Should Batman Kill? – Awesome Comics

The Awesome Comics crew is joined by Rob Walker to discuss, Should Batman Kill? Should the masked super hero kill or does that ruin the whole point of him? Let us know in the comments!

Social Accounts:

Awesome Comics:
Facebook
Walter:
Twitter
Aiyanna:
Twitter
Facebook
Bryan:
Twitter
Heather:
Twitter
Instagram
Rob Walker:
Twitter

About Channel Awesome


Leave a Reply

83 Comments on "Should Batman Kill? – Awesome Comics"

Devil's Advocate
Guest

I hate the straw man that people who want Batman to kill the Joker want him to kill ALL criminals. why is it apparently impossible for Batman to kill the Joker and ONLY the Joker?

and another question they should have asked is does a certain supervillain deserve do die? because yes, at least in fiction, some people really deserve to die.

if the slippery slope is a thing, then how come heroes who do kill like the Punisher limit it to only the worst criminals and they don’t snap and kill pick pockets and purse snatchers?

TragicGuineaPig
Guest
The problem with the way you structure your argument: Does the Joker deserve to die? Yes. And so do several of Batman’s rogues. Does that in and of itself justify Batman killing them? No. Because it isn’t Batman’s place to kill them, even if they do deserve it. That’s why he doesn’t do it: he does not stoop to their level, but instead puts them in the hands of the civil justice system, whose duty it would be to make that decision. “But the civil justice system keeps failing.” Maybe, but that still doesn’t make it Batman’s job to kill… Read more »
Devil's Advocate
Guest

but again, how can come the Punisher doesn’t fall off the slippery slope and start killing pickpockets?

and if the legal system keeps failing, what other option is there?

TragicGuineaPig
Guest
The Punisher is already nuts, though. Bad example. He still has no qualms about slaughtering drug dealers, hitmen, gangsters, crime bosses, and the like. If anything, I think the Punisher is worse for some of the things he has done. Like that time he duct-taped a gun to Daredevil’s hand and concocted a scenario where DD either had to watch the Punisher murder a man and get away with it, or to murder the Punisher himself. Now that’s sick! It’s not bad enough that he feels his own need to kill; he’s actually trying to create a killer out of… Read more »
Devil's Advocate
Guest

I believe I was more thinking about the 90s Spider-Man version of the Punisher and wile he was sanitized by the censors, he was still willing to kill as a default.

and some people see the death penalty is unquestionably wrong. so, if it is wrong, what’s the difference between it and a vigilante killing?

TragicGuineaPig
Guest
Because a system of civil justice will have checks and balances. There will be a fair trial with evidence presented, witnesses testifying, two sides arguing the case, and a judge to mediate. It’s not just one person deciding, “You’re guilty because I say so,” and taking them out with no chance to defend themselves. Think about it: if you were accused of a crime you didn’t commit, would you rather have an attorney, a jury, and a judge to try your case? Or some crazy guy with a gun in a back alley? If I remember, the Punisher actually started… Read more »
Devil's Advocate
Guest

but Batman knows for a fact the Joker is guilty of what he does, so there isn’t really an issue of a mistake on his guilt or innocence.

TragicGuineaPig
Guest

It doesn’t matter. Batman is still not judge, jury, or executioner. It’s not his job to kill the Joker, even if he knows the Joker is guilty. Even if he knows it for a fact, it’s not his call.

Devil's Advocate
Guest

but again, if they never use the death penalty and Joker will never, ever stay locked up, what else is Batman going to do?

I don’t want Batman to become the Punisher but I think I will always be dissatisfied with the no killing rule.

TragicGuineaPig
Guest
It still comes down to this: to take upon himself that role, he has to decide to become judge, jury, and executioner. And there are legitimate reasons why Batman will not assume that role. And let’s not forget this little fact as well: Batman villains who die generally don’t stay dead. Whether resurrected by a Lazarus Pit, or brought back by some unexplained means, dead villains don’t stay dead. How many times has the Joker died, and yet he’s still around? So it’s kind of pointless to expect Batman to kill when even death doesn’t stop the villains.
Devil's Advocate
Guest

well for whatever reason, the death is cheap trope doesn’t apply to alternate universes, just New Earth/Prime Earth.

Swarmcrow
Guest

is not his job to go around dress as a bat an interfering with police work.. i mean let not forget that one of the reason criminals keep getting send back to arkham instead of prison is that he ait a member of the law

Rezro
Guest

You missing the point.. they land in Arkhem because they are mostly a mental patients. Way in with they are cough is irrelevant as there is a thing called “civilian intervention”. If someone commit crime anyone can stop him.. at least if he can prove it.

Devil's Advocate
Guest

and he did in fact murder Joe Chill, his parents killer, if indirectly. and I am referring to the New Earth/Post-Crisis/Pre-Flashpoint continuity were Batman gave Chill a gun the latter committed suicide with on the spot.

TragicGuineaPig
Guest

The question isn’t “Has Batman ever killed?” The question is, “SHOULD he kill?” Citing points in which the character has either failed to uphold his moral code, or just plain didn’t have one, doesn’t really answer the second question.

Rezro
Guest
First of all people who want kill all criminals are sociopaths or simply immature, and this same goes to supporting death sentence what is already proved to be inefficient, uncivilized, misplaced and unjust. Most criminals are people in need. Secondary.. Batman should kill criminals only when they directly treat life of other peoples and he don’t have other way to stop them. Even police and private security have that right (also Superman support this logic though he can easier avoid killing), and Batman specifically avoid killing because technically he is vigilante and already what he does is on edge of… Read more »
Devil's Advocate
Guest

well, some people, at least in fiction, deserve to die and have no good in them, I direct you to the TV Tropes term “Complete Monster”. a character with literally no personality outside of being evil.

Rezro
Guest

That isn’t point of debate but who should kill them? Usually people who want kill all bandits are themselves debatable in they morality. Also not every cartoon villain is treat to other people even if they lack redeeming values.

Devil's Advocate
Guest

again, I do not want all criminals killed, just the complete monsters.

somebody1993
Guest

I think he should at least in the beginning of his career because he stagnated as a character . Everyone KNOWS exactly who the Batman is and where his line is so whenever he gets on screen his actions are a foregone conclusion .

Rezro
Guest

Nop.. it is just bad writing, allowing him killing make it even worst..

somebody1993
Guest

How is it worse writing to let a character be an actual character ? The Batman we often see is stuck in a box and he doesn’t leave it for fear of fan backlash, he’s too safe now to be interesting .

Rezro
Guest
Yup, because single minded mass murdering sociopaths are the “characters” 0_0. Obviously there are heroes who kill but all should be in proper place and time. Wounder Woman kill, but she isn’t a crime fighter.. she is a warrior princes and monster hunter. Batman is a crime fighter and as such he need obey the law.. well as much vigilante working in shadow can. If he would start killing all bandits like some teens want him to do, GCPD would have full reason to hunt him down as supervillain which he is in some timelines. They can overlook his activity… Read more »
somebody1993
Guest
I’m not suggesting that’s where his characterization would/should end only that if his no kill code is going to so often be prominently featured there should be a narrative arc that gets him there. As it is most if not all his characterization takes place offscreen which means most of his time onscreen is static. What makes a character interesting past the age where you realize most heroes aren’t really in any danger do to a number of things is there choices. The choices of a character may lead them down a dark path or one that leads to the… Read more »
Rezro
Guest
Well.. I in fact do agree with you here, but that is simply a issue with poor writing not the concept. “The thing with Batman is that writers are to afraid to do anything with him anymore because they don’t want to hurt the brand.” And BvS? DC has so many elseworld stories and retcons that it isn’t a issue. I don’t think fear is the case here, more a balance issue. Part of problem are edge teens who don’t get the character and push on turning him in psycho-killer. That may in fact could cause creators to be overly… Read more »
somebody1993
Guest
I never said a no kill code was a a bad concept I just wish writers would take different paths with Batman more often . I haven’t seen BvS yet, i’ll watch it later today or tomorrow. Admittedly i’m not a huge comic guy so when I talk about Batman and other heroes i’m thinking about tv shows and movies. I can’t speak for other people wanting to him to kill but for me personally the way I understand Batman’s appeal as a character is he a morally complex character. He makes decisions where there is no clear cut answers.… Read more »
voodoo_gremlin
Guest
Batman is a part of the legal system, specifically the police. He handles small crimes and things that the police are simply not capable of dealing with. He will defer to Commissioner Gordon. If he weren’t part of the legal system all the criminals he caught would have to be released, much like all other comic book vigilantes. So as part of the legal system he doesn’t have the right to kill anyone. That’s for the judiciary and a jury to decide if a villain should be executed and not him. So the better question might be why does the… Read more »
Devil's Advocate
Guest

law enforcers are authorized to kill in certain cases.

and I don’t buy him killing Joker making him no different, there’s a difference between killing an innocent person and killing a guilty one.

TragicGuineaPig
Guest

But again, that is a matter of civil justice, and not a decision that Batman – as someone operating outside of the civil justice system – should be the one making. I have no doubt that Batman would love to see the Joker dead, but he knows that’s not his choice to make.

cannedfury
Guest

He’s also a violent, secretive, illegal vigilante controlling an entire nation’s defense budget who has a cave full of crime scene evidence and stuff he just ganked right off criminals without turning over to the police. His entire existence is about benefiting the whole city by bending some rules.

Rezro
Guest
As far as I recall Batman didn’t start to avenge his parents but because he fight with dangerous shadow organization called court of owls (also his costume was originally a owl as massage to them, but people mistake it with the bat and he did go with the flow). Anyway despite popular believes he didn’t fight with paty crime, he perform large scale investigation usually stoping large crime operations and mental patients outbreaks usually tied to them (he isn’t exactly violent without reason, his enemies aren’t hippies after all). He later start co-work with the police and as such has… Read more »
TragicGuineaPig
Guest
Actually, it depends on which continuity we’re talking about, and Batman’s specific role in that universe. In most of them, he is a vigilante, which means he’s technically operating outside of the civil justice system. While Commissioner Gordon does accept Batman’s help in a great many cases, he does so mainly because he doesn’t have sufficient manpower and resources at his disposal to actually protect Gotham sufficiently. Gordon knows he’s walking a thin line working with the Bat, but he does it anyway because he knows he can’t do it without him. On top of that, given the notorious corruption… Read more »
Devil's Advocate
Guest

even in modern times, he has to be part of the legal system or criminals he catches would be immediately released.

TragicGuineaPig
Guest

Not really. As long as the police actually do have warrants for the criminals in question – and why wouldn’t they, except maybe for some of the mob bosses? – then Batman’s interference wouldn’t actually affect the legal standing of their arrest. Now, if Batman had his own prison or something like that – *COUGH* FLASH! *COUGH!* – that might be a different story.

Rezro
Guest

Yup. You ate correct.. I wounder what idiot minus you here? Frank Miller disease have long arms..

cannedfury
Guest

Since you’re the weirdo who brought him up and mentions him most, I’m pretty you’re the only one with Frank Miller disease. Side effects include his barely literate rage rambling. “You ate correct. I’ll FEED YOU CORRECT against those IDIOTS with their LONG ARMS.”

Goat Boy
Guest

For Christ’s sake guys! For ONCE, could you ask a question that we don’t know the second it’s asked what your answer’s gonna be?

cannedfury
Guest

The problem is “Goat Boy will show up to be a cringy tryhard” is the most obvious answer to every discussion.

Rezro
Guest

Well except there is so many Frank Miller Bat-Fanboys who don’t get that, so it isn’t pointless debate..

cannedfury
Guest

Rezro, you fellating yourself while insulting everybody who disagrees in incoherent rage is the second most common answer. Even when championing the opposite approach, you might as well be the Frank Miller of the comments section. “They’re all just FANBOYS of things they DON’T EVEN LIKE because I’m the GODDAMN REZRO.”

TragicGuineaPig
Guest
This is what I’m getting from the debate: If a particular continuity or sub-franchise establishes a no-kill Batman, they need to establish why he follows a no-kill rule and stick to it consistently. But if they establish a willing-to-kill Batman, they need to establish why he doesn’t follow a no-kill rule, and that he shouldn’t be a hypocrite about it (like despising an alien for killing, but popping caps right and left himself). I was extremely disappointed with the ending of Batman Begins: he essentially engineered the situation that left Ra’s al Ghul (AND IT’S PRONOUNCED RAESH, NOT RAHZ! GET… Read more »
Rezro
Guest

Usually I expect from Batman to be reasonable.. if he don’t kill that exclude cases when people life is in direct danger.. well like Police or civilian security would do. But if he kill he shouldn’t be a hypocrite, who pretend that indirect kills make his hands clean.. it doesn’t. And we mostly can agree that Frank Milers suck..

Devil's Advocate
Guest

also, wile I can sort of accept the example from the beginning of Batman Beyond, don’t you get a pass morally for a self defense killing?

TragicGuineaPig
Guest
Yes, you do. Legally and, I would argue, morally. But legality and morality are only two of the issues involved: there is also psychology and character. You have to remember why it is that Bruce follows his moral code: to honor his parents. It was a gun that took them from him, and for that reason, he despises them. For Bruce to pick up a gun and decide to use it as a weapon goes against everything he believes in. Which just highlights how desperate he was in that situation: he was willing to compromise his own character in order… Read more »
happymel
Guest

I think that Batman not killing makes him seem more noble. Personally, maiming is bound to happen when you’re fighting with all those Batman gadgets but actually killing with your own hands is slightly different. Then again, I’ve only seen the Christian Bale movies and the new DCEU movies.

TragicGuineaPig
Guest

Then might I suggest Mask of the Phantasm, Under the Red Hood, and Return of the Joker? All three of these films deal with the issue of vengeance and Batman’s relationship to it. And the first and last feature the most iconic Joker, mARK HAMill himself. Because you can’t spell Mark Hamill without the “ARKHAM” in the middle.

cannedfury
Guest
Batman’s refusal to use a gun or cross the line is ultimately a psychotic obsession rather than a noble one. Even good cops carry guns since against identified deadly criminals, that level of force is sensible going on mandatory. Cities employ SWAT teams rather than people armed with boomerangs and karate chops because otherwise more people would die. Batman knowingly jumps into places filled with deadly criminals including terrorists, eco or otherwise. And he’ll take kids into those situations because his approach is, I will argue, not necessarily the best long term solution for preserving life. Against mass murderers who… Read more »
TragicGuineaPig
Guest
“Batman’s refusal to use a gun or cross the line is ultimately a psychotic obsession rather than a noble one.” A ridiculous assertion. Batman has weapons that are just as good, if not better, at incapacitating targets and therefore would not need a gun. It’s like asking why Professor Xavier or Zatanna don’t carry guns: because they don’t need them, and their particular talents and abilities (like Batman’s) wouldn’t make good use of them. Joker’s Millions is a terrible example. It was a Golden Age story that just didn’t fit the character or the setting, even in the revamped New… Read more »
cannedfury
Guest
“It’s like asking why Professor Xavier or Zatanna don’t carry guns” Sure, reality-bending magic powers and world-endingly powerful psychic powers vs no super powers… same difference. It’s not like utility affects Batman or maybe he’d wear a belt dedicated to it. Here’s a better question: if Batman’s tools are “just as good, if not better, at incapacitating targets” than guns, why isn’t the Gotham PD armed with Batarangs and grappling hooks? “Joker’s Millions is a terrible example.” Cherry-pick all you want, it’s a decades spanning series. Most flaws in the writing are things they “didn’t stop to consider whether it… Read more »
TragicGuineaPig
Guest
“why isn’t the Gotham PD armed with Batarangs and grappling hooks?” Because policemen don’t train for years in Ninjutsu. It’s not in their skill set to use the kinds of tools Batman does. It is in Batman’s; he’s spent years learning to use them. So there’s the point where your argument falls apart: not distinguishing between the skills and abilities of a typical academy-trained police officer and a man who spent years learning dozens of martial arts techniques and weapon skills so that he doesn’t need a gun. To me, this is like in Mystery Men, where they visit Dr.… Read more »
cannedfury
Guest
“So there’s the point where your argument falls apart” The part where Batman can teach circus children his fighting style or Batgirl can fall into it while being a huge library nerd, but nobody on the Gotham PD ever thought if they worked out more they’d increase their survival rate by 5000%? No, that would be plot convenience for the sake of colorful team gimmicks. “The answer: because certain bloodthirsty fans just want to see him cap some MFs, that’s why.” Nice strawman, especially when the series keeps upping its gore and shock value whether or not Batman kills. I… Read more »
Commander_Jim
Guest

He shouldnt murder anyone, but he shouldn’t also be a boy scout about it. Cops can kill to save innocent people or themselves, soldiers have to kill. I dont have a problem with Batman doing it under the right circumstances. Even Superman will kill if forced to, read The Death of Superman, Superman’s was doing everything he could to kill Doomsday, and rightly so, and did so without regrets (yes I know Doomsday came back to life like every comic character, besides the point). Batman killed Darkseid, what was the problem with that?

TragicGuineaPig
Guest

And that is where I will agree. I do think that, in Batman’s case, the circumstances would have to be dire; it would have to be an immanent threat he is stopping, and there would have to be consequences to his character afterward; he wouldn’t just shrug it off.

HWalsh
Guest

Batman cannot kill because Batman is insane. He has mental disorders, multiple disorders. His code against killing is part of that.

Batman lost his father. He lost his mother. As a child he saw death, he saw pain, and he doesn’t want to contribute to that.

If Batman kills then he goes from being a hero to being another Arkham inmate. He steps over that line and Superman brings down the hammer, Wonder Woman smacks her bat up, Green Lantern locks him away and throws away the key. Heroes shouldn’t kill.

If you want a Batman that should kill, go look up Azrael.

TragicGuineaPig
Guest
I don’t know if I’d go that far, but that’s the fine line he’s walking. Or as Alfred puts it in Mask of the Phantasm, “Vengeance blackens the soul.” I think deep down, Bruce knows that, as soon as he crosses that line, there’s no coming back. It’s not that he’ll suddenly go from taking out the Joker in self-defense to suddenly capping jaywalkers, but it will be a line that, once crossed, he will always keep killing as an open option. In other words, it’s his moral code that keeps him sane, sort of like how “eating my wings”… Read more »
HWalsh
Guest
Escalation is absolutely an issue. If I were a villain in the DCU, specifically Gotham City, I would avoid going *too* lethal. If I am non-lethal, or less lethal, then I am less likely to die. Also, if I know that getting out of jail is pretty easy to accomplish and that the biggest threat to me is a guy who’s just going to, at the most, break a bone, then I am not going to be going on a murder spree. If this guy starts whacking people. Then, at that point, I will always respond with lethal force. Most… Read more »
Rezro
Guest

Yup.. and Police don’t exist.. you whole logic collapse simple on fact that Batman don’t stop whole crime in city. Batman simply work like a Police here.. claiming that it lead to crime escalation is hilariously delusional. Fact prove otherwise.. villains scare of life would bring even tanks in order to protect themselves. It is simply a fact.

Devil's Advocate
Guest

if killing is only an option in most cases and only a course of action for Joker level baddies, I don’t see a problem.

TragicGuineaPig
Guest

If killing is an option, then we’re not talking about Batman anymore. That’s the problem.

TragicGuineaPig
Guest
And here is something else that occurs to me. For all you folks who point out that Arkham and Blackgate don’t seem to be able to hold the villains and think that Batman should kill to stop their threats, here’s a question: How many times have we seen a Batman villain die, ONLY TO COME BACK ALIVE? The most obvious example is Ra’s Al Ghul and his Lazarus Pits. But how many times has the Joker died? And yet, he’s still around? So if your argument is that Batman should kill because it will decisively stop the villains’ threats, NOT… Read more »
cannedfury
Guest

Aside from cherrypicking the only two characters on Lazarus juice, what is even your point any more? If nothing affects anything, there is no correct approach and everything is pointless. You’re admitting it’s all just a cheap writing copout to preserve the status quo. People saying Batman should kill are asking to move on from that status quo, not an even dumber excuse to endlessly recycle it harder.

Rezro
Guest

No they are teen edgelord who ignore that Batman did kill when needed and want him to become a serial killer what is already corruption destroying franchise.. look at BvS or other Frank Miller shitty works.

Devil's Advocate
Guest

again, why do you assume because people want Batman to kill SOME criminals, they must want him to kill ALL criminals?

Rezro
Guest

Because it usually work that way.. a murderer at first search excuse to kill and after some time start lowering own demand as there is no clear line anyway, so why not kill them all? Batman never should want kill anyone because he isn’t crazy, he simply need do that sometimes. Ironically Punisher also don’t want kill people, he do that because he see that as only option. And do you know who do that? Well you see example with the Barns..

Devil's Advocate
Guest

the Punisher still only kills the worst criminals, he doesn’t kill purse snatchers.

Rezro
Guest

That doesn’t make him less crazy and I’m sure there are exceptions from that.. after all he did try force Daredevil to kill him just to prove own point. Also his arc involve him to be mobile so he always fallow worst kind of crime. That isn’t the case of the Batman.

cannedfury
Guest
“No they are teen edgelord” As opposed the holier than thou Bat-God worshipers who condescend on everybody with a different opinion? “Batman never should want kill anyone because he isn’t crazy” What with your strawmanning, I figured it would be fair to call you a Bat-God fanboy. But by not even admitting he’s a little kooky, you’re doing it for me. “look at BvS or other Frank Miller shitty works.” Before Frank Miller lost his mind, he also did the two of the most lauded Batman stories of all time: Year One and TDKR. He kills the Joker in the… Read more »
Rezro
Guest
Do you seriously think that blind reversal of perspective make you smart? We debate here about character and people minus people here just for pointing the facts, what is downright hilarious. You may like Frank Miller or killer-bat but use f*g fact about him in debate not own believes about character. Also he is crazy only in some interpretations.. mostly Frank Miler ones. Ne never was crazy in TAS or good comic books as he do have reasons to work undercover. He also did kill Joker many times (fans know why). Just in most cases comic were subtle or hypocritical… Read more »
cannedfury
Guest

“f*g fact”? Wow. You’re not just out of touch but a complete shitheel. People who like Frank Miller wouldn’t say he lost his mind. The entire point of a gray area is not to be a “blind reversal of perspective.” Now demonstrate your genius and tell us when Batman subtly killed the Joker.

Kelvarin Blight
Guest

It has always been my impression that Batman does not kill the Joker, and some of the other villains, because at some point he might be “cured”. And therefore the good he could do for mankind would out weight the evil he has done. All that said I agree with Rob at some point killing him becomes a moral choice, and I agree with others when they that one kill does not force Batman down that path permanently. All in all a great discussion I enjoyed it keep up the great work.

Devil's Advocate
Guest

and Terry from Batman Beyond indirectly kills villains a lot and Bruce never objects.

TragicGuineaPig
Guest

Key word: INDIRECTLY. It’s not that Terry has assumed the role of executioner, but rather that certain baddies have by their own actions brought about their own demise.

Devil's Advocate
Guest

what about when he forced the Venom slapper guy to overdose?

cannedfury
Guest

Or fried the Joker out of Tim? Why didn’t he try to upload his consciousness to a virtual recreation of an easily escapable prison?

MartenFerret
Guest

Batman doesn’t take justice into his own hands, per se. Rather, he captures and arrests criminals, leaving them to the mercy of society and the justice system. It is the latter that fails, enabling the criminals to escape once more. Batman won’t protect society from its own stupidity – that’s a fight he could never win! XD

TragicGuineaPig
Guest

Exactly my point! Batman isn’t a judge or executioner; he hasn’t been appointed to determine life or death for anyone, and he doesn’t assume that role for himself. That’s one of the driving points of his character, a central element of his moral code. To suddenly having him kill anyone – even someone as terrible and as dangerous as the Joker – would make him something other than Batman. If you want him to be the Punisher, just go read The Punisher.

Rezro
Guest

Well, except Punisher is a villain who just happen target other villains, and only those avoiding arrest warrants, organized crime mobs or those trying kill him. Batman on the other hand work in deeper gray zone, when many of his enemies are mental patients or low rank thugs.

It is why both Punisher and TAS Batman are good characters, when Frank Miller killer-Batman is hideous caricature worshiped be edge teenagers.

Swarmcrow
Guest

10:58 in the dark knight rises he has because at the end of the dark knight he took the blame for the murders Dent did … he is not longer a symbol of good

Rezro
Guest

When he ever was symbol of good? Well outside for simple minded teens.. for GCPD he is another mental patient running around the city, whet just happen help the and not criminals. They tolerate him as much as he is beneficial for them.

Swarmcrow
Guest

in batman under the redhood ..BATMAN does Choice between jokers life and jason

the first time it seems he found a ways to disarm Jason but jason activated a bunch of bombs and joker take control of the situation … so batman punch and knocks down joker toward the bombs and rescue Jason

the point of the story is getting batman getting over the dumb idea that he ever cross the line he would be lost

Rezro
Guest

And Joker did back from grave anyway.. how surprising 0_0

Devil's Advocate
Guest

also, Batman’s early stories are from a different universe, Pre-Crisis Earth-Two. and thanks to Convergence, that reality exists again, so Earth-Two Batman kills.

Daniel Brizuela
Guest

Depends on the situation.

wpDiscuz