The difference between Batman and The Punisher [Archive]

mattsolo

04/13/2004, 13:29

Batman is Su(ky and the Punisher is AWSOME! The Punisher could so Kick Batmans butt with all those guns and knives and bombs and stuff, Batman wouldn't know what hit him.

*waits for thugit to exsplode with laughter*
But Really I think that Batman and the Punisher are 2 totally incomparable characters... Bare with me. Batman, Daredevil, Spiderman, Superman are all characters that are written to high light a Positive aspect of Humanity, ie Superman the boy scout or Batman fights crime but refuses to kill. But the Punisher highlights a Negative aspect of humanity. Something (unfortunately) lots of people can Identify with. He (like Ghost Rider) is Vengeance incarnate. His enemies choose wrong and must die for their transgressions. I like the Punisher not because he is a mindless killing machine, but because he takes action keeping innocents safe by bloodying his own hands. “It’s not revenge, It’s Punishment”

CaptainMarvel

04/13/2004, 13:31

Originally posted by mattsolo
Batman is Su(ky and the Punisher is AWSOME! The Punisher could so Kick Batmans butt with all those guns and knives and bombs and stuff, Batman wouldn't know what hit him.

*waits for thugit to exsplode with laughter*
But Really I think that Batman and the Punisher are 2 totally incomparable characters... Bare with me. Batman, Daredevil, Spiderman, Superman are all characters that are written to high light a Positive aspect of Humanity, ie Superman the boy scout or Batman fights crime but refuses to kill. But the Punisher highlights a Negative aspect of humanity. Something (unfortunately) lots of people can Identify with. He (like Ghost Rider) is Vengeance incarnate. His enemies choose wrong and must die for their transgressions. I like the Punisher not because he is a mindless killing machine, but because he takes action keeping innocents safe by bloodying his own hands. “It’s not revenge, It’s Punishment”

Very well put.

mattsolo

04/13/2004, 13:33

Originally posted by ReZourceman
I don't really like batman and i do like the punisher.
so i had better not comment. Thanks for the insite! You really struck a cord of truth with that one. What would we do with out this great fountain of useful opinion. Why don't you go amount to nothing some where else!

Cheng

04/13/2004, 13:35

As others have pointed out:

The major difference is the Punisher rarely has to face the same opponent twice.

kamui

04/13/2004, 13:37

Well, my feelings on this are as follows...

I like Batman's motivation and projection of it better. Maybe because he's had one of the most horrible things happen to him that could happen to an individual and instead of breaking down and losing it. He channels it, and that's what I like.

I suppose, that's the same reason I like Spider-man, instead of just losing it over something he could have prevented, he channeled his courage and resolve to try and make things right.

The Punisher has always just been a cold hearted killer. Never really liked the character either, his motivations were there, but I thought he channeled it in the wrong way. Don't get me wrong, I don't think he's a bad character, just not one I'm going to pick up and read.

And here's my $.02, keep the change.

Cheng

04/13/2004, 13:37

Originally posted by mattsolo
Thanks for the insite! You really struck a cord of truth with that one. What would we do with out this great fountain of useful opinion. Why don't you go amount to nothing some where else!

I thought we as a community were trying to stop being so negative and combative.

JacinB

04/13/2004, 13:38

Batman is a hero. The reasons he fights are to prevent anyone from facing what he went through. He is violent, and uses violence as a tool, but he does not kill.

Punisher is a villain. He fights only for vengeance. He kills those he sees as being the reason behind his family's murder.

In Batman comics, there was a commentary on the Punisher using a character with a similar history, methods, and background: Huntress. Batman repeatedly condemned her methods and had sought to prevent her from operating in Gotham altogether until such time as she 'reformed' and began playing by his rules.

So, I think Batman would understand what drives Frank Castle. But I doubt that he would tolerate him.

Castiglione

04/13/2004, 13:47

Once again, I need to point out that Castle is not seeking revenge. Revenge has NOTHING to do with why he kills criminals. This has been discused many times in the book and you can't keep hanging your argument on it, because it's simply false.
It seems that you are unwilling to accept Castle's own determination of what and why he is doing what he does, but comepletely willing to accept Batman's opinion of himself as fact. Why? Just because somebody doesn't agree with you, they must be lying to themselves?

No, Castle's war is to punish the guilty. He hates the criinals with ever fiber of his being, hates them because of what they are and what they do to the world around them.

Batman, well, he has blood on his hands as well. His refusal to kill the Joker is pathological- how many people have died, or will die because the Joker will, once again break out of the revolving door known as Arkham. Even Captain America has killed.
(and I'm not talking during WWII....)

The main difference is that the blood on the Punishers hands is there on purpose. Punishing the guilty is more important to Frank than his own personal integrity. While the Punisher isn't focused on saving the innocent, he hunts the sub-human scum who prey on them because he knows wrong from right. That is the seed of his hatred of criminals.

However, Batman places his own moral superiority above the lives Joker, Bane, et al snuff out every time they break loose. It's not that I have a problem with this character being who it is. Batman's point of view is such that this makes sense. Most super heroes have the same sense of morality. There is nothing wrong with that per se. It's more that the situation in which Batman is often thrusted into shows the absurdty of the position and to me, breaks my suspension of disbelief. Basically, I'm not saying that Batman is a bad character, but that his comic is bad for keeping him locked in a guilded cage, free from failure and immaculate as DC's cash cow. Because Batman can never be allowed to kill, they have had to go to such great lengths to justify him, it seems ridiculous to me.

Matt Murdock is a character similar to the batman, actually a much closer analog than the Punisher ever was. I have no problem with the way DD is written because his rogues gallery aren't such fantastic mass murderers that make his refusal to kill laughable. The worst was Bullseye, who killed 2 of his girlfriends. the beating and verbal breakdown he gave to Bullseye was perfect. If, however, Bulleye is shown breaking out of prison 3 times a year, racking up tripple digit body counts, well, it would get ridiculous.

In the end, neither is 'better' than the other. The only ting anyone of us can say is how we personally see and react to the characters. my opinions are right for me, from my point of view, but I kow they aren't for everyone else's point of view. Because we are talking about comic book characters, there are no real lives on the line-we are able to discuss the ideals and the concepts which the characters are alegory for. In the final analysis, we aren't even debating the differnce between the Punihser and Batman....were expressing ourselves on the topics the two characters are meant to elicit analysis off(along side the entertainment value...*S*)

JacinB

04/13/2004, 14:00

Batman is positive. He believes that even someone as bad as the Joker deserves to the opportunity to be rehabilitated, and if that is not possible, to face justice as the law demands.

Punisher is negative. He believes that, as Castiglione puts it, criminals are sub-human and deserve death. Period.

Apparently the Punisher doesn't realize that, by real world standards, he is nothing more than a serial killer. He has a consistent method of operations and a specific type of target that he goes after each time.

Whether that target is a criminal or not makes no difference. Punisher remains a serial killer. A mass murderer. He is, in many ways, the very worst of the criminals that he seeks to bring down. And the irony is that he doesn't seem to 'get it'.

Batman, on the other hand, struggles to keep himself above those whom he seeks to bring to justice. Despite his 'human' desire for vengeance, he would rather have justice. Not justice as determined by his own morality, but justice as determined by the law.

The methods that you use, and whether or not you are willing to sacrifice your morality to meet your ends, is -- whether Punisher fans wish to admit it or not -- the very thing that makes someone either a hero or a villain.

Batman is a hero. Punisher is not.

Ro-gan

04/13/2004, 14:00

Batman beats everyone.

:confused: :noid: :cheeky: :rolleyes: :confused:

Carp In A Hat! Just read your fine print, thugit. ;)

I agree with you (that's scary :laugh: ).

Bruce was but a child when he witnessed his parents gunned done solely for greed. This affected him psychologically on too many levels to even begin to comprehend.

Suffice it to say his entire life after this tragic event has shaped and ruled his life. Read 'ruled' as obsession.

Frank witnessed his family gunned down by mobsters. Frank was an adult. An adult who had already witnessed the horrors and brutality of the war (Vietnam). Frank, as an adult, shouldn't (I say 'shouldn't' and not 'will not' to save myself from getting flamed) have been affected the same as Bruce, who was only 9 (?) at the time of his parents being murdered.

A child witnessing something so mind-numbingly horrible as what Bruce saw is not the same as an adult witnessing the same or similar thing.

That is the psychological difference between Frank and Bruce. During an era when psychology and counselors weren't readily available for kids/adults, Bruce's emotional and psychological scars only worsened as he got older. Perhaps, if Bruce's parent's murders occurred during the 2000's, and with all the professional help available to trauma victims, The Batman would not have come about.

You can almost stretch it to say Frank chose his vigilante lifestyle after his family was killed in the crossfire. Bruce's vigilante obsession was chosen for him by a killer's gunfire.

Frank, being an adult, knew/should have known better to choose being a cold-blooded vigilante killer.

Bruce, a child, with possibly no or very little professional help available to him right after the murders, had his vigilante life chosen for him.

dougmac

04/13/2004, 14:03

Whoa! Brain freeze! :grin:

Seriously,I always felt Batman was vigilanteism with limits (higher personal moral ground) and Punisher was vigilanteism without limit. But I always preferred the early Punisher, who was more of an unpaid assassin, and less an ultimate killing machine, who would assist whomever most closely served his purpose.

Gentlegamer

04/13/2004, 14:08

In Kingdome Come, was Magog just in killing the Joker, or was Superman just in arresting Magog for murder?

Originally posted by Castiglione
Once again, I need to point out that Castle is not seeking revenge. Revenge has NOTHING to do with why he kills criminals. This has been discused many times in the book and you can't keep hanging your argument on it, because it's simply false.
It seems that you are unwilling to accept Castle's own determination of what and why he is doing what he does, but comepletely willing to accept Batman's opinion of himself as fact. Why? Just because somebody doesn't agree with you, they must be lying to themselves?

No, Castle's war is to punish the guilty. He hates the criinals with ever fiber of his being, hates them because of what they are and what they do to the world around them.

Batman, well, he has blood on his hands as well. His refusal to kill the Joker is pathological- how many people have died, or will die because the Joker will, once again break out of the revolving door known as Arkham. Even Captain America has killed.
(and I'm not talking during WWII....)

The main difference is that the blood on the Punishers hands is there on purpose. Punishing the guilty is more important to Frank than his own personal integrity. While the Punisher isn't focused on saving the innocent, he hunts the sub-human scum who prey on them because he knows wrong from right. That is the seed of his hatred of criminals.

However, Batman places his own moral superiority above the lives Joker, Bane, et al snuff out every time they break loose. It's not that I have a problem with this character being who it is. Batman's point of view is such that this makes sense. Most super heroes have the same sense of morality. There is nothing wrong with that per se. It's more that the situation in which Batman is often thrusted into shows the absurdty of the position and to me, breaks my suspension of disbelief. Basically, I'm not saying that Batman is a bad character, but that his comic is bad for keeping him locked in a guilded cage, free from failure and immaculate as DC's cash cow. Because Batman can never be allowed to kill, they have had to go to such great lengths to justify him, it seems ridiculous to me.

Matt Murdock is a character similar to the batman, actually a much closer analog than the Punisher ever was. I have no problem with the way DD is written because his rogues gallery aren't such fantastic mass murderers that make his refusal to kill laughable. The worst was Bullseye, who killed 2 of his girlfriends. the beating and verbal breakdown he gave to Bullseye was perfect. If, however, Bulleye is shown breaking out of prison 3 times a year, racking up tripple digit body counts, well, it would get ridiculous.

In the end, neither is 'better' than the other. The only ting anyone of us can say is how we personally see and react to the characters. my opinions are right for me, from my point of view, but I kow they aren't for everyone else's point of view. Because we are talking about comic book characters, there are no real lives on the line-we are able to discuss the ideals and the concepts which the characters are alegory for. In the final analysis, we aren't even debating the differnce between the Punihser and Batman....were expressing ourselves on the topics the two characters are meant to elicit analysis off(along side the entertainment value...*S*)

Slade Wilson

04/13/2004, 14:17

Punisher is not a hero no doubt but he dosent claim to be hes just doing what he feels the law wont do taking scum off the streets. Batman would most likley win if they fought but what a great battle that would be. I know they did meet in a crossover but it really didnt put them too much against each other. Id love to see a story where castle comes to gotham to get a mook who went to there to hide kills the mook and his men and then faces batman who wants to take castle in for his killing spree in gotham, it could end with batman beating castle after 1 mean knock down drag out battle hand to hand (because castle wouldnt kill batman hes not a criminal) castle could be taken into custody and escape in a transfer to arkahm. that would be sweet!

Supes

04/13/2004, 14:18

Yeah but Punisher rarely has to deal with people like Batman does.

How much of a man does it take to constantly get shot at all day every day and not finally crack and pick up guns and finish it... a very noble one that can still look in the mirror and be content.

Punisher is a man with no spine and thus has become exactly what he is looking to destroy. He became a murder to stop the murders... uh yeah. Pot calling the kettle black to me.

For the record Batman never killed any humans... in his early times he has...

Killed vampires with silver bullets from his "Bat Pistol"
Allowed people to burn to death or otherwise die by their own accord but doesn't attempt to save them.

The editors at DC decided that Batman shouldn't kill as he would be no better than the villians he fought plus it allowed for his more colorful villians to return. How interesting would Batman be if he had killed Joker, Two Face, Penguin, and the rest when he first faced them (they originally wanted him to off the joker but decided for this chance and wanted to keep this great villian for him)

So if this isn't a vs (for the record if Batman can take down the freaking General among other people much more powerful and threatening than Frank Castle with a mad-on ... I think the Punisher would be punished hard core) and we are just debating the two characters...

Batman through and through. Do you stand behind someone that gets back at a shop lifter by stealing his things? Do you stand behind a person who gets back at a rapist by raping his wife? Do you stand by the person who kills a murder when the murder wasn't coming after him?

I sure hope not or Hades is due for a much larger expansion.

doctorfate77

04/13/2004, 14:21

Let's use an example; Bane.

In a more recent storyline, Bane has basically been forgiven and is basically an accepted member of the Bat-family. This is the man who broke Bruce's back, and nearly killed him. The actions which resulted in Jean Paul taking the mantle of the Bat. However, it was Bruce himself, against the better judgment of the entire bat-family, that wanted to give Bane a second chance. Frank Castle... would have to decide where to bury the pieces.

Superman said it best 'when you peel everything else away, all that's left is a man who doesn'y want to see anyone die.'

Punisher drives OTHER heroes to band together to stop him.

Batman is a hero in the truest sense. He forsakes a life of luxury and ease to make sure no one has to ever hurt the way he did. Even the world's greatest hero, Superman, can't live up to those standards. Had Clark not gained super powers, would he still choose to fight crime?

A killer is a killer, and violence begets violence. Frank has long since avenged his family. He is now an addict, and his drug of choice are the lives of those who happen to have lower standards than he. He's not a hero, he's a junkie. No better than some of the pushers he kills.

Supes

04/13/2004, 14:24

For the record... Batman was all too willing to kill the Joker during the Hush line. Jim talked him out of it saying...

If you kill him than you are no better than every other murder and crook you have fought your whole life to defeat. Don't allow him to win. (paraphrasing)

The temptation is there. But his morals are stronger than that.

AKA... Batman is a hero. Punisher is just a murder who targets those he deems guilty. (Don't get me started on Wolverine)

thugit

04/13/2004, 14:26

Originally posted by Supes

Batman through and through. Do you stand behind someone that gets back at a shop lifter by stealing his things? Do you stand behind a person who gets back at a rapist by raping his wife? Do you stand by the person who kills a murder when the murder wasn't coming after him?

I completely agree. I think we let our own "thirst for vengeance" take over sometimes, and there's a little bit in all of us that wants to see "vengeance" like the Punisher deals out. That said, that doesn't make it right.

Batman draws a line, and holds out hope that somewhere, someway, the villians he deals with will reform. He's not responsible for the Joker killing anyone anymore than a missionary who is killed by a religious terrorist. The Joker makes his decision to kill. Batman stops him, but won't take his life, because he's then no better than the Joker.

Supes

04/13/2004, 14:28

Even the world's greatest hero, Superman, can't live up to those standards. Had Clark not gained super powers, would he still choose to fight crime?

If he didn't have those powers he'd still fight crime in his own way. Remember Clark is not the tool... Clark is the mask Superman wears.

Also I discovered something. When Superman first found out about Kandor (that piece of Krypton in a bottle where he is powerless) he became a crimefighter much like Batman named... get this Nightwing. (this was way back in the 50's)

Ro-gan

04/13/2004, 14:32

Originally posted by Supes
...When Superman first found out about Kandor (that piece of Krypton in a bottle where he is powerless) he became a crimefighter much like Batman named... get this Nightwing. (this was way back in the 50's)

And, sadly (meaning I am getting old), I remember reading these stories firsthand when they came out and I would get them off the spinny rack at my local drug store.

uroboros

04/13/2004, 14:33

Regardless of the fact that Bruce doesn't kill, it's still silly to imply that he's not insane or hasn't lost it. He dresses like a bat and karate chops criminals. That's pretty darn crazy. The difference is Bruce's insanity wont allow him to kill, as senseless death is pretty much his motivation, and Frank's will, as it was something he obviously had to reconcile himself with many times before ever donning the skull. Personally, I wouldn't emulate either of them so consider neither a hero. However I appreciate each as fictional characters and a means to reflect on my own feelings towards the issues these fellows face daily in their respective books.

Ro-gan

04/13/2004, 14:34

Although the stories I read where Superman was using his Nightwing persona occurred in the 1970's, not the 1950's.

:confused: I'm not that old. ;)

thugit

04/13/2004, 14:40

Originally posted by Supes
If he didn't have those powers he'd still fight crime in his own way. Remember Clark is not the tool... Clark is the mask Superman wears.

I disagree... Bruce Wayne is a mask for Batman, but I think Clark Kent is the "real" guy, not Superman.

Mister J

04/13/2004, 14:40

Originally posted by Supes
If he didn't have those powers he'd still fight crime in his own way. Remember Clark is not the tool... Clark is the mask Superman wears.

Also I discovered something. When Superman first found out about Kandor (that piece of Krypton in a bottle where he is powerless) he became a crimefighter much like Batman named... get this Nightwing. (this was way back in the 50's)

Yeah, that is where Richard Grayson got the name from when he couldn't be Robin anymore.

CaptainMarvel

04/13/2004, 14:42

Originally posted by Cheng
I thought we as a community were trying to stop being so negative and combative.

You thought wrong!

:laugh:

I'm kidding of course and I'm sure he was being sarcastic.

SilverAgeFlash

04/13/2004, 14:45

Punisher does what he does cause no one else will.
IF there were no punisher think of all the low lvl crime
that would be all over NYC. There also seems to be more
low lvl crime in Marvel than DC probally because all the uber
powerful hero that keep them in check. I dont know about you but i would have to be REALLY stupid to commit a crime in Metropolis or Gotham because i know i will get caught. In marvel you know that if you shoot most of the hero they will go down long enough for you to get away. In short Punisher is a neccarcy evil in a world with a harsher underbelly. I consider Joker and other Bat villains upper crime because they are repeating charecters.

JacinB

04/13/2004, 14:54

So ... Punisher is justified because he only kills the low level street thugs? You mean, like the drug pushers or the gang members ... ? The guys who are far more rehabilitatable than anyone Batman fights?

I'm sorry. I guess I just don't see how killing a low level street thug for something as 'petty' as shoplifting or vandalism makes him a 'necessary evil'. In my mind, it just makes him evil.

The guy is a sociopath. He's a mass murderer. He's no better than those he claims he wants to stop. There is no way to justify his methods. He is a criminal. Period.

Originally posted by SilverAgeFlash
Punisher does what he does cause no one else will.
IF there were no punisher think of all the low lvl crime
that would be all over NYC. There also seems to be more
low lvl crime in Marvel than DC probally because all the uber
powerful hero that keep them in check. I dont know about you but i would have to be REALLY stupid to commit a crime in Metropolis or Gotham because i know i will get caught. In marvel you know that if you shoot most of the hero they will go down long enough for you to get away. In short Punisher is a neccarcy evil in a world with a harsher underbelly. I consider Joker and other Bat villains upper crime because they are repeating charecters.

CaptainMarvel

04/13/2004, 14:57

Punisher may not be a “hero” but you can’t deny that he makes the world a safer place to live. He doesn’t go around blasting every thing he sees, just the badies.

JacinB

04/13/2004, 15:00

Ends can never be used to justify the means.

Originally posted by CaptainMarvel
Punisher may not be a “hero” but you can’t deny that he makes the world a safer place to live. He doesn’t go around blasting every thing he sees, just the badies.

CaptainMarvel

04/13/2004, 15:02

Originally posted by JacinB
So ... Punisher is justified because he only kills the low level street thugs? You mean, like the drug pushers or the gang members ... ? The guys who are far more rehabilitatable than anyone Batman fights?

I'm sorry. I guess I just don't see how killing a low level street thug for something as 'petty' as shoplifting or vandalism makes him a 'necessary evil'. In my mind, it just makes him evil.

The guy is a sociopath. He's a mass murderer. He's no better than those he claims he wants to stop. There is no way to justify his methods. He is a criminal. Period.

You know what all the above is true. You know what else? He doesn't take kindly to people judging him so you should watch your mouth.:p

Kidding of course. Just a little comic relief.

CaptainMarvel

04/13/2004, 15:10

Originally posted by JacinB
Ends can never be used to justify the means.

There is a father who keeps trying to kill his ex wife and kid. He's beat them once or twice and put her in the hospital. Now he gets caught the first time. Then he tries again. Then he breaks out of prison. Granted it's Batman who put him in prison but it's Punsher who gave that woman and her baby peace for the rest of thier lives.

Some times they can.

Gentlegamer

04/13/2004, 15:10

I wonder what Judge Dredd would say about Punisher's and Batman's vigilantism . . .

CaptainMarvel

04/13/2004, 15:12

Originally posted by Gentlegamer
I wonder what Judge Dredd would say about Punisher's and Batman's vigilantism . . .

You have been Judged......RATATATATATATATATTATTAT!

:laugh:

rouge2

04/13/2004, 15:15

What you have here are two characters coming into a medium from wildly different historical perspectives.

Batman was originally based on a lot of the Pulp heroes of the time. Initially, like them he carried a gun and dispatched villains. But the values of the “Super-hero” were still in it’s infancy at that stage and quickly evolved into the moral platform that became the mold of other characters to follow. These characters were paragons of virtue and meant to set an example for the intended audience. Super-Heroes didn’t kill any more than they broached any other moral boundaries (drinking, sex, etc.). The “revenge” aspect of Batman’s origin and therefore his motivations were added well after the character’s moral boundaries had been set.

The Punisher was also birthed from Pulp origins. Very specifically, he was a copy of The Executioner (Castle’s early origin was actually direct lift of Mac Bolan’s). This character’s motivations were also transplanted. He was the archetypal “Revenge Killer”; An Anti-hero who killed the bad guys without remorse and was guaranteed by the narrative complete assurance that all his victims were guilty and deserving of their fate. He had a slow start, but with the rise in other media of similar protagonist’s (See “Death Wish” movies for a start), that character became a huge hit in the 80s.

Now here’s the issue: neither character is designed to live in the other’s universe. Both live in fictional worlds where the morality is pre-set for them to play by specific rules.

The Punisher kills because that’s the genre he’s in. His brand of escapist fantasy allows the reader to believe that the bad guys are so absolutely bad that violence in the extreme is justified and that Frank is unquestionably “right”.

Batman’s brand of fantasy is not as concerned with the revenge aspect (despite it being core to the character) as it is showing the protagonist as a morally triumphant hero. He does the right thing, or at least aspires to. He won’t take a life, because it’s wrong regardless of the circumstances. The hero overcomes personal temptation like “vengeance” and inspires to a higher noble ideal (“Justice”), and his world rewards him because of it.

Now, the modern comics era has caused a collision of sorts between the two genres, and their incompatibility shows. Batman’s been made a lot “Darker” in relatively recent years, which is at odds with the character’s morality and hence we’ve gotten a lot of Batman character study trying to determine what makes him tick and bringing into question his sanity. Punisher, alternately, has had to have storylines trying to “justify” what he does. Any such argument, however, is counter-productive to the character as his genre allows that he doesn’t need justification.

One user brought up Suspension of Disbelief, and specifically how Batman stretches it when he doesn’t kill the obvious killers. He doesn’t stretch it if you take it in the context of his own universe where that line of thinking is completely alien. Similarly Punisher would stretch similar lines if you placed him in Batman’s world. No one could get away with that much violence and killing and not be inherently evil or at least do harm to the greater good.

Neither character is “more right” compared to the other, as they represent two different brands of fantasy. Neither would hold up in the “real” world, so they must be accepted by their conventions. Either you like watching Frank blow away the bad guy, or you appreciate the high moral ground Bruce takes. Neither is “wrong”, it’s just the fantasy you want to indulge.

PMMJ

04/13/2004, 15:16

Originally posted by CaptainMarvel
Punisher may not be a “hero” but you can’t deny that he makes the world a safer place to live. He doesn’t go around blasting every thing he sees, just the badies.

So, why doesn't the Punisher kill himself, since he's a mass murderer?

Gentlegamer

04/13/2004, 15:19

Excellent analysis and explanation of the two characters and genres!

Originally posted by rouge2
What you have here are two characters coming into a medium from wildly different historical perspectives.

Batman was originally based on a lot of the Pulp heroes of the time. Initially, like them he carried a gun and dispatched villains. But the values of the “Super-hero” were still in it’s infancy at that stage and quickly evolved into the moral platform that became the mold of other characters to follow. These characters were paragons of virtue and meant to set an example for the intended audience. Super-Heroes didn’t kill any more than they broached any other moral boundaries (drinking, sex, etc.). The “revenge” aspect of Batman’s origin and therefore his motivations were added well after the character’s moral boundaries had been set.

The Punisher was also birthed from Pulp origins. Very specifically, he was a copy of The Executioner (Castle’s early origin was actually direct lift of Mac Bolan’s). This character’s motivations were also transplanted. He was the archetypal “Revenge Killer”; An Anti-hero who killed the bad guys without remorse and was guaranteed by the narrative complete assurance that all his victims were guilty and deserving of their fate. He had a slow start, but with the rise in other media of similar protagonist’s (See “Death Wish” movies for a start), that character became a huge hit in the 80s.

Now here’s the issue: neither character is designed to live in the other’s universe. Both live in fictional worlds where the morality is pre-set for them to play by specific rules.

The Punisher kills because that’s the genre he’s in. His brand of escapist fantasy allows the reader to believe that the bad guys are so absolutely bad that violence in the extreme is justified and that Frank is unquestionably “right”.

Batman’s brand of fantasy is not as concerned with the revenge aspect (despite it being core to the character) as it is showing the protagonist as a morally triumphant hero. He does the right thing, or at least aspires to. He won’t take a life, because it’s wrong regardless of the circumstances. The hero overcomes personal temptation like “vengeance” and inspires to a higher noble ideal (“Justice”), and his world rewards him because of it.

Now, the modern comics era has caused a collision of sorts between the two genres, and their incompatibility shows. Batman’s been made a lot “Darker” in relatively recent years, which is at odds with the character’s morality and hence we’ve gotten a lot of Batman character study trying to determine what makes him tick and bringing into question his sanity. Punisher, alternately, has had to have storylines trying to “justify” what he does. Any such argument, however, is counter-productive to the character as his genre allows that he doesn’t need justification.

One user brought up Suspension of Disbelief, and specifically how Batman stretches it when he doesn’t kill the obvious killers. He doesn’t stretch it if you take it in the context of his own universe where that line of thinking is completely alien. Similarly Punisher would stretch similar lines if you placed him in Batman’s world. No one could get away with that much violence and killing and not be inherently evil or at least do harm to the greater good.

Neither character is “more right” compared to the other, as they represent two different brands of fantasy. Neither would hold up in the “real” world, so they must be accepted by their conventions. Either you like watching Frank blow away the bad guy, or you appreciate the high moral ground Bruce takes. Neither is “wrong”, it’s just the fantasy you want to indulge.

PopeJ-rod

04/13/2004, 15:23

I think anyone that has deluded themselves into thinking that Batman is not a criminal needs to reread the comic. How often has batman committed the offense of Breaking and Entering or Theft of police documents and evidence. As far as the legal system is concerned both of these characters should eb locked away and have the key thrown away. I agree that the what the Punisher does is morally reprehensible, but he is not a serial killer, at least by the FBI definition; the profile of a serial killer is more complicated than just a pattern of killing, there is a list of several other criteria, like keeping trophies of victims. Check the profile of Ed Gein, he met most of the criteria. The Punisher is a mass murderer, vigilante, and most certainly a few sandwiches shy of a picnic. I like both characters for different reasons. They have each made the choice to devote their lives to making criminals pay for their crimes, but they go about it in very different manners.

I must admit though that one of my favorite books is a one shot entitled " The Punisher kills the Marvel Universe." The way that Dr. Doom goes down had me in stitches, but I have a rather dark sense of humor.

Perfectstorm

04/13/2004, 15:28

Batman and Punisher are mearly 2 sides to the same coin. They are both fighting for the same thing, but going about it in differnet ways. Frank draws apon his hatred from scum, and gets rid of them the best way he knows how, the way he was taught, the way of war.
Bruce is driven by his hatred for those who harm the innocent, but he knows that he can't sink to there level.

If both heros suceed, Batman would eventually become cruce again. He would live his life in the perfect world where no little kid sees their parents murdered.

Castle would kill himself. He knows that he is doing the right thing, through the wrong means, its just the only way he knows how. He knows that he is only a slight step up from the scum he kills, and once they are gone, he is the bottom of the barrel.

Batman can't deal with his problem, beucase the same horrors keep comign back, cuase he can't finish them off.
Castle can't deal with his, becuase he slowly became his problem, in that he is now what he hates.

Even after everything is said and done, these two will keep fighting, cuase they know nothing else anymore.

Perfectstorm

04/13/2004, 15:28

Sorry Double post

CaptainMarvel

04/13/2004, 15:30

Originally posted by PMMJ
So, why doesn't the Punisher kill himself, since he's a mass murderer?

I really hope you are joking.

DeonBeast

04/13/2004, 15:33

Consider the legal system and how it can be worked over.

Consider how money and contacts can be utilized to get away with nearly anything.

Consider that some offenders have super powers and have repeated killed mass numbers of people... and are more than willing to do it again and again.

The system isn't made to handle those who have the money and power to keep killing.

So I blame society. :grin:

Y'know, for all Batman's wealth and skill, why doesn't he allocate more funds to legal and incarceration facility improvement? If you bring'em in alive, you should be able to put'em in a place they can't break out of all the time, both legally and physically...

PMMJ

04/13/2004, 15:35

Originally posted by PopeJ-rod
I agree that the what the Punisher does is morally reprehensible, but he is not a serial killer, at least by the FBI definition; the profile of a serial killer is more complicated than just a pattern of killing, there is a list of several other criteria, like keeping trophies of victims.

Taken from Wikipedia.org (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killer) :
The Bureau of Justice Statistics defines a serial killing as: '(involving) the killing of several victims in three or more separate events.'
and
Although the terms "serial killer" and "mass murderer" are often used synonymously, criminologists distinguish the two. The following distinctions are commonly made:
. A serial killer is one who commits a number of murders over a long period of time, with the killings separated by often long periods of apparent normalcy.
. A mass murderer, on the other hand, is an individual who kills several people in a single event.
. A spree killer kills in a series of closely connected events.
Not every serial killers take trophies. I haven't seen any definition of a serial killer that Frank doesn't fit to a T.

Oh, and personally, I prefer "Fred Hembeck Destroys the Marvel Universe." But that's me. :}

Kissoon

04/13/2004, 15:37

This whole thread reminds me of "Boondock Saints". I think everyone should read rouge2's post and leave it at that. Obviously there's going to be some bias in choosing a side. I was actually surprised by how many people called the Punisher a mass murderer. Most of these people had DC avatars by the way...but anyway.

PMMJ

04/13/2004, 15:38

Originally posted by DeonBeast
Y'know, for all Batman's wealth and skill, why doesn't he allocate more funds to legal and incarceration facility improvement? If you bring'em in alive, you should be able to put'em in a place they can't break out of all the time, both legally and physically...

Because he's *crazy* and thinks it's a good idea to dress up like a *bat* to fight crime singlehandedly. :}

(They have brought that up before, and people mention how he invests in the police, and researchs new technology for them to use, etc. But in the end, I think it's the dressing up like a bat to punch bad guys thing.)

JacinB

04/13/2004, 15:59

Originally posted by PopeJ-rod
I agree that the what the Punisher does is morally reprehensible, but he is not a serial killer, at least by the FBI definition; the profile of a serial killer is more complicated than just a pattern of killing, there is a list of several other criteria, like keeping trophies of victims.

Actually, no. There is nothing about trophies in the definition.

There FBI has defined at least 43 different classifications of homicide (found in: Crime Classification Manual, by John E. Douglas, et al. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1992).

Here are some of the classifications or murderers, all of which the Punisher is fits into:
1) Mass murder: Killing three or more people at one time, in one location, in one incident.
2) Spree killings: Several murders, one after another at two or more locations, but taking place as one event.
3) Serial homicide: Three or more murders with a cooling-off period between the crimes, often with a fantasy that builds during the cooling-off period leads to premeditation and planning for the next murder.

Serial killers all also noted as being in control of the events leading up to the homicide. They plan their attacks and carefully select their victims. The 'cooling-off period' can be days, weeks, months, or years. And these (ie: not trophies) are the distinquishing characteristics that would classify someone as a serial killer rather than some other type of murderer.

It also notes: "Serial killers are often acting on extreme sadistic urges and are often classified as sociopathic, lacking any ability to empathize with the suffering of others."

By this definition, the Punisher is -- among other things -- a serial killer.

CaptainMarvel

04/13/2004, 16:02

I missed the part where is said killing three serial killers who raped and killed three or more innocent woman and children.

Because if that’s in the definition then he sure is but then that’s the kind of serial killer I wouldn't fear.

Clix776

04/13/2004, 16:06

Originally posted by PMMJ
Oh, and personally, I prefer "Fred Hembeck Destroys the Marvel Universe." But that's me. :} This one I haven't read. But if the opportunity presents itself, get your hands on Sergio Aragones Destroys DC and Sergio Aragones Massacres Marvel. Written by Mark Evanier and drawn by the Mad Marginalist himself, these books are a riot.

Have a Great Day,
Gary E. Poisson

GoldenAge

04/13/2004, 16:31

Punisher fights to punish others... Batman fights to punish himself.

GoldenAge

04/13/2004, 16:49

Originally posted by rouge2
What you have here are two characters coming into a medium from wildly different historical perspectives.

Batman was originally based on a lot of the Pulp heroes of the time. Initially, like them he carried a gun and dispatched villains. But the values of the “Super-hero” were still in it’s infancy at that stage and quickly evolved into the moral platform that became the mold of other characters to follow. These characters were paragons of virtue and meant to set an example for the intended audience. Super-Heroes didn’t kill any more than they broached any other moral boundaries (drinking, sex, etc.). The “revenge” aspect of Batman’s origin and therefore his motivations were added well after the character’s moral boundaries had been set.

The Punisher was also birthed from Pulp origins. Very specifically, he was a copy of The Executioner (Castle’s early origin was actually direct lift of Mac Bolan’s). This character’s motivations were also transplanted. He was the archetypal “Revenge Killer”; An Anti-hero who killed the bad guys without remorse and was guaranteed by the narrative complete assurance that all his victims were guilty and deserving of their fate. He had a slow start, but with the rise in other media of similar protagonist’s (See “Death Wish” movies for a start), that character became a huge hit in the 80s.

Now here’s the issue: neither character is designed to live in the other’s universe. Both live in fictional worlds where the morality is pre-set for them to play by specific rules.

The Punisher kills because that’s the genre he’s in. His brand of escapist fantasy allows the reader to believe that the bad guys are so absolutely bad that violence in the extreme is justified and that Frank is unquestionably “right”.

Batman’s brand of fantasy is not as concerned with the revenge aspect (despite it being core to the character) as it is showing the protagonist as a morally triumphant hero. He does the right thing, or at least aspires to. He won’t take a life, because it’s wrong regardless of the circumstances. The hero overcomes personal temptation like “vengeance” and inspires to a higher noble ideal (“Justice”), and his world rewards him because of it.

Now, the modern comics era has caused a collision of sorts between the two genres, and their incompatibility shows. Batman’s been made a lot “Darker” in relatively recent years, which is at odds with the character’s morality and hence we’ve gotten a lot of Batman character study trying to determine what makes him tick and bringing into question his sanity. Punisher, alternately, has had to have storylines trying to “justify” what he does. Any such argument, however, is counter-productive to the character as his genre allows that he doesn’t need justification.

One user brought up Suspension of Disbelief, and specifically how Batman stretches it when he doesn’t kill the obvious killers. He doesn’t stretch it if you take it in the context of his own universe where that line of thinking is completely alien. Similarly Punisher would stretch similar lines if you placed him in Batman’s world. No one could get away with that much violence and killing and not be inherently evil or at least do harm to the greater good.

Neither character is “more right” compared to the other, as they represent two different brands of fantasy. Neither would hold up in the “real” world, so they must be accepted by their conventions. Either you like watching Frank blow away the bad guy, or you appreciate the high moral ground Bruce takes. Neither is “wrong”, it’s just the fantasy you want to indulge.

This is a perfectly equitable look at both these characters. However, I don't think that it solves the question without room for rebuttal.

True both of these characters stem from different eras and philosophies. However, as rogue2 has noted, they HAVE "collided" in time and now sit side-by-side on the shelves, equally accessible to the new 12-year-old reader. They are both the same comic-book fantasy to the new reader. This idea is important when you remember that these characters do NOT exist in a void. They also share the shelves with dark avengers like Daredevil, Blade, Spawn and so many others.

This comparison between Punisher and the Batman could be completed with rogue2's comments. However, I believe that the fundamental question "to kill or not to kill" is a broader and more important issue that demands investigation and open conversation.

BigSoph

04/13/2004, 16:52

Originally posted by mattsolo

(snippage) Bare with me. (snippage)

Okay if we both have to get naked to appreciate your argument, this is getting a little creepy!

GoldenAge

04/13/2004, 17:01

Punisher fights to punish others... Batman fights to punish himself.

JacinB

04/13/2004, 17:03

Originally posted by GoldenAge
Punisher fights to punish others... Batman fights to punish himself.

Yeah, yeah. You already said that (in post #53). ;)

BigSoph

04/13/2004, 17:04

Batman seeks to prevent further deaths

Sadly he utterly refuses to kill. Sometimes it is necessary (sad but true)
He is angry at himself for not stopping the crime of his parents' death

Punisher doesn't bother with revenge. He is out to kill all the criminals. Any criminal could be the one that guns down a family (like his)
He is out to prevent it happening again
The irony of course is the fact that his indiscriminate violence will hurt innocent people too.

Batman is insane. He is closer to the thugs he fights than he is willing to accept
Castle adopts the enemy's method but he is not profiting from his personal war

thugit

04/13/2004, 17:08

Originally posted by BigSoph

Batman is insane.

That's just absolutely not true. If you believe that, then Superman, the X-Men, Daredevil, and every single superhero out there is insane also.

Not knocking you, but that's just such a cliche, and it's wrong.

DeonBeast

04/13/2004, 17:12

Death of a family member is traumatic and makes people do weird and mysterious things.

If cancer was a person I would definately seek to cleave it's head from it's body. Don't ask me how far I'd go if someone hurt anyone I love. But how far would you go?

EeeeEEeee-vil...

DeonBeast

04/13/2004, 17:14

Originally posted by thugit
That's just absolutely not true. If you believe that, then Superman, the X-Men, Daredevil, and every single superhero out there is insane also.

Not knocking you, but that's just such a cliche, and it's wrong.

Well, they do wear spandex... :p

And we're all a li'l crazy. :confused:

SilverAgeFlash

04/13/2004, 17:16

At his core Bruce is a scared little boy who has the money and power to do something but doesnt exactly know how.

Punisher is a Angry man who chenges things the only way he knows how, killing.

As for the ends not justifying the means. History seems to go agaisnt that. A bomb on Japan to hurry up the war. The death of spock in Wraith of Kahn( ok not really history) The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, so killin a "few" bad guys to save everyone else is good.

JacinB

04/13/2004, 17:20

Originally posted by SilverAgeFlash
At his core Bruce is a scared little boy who has the money and power to do something but doesnt exactly know how.

Punisher is a Angry man who chenges things the only way he knows how, killing.

Your description of Bruce is entirely inaccurate.

Bruce remembers being the scared little boy and wants to prevent that for everyone else. He has the money and the power to do something, and he does it. He knows exactly how.

Dax

04/13/2004, 17:34

As far as revenge goes...I gotta agree that Punisher is not about that. Watch Boondock Saints sometime. Not only is it an awesome flick, it would better depict Castle's reasoning for doing what he does. Not that I'm saying he's a hero for it.
Batman on the other hand IS vengence. He even refers to himself as that from time to time. He may draw the line at killing, but he does terrorize the terrorists.

What makes them different...a lot. 1) Castle really doesn't have an alter ego to hide behind. 2) The police are not Castle's friend...he's wanted for cryin' out loud. 3) Castle doesn't wear a cape and cowl:grin: . 4) Castle lives in the Marvel Universe... 5) Castle doesn't have criminally insane sociopath villians to thwart...his villians are a little more reality based. 6) Batman has the best sense of humor out ot the two!...read Superman/Batman if you don't believe me.

That's all I can really think of. Their causes are very similar and so are their methods, but beyond that...these are two completely different character archetypes.

SilverAgeFlash

04/13/2004, 17:35

my point is that if he knows what hes doin then how come people keep dieing???

thugit

04/13/2004, 17:37

Originally posted by SilverAgeFlash
my point is that if he knows what hes doin then how come people keep dieing???

It seems to me that people still die in the Marvel Universe. Does that mean Castle doesn't know what he's doing?

Dax

04/13/2004, 17:37

How many people have died under Batman's watch?

DeonBeast

04/13/2004, 17:37

Originally posted by JacinB
Your description of Bruce is entirely inaccurate.

Bruce remembers being the scared little boy and wants to prevent that for everyone else. He has the money and the power to do something, and he does it. He knows exactly how.

Really? Hmm... do we have a body count of how many people that the Joker has killed since his first capture?

Bruce is focused, just in the wrong way. He speaks for rehabilitation but what is the ratio of the criminally aligned to the reformed? Catching the bad guys is never enough... it's noble but without the follow up, ultimately it is futile.

Bruce Wayne has TONS of resources which are all towards one end. And while he is superior at it, it is self-defeating... it accomplishes next to nothing. Although the occasional saving of the world is worth a mention. :grin:

Dax

04/13/2004, 17:39

How many innocents has Castle wrongly killed?

SilverAgeFlash

04/13/2004, 17:39

Deon that is my point thank you

DeonBeast

04/13/2004, 17:40

Originally posted by thugit
It seems to me that people still die in the Marvel Universe. Does that mean Castle doesn't know what he's doing?

They aren't killed by guys Punisher has dealt with? :cool:

Dax

04/13/2004, 17:42

Maybe not directly...

Ro-gan

04/13/2004, 17:42

Originally posted by BigSoph
Sadly he utterly refuses to kill. Sometimes it is necessary (sad but true)
He is angry at himself for not stopping the crime of his parents' death.

I have to disagree here.

The Batman is not angry at himself for not being able to stop the killer of his parents. He was only 9 or so years old. He recognizes that there was nothing he could have done to save his parents.

More correctly, Bruce probably suffers from a psychological term called "Survivor's Guilt."

He feels guilty and hates the fact that his life was spared by the killer while his parents had to die. He has now devoted (obsessively) his life to ensure nobody has to go through the life he has had.

DeonBeast

04/13/2004, 17:42

Originally posted by Dax
How many innocents has Castle wrongly killed?

That is a good question... anyone out there know of a Punisher comic where an innocent was killed by Frank?
(Although he does breed the same vengeance... people he kills have families. They then want to kill him. Nasty circle.)

Dax

04/13/2004, 17:44

He hunted Spiderman...he is not always right.

SilverAgeFlash

04/13/2004, 17:53

Spiderman has been blamed for alot of murders and stuff.
If he thought spiderman was a murder WITH superrpowers he would be the most likely target as he would do the most harm. The end however he didnt kill spiderman, did he?

thugit

04/13/2004, 17:54

Originally posted by DeonBeast
They aren't killed by guys Punisher has dealt with? :cool:

How many people has Punisher robbed of the chance of reforming?

Sure, Batman's A-level villians aren't rehabilitated, but there are other examples in the DCU of people given a chance at LIFE by Batman who reform.

JacinB

04/13/2004, 17:56

Originally posted by Dax
How many people have died under Batman's watch?

How many innocents has Castle wrongly killed?

You're drawing an unequal example, Dax.

Batman is not to blame for the deaths of the people his rogues gallery kills. Period. He is not responsible for their madness, or for their actions.

Not to get too political, but that's like the 9/11 Comission trying to find someone to blame for 9/11. You want to know who's responsible for flying those planes into buildings on 9/11 ... ? I've got the answer for you: the TERRORISTS.

Frank Castle, on the other hand, is directly responsible for the deaths of everyone, guilty or innocent, that is killed by a bullet he fired or an explosion he set off.

JtHM_Dude

04/13/2004, 17:59

batman is a legend and written so well it is uncomparable to any thing but a name few others

punisher is a poorly written character made by marvel to try and appeal at the mentily insane

batman is a hero
punisher is a villian

although i think punisher and bane should have been dealt with lethal force it should have been done by the LAW

if punishers so deserve to die than let the LAW decide

CaptainMarvel

04/13/2004, 18:02

Originally posted by JtHM_Dude
batman is a legend and written so well it is uncomparable to any thing but a name few others

punisher is a poorly written character made by marvel to try and appeal at the mentily insane

batman is a hero
punisher is a villian

although i think punisher and bane should have been dealt with lethal force it should have been done by the LAW

if punishers so deserve to die than let the LAW decide

He said "DON"T" let this turn into a DC vs Marvel fight, not turn it into one:rolleyes:

deal wit' this

04/13/2004, 18:04

Though neither are my favorite characters. It comes down to this (obivosly very simplified statements.

Punisher has hatred

Batman has hope

JtHM_Dude

04/13/2004, 18:04

i wasnj attempting to make a dc vs. marvel fight

i was stating the characters creation and how one is a creative legend and the other is a boring murderer

deal wit' this

04/13/2004, 18:09

I have a question. Would the punisher kill Gambit? Not could he. I know he could. (Gambit is my favorite character so I hate to admit this. But in a fight Punisher would take him apart. Though Gambit is smart enough to realize this and would never be caught.) I guess what I'm asking is what level of criminal does Punisher draw the line at killing?

Starman973

04/13/2004, 18:17

Okay here's the funny thing. Right now I read the punisher, not for the love of the Character, but the love of the writer. And i don't read any Batman title, right now, But i did read durring the Jim Lee story arc. And I do also read JLA. Now why do I like Batman. He's a man so focused in being the batman that he can sneak up on a Telepath. or even vanish from a telepath's perception. Punisher, the reason I like him, is the human parts of him that are still left. His relationship with joan the MOuse I loved. That issue of him showing up in her duck pond is one of my favorite issues.
Now I admit, I don't care for the Mass murderer part that is the punisher. the recent sotry arc in Max has not impressed me. But Batman as a character will always be more interesting cause he is more human than the punisher. Now if you could get a good writer for batman that isn't afriad to have batman make mistakes he has to recover from, like the last two times Deadshot pulled a Hit in Gotham. And I'm happy.

BatMan1

04/13/2004, 18:21

ok the punisher, punishes criminals and dosen't always kill well 99.(% of the time he does and and he dosen't keep a little boy and an old man locked up in a cave like captain tights.

hi im tom

04/13/2004, 18:29

the difference

batman = cool

punisher = loser

:p

Frontman

04/13/2004, 18:30

Batman also dedicated his life to learning how to combat crime. Frank, while he did train in the military, doesn't really use much beyond weaponry to take down bad guys. Not too scientific in anything, unless making sure a machine gun is set to full-auto versus semi-auto.

And, its already been said. Bruce struggles with his dark side, Frank embraces it. Bruce also doesn't have a death wish, unlike Frank. Batman wants to keep fighting crime until he no longer can, Frank doesn't care if he dies tomorrow, as long as the guy who kills him goes with him.

The Frontman

Pericles

04/13/2004, 18:34

i disagree with one thing you said, thugit. i don't think batman has hopes for the "reformation" of joker, or even the riddler, or any of his murderous enemies - he simply disagrees principally with killing, and won't do it. with that in mind, he understands that although in some warped mindset, the joker may be better off dead, batman instead keeps these killers alive in order to learn from them. they are a source of information, a link to a part of the mind that he doesn't have -- or at least cannot touch. batman simply uses their existence as a means to learn about the criminal ongoings within his city, and as a way to dissect the psychotic mind itself.

i think this is an impressive stance on the part of DC. this could probably be interpreted as a small voice against capital punishment. some comics - punisher, for example - are too quick to kill. the interesting part is that the punisher and batman both seem to have lost their handle on reality, but batman has managed to keep a grasp on morality, while good ol' frank castle hasn't. maybe this says something about proponents of the death penalty?

i thoroughly enjoy reading both comics, and collect both of them. i loved batman from when i was a kid, and have been reading punisher ever since jim lee took over punisher war journal back in the day. both comics aren't really great for kids, but when i read it, i understood the reasons frank and bruce did the things they did. both were exhilirating and fun. they remain so today, i think.

nonetheless, this was interesting thread to start, thugit. kudos.

deal wit' this

04/13/2004, 18:35

Hey guys, my question wasn't hypothetical. I would apreciate an answer if you have one?

supermangl1

04/13/2004, 18:38

Punisher represents the desire for many people to take the law into their own hands. He is the person you go to when you want the bad guys to die for what they have done. He is their judge and jury and excutioner. A crime is a crime to him. But who deserves judgement from a angry man, who has become what he hates. Who embraces what he sees as evil. He became a hypocrite from the first time he pulled the trigger and killed a 'criminal' on purpose. He does not defend or protect, he does offer hope to any who may have come from no other way then a path of crime. He is the symbol of hatred, judgement, and has (in my opinion) shed off the last ember of humanity inside of himself. He judges when he himself has no way to truly judge who is evil, because he has caused more heart ache, pain, misery, and hopelessness in the Marvel universe then most of the villians he fights.
Killing a man or woman does not make things right, it does not fix the damage done by that criminal, their death does not bring peace to that widow of a murdered man, at first she may feel justified, but at the end of the day another death will never fill the void made by her lose.

GoldenAge

04/13/2004, 18:44

Originally posted by JacinB
Yeah, yeah. You already said that (in post #53). ;)

oops :cheeky:

GoldenAge

04/13/2004, 19:07

We're just lucky that Frank didn't encounter the likes of Hawkeye, Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver, Rogue, The Vision, Wonder Man, Archangel and other heroes with dubious pasts.

No, I don't mean he'd beat them in a fight... just that redemption is a part of the game.

The Punisher is a one-dimensional idea and that's made it hard for Frank Castle to grow as a character. His ultimate success means the end of an interesting villain that otherwise could lead to new, more sordid stories, personal growth and interesting adversaries.

Think about it... Who's the coolest villain this side of Ronald McDonald? The Joker has become one of the greatest pulp icons in history due to the sheer enjoyment fans take from his continued presence. Imagine if Bats had killed him at their first meeting.

Batman thrives as a character because his rogue's gallery is awesome. The increased understanding of Bruce's inner machinations expands their options and, in turn, makes the Batman develop as a character. So, in my mind, and for my entertainment dollar, it is far better to let the worst villain live rather than send a good idea straight to a dirt nap leaving the same hollow character behind to rinse and repeat.

BatMan1

04/13/2004, 19:11

Frank can kill anyone unless we are talking cosmic powered or onslaught he has the same thinking as bats like weakness and stuff lol whats quicky and scarlet going to do to him? Speedy would just eat claymores and scarlet would #### on hollow points

Rokk_Krinn

04/13/2004, 19:40

I keep reading people's viewpoint that Batman is a failure and causes death by not executing the criminals who then eventually get back out into society. Out of curiosity, do you therefore consider the policemen of our world "failures" and "causers of future death" because they don't just gun down criminals instead of arresting them?

Rokk_Krinn

04/13/2004, 19:42

Now then, being we're supposed to talk about differences between Frank and the Bat, here's one that hasn't been brought up much:

Batman is far more cerebral in his "war" than Frank - far more of the detective, I think. Frank strategizes how to kill a criminal but he doesn't seem to spend as much time trying to track down "cold cases" as the Bat would do in the reverse situation.

DeonBeast

04/13/2004, 20:01

Originally posted by Rokk_Krinn
I keep reading people's viewpoint that Batman is a failure and causes death by not executing the criminals who then eventually get back out into society. Out of curiosity, do you therefore consider the policemen of our world "failures" and "causers of future death" because they don't just gun down criminals instead of arresting them?

It's more the system that is broken. But only with some special cases. Typical everyday crime is handled well by the good men and women in law enforcement. It is the legal and rehabilitation side that is causing the majority of the problem. If you do a crime and have enough money, power and connections you can get away with it. ("If the glove does not fit, you MUST aquit!")

In the DC universe, Batman has a vast rogues gallery. But they ALWAYS come back... and have killed multitudes of innocent characters that will never have a chance to be developed. ;)

I never said I didn't believe in rehabilitation... I don't believe in the legal system.

Supervillians? Pshaw. I know lawyers. Bring'em on! :cool:

Nickel97

04/13/2004, 20:03

Batman is a liberal (outside of the law) seeking to prevent and rehabilitate (hopefully) the criminals. In the end he values humanity (metahumanity?)

Punisher is conservative (outside of the law), jaywalking = electric chair. That'll stop you from being a criminal. In the end he devalues his own humanity.

Both are relatively hypocritical, as they seek justice outside the law. However, Batman's end results usually fall back into the law (He doesn't run Arkham himself, he gets the bad guys when the Police can't, by means that the Police can't use). Batman's means are illegal, but his ends generally are. The Punisher's end results are pretty much illegal (I'm going to Kill you because Killing is wrong). So he's not being legal in terms of Ends or Means.

Mrs. thugit

04/13/2004, 20:15

thugit

04/13/2004, 20:19

Whoops. Forgot to sign my wife out.... The above post is mine!!!

Frontman

04/13/2004, 20:21

Originally posted by Nickel97
Batman is a liberal (outside of the law) seeking to prevent and rehabilitate (hopefully) the criminals. In the end he values humanity (metahumanity?)

Punisher is conservative (outside of the law), jaywalking = electric chair. That'll stop you from being a criminal. In the end he devalues his own humanity.

Both are relatively hypocritical, as they seek justice outside the law. However, Batman's end results usually fall back into the law (He doesn't run Arkham himself, he gets the bad guys when the Police can't, by means that the Police can't use). Batman's means are illegal, but his ends generally are. The Punisher's end results are pretty much illegal (I'm going to Kill you because Killing is wrong). So he's not being legal in terms of Ends or Means.

Um, talk about a loaded statement. I don't see Batman nor the Punisher as being of one political view or another. Using that fuzzy logic, you could say that Magneto is as close to Hitler as one can get, but that's not fair, nor is it polite. (Considering Magneto's ancestry and past.)

And Batman isn't above killing, or leaving one for dead. He's an individual who uses whatever it takes to stop criminals. However, he knows just killing them isn't going to make the world any better. Knowing how Harly Quinn worships the Joker, killing him possibly would turn him into a martyr. In certain stories, Batman has killed. He also gave the option to Superman to kill Luthor outright in Batman/Superman 3 issues ago.

Just my thoughts.

The Frontman

Supes

04/13/2004, 20:31

I'm not sure how someone can be conservative and outside of the law at the same time but... whatever. Define words however you want to... it's a free country.

Ah and the debate continues.

Let's think of this. Punisher kills people if they do crime... thinking that if you can be a criminal it's only so long before you kill.
Batman seems to realize that people can change. Ex-criminals like Bane, Plasticman, Huntress, Catwoman, current Batgirl ... he gives them all a chance. Heck when a little boy named Jason Todd jacked his tires from the Batmobile he made the kid Robin... geez.

Simply put Punisher is a guy that would kill you for jaywalking because you might have caused a car accident. Batman is the kind of guy to grab that same jaywalker and hang him from a ten story building so that his head is a few feet above the roaring traffic below.

And to say that just because Batman doesn't kill that he is indirectly responsible for the death of the criminals that escape ... is blatant utopianism. Heck, the current run of the JLA has Batman issuing the entire JLA against a possible serial murder/kidnapping cult before he has much proof that anything is going on. He is not always the firefighter putting out the "fires" of the world. If anything Batman is one of the ones that tries to catch those "matches" before they "spark".

And yes, I have a DC avatar but am a very "moderate" DC/Marvel guy. But then again... maybe it does strike a chord with how you think. Does DC prefer to keep you in high hopes while Marvel prefers you give in to the hopelessness that is life on this planet? Or does DC turn a blind eye to the real world while Marvel focuses in?

Depends on who you are what what you prefer. Me? I'd like to hope that if I accidentally run a red light that some guy wearing a skull on his shirt isn't going to shot me when I sleep.

BigSoph

04/13/2004, 20:32

Originally posted by thugit
That's just absolutely not true. If you believe that, then Superman, the X-Men, Daredevil, and every single superhero out there is insane also.

Not knocking you, but that's just such a cliche, and it's wrong.

Most, yes.

Batman is focussed but still insane (obsessive compulsive)

Killing Joke revealed it best in the beam of light in the last few panels
Batman has direction to his madness

The Qwardian

04/13/2004, 21:14

Originally posted by CaptainMarvel
And yet Joker and the rest keep doing it issue after issue.

There is only one way to stop it from happening again and again. Punisher just gives you the garuntee.:devious: ;)

Call me whatever you wish

I call you.....Magog;)

The differences I notice.
One wears a pirate flag. One wears a cape and cowl.
One Drives a van. One drives a Batmobile.
One uses guns. one uses his guns. (muscles)

Both good charcters each with there own following.
I must say I enjoyed it when Batman told everyone not to interfere with the Marvel universe but then proceded to beat up Punisher for killing a gang of drug dealers. very funny.

Iceeaholic

04/13/2004, 21:42

Wow, this thing has gone crazy, hasn't it. Alot of "Batman Rules, Punisher Sucks" and "Batman Sucks, Punisher Rules!" stuff. Everything really worth saying has been said by Castiglione, Rouge2 and GoldenAge, I think. Basiclly it's apples and oranges. Some people like apples, some like oranges. Whatever you like is cool for you.
Personally, I like The Punisher more. I'm much more of a harsh, "Burn the Village and Salt the Earth" kind of guy, so he appeals to me more. I love the Bat, no doubt, and I think, except for maybe Dr. Doom, Batman has no real equal. The Punisher is more my type of a character. I might have ended up like him had I seen what he saw. Very emotional. I think another reason Frankie is a nutcase is because he is a Marvel character. Marvel's world is not nearly as nice and shiny a world to live in, so their dark characters are alot darker than the dark characters of D.C. Alot has to do with the environment. At leat, I think it does. I hope this goes on for a ton more pages, and possibly we get some more good discussions like this. :cool:

proditor

04/13/2004, 22:20

I have to give out a huge helping of kudos to every Punisher fan who talked about the setting. Not one of you referred to it as more realistic. Most of you in fact mentioned that it is CONSIDERABLY darker than Real life, nevermind DC's world. That to me alone is breath of fresh air after hearing for years about Marvel's superiority based on it's "realism". I mean, honestly, realism would be Frank falling to an FBI Counter-Sniper agent's bullet, but it would be a really short comic. ;)

My preference is for more 4 color stories (Hence the Big Avengers symbol by my moniker) but it is really really nice to have seen the reasoned discourse (Most of it has been pretty solid) without a massive degeneration into "YOU SUXXOR AND SO DOES (Fill in Marvel/DC as you wish)"

DeonBeast

04/13/2004, 22:57

Well a Punisher scenario is more likely to happen than a Batman one... Most rich people have other hobbies. :p

The Qwardian

04/14/2004, 00:00

Originally posted by Iceeaholic
I think. Basiclly it's apples and oranges. Some people like apples, some like oranges.

Can Batman be the orange? I am allergic to apples.

AZS

04/14/2004, 10:19

The difference between Batman and The Punisher--

In the movies, Punisher's costume doesn't have nipples.

Rokk_Krinn

04/14/2004, 10:32

Originally posted by azs
The difference between Batman and The Punisher--

In the movies, Punisher's costume doesn't have nipples.

Hmm...two possible answers here, so take your pick. :)

1) Depends on how tight of a shirt Thomas Jane is wearing.

2) Sure it does - it's an accessory named "Rebecca Romijin-Stamos" (because there sure isn't any other real depth to her character. :P )

thugit

04/14/2004, 11:26

Just when I think I disagree with what the Punisher does.....

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/auto/epaper/editions/wednesday/local_news_04c78a7a734110a0003a.html

mattsolo

04/14/2004, 11:35

25 years for shooting a kid in the face with a shot gun doesn't seem quite fair.

CapAmerica24

04/14/2004, 20:11

Originally posted by thugit
Just when I think I disagree with what the Punisher does.....

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/auto/epaper/editions/wednesday/local_news_04c78a7a734110a0003a.html

And if the victims stepfather walked over to Wade and snapped his neck, would you think he was unjustified? I sure as heck wouldn't.

"Eye for an eye" has been around for a lot longer than British Common Law, which is what our legal system is based on. I don't think we should chop the hands off of someone who steals a car stereo, but in this case for example, I would have no problem with this animal getting the death penalty, either State administered, or let the victim's family get a few kicks in as well...

Dax

04/16/2004, 17:45

My apologies for not responding to this sooner...

Originally posted by JacinB
You're drawing an unequal example, Dax.

Batman is not to blame for the deaths of the people his rogues gallery kills. Period. He is not responsible for their madness, or for their actions.

Not to get too political, but that's like the 9/11 Comission trying to find someone to blame for 9/11. You want to know who's responsible for flying those planes into buildings on 9/11 ... ? I've got the answer for you: the TERRORISTS.

Frank Castle, on the other hand, is directly responsible for the deaths of everyone, guilty or innocent, that is killed by a bullet he fired or an explosion he set off.

That's was kinda my point. At the time people were comparing the affectiveness of their methods...and you really can't. They're too extreme.
I'm always trying to answer questions with questions...It's my way!;)

Dax

04/16/2004, 17:48

...Back to topic at hand...

This is why, althought I wouldn't condone such action, I would look ther other way if someone decided to do him in right then and there. Would that person need to pay for his "crime"...sure, but the real threat would be gone.

batfink

04/16/2004, 17:54

The Punisher comic has been turned into a sucky movie.
Batman......Oh, Nevermind.:o

Dax

04/16/2004, 18:00

umm...did you ever watch the Marvel '80s ####? Obvilously not, or you wouldn't have made that comment!

Wasteland

04/16/2004, 18:06

Originally posted by ro_gan
Bruce, a child, with possibly no or very little professional help available to him right after the murders, had his vigilante life chosen for him.

Actually, I think this line is pure ####. There is no such thing as a life being chosen for someone. Psychology/psychiatry is an excuse people use to get away with things. A person always has the choice to do something with his life. Batman chooses to hunt criminals, but not kill them. Punisher does the same with the killing. I don't like either of the characters, really, as neither are heroes (Batman apparently has no weaknesses, thus is not a true hero. Punisher kills, thus is not a true hero. Straightforward enough.)

Just my 2c.

bradley2099

04/16/2004, 18:19

I think Chuck Dixon put it best. He was confused by the fact that a guest-appearance by the Punisher in another book would out-sell the regular monthly book (that he was writing at the time). It finally occurred to him: The Punisher is a "bad-guy." The Punisher takes lives. Batman saves them.

zebulon21

04/16/2004, 18:27

Saying that punisher would kill someone for jay walking is plain ridiculous. If you actually read punisher especially the new max series, you would see that he avoids pimps, druggies etc, and concentrates on the big picture. He goes after organized crime, eliminates a family, and anyone else who tries to move into that families territory.

Heres the difference between punisher and batman.
Punisher is a man who lost his wife and children. He served his country and realized his coutry used him. He even turned down an offer from the government to work for them, stating this. Law enforcement let him down because they were unwilling or unable to catch his families murderers. Frank realized that law enforcement is just a protection racket, (training day)and to stop real crime from happening, he used his military training to wage war against crime itself.
Punisher is more of a modern anti hero. No mask, no powers no richboy gadgets, no rogues gallery, just the man himself for what its worth.

batman watched his family die as a little boy, and is still very much a little boy crying mommy daddy. Hes surrounded himself with little boys and girls, and put them in danger.(dead robin) But he is about as dark as dc gets, and is a hero, just like punisher, the crow, and all the rest of thier ilk.
His rogue gallery sticks around because dc is mostly afraid to eliminate characters. its not lucrative to kill people off, or change them around. Thats why batman healed from a broken back, and daredevil's identity is known to the public.

u cant dice them up into conservative, liberal, because regardless of what people think, the mindset and motivations of human beings falls into more than two or three categories. (No more two party system)

That said, both are heroes, because both are more willing than you or I to make a better world. We just buy comic books, and argue over which guy in his underwear could beat who.

Frontman

04/16/2004, 19:13

The only important difference is that Batman got 3 sequels, and Punisher will get none.

:)

The Frontman

Slade Wilson

04/16/2004, 20:11

batman got some sucky sequals and hopefully the new one will bring him back strong, and a punisher 2 is in the works!

Slade Wilson

04/16/2004, 20:13

I'll sum it up in one sentence. Batman hero/vigilante, punisher anti-hero/vigilante. So as you can see its the anti that makes all the difference! :p

robot_100

04/16/2004, 20:33

Batman is more like Spiderman than he is to punisher.

Punisher is just a better than average thug, who chooses his targets differently.

Why do I bring up Spiderman?
Someone mentioned that DC is afraid to kill off rogues, well Marvel is too since they still have a green goblin after he died ( I think) 2 times, more if you consider hobgoblin. DC and marvel just keep their rogues alive differently.

Back when punisher was fighting Kingpin, he never killed him, and same with Jigsaw (he died eventually?). Those are the only reoccuring villains for punisher that I know.

Frontman

04/16/2004, 20:41

Originally posted by Slade Wilson
batman got some sucky sequals and hopefully the new one will bring him back strong, and a punisher 2 is in the works!

Its currently "in the works" applies to a whole heck of a lot of comic films. Now, after the trouncing Punisher is taking review/fan wise this weekend, let's see if 6 months from now they're still talking sequel.

The Frontman

Rokk_Krinn

04/16/2004, 20:48

So, if Batman is a hero and Punisher is an anti-hero does that mean they explode if they make contact with one another? :knockedou

Gacy's Clown

04/16/2004, 21:09

Punisher Armory #2 was my first comic and I've loved him ever since.
I like Bats also, but Castle is my man!

thugit

04/17/2004, 10:05

Originally posted by zebulon21
Saying that punisher would kill someone for jay walking is plain ridiculous. If you actually read punisher especially the new max series, you would see that he avoids pimps, druggies etc, and concentrates on the big picture. He goes after organized crime, eliminates a family, and anyone else who tries to move into that families territory.

It was a joke. Don't take yourself so seriously.

Originally posted by zebulon21
batman watched his family die as a little boy, and is still very much a little boy crying mommy daddy. Hes surrounded himself with little boys and girls, and put them in danger.

That's a quaint little "explanation." It might get you some points in a college psychology class, but it doesn't hold any water. Unlike Punisher, Batman doesn't live to avenge his family: He lives to make sure that what he went through never happens to anyone else. Of the 2, the Punisher is quite clearly the insane one. One of them at least pretends to be a normal member of society, and has formed relationships with other people.

Originally posted by zebulon21
His rogue gallery sticks around because dc is mostly afraid to eliminate characters. its not lucrative to kill people off, or change them around. Thats why batman healed from a broken back, and daredevil's identity is known to the public..

So what's the reasoning behind Green Goblin, Magneto, Kingpin, Jean Grey, and yes, even the Punisher still running around? Seems like they (among many others) have kicked off before. At least Jason Todd had the good sense to stay dead. Barry Allen and Kara Zor-El, also. The track record for either company keeping people dead isn't very good, but DC's is better.

TERRA_Rising

04/17/2004, 10:16

All in all, I prefer Punisher over Batman.

I refuse to get into the details, but I simply hate Batman and all of HIS fan-boys!

Poring

04/18/2004, 03:13

While Batman lost his family, he tried to rebuild one... i mean nightwing is like a son to him. and alfred is like a father figure to him, and doctor leslie thompkins is like his foster mother. superman is like his best friend. Bats may have lost a family, but he found another.

has frank ever tried to rebuild the family he lost? i dont think so.

Gacy's Clown

04/18/2004, 11:13

Dude, it's hard to rebuild when you're too busy ridding the world of scum. Rebuilding would be the last thing on my mind...

Supes

04/18/2004, 11:40

Wow... you know who Batman is and you think he has free time?

He keeps his business running and an "alter ego playboy" thing going and fighting crime.

Punisher in the "real world" would have died a long time ago... or killed himself. Batman at least has a family of sorts to have his back and help keep him sane and in check.

Besides... he actually never went looking for these kids.. they came to him in a way.

CarnageRising

04/18/2004, 13:36

To compare The Punisher and The Batman to each other is not really fair. Batman is a hero through and through. The Punisher, however, is not a hero, nor does he claim to be.

Frank does what he feels needs to be done. He feels that the justice system is in effective in some ways and that it is his duty to carry out sentencing to the deserving.

People say that Frank is no better than the people he kills. This is not true. Frank kills people who deserve to die. People who exploit the weak and prey upon the innocent. Frank knows what he does is wrong, but knows that it is necessary.

"Maybe I am going to hell. I send many deserving criminal souls to their doom. They`ll be waiting for me.When I arrive, they`ll wish they`d sent me to heaven."

Also something that needs to be explained is the "Revenge" motif. Frank no longer kills because of revenge. He killed the mobsters who killed his family out of revenge. But afterwards, he kills because some people deserve to die. His actions are Punishment, because the Justice System cannot deal with every dirt bag on the streets.

DreadDormammu

04/18/2004, 15:16

Originally posted by JacinB
Apparently the Punisher doesn't realize that, by real world standards, he is nothing more than a serial killer. He has a consistent method of operations and a specific type of target that he goes after each time.I don't agree with this. I think Punisher and Batman are very similar. They are merely on different sides of the capital punishment issue. Both of them feel like they are righteous in acting to punish criminals outside the bounds of the legal system. The difference is that Batman believes that punishment should never include the death penalty. Punisher does believe in the death penalty and generally goes after people who are deserving of it. Remember, Punisher doesn't just kill anyone. He doesn't kill burglars, for example.

Also, bear in mind that in many parts of the world, death penalties are used regularly and for less extreme crimes than those for which the US uses it. So Punisher's point of view is not that wacko (ie, it's not unusual or abnormal). The really wacko part of his point of view is the costumed vigilante part... and that part Batman shares.

DreadDormammu

04/18/2004, 15:24

Originally posted by thugit
Of the 2, the Punisher is quite clearly the insane one.I don't think that's fair. A substantial percentage of the population of the US supports capital punishment. Are they all insane? In other parts of the world, those percentages are generally even higher than the US. Is the whole world insane?

Batman's point of view is heroic in that he is holding himself to a high moral standard. But the Punisher still represents someone risking their life by devoting everything they are to protecting innocents from crime.

I just said this like three times, but I feel it needs repeating: many normal, sane people believe major criminals deserve death. Frank Castle fits into that demographic. The part about him that is arguably insane is the part about dressing up in an outfit and risking his life to act outside the law. But Batman is exactly the same in that regard.

jberg18

04/18/2004, 16:02

I've never really read any batman comics, old or new, I've only seen the tv versions. I've read a few Punisher comics but nothing major.

From what I have seen Batman believes that villans should be locked up and is not willing to kill. He uses non leathal methads to bring nonleathal justice. To me, most "heros" are the same way.

I know that most comics now are darker than they used to be and the Puniser was created during that time. Batman's origens were dark, but they were the light grey that classified as dark back then.

The Punisher started as an older persons comic and was made to show a more "real world" view of things. This is my opinion so Punisher and Batman Fans, sorry If I got things mixed up.

Rokk_Krinn

04/18/2004, 16:13

While it's true many normal people support and believe in the death penalty, how many of them go grab guns and walk out on the streets at night shooting criminals? True, Punisher doesn't always shoot every type of criminal but he _has_ done so in the past (how many drug dealers have we seen him shoot over the years, for example? Heck, didn't he shoot Nick Fury because Nick was "in the way"?). You can't really classify the Punisher in the same mental category as you would a normal citizen (and you can't classify the Batman there either). It _is_ a psychological condition if you decide to start vigilantism, especially a lethal method.

Let me give you an example: an ER doctor gets tired of drunk drivers coming in for treatments after carwrecks that have killed innocent people (after all, the drunk might go out and get someone else killed again). That doctor decides to take the law into his own hands and starts ensuring that the drunks die in the hospital. The police figure this out and arrest him. You're sitting at home listening to the news: do you sit there going, "Yep. That was sane and the cops are wrong for arresting him." or do you go, "Holy heck. That guy may've decided to start killing other people too. Who knows where he'd draw the line? Good thing they got him now."

Gacy's Clown

04/18/2004, 17:45

Originally posted by jberg18
I know that most comics now are darker than they used to be and the Puniser was created during that time. Batman's origens were dark, but they were the light grey that classified as dark back then.
The Punisher started as an older persons comic and was made to show a more "real world" view of things.

Punisher came about in 1974, hardly during the time of darker comics....

PMMJ

04/19/2004, 09:41

Originally posted by thugit
So what's the reasoning behind Green Goblin, Magneto, Kingpin, Jean Grey, and yes, even the Punisher still running around? Seems like they (among many others) have kicked off before. At least Jason Todd had the good sense to stay dead. Barry Allen and Kara Zor-El, also. The track record for either company keeping people dead isn't very good, but DC's is better.

Well, Barry's been back since then, and the new Superman/Batman comic has Kara in it as we speak.

Neither company is very interested in keeping people dead.

Gentlegamer

04/19/2004, 10:32

Originally posted by PMMJ
Well, Barry's been back since then, and the new Superman/Batman comic has Kara in it as we speak.

Neither company is very interested in keeping people dead.

When did Barry come back (outside of JLA/Avengers)? It may be Kara in Superman/Batman, but it isn't actually the original Kara, is it?

skyounkin

04/19/2004, 10:45

Originally posted by Gentlegamer
When did Barry come back (outside of JLA/Avengers)? It may be Kara in Superman/Batman, but it isn't actually the original Kara, is it?

Barry came back in a storyline entitled the return of Barry allen (duh) but I am not familiar with the details....And I think this Kara is from apokolipse, or at least in the july issue she is standing in a really hot looking outfit behind Darkseid.....

Rokk_Krinn

04/19/2004, 10:49

Originally posted by skyounkin
Barry came back in a storyline entitled the return of Barry allen (duh) but I am not familiar with the details....And I think this Kara is from apokolipse, or at least in the july issue she is standing in a really hot looking outfit behind Darkseid.....

The title "Return of Barry Allen" was a misdirection of sorts. Barry never returned. He stayed dead. It was a mentally imbalanced Prof. Zoom posing as Barry. Great storyline and the one that really made Wally the "Fastest Man Alive" again. I think they made it into a TPB and it's worth checking out.

The only other time we've seen Barry (outside of Year One or Elseworlds stories) would be the time Wally got to see Barry in the 30C right before Barry's death. I hardly count that as a return of a deceased character.

Prof. Aragorn

04/19/2004, 11:58

Even if Frank did kill most of Batman's rogue's gallery, he couldn't put the joker down. Ker would come back causing more trouble if Batman tried to kill him or not. How many times has he come back from the dead? In a punisher comic, I'm pretty sure Joker would find a way to survive anything that Frank throws at him. Why? Because a person wearing a purple suit, green hair, red lips, and a pale face that uses clown tactics to kill people would really make an interesting villain for a guy who wants justice done right. Seriously, I think Frank would even get a laugh out of him.

PMMJ

04/19/2004, 12:08

Originally posted by Rokk_Krinn
I hardly count that as a return of a deceased character.

My point was, neither company keeps anyone dead for long. Other than a couple key examples (Gwen Stacy, Jason Todd, Bucky, etc.) people are only dead until a new writer decides to bring them back. Death is really impermanent in both universes.

I wish I was posting this from home, where I could drag up the quote from Superman, when hardly anyone shows up at a funeral (for Metamorpho, I think.) because, well, they don't expect him to be death for long.

skyounkin

04/19/2004, 12:12

Originally posted by PMMJ
My point was, neither company keeps anyone dead for long. Other than a couple key examples (Gwen Stacy, Jason Todd, Bucky, etc.) people are only dead until a new writer decides to bring them back. Death is really impermanent in both universes.

I wish I was posting this from home, where I could drag up the quote from Superman, when hardly anyone shows up at a funeral (for Metamorpho, I think.) because, well, they don't expect him to be death for long.

HAH!!! Not only did Rex come back BUT we got 2! Count'em 2 to boot!!

"Hair folicle went and grew a G###darn brain!!!"

Castiglione

04/19/2004, 12:59

Originally posted by Rokk_Krinn
"Holy heck. That guy may've decided to start killing other people too. Who knows where he'd draw the line? Good thing they got him now."

Which is the precise issue with the Punisher- he does have a super power-he always kills the right people.

Yes, yes, yes, I remember when he was shooting jaywalkers in those spiderman issues, that was already dealt with as the result of being drugged up in Rikers.

Since the characters first solo appearance, the Punisher has always killed the right people, every time. When other people have tried to get into the act, he takes them out too, because he knows they can't be trusted(except the chick Punisher, who was just like him but just couldn't keep going so he put her on a train out of town...). He doesn't snap and start kill just anyone. One of the only things he shares with batman is the obsession and strength to stay the course. The thing that keeps Frank from killing everyone in site is the same thing that keeps Bruce from killing at all. In fact it's the same thing that all super heros share that keeps them from going bad(well, except for the ones that DO go bad...)

That is why there has only been half hearted attempts to bring him in, and why the NYPD don't care about getting him. They have the same faith in him only whacking bad guys that they have in say, Cap, not whacking anyone at all.

Batman is a super hero and he has additional things to worry about, above and beyond the vigilante issue. He has the image and inspiration angle, and the public percetion of powered heroes(which even though he isn't, he still is identified with them)

Punisher is not a superhero-he's a soldier. He is worried only about one thing-punishing the guilty. His action don't reflect on the other heroes, he isn't trying to inspire others to heights of greatness or to follow in his footsteps. He just does what he does because he knows it needs doing.

Comparing these two characters is silly, and always comes off as a popularity contest. They only commonality they have it not being super powered(plenty of those out there...), and the fact that their somewhat cheesy beginnings have been re-vamped in modern times into grittier crime drama stories.

One stunning difference is that no one has ever died because of the Punishers refusal to finish off a murderous villian. Maybe that makes Batman a 'better' person, but the people Joker kills are just as dead

BTW- Bats has killed in cold blood before. One of my friends confirms reading an issue where he blows a dinner plate sized hole in a Parademon like it was nothing. The parademon wasn't about to eat a kitten or anyhing, Bats just shot him in the back, as my friend put it 'for having the temerity to even BE in Gotham City'

proditor

04/19/2004, 13:47

Originally posted by jberg18
I know that most comics now are darker than they used to be and the Puniser was created during that time. Batman's origens were dark, but they were the light grey that classified as dark back then. I dunno about that....take a look at the TPB "The Greatest Batman stories ever told" and watch the Bat shoot people. With a gun. A lot. There isn't the same degree of autofire you'd find in a modern comic, but hey, this was the 30's and he carried a revolver. He sure emptied that a thing a lot in the old days.

The thing to remember about the Bat is that he had to survive the great "purge" that resulted in the comics code coming into being. It was generally felt that comics were for kids and kids alone. The shooting and rampant violence of comics like the Crimson Avenger and Batman were pointed to as poor examples for our kids. Some of this should sound familiar to anyone paying attention to the efforts of those who want to "think about the children" today. In Texas, a decision was handed down that X-rated comics are illegal for the following reason (Amongst others):

Comic books are for kids, any rational thinking person knows this. It is not even open to discussion.

Note, this decision and it's complete lack of any legal merit was challenged when the verdict was appealed to the Supreme Court...who promptly refused to hear the case. This is not out of the ordinary, the SC doesn't usually hear single cases like this, they want something that is precedent setting and can be broadly applied. Still, I do wish they would have taken it so I could see how far my rights really do go.