CLEARLY have shown signs of good, he wouldn't stop and ppl like Quinn, Dent and Freeze have sympathetic traits. Hitler took over an entire country bro, they had no choice but to kill him to stop the Nazis.
@@safcjoe7062 Your argumentnis poorbly because is the ilogical argument of; If You Kill You’re The Same As Them. A very fallacy argument because is a argument trying to gaslighting anyone to go along with your ilogical belief. It doesn't work, so you better come up with a better argument, or you can swallow your pride and accept you're a wimp.
Honestly this whole video is exactly why I love Daredevil and the Punisher so much because it really makes you think where you would land morally when it comes to justice. Daredevil yes beats the breaks off of criminals but he doesn't kill them. I ain't gonna lie there were scenes where I thought "Jesus is Matt about to catch a body here". While the Punisher doesn't have a problem putting a mobster or a r**ist in the morgue because he believes people like that won't change. Personally, I personally land right in between these two, I agree with Matt with some points but also I agree with Frank. Unfortunately there are people that are absolute scums of the Earth in this life, however, true justice is blind and unbiased. Frank and Matt are two sides of the same coin. When Matt can't get the message to stick, the boogeyman in Frank will. Their relationship is the definition of there is only so far you can push someone till they push back. When Matt fails, Frank makes sure they get it across their thick skulls
Man I swear if Disney screws up these characters I'll stay the hell away from anything Disney/Marvel related
They will... Disney is ran by sociopaths.
it's Disney....expecting them to NOT screw them up is laughably naïve
You made such a compelling point when you said "If you would condemn a rapist to bring raped in prison, you're not against the act. Just who it happens to."
Such a thoughtful thing to say. Bravo.
This is a good point to think about until you ask “why”. Because in this scenario you can justify “why” you would be ok with a rapist being raped. Not because you are ok with the act, but because you see it as retribution. Because that person deserves to feel the pain they caused, and they can understand the damage they’ve done
@@IslandBirdKing Being okay with it as retribution is "being okay with it as an act". That's like, the entire problem with "an eye for an eye". It doesn't solve anything. Heck, it's doubtful that making them go through the same thing would make them understand/regret their actions anyway.
@@Birthday888 You need to have both soft on crime and hard on crime people. Basically a good cop bad cop dynamic.
But yeah, may the punishment fit the crime. Destroying someone's entire life, physical, and emotional help needs more punishment than just time in a jail cell.
And that’s why Punisher in his words “puts them down… Permanently.” is better cuz while everyone else is wondering if they’re not against r*pe just who it blah blah blah. The mf that needs to be taken off Earth is taking a forever dirt nap. Case closed
im sorry but I'm not feeling sympathy for a rapist. they don't deserve any
Dude you should pay more attention to the dialogs, you made 2 very big mistakes, first, Frank wasn't going to kill that vet, he himself said that pointing the gun at him was just theather for matt, and second, the choice he gave Matt was to either kill Frank, or do nothing, not to kill the criminal obviusly.
still, overall good video, very few people dive into this deep ideas of the show or of life in general so is much aprecciated
Paying even more attention to the dialog, you can see that before Frank has the interaction with the vet, he tells Daredevil to be quiet or he’ll kill the vet. Then he goes over and talks to him, cocks the hammer, and then goes back to Matt. That’s when Frank says cocking the hammer was just for show for Matt.
Frank doesn’t ever acknowledge that at the very least, he wouldn’t have beaten the crap out of this old guy to keep him quiet and out of his business. Being optimistic of Frank hopefully he wouldn’t have killed him if needed but he would have definitely hurt him.
Second. You’re partly right, I misspoke. The choice punisher gives is for Matt to kill Frank if he wants to save the criminal. Frank does say that he will kill him anyways so the main point of contention of whether Matt should be morally responsible for the death of the criminal still stands.
Thanks for the critique and I’m glad you enjoyed the rest of the video!
@@thesolipsistcinema yeah you are right, he obviusly would have knocked him out but being optimistic, he would have hurt him only enough to leave him unconscious wich isn't a big deal.
Anyways, i hope you make more videos like this, they are rare to find, you should get more recognition but i guess are too superficial for this topics
One thing i don't like is how in almost every superhero story, they either take one or the other extreme.
I would love to see a story where the character finds a middle ground, letting people have second chances in their lives because everyone can change, but also not be naive to the point of believing that a repeating ofender somehow will change this time. And that maybe for major criminals, the ones who are not just commiting petty crimes but are actually harming people and have already escaped prison to do the exact same thing, maybe it's justifiable to kill them and avoid more pain. And also deal with how said character builds their morals and discipline to justify who should and shouldn't be killed. And when
And it isnt like theyre some moral paragon, either. Determining where that line is would make for a fantastic internal conflict.
Daredevil is more than willing to kill
@@iswitchedsidesforthiscat Which one are we talking about? Because the TV series one, while he has desires to do it so, never is able to commit to killing even the Kingpin.
When it comes to comics, i tend to disregard comments like this because you have so many different writers that a character can do a 180 in their morals and then a 360, and then a 720. You will always find an issue where Batman Killed a villain, or where he used a firearm, or where he is a fully fledged villain. The same goes for the Daredevil, but it doesn't matter, especially here. Since we're specifically talking about the Netflix series, and on all of the seasons of the series, Matthew Mercer is tempted, multiple times to take a life and is challenged on his belief, but never goes through with it.
Basically Red Hood
There is a point made by Frank at 7:04, but it is not addressed. Which is an ethical and moral discussion made in Avatar as well. When Aang doesn't want to kill the Firelord, and summons his past lifes to give him guidance. And the past airbender Avatar gives him the same argument, which is basically it is selfish to put spiritual and moral purity of oneself above the good of the majority.
Here Frank says he does it to feel good, to be praised as a hero but is unwilling to get his hands dirty to do what he thinks gives the best results. Meaning that he is ultimately doing it for himself.
Now, we know Daredevil, and know that is not true based on his character. And such line of thinking can open a can of worms which can justify a lot heinous acts. But it is like the saying some villains can have of "only I have the strong will to do this". But it is an strong point I think it should have been addressed. If one where to meet baby Hitler, and killing the baby would save millions of people but would make yourself end up in jail and traumatized for life. Is it selfish to not do it? Is it morally wrong, when you already know the outcome?
The baby hitler thing doesn't even makes sense to bring up here. That's an innocent child that hasn't done anything wrong. The criminals Punisher kills are just that, criminals they've committed acts of injustice. Yes, even with the "he's guaranteed to do all the hitler memes" caveat.
@@Griggs58 The point about baby Hitler does make sense, so you might have not understood the point at all.
The point Punisher makes is that it is not just about Punishing people but stopping evil. Punisher believes they cannot be redeemed and letting them live would only make Daredevil feel good about himself, but won't actually change anything. because they will keep causing harm.
So the point about Hitler, is that when you have the ability to stop evil at the expense of your own sanity and or wellbeing and you do not. In Punisher's eyes, is like being complicit with evil. He just fights crime to feel good, but is not willing to do what "needs to be done".
Now those are not my views, but views of the punisher. I do think redemption is possible, but there are also some that are way past the point of redemption. But the main point is that, if like Batman the main reason they are not willing to kill someone like the Joker or the Kingpin, is to keep a clear conscience and moral superiority. While they keep killing hundreds of innocents. Then they are not really doing it with the intention to make a positive change, but for selfish reasons (According to Punisher). Just like deciding not to kill baby Hitler, despite knowing how much death he would cause, just to sleep soundly. It is all about not willing to sacrifice your feeling of moral superiority, to actually make a change.
You can't rehabilitate psychopaths and placing them in prison doesn't stop them it just relocates them ...sorry Daredevil but until you have a wife and kids who are massacred in front of you bc of BFF , you don't understand what people are going through when they are targeted by a psychopath, you can speculate though lol
gonna leave a comment for the algorithm bc this channel deserves more subs
In that universe Punisher is objectively correct, everyone he encountered up to that point was noot redeemable, and what daredevil needs to understand is the criminals Punisher kills aren't the ordinary robbers
I think the "3 strikes and you're out" should be a more common philosophy with vigilantes lmao
It just makes sense: If this is a one time deal? Sure, let's say it's an accident. You get away with broken ribs. Second time? Okay, I'll break your legs now. Third time? Yeah... Neck snap time.
It's all about identifying if the crime is a pattern of behaviour or an act of desperation.
Biggest problem with Punisher is if he gets it wrong, he gets it VERY wrong.
This definitely applies with Daredevil as well. You attempt to save the wrong person and then they destroy several other lives, I think that’s VERY wrong as well. I very much believe in moderation in just about everything, and in very rare cases I think it’s good to choose one side. Though it’s not executed well, this is why we have courts. Some people have it bad, and make a hiccup but the damage they do is negligible and they can be put on the right track. Then there’s people that are too destructive and lost to rehabilitate. They don’t need to see the light of day for the rest of their lives or a big portion of their life. Of course there will be people that are capable of rehabilitation after destructive and heinous crimes, but those that are guilty of those crimes oftentimes need equally destructive punishment… this is out of respect for the victim and the people that cared for the victim, and additionally out of respect for society. It’s a message that disrespecting or disregarding other people’s livelihood voids most or all of your inalienable rights as a human being, deservedly.
@@richardrackley2430 Major difference is that with Punisher is operating in a manner where he doesn’t have all the information, and is pretty much relying on very limited intel. There are times when he rushes in, without knowing everything. Biggest example is the one spin off comic where he killed Spiderman.
@Richard Rackley the more parallel case is when punisher kills someone who is innocent and Matt nearly beats them to death.
We know innocent people are mistakenly executed constantly. DNA evidence has shown this. And that's with a trial
@@datemasamune2904 you are absolutely correct. However, all I’m saying is that the consequences of failing in both ways from my perspective is equally tragic and undesirable. If you kill someone innocent it’s horrible. If you don’t use your judgment to put away someone insane and they kill more innocent people, in both scenarios that’s an equal outcome. Innocent people are lost. All I’m saying is not using proper judgment in either scenario is morally incorrect from my perspective. Hence my dogma of “moderation”. To further elaborate, I disagree because the description “very wrong” is subjective here. If the outcome of failing either way is innocent people killed, then one extreme isn’t more wrong than the other and you need to find a middle ground.
That's why the ideal officer is a robot who can't get hurt and incapacitates its victims so that they can be tried.
Yeah the Punisher wouldn't actually need to kill anyone if the justice system actually worked and made sure criminals never offended again.
Batman only didnt kill because the writers wanted to re-use the same villains.
I think it was interesting showing Turk being arrested by Daredevil, only to appear back on the street and that's what ended up saving the day. If Daredevil had killed him; the police and daredevil wouldnt have been able to save the kidnapped people.
I know this was about Daredevil and punisher, but when u mentioned batman, it got me thinking. Batman could just break everyone's backs or legs beyond repair.
He could kill all the criminals in Gotham with ease, NO EXCEPTIONS
But, because mothers in 1939 were upset about what children would have seen in the comics -THAT IS THE TRUE REASON -, now Batman Is the Dark Hypocrite Who won't deal seriously with real ethics, since It would no longer be marketable... For Kids, or perhaps their mothers
I am totally for Panisher!
This is a great analysis. However, one thing I want to point out is I think the scene with the old marine on the rooftop where Frank points his gun at him on the other side of the door was a farce to make Daredevil think he would pull the trigger. The reason I think this was in the later show "the Punisher" when he fights cops doing their jobs, he avoids killing them when he could easily do so. My opinion, maybe another perspective.
11:14 - In Season 2 of "The Punisher" there was an epusode when Frank was framed that he killed two innocents (But in reality they were murdered before). It breaks Frank down so bad, he even couldn't notice that victims have only one accurate bullet wound and bullet hole in the wall behind, while he was shooting with rabid fire from the downstairs so wounds should be multiple and different, and there shouldn't be bullet holes in the wall right behind the victims.
The question that never seems to come up.. it’s not about whether it’s worth rehabilitating really bad people. But if they time and money should be wasted, when it can go to preventing people from becoming bad. So we spend millions housing a murderer. How much would it cost to take and mentor a young man who is going down a bad path? We only have so much time and money.
Valid point!
I get where you're coming from, but that assumes that the two things are mutually exclusive when they're not. Doing one does not preclude you from doing the other.
you cant force help on people who dont want it so in a weird way both ways could be just as effective or ineffective depending on the person
You do not want the government getting involved in that fucking business lol
Great video. Really enjoyed it as a fan of both characters from the comics and their respective series.
9:42 you lost me for multiple reasons but one of the largest is that it isn't a way to cope. It's a genuine and sincere belief, independent of the belief in eye for an eye. When someone acts in a way that lacks conscience, morals, ethics, and empathy; they're acting in a way that directly conflicts with many peoples definition of humanity. When someone acts without humanity they, in many peoples eyes, dehumanized themselves. Therefore it's not the public or the "Hero" dehumanizing the villain, but rather it's the "hero" identifying that the villain dehumanized themselves.
Its hard to pick a side with these two because I think in these shows the one that works is where Punisher and Daredevil meet in the middle they put down the scum who deserve it and take in the people who need to learn the lesson, kinda like Red Hood as someone else here said.
Daredevil's way works if you still have reasonably functioning legal system. If people lack faith in the legal system then Daredevil is useless and you might as well have anarchy. There are places in the US where citizens stop reporting crimes because it doesn't do any good. Those are places where things are very close to the point of no return. Punisher time. It isn't a good thing. There is a reason low trust societies punish even petty crimes severely.
I found your video out of nowhere. And I love this video. You made a lot of great points.
Brilliant vid mate.
Season 3 proved that Frank was right.
"Yeah, what do you do? What do you do? You act like it's a playground. You beat up the bullies with your fists. You throw 'em in jail, everybody calls you a hero, right? And then a month, a week, a day later, they're back on the streets doing the same goddamn thing!"
Frank castle does what's needed. It's kinda ignorant to act like what he does is some kinda terrible act. For example almost every person on earth agrees batman should just kill joker. Because he will not stop, he will not become better. But batman just won't do it. He knowingly lets him go because he knows he'll escape. These kinda people exist and these kinda people are what we need a punisher for.
In im not a Bad guy it’s completely valid to hold daredevil responsible for the killers killing . He knows they kill and he knows they will do it again . An invention isn’t comparable as not all guns kill people . Daredevil is realistically only saving people short term
Nah nah there’s not a “who’s right” between their ideologies this is a grey area ONLY kinda debate
The Punisher wasn't gonna kill the old man at the roof, the gun was empty he was just tricking Daredevil to be quiet.
10:55 that is completely a misrepresentation of the scene.
Frank threathens the man knowing full well Daredevil is listening. The action taken here was a bluff to shut Daredevill up, and it worked.
Since Matt didnt know what kind of a man Frank is at his point, he couldnt risk it.
We have scenes in Punisher's own show that Frank spared lives of criminals despite the horrendous acts they've commited just because there was someone else near him that he cared about.
He doesnt like being seen doing the things he does, and he would never shoot that Veteran.
If that section of your argument is placed on Frank being a hypocrite for bluffing, thats a either outright false or misdirected argument..
That what I was thinking but tbf daredevil knows when someone is lying. Maybe at that point in time he was more on edge at least compared to his series. On the otherhand, really no benefit to matt if he got the old guy involved - not like he could do anything to punisher, prob just get his ass kicked
The fact is that you can have one rule like Batman or Daredevil and still have moral nuance and growth. Also the people who say "Why doesn't Batman just kill the Joker?" are typically less into the idea of that one rule. They're doing the dehumanizing of the Punisher you're talking about. That's why killer Batman doesn't work because it takes the elements of Batman's Deontological ethics and says that the creator can't tell a good story without killing the bad guys.
Yeah. People really don't put much though in the suggestion of Batman going beyond his duties as a partner of law enforcement. Batman isnt the only person capable of making that choice, Revolving door Arkham is at fault cause there's some deep rooted corruption in Gotham. Having the law shine a spotlight to task some lone wolf to enact extrajudicial executions isn't a heroic ideal.
Too bad all of batman's "good" stories end the same, with the villain living so they can kill again. Just say the writers are lazy and spare them to create more stories but don't for one second try to say that batman's way works or is in any way logical, cause all the future victims he helps to create by sparing and saving villains would disagree with you.
@@cdubsb3831 Batman isn't a partner of law enforcement, he's technically a criminal under that same law, just because Jim Gordon bends the law for him, doesn't make him one of them.
@@theoutlawking9123 they build a signal to keep in contact with him and provide information they wouldn't give anyone else. Gordon is not the only one to use it. Everybody in Gotham knows they did this even though there is no official record of partnering with him. Some stories portray this relationship as rocky, but it is most definitely a partnership.
It's not lazy writing to hold onto values of court justice when dealing with vigilantism, namely when the series has sone focus on appealing and imparting values to children. A good variety of other DC and Marvel characters don't kill for similar reason. Frano says this is the correct choice for heroes and role models. He is a pained killer, but he's self aware.
@@cdubsb3831 So, ignore the very laws he claims to uphold because comics are made for kids and kids don't fully understand or even care about laws, yeah, great comeback.
If Punisher met Tony Stark when he was selling weapons he wouldn’t of hesitated to put a bullet in him because of his company selling weapons to terrorists. If he did that there would be no Iron Man so Punisher is definitely not perfect but very understandable