#also slitting jasons throat is his responsibility but killing joker isnt?? be fucking fr dude

[gece-misin-nesin]

Regarding Batman and Responsibility: A Rant

So, whenever there is talk about the age old question of "Should Batman kill Joker?" there is always, and I mean always someone who says something along the lines of: "But it's not Batman's responsibility to kill Joker so it's wrong to put the burden onto him." and on the surface this seems like a reasonable argument. After all, there is a police department in gotham, there is a government, so shouldn't we hold them accountable as well? Well, not exactly.

(Warning: I probably mispelled responsibility and responsible a LOT in this post, please don't begrudge me for it.)

Of course, those institutions ARE responsible for the Joker to some degree but the real question, to me, is: why is Batman considered as "NOT responsible" when he very much is.

People who make this argument usually say: "Well Batman is a volunteer, a vigilante! This is practically none of his bussiness." And true, Bruce isn't required to be a vigilante, he does it entirely out of his own volition. But is that not the whole reason why he IS responsible? I mean, Bruce is the one who CHOSE to take up that responsibilty, he is the one who CHOSES to shoulder that burden. In that sense he isn't that different from a government official/cop/etc. those people do it of their on will too don't they? Bruce, day after day, year after year, choses to fight for Gotham, to protect it and its people; he takes those responsibilities onto himself and yet... stopping Joker somehow, isn't one of them?

In my opinion, it is hypocritical. Bruce is the one who says things like "Gotham is MY city" or "I don't allow metas in Gotham, you need MY permission." or "You can't operate as a vigilante in Gotham without my say-so."(Stephanie Brown, anyone?) he routinely describes his vigilantism as a "war on crime"(which, yikes) and calls it a "crusade" and says it is his "mission" no? He chooses to do these things all on his own, no one forces him to. At a certain point, it's a matter of integrity. He can't pick and choose what exactly constitutes to protecting Gotham and what doesn't. He can't decide that beating up muggers in the streets is extremely important and is his job while improving Arkham isn't. He can't decide that, despite putting Joker in Arkham over and over again knowing he's going to escape, he isn't at least partly responsible for Joker's future victims. He can't keep stopping people from killing Joker(Under the Red Hood, hello!), saving Joker from the death row, putting Joker into a Lazarus Pit, or saving him from natural disasters(because you KNOW he would) and then claim "Oh, but killing Joker isn't my responsibility." He can't willingly claim responsibility for Gotham in every other scenario, EXCEPT for that. That's just having your cake and trying to eat it too. Unless he decided that by saving Joker he is not actually harming Gotham, by allowing Joker to live he is actively NEGLECTING his mission, his duty. And anyway, I thought the whole point of superhero comics was that people with power to better things shoud use those powers to do exactly that. Batman DOES have the power to "better" Gotham, he just isn't using it.

"Killing Joker isn't Batman's responsibility." No, it is. Because protecting Gotham and its people IS his responsibility, as he took it onto himself. If he didn't want to deal with the consequences of such a thing then he shouldn't have become a vigilante in the first place.

Mind you, this doesn't mean he's the ONLY one responsible, far from it, just that he is.

(I genuinely don't remember whether I made a post on this before but I have ranted about this to myself outloud when alone multiple times and if I have to think about this so do you)

[And YES we all know the real reason is because Joker is DC's cashcow, that is not the point of this post...]