#those stories' ideas about crime and justice

[cantsayidont]

February-March 1953. A recurring motif in Golden Age Batman stories is a specific type of demimonde, where the institutions of respectable society are mirrored in the world of criminals and outlaws. For example, in David Vern Reed's "Outlaw Town, U.S.A.!" (BATMAN #75, above), the old mining town of Silver Vein, "in the mountains near Death Valley," has become a haven for 2,000 gangsters and wanted men, taking advantage of an old law allowing self-governance without state interference. This libertarian environment is not only a hideout, but has developed a booming local economy, full of hotels, casinos, and shops of all kinds. As a narrative caption notes, "Yes, Silver Vein has everything--newspapers, hotels, restaurants, theatres--everything but law!"

In the 1943 story "License for Larceny" (DETECTIVE COMICS #72), by Joe Samachson, J. Spencer Larson, a respectable and seemingly legitimate investment broker, has created a complete miniature ecosystem of law, capital, civil government, taxation, and criminal justice: As "Larry the Judge," he requires other criminals to purchase licenses to commit crimes, taxes them a percentage of their loot, and hires an army of uniformed men to enforce these rules. Those accused of violating the "law" must stand trial, with Larson presiding as judge, and pay a fine — or worse.

The story explains that Larson has established this setup by using funds from his investment clients (which include Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson) to pay his men, and then using his cut of the crimes committed under his licenses to pay impressive dividends to investors — whom he promptly arranges to have robbed! It's a potent piece of satire: capital as extortion and outright theft, where the only real difference between a gangland enforcer and a cop is the uniform, and the idea of economic mobility is largely a fiction to line the pockets of those in power. Just like the real world, in other words!

While Larson demonstrates no particular remorse, it was fairly common for Golden Age Batman stories, especially in the 1940s, to present characters caught in these demimondes as conflicted or tragic figures. The most familiar (and most extreme) example is Two-Face, first seen in DETECTIVE COMICS #66, who teeters between respectable society and the underworld on the flip of a coin, but there were others as well, like Matthew Thorne, the Crime Doctor (or Crime Surgeon, as he's called in his second appearance), "doctor of medicine...and doctor of crime!!" First seen in DETECTIVE COMICS #77 and probably inspired by the 1938 Warner Bros. film adaptation of Barré Lyndon's THE AMAZING DR. CLITTERHOUSE, starring Edward G. Robinson, Thorne is a respectable surgeon who can't resist the thrill of crime. He establishes a "Crime Clinic" where he offers "prescriptions" to help other crooks with their rackets, occasionally making "house calls" to assist directly in exchange for half the loot — essentially a variation on Larry the Judge's racket.

In his second appearance in BATMAN #18 (above), Thorne has lost his medical license, but he can't entirely ignore his Hippocratic Oath, actually performing surgery to save Robin's life after the Boy Wonder is shot by one of Thorne's men. He's eventually killed by another of his men, whose sick wife Thorne had promised but failed to save. In these stories, the overlap between worlds is not sustainable (except for Batman and Robin), and generally must be resolved by either regeneration or death.

While fighting crime was of course the central preoccupation of the Batman strip, one can also see variations of the demimonde motif in other types of Golden Age Batman stories, in particular the various excursions into the fantastical. Neither the Mars of "Batman, Interplanetary Policeman!" nor the 31st Century of Brane Taylor is an underworld, although they do of course have crime for Batman and Robin to fight, but settings like those have certain similarities with the strip's various criminal demimondes: They are worlds complete unto themselves; they are in some way cloistered; and Batman and Robin's access to them is relatively unique within the narrative. In some cases, even the characters who facilitate that access don't share it; for example, Professor Carter Nichols is not aware of Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson's secret identities, and, with a few exceptions, isn't privy to the details of the time-travel adventures he sends them on.

In this respect, the principal failing of the weird aliens and bizarre transformations of the early Silver Age Batman stories was not so much that the fantastical aspects were necessarily out of place, but that they were no longer presented as secret, miniature worlds Batman and Robin were privileged to access. Aliens and visitors from the future would just land in downtown Gotham City in broad daylight — visible to everyone, and thus no longer special, or even particularly interesting, just as an ordinary small town is far less interesting than "Outlaw Town, U.S.A.!"

[the-judicial-assistants-notebook]

We won't ever get it, but I think it would've been cool to see an antagonist/client who hates Edgeworth specifically because of what he did as von Karma's student. Like someone whose loved one -- I want to say 'sister' because AA, but I think it'd be pretty cool if it was their father -- was wrongly convicted and given the death sentence because he silenced witnesses or presented faulty evidence or something similar, and there's no fix to it. The case ends with the truth being revealed and ringing hollow, because they don't want revenge, not really; maybe they just want the verdict overturned, but even that doesn't change anything, because the person is gone, and whatever damage could have been done has been done, and they just have to live with it, all of them. I think it'd be interesting to see how Edgeworth and the people around him handle that confrontation -- the idea that you can change and try to fix your mistakes the best you can, but there are some things you'll never be able to atone for. Not really. And you just have to keep living.

[recoord]

Staying neutral until Neil Gaiman is convicted by the courts?

Second attempt to express my thoughts on the matter. The first time, my wording was not the best and it needed to be fact checked so here there is a summarized attempt. Thank you to everyone who pointed it out.

Using "neutrality" to remain sceptical to the allegations is not as good as an idea as it seems.

Many have shown scepticism because of the medium, The Tortoise podcast, used to publish most of the accusations. I've found many don't know there's a second podcast that published one of the women's allegations: Am I Broken: Survivor Stories Podcast. A podcast made by a non-binary licensed clinical mental health counselor specializing in sexual trauma. The link for the podcast is here and the link for the transcript here. [Credits for the transcript to Ersatz Haderach].

Personally, I think you shouldn't discard the allegations just for the medium chosen, they're still valid. But, there’s a second podcast and Claire's allegations there help to amplify the other victims's voices. If you haven't read or listened to any of the allegations, that could be a good start.

Ignoring that information and testimonies exist is far from being neutral. Learn about the allegations before choosing "neutrality".

It's important to notice that in cases like the ones exposed by the women's allegations against Gaiman, "Neutrality" is already biased in favor of the accused.

Waiting for a formal sentence for Gaiman to start believing in the victims is choosing to blindly trust a corrupt system. It also sounds like if you weren't conscious enough of the many problems that rape victims face in the justice system.

I've found an interesting report on the matter with information about how justice fails victims . Here are some important points:

Why the legal justice fails rape survivors?

According to a report made by Centre for Women’s Justice, the End Violence Against Women Coalition, Imkaan and Rape Crisis England & Wales.(2020):

Obstacles to conviction

- "In the vast majority of (adult) rape cases, the defendant will accept that sexual intercourse took place, and it is only the element of ‘consent’ that is in dispute, or – put another way – whether a reasonable person would characterise what happened as consensual or non-consensual."

"Given the sexual nature of the offence, it will often take place in private, the complainant and defendant (or defendants) being the only persons present."

"There are very rarely any eye-witnesses to the offence itself, able to corroborate either the complainant or the defendant’s account as to what has unfolded. Indeed, there will more often be no independent evidence at all which corroborates the complainant’s account as to the circumstances of the sexual encounter. At best, there may be circumstantial evidence which supports what the complainant is saying: evidence which, for example, provides a picture of the complainant’s physical or mental state before and/or after the attack; or there may be evidence which is broadly supportive of her credibility, or undermines the suspect’s credibility."

- Even in ‘better’ periods, rape cases have always posed very significant challenges for prosecutors. While volumes of convictions have fluctuated over the years, the rate of convictions for rape has invariably been lower than in most other areas of crime."

-“it has been widely accepted by criminal justice bodies that many members of the public continue to believe in long-standing ‘myths and stereotypes’ relating to rape, which do not correspond with reality, result in disbelief of victims/survivors, and are now outdated in the eyes of the law.”

- “When a victim/survivor’s credibility is considered so fundamental to winning a rape or serious sexual offences trial, those who do not fit the ‘mould’ of a credible victim – because of their age, their outward presentation, their social skills, a disadvantaged background, or a learning mental health disability – are the least likely to see justice served.”

- “Whenever the profile of rape victims/survivors and their poor treatment by the criminal justice system begins to receive the attention it deserves, there comes a backlash and a rise in public concern regarding the fate of the ‘falsely’ accused.”

I recommend reading the whole report for further information.

Don't choose "neutrality" as an excuse to hide your bias, listen to the victims. There is a lot of information out there. Many patterns are repeated among victims who, before the allegations were made public, thought they were the only person who experienced the same thing, with Gaiman as the common denominator.

If you want to add something, feel free to do it.

[drdemonprince]

I don't think I have it in me to be an abolitionist because I read that horrible story about the trans teen murdered in South Carolina and my knee jerk reaction is, those people should rot in jail, ideally forever, or worse. No matter how I look at it I can't make myself okay with the idea that you should be allowed to steal someone's life in such a horrible way and then just go back to enjoying your life. Some stuff is just too over the top evil.

You can have whatever emotions you want about that person's murderous actions, but the reality is that the carceral justice system is one of the largest sources of physical, emotional, and sexual torment for transgender people on this planet.

Transgender people are ten times more likely to be assaulted by a fellow inmate and five times more likely to be assaulted by a corrections officer, according to a National Center for Transgender Equality Report.

Within the prison system, transgender people are frequently denied gender-affirming medical care, and housed in populations that do not match their identity, which increases their odds of being beaten and sexually assaulted.

The alternative to being incorrectly housed with the wrong gendered population is that transgender people are also frequently held in solitary confinement instead, often for far longer periods on average than their non-transgender peers, contributing to them experiencing suicide ideation, self harm, acute physiological distress, a shrunk hippocampus, muscculoskeletal pain, chronic condition flare-ups, heart disease, reduced muscle tone, and numerous other proven effects of solitary confinement.

The prison system is also one of the largest sites of completely unmitigated COVID spread, among other illnesses, with over 640,000 cases being directly linked to prison exposure, according to the COVID prison project.

We know that number is rampantly under-estimated because prisoners, especially trans ones, are frequently denied medical care. And even basic, essential physical care. Just last year a 27-year-old Black man named Lason Butler was found dead in his cell, having perished of dehydration. He had been kept in a cell without running water for two weeks, where he rapidly lost 40 pounds before perishing. His body was covered in rat bites.

This kind of treatment is unacceptable for anyone, no matter who they are and what they have done, and I shouldn't have to explicitly connect the dots for you, but I will. One in six transgender people has been to prison, according to Lambda Legal. One in every TWO Black transgender people has been to prison. One in five Black men go to prison in America.

THIS is the fate you are consigning all these people to when you say that prisons must exist because there are really really bad people out in the world. We should all know by not that this is not how the carceral justice system works. Hate crime laws are under-utilized, according to Pro Publica, and result in few convictions. The people who commit transphobic acts of violence tend to be given softer sentences than the prisoners who resemble their victims.

We must always remember that the violent tools of the prison system will be used not against the people that we personally consider to be the most "deserving" of punishment, but rather against whomever the state considers to be its enemy or to be a disposable person.

You are not in control of the prison system and you cannot ensure it will be benevolent. You are not the police, the judge, the jury, or the corrections officers. By and large, the people who are in these roles are racist, transphobic, ableist, and victim-blaming, and they will use the power and violence of the system to terrorize people in poverty, Black people, trans people, "mad" people, intellectually disabled people, women, and everyone else that you might wish to protect from harm with a system of "punishment." Nevermind that incaraceration doesn't prevent future harm anyway.

You can't argue for incarceration as the tool of your revenge fantasies, you have to argue for it as the tool that it actually is. The purpose of a system is what it does. And the prison system's purpose has never been to protect or avenge vulnerable trans people. It has always been to beat them, sexually assault them, forcibly detransition them, render them unemployable, disconnect them from all community, neglect them, and unperson them.

[yandereforme]

Yan! Mafia! Batfam AU Dynamics

Part 1

TW: Murder, violence mentioned, light mentions of assault, torture, kidnapping

Also, since ages are weird in DC canon (often conflicting) I’m assigning my own choices

Bruce

Like I mentioned in my earlier post, Bruce started working towards controlling crime at a young age. He first gets the idea after his parents died, and slowly over the years he starts cultivating skills that would later become useful(fighting, intimidation, deceptive things that you can do that aren’t exactly illegal, etc.)

He still takes that backpacking trip, and he still meets the league of assassins and has his affair with Talia. The reason he returns to Gotham isn’t a crime as vigilante. It’s to fight crime his own way.

He takes on a persona as the bat, no one knows his face or real name. He garners a lot of attention from criminals, and often steal men from people who he defeats to work lower level jobs(Think Red Hood’s system)

The rugs in the say, you are a mixture of actual criminals, and alternate mob bosses. However, Bruce still keeps the Bat and Bruce Wayne very separate, though he does not utilize a Brucie persona. Instead, he makes himself seem more quiet and soft-spoken so people tend to overlook him.(Bruce does not realize that his persona is someone that is one bad thing away from going full on crazy. Everyone in high society knows something is wrong with Bruce Wayne, and just does not comment on it.)

Bruce still has his no kill rule. That does not change, but any enemy of his will tell you that there are worse things than death.

He is 23 when he adopts 8 year old Dick Grayson.

Dick

Dick joins not long after he does in canon, or at least he tries to. After he figures everything out, he confronts Bruce and says that he wants to be a part of the business. He wants Zucco‘s head on a stick. Bruce gets him to compromise. They will capture Zucco and after a few years of training, Dick will be allowed to do what he wants and take on his own role. 

For a few years, he takes the role of Robin, a terrifying person who has seen as Batman‘s little shadow, constantly following him, and smiling brightly enough that people will forget about the blood covering his knuckles.( some believe he gives the smiles that Batman never has. Others believe he is the one thing that keeps the Bat from killing.)

As he grows, Robin’s persona of a vicious, smiling distraction slowly morphs into an amazing fighter who smiles unsettlingly and bends in a way that does not seem entirely human.(about 60% of Gotham’s criminals believe that the bat and robin and all of their associates are not human. Most of them of them think demons of some kind, though there is a smaller portion that believes that they are embodied souls coming back to enact justice)

Nightwing is not a reality in this world(since that is a story learned from Superman.) Instead, criminals learn to fear Nightingale, a distractingly, beautiful person whose voice tends to make you mesmerized so you don’t see the bloody intent behind it. The underground calls him a siren, and Dick is very good at making people tell him what he wants to hear.

In this AU, he switches to Nightingale after Tony Zucco is finally killed. Bruce had kept Zucco in a cell for years, until Dick was old enough to do what he originally wanted. Dick kills him in an act of final revenge, wearing his family’s colors. After the death, he decides he doesn’t want to dirty those colors anymore.

It becomes a commonly known fact that Robin doesn’t kill, and neither does the Bat. But once they get their own costume, you have to be cautious of the fact that some of them don’t have a no kill code.

Dick is 17 when 12 year old Jason is adopted

Jason

Instead of stealing from Batman, Jason is caught stealing tires of Bruce Wayne’s car. The rest of the interaction follows canon though.

Before Bruce formally adopts him, he tells Jason who is surprisingly okay with it.(Jason grew up in Crime alley. He knew what the Bat did with the worst of the worst, and how the Bat made life more live able.)

He and Dick don’t get along in the beginning, but after an attempted kidnapping at a gala, they get better.

The two incarnations of Robin are very different. Dick’s Robin was loud and haunting in his joy, beating people bloody with a smile. Jason’s Robin was softer in a sense, brash but polite. He was careful to only injure in places that they could recover from, and helped a lot of the victims(people whispered that he was the innocence that Nightingale had lost, that the Bat never had.)

The only people he didn’t care about hurting were the abusers and assaulters, men drunk on power. (More and more people started believing the re embodied souls theory with Jason. He seemed the most human of all the Bat family)

Then, when Jason was 15, he was kidnapped as Robin, and Gotham was never the same.

Note: Thank you all for being so interested in my writings. I don’t know if this is good or not, I’m sick at the moment and just wanted to finally write this. Let me know what you think!

[thestargayzingheroine]

Why A Better World is my favourite "Evil Superman" Story

So in the last two decades or so, there's been a notable amount of dark and edgy stories around superheroes turning evil and whatnot and most of them really love to do their own expies of Superman. I've never been the biggest fans of these kinds of stories.

And then there's the actual stories of Superman and other heroes being outright villains or at least just massive assholes. In recent years, this has been largely thanks to the influence of media like the Injustice Games or the Synderverse DC movies. It's... honestly become a trope I am tired of.

Because you know the damnest thing? There is a story that does all these ideas really damn well and arguably better. It is the two-parter from the Justice League cartoon "A Better World".

Now, I am aware how most people favouring the DCAU has become a bit of toxic nostalgia at times and it's something I myself am trying to work through a bit. But in this case, I do think it's the best idea of doing an evil DC story, much better and more interesting than the Crime Syndicate, who if you ask me are not very interesting, though I do remember liking the Crisis On Two Earths movie a lot, which funny enough, was originally going to be this two parter before various things led to it being canned and then later repurposed as a direct to DVD movie.

Anyway, my main crux of why I love this story is simple... The entire Justice League turns evil... and the reasons are very much in-character for all of them. You look at the scene with Justice Lord Batman for example.

As fucking evil as the Justice Lords are... Batman can't quite fully hate his alternate self for his reason for taking part in all this being basically one-step further than his own mission, that no child should ever go through what he did. Hell, I recall reading that the reason the writers had Batman drop his batarang at the end of this scene... was because he genuinely wouldn't be able to come up with an argument to that.

Superman likewise kills Lex Luthor because yeah, Luthor literally exploited the flaws in Democracy and became president of the US, threatening to kinda basically start world war 3. It's obviously horrible... but Superman is a character whose main motivation is making the world a better place. And if people who abuse the systems of power of the world are hurting people, why shouldn't Superman put a stop to that?

And yeah, Superman should obviously never kill, he's the most paragon of paragons of the DC universe, a man committed to always being better than the villains he fights... but this is him pushed to his most logical extreme. Hell, the main Superman knows this and its why Lex used his knowledge of this alternate universe as part of his plan in the season after this, to goad our Superman into crossing the line because yeah, there's a part of him that could go this far.

But right as Superman is about to apparently finish him, the big guy says this.

"I'm not the man who killed President Luthor. I wish to heaven that I were but I'm not."

Because Superman like everyone else, obviously would have those same thoughts and same urges. He's human.

I've kinda gone off Injustice a bit because to be honest... the injustice games were kinda just this but a bit too edgelordy. Hell, in A Better World, Lois Lane still lives and the whole genesis of it doesn't revolve around her getting fridged.

So yeah, A Better World is probably one of my favourite mirror universe stories because of the fact that well... it really is like looking in a mirror and seeing just how easy the greatest heroes can become evil and how they wouldn't be massively out of character doing so. But also it reminds us that as much as this darkness can tempt some of our finest, the ones who don't go down this dark path are stronger in heart than anyone else. Because when the world becomes a dark and horrible place, it becomes very easy to be just as dark. But even though it can be hard to still try and be a good person even in dark times, it's ultimately worth it. Because good always triumphs over evil.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

How to screw up a whistleblower law

I'm touring my new, nationally bestselling novel The Bezzle! Catch me THIS WEDNESDAY (Apr 17) in CHICAGO, then Torino (Apr 21) Marin County (Apr 27), Winnipeg (May 2), Calgary (May 3), Vancouver (May 4), and beyond!

Corporate crime is notoriously underpoliced and underprosecuted. Mostly, that's because we just choose not to do anything about it. American corporations commit crimes at 20X the rate of real humans, and their crimes are far worse than any crime committed by a human, but they are almost never prosecuted:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/10/12/no-criminals-no-crimes/#get-out-of-jail-free-card

We can't even bear to utter the words "corporate crime": instead, we deploy a whole raft of euphemisms like "risk and compliance," and that ole fave, the trusty "white-collar crime":

https://pluralistic.net/2021/12/07/solar-panel-for-a-sex-machine/#a-single-proposition

The Biden DOJ promised it would be different, and they weren't kidding. The DOJ's antitrust division is kicking ass, doing more than the division has done in generations, really swinging for the fences:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/03/22/reality-distortion-field/#three-trillion-here-three-trillion-there-pretty-soon-youre-talking-real-money

Main Justice – the rest of the DOJ – promised that it would do the same. Deputy AG Lisa Monaco promised an end to those bullshit "deferred prosecution agreements" that let corporate America literally get away with murder. She promised to prosecute companies and individual executives. She promised a lot:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/03/22/reality-distortion-field/#three-trillion-here-three-trillion-there-pretty-soon-youre-talking-real-money

Was she serious? Well, it's not looking good. Monaco's number two gnuy, Benjamin Mizer, has a storied career – working for giant corporations, getting them off the hook when they commit eye-watering crimes:

https://prospect.org/justice/2024-04-09-reform-groups-lack-of-corporate-prosecutions-doj/

Biden's DOJ is arguably more tolerant of corporate crime than even Trump's Main Justice. In 2021, the DOJ brought just 90 cases – the worst year in a quarter-century. 2022's number was 99, and 2023 saw 119. Trump's DOJ did better than any of those numbers in two out of four years. And back in 2000, Justice was bringing more than 300 corporate criminal prosecutions.

Deputy AG Monaco just announced a new whistleblower bounty program: cash money for ratting out your crooked asshole co-worker or boss. Whistleblower bounties are among the most effective and cheapest way to bring criminal prosecutions against corporations. If you're a terrified underling who can't afford to lose your job after narcing out your boss, the bounty can outweigh the risk of industry-wide blacklisting. And if you're a crooked co-conspirator thinking about turning rat on your fellow criminal, the bounty can tempt you into solving the Prisoner's Dilemma in a way that sees the crime prosecuted.

So a new whistleblower bounty program is good. We like 'em. What's not to like?

Sorry, folks, I've got some bad news:

https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/stephen-kohn-on-the-justice-department-plan-to-offer-whistleblower-awards/

As the whistleblower lawyer Stephen Kohn points out to Russell Mokhiber of Corporate Crime Reporter, Monaco's whistleblower bounty program has a glaring defect: it excludes "individuals who were involved with the crime." That means that the long-suffering secretary who printed the boss's crime memo and put it in the mail is shit out of luck – as is the CFO who's finally had enough of the CEO's dirty poker.

This is not how other whistleblower reward programs work: the SEC and CFTC whistleblower programs do not exclude people involved with the crime, and for good reason. They want to catch kingpins, not footsoldiers – and the best way to do that is to reward the whistleblower who turns on the boss.

This isn't a new idea! It's in the venerable False Claims Act, an act that signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln. As Kohn says, making "accomplices" eligible to participate in whistleblower rewards is how you get people like his client, who relayed a bribe on behalf of his boss, to come forward. As Lincoln said in 1863, the purpose of a whistleblower law is to entice conspirators to turn on one another. Like Honest Abe said, "it takes a rogue to catch a rogue."

And – as Kohn says – we've designed these programs so that masterminds can't throw their minor lickspittles under the buss and collect a reward: "I know of no case where the person who planned or initiated the fraud under any of the reward laws ever got a dime."

Kohn points out that under Monaco, the DOJ just ignores the rule that afford anonymity to whistleblowers. That's a big omission – the SEC got 18,000 confidential claims in 2023. Those are claims that the DOJ can't afford to miss, given their abysmal, sub-Trump track record on corporate crime prosecutions.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/15/whistleblown/#lisa-monaco

[dalekofchaos]

Friendly reminder. Bruce Wayne hung up the suit and retired after THREATENING someone with a gun and this was his reaction.

And then his immediate reaction is to shut down and close the Batcave and his only words were. "Never again"

A truly tragic, but fitting way for Bruce’s career to end. Powerful stuff. Batman's career ended the same way it began: with a desperate man wielding a gun

Batman choosing not to be weak like Joe Chill >>>> Batman going on a killing spree because fighting crime is hard.

And by the way, since Zack Snyder says his inspiration was Dark Knight Returns, I got news for you, TDKR Batman doesn't kill either.

Zack Snyder is a complete blithering fucking idiot.

his statement on Batman just lines up with what I’ve seen from all of his work. He likes the idea of the comics he makes movies out of but he doesn’t actually understand their themes. A Batman that kills is pointless. An edgy Superman is not only the most boring way to write him, but doesn’t make any sense without the wholesome one. That’s why injustice Superman/brightburn/Plutonian/omniman/homelander kind of make sense in their own ways because the original exists to compare them to.(mostly also boring though) His take on watchmen was pretty much devoid of any of the actual commentary from the graphic novel, but instead was just a dark justice league that were pretty bad at their jobs. Rorschach was just framed as a kind of unhinged Batman, but still a badass that does good, which is wildly generous compared to the way he’s originally written. I can understand turning your brain off and coasting through an action movie, but his fans are delusional if they think he does any of these stories justice. I wouldn’t take any of his comments seriously if they would stop letting him make these mediocre movies.

Zack Snyder is all flash and no substance. His films are visually stunning but utterly lacking in compelling storytelling.

The point of Batman is he cannot 'stoop to their level'. He HAS to be better, he HAS to believe these criminals can be rehabilitated, because if he kills them, he becomes just like them. With his wit, his intellect, he could future proof the city against crime ever happening by just killing the criminals before they commit crimes based on probable statistics and similar themes. But a Batman who refuses to kill is a murderer by inaction. Every time he chooses not to put Joker in the ground, he's allowed him to slaughter dozens, hundreds more, just for a laugh. Batman is equally guilty for every one of those deaths, because he could simply kill the Joker, and stop him from ever killing again. But he doesn't. Snyder saying Batman can kill, Batman SHOULD kill, is to say that without batman doing so, or being able to, he is just as bad as the villians. Except dipshit doesn't even have his Batman kill The Joker. "Oopsie daisy, Joker got out and bombed a hospital full of people, sowwwwyyyy, I put him back in jail again dunt worry TeeHeee :3". And then next week we do it all over again. OR. You kill the Joker, and he never hurts another person again. Which is why Jason Todd works so well as a counter to batman, and SHOULD be what Snyder is looking into. The reason why Zod works so well as a villain is because Humans are flawed apes who cant be trusted to govern themselves and should be conquered, and Superman, a literal God, could fix all that, but doesn't, because of Hope. Its foolish, childish even, to consider that a solution. And when placed in the vacuum of a comic book it works because you have to suspend disbelief, and forget that Superman let a city full of people die while he punched Zod through skyscrapers.

If you want Batman to kill people, just go and read one of his 1784956th copies that kill people. Go read Midnighter. Go read Punisher. Go read Moon Knight. Go read Peacemaker. Go read Nighthawk. What is stopping you?

I'm sure all those characters have brought about the peace and prosperity and the crime-free society that a "killer Batman" was supposed to. "Punisher would clean Gotham in under a week", right, just like he cleaned Marvel's New York, didn't he?

It has to be Batman specifically the one doing the killing? The number of superheroes that kill is nowadays much higher than the number of heroes who don't. Remember how Hawkeye spent the better part of his existence being the most anti-killing Avenger? Nowadays he is known as a super-assassin that "never had a non-kill rule". Should heroes who don't kill go extinct?

I like that Batman doesn't kill people. I feel no need to turn him into something he isn't like it was done to Hawkeye. If I wanted a Batman that kills, I would go and read one of the thousand "Batman who kills" out there.

Batman should not kill and should never kill.

"Gotham would be better off if Batman just killed The Joker"

You. Miss. The. Entire. Point.

Bruce Wayne lost his parents to crime and Bruce Wayne is a child who died alongside his parents and was reborn as a creature dedicated to insuring it never happened to any other child. He made a vow never to reduce himself to the criminal scum’s level or to Joe Chill’s level. He never kills for a reason.

Batman not killing is what makes him so compelling, if he kills criminals, there is no moral conflict, he is no better than the Punisher, Wolverine or any other dark edgy hero. Hell, if he starts to take a life, Batman is no better than Ra’s Al Ghul.

In the Daredevil Netflix show, Frank Castle told Daredevil this “That’s not how this works. You cross over to my side of the line, you don’t get to come back from that. Not ever.” That alone is why Batman should not kill, not even The Joker. Bruce Wayne is not Frank Castle, stop trying to make him Frank Castle. I mean…Stan Lee was absolutely disgusted when someone called The Punisher a hero, Frank Castle is a murderer, not a hero. How is this so hard for people to understand?

I don’t want to hear that Batman killed in the old comics and I don’t want to hear Elseworld stories. It’s an established fact that Batman does not kill and it’s a big part of his character.

Guess what? We already got a Bruce who killed The Joker, it happened in the Burtonverse/Schumacherverse and he was disgusted with himself. “So, you're willing to take a life.” “Long as it's Two-Face.” “Then it will happen this way: You make the kill, but your pain doesn't die with Harvey, it grows. So you run out into the night to find another face, and another, and another, until one terrible morning you wake up and realize that revenge has become your whole life. And you won't know why.”

A huge part of Bruce’s character is that he doesn’t kill, no matter what. Same with Clark. But edgelord writers from the New 52, DCEU and the Injustice abominations think it’s cool to make heroes kill. Heroes should not kill. You can’t be a hero and a killer. IT DOESN’T WORK THAT WAY!

Guess what would happen if Batman kills The Joker? The Joker wins. The Joker and Batman are each trying to prove a point to society - and really to us, the readers. The Joker wants Batman to kill him because he perfectly embodies chaos and anarchy and wants to prove a point to everyone that people are basically more chaotic than orderly. This is why he is so scary: we are worried he may be right. If the Joker is right, then civilization is a ruse and we are all truly monsters inside. If the Joker can prove that Batman - the most orderly and logical and self-controlled of all of us - is a monster inside, then we are all monsters inside, and that is terrifying. The Joker is terrifying because we fear that we are like him deep down - that he is us. Batman is what we (any average person) could be at our absolute best, and the Joker is what we could be at our absolute worst. The Joker’s claim is that we are all terrible deep down, and it is only the law and our misplaced sense of justice that keeps us in line. Since Batman isn’t confined by the law, he is a perfect test case to try to get him to "break.” The Joker wants Batman to kill a person, any person, but knows that the only person Batman might ever even remotely consider killing would have to be a terrible monster, so is willing to do this himself and sacrifice himself to prove this macabre point. Batman needs to prove that it is not just laws that keep us in line, but basic human decency and our natural instinct NOT to kill. If Batman can prove this, then others will be inspired by his example (the citizens of Gotham, but again, also the readers), just as we are all inspired every day to keep civilization running smoothly and not descend into violence, anarchy, and chaos. This ability to be decent in the face of the horrors and temptations present all around us is humanity’s superpower, the superpower of each of us. The struggle of Batman and the Joker is the internal struggle of each of us. But we are inspired by Batman’s example, not the Joker’s, because Batman always wins the argument, because he has not killed the Joker.

Batman not killing matters. Batman stories to me are the ultimate tale of turning pain and suffering into something positive. That is a story that everyone can relate to because let's be honest here. The world can suck. I've experienced and probably will always experience feelings of fear of depression of anger of angst. It's in my nature as a human being to experience those things. It's in all our nature it is what we choose to do with that pain that we all feel that defines us. Batman chose to turn all those negative emotions, he feels into a symbol that can bring people. Hope that Batman will save us from pain but more importantly hope that we can all be Batman. Why do we fall? And Batman Begins explains this best “Why do we fall sir? So that we can learn to pick ourselves up.”

Yes, Bruce Wayne is a flawed crazy person. He is at times mean stubborn and even abusive but he is still good. He is still someone we can aspire to be. We can try our hardest to be Superman but no human being can fly, but we can still try to be Batman We can all try to turn our pain into something good when I see Batman killing people or fans saying he killed before and he should kill The Joker, It pains me. It actually hurts my soul. Batman is not about finding a way to kill evil. But try to redeem it. His mission is an impossible task. Maybe he should kill people. Maybe he should kill The Joker, but what makes him fascinating what makes him a hero Is the fact that he has that moral code and stopped himself from crossing that line That's why I always looked up to Batman even as a kid despite all the adult subtext or mature themes superheroes are for kids. And killing is not Batman and it is not Bruce Wayne. This is why I hated the portrayal in the DCEU and the Burtonverse and why I really hated the implication that Batman killed The Joker in Batwoman. A Batman who kills is certainly not Bruce Wayne, that is an interpretation of Bruce Wayne that completely misses the point of Batman. It's easy to kill. Batman does not make the easy choice… Batman does not kill.

[doctordragon]

One criticism I see of Apollo Justice pretty often is that Apollo barely seems affected by his own mentor being revealed as a murderer. And honestly, I don't fully disagree. Kristoph in general is underdeveloped and his only relationship that feels complete is with Phoenix, HOWEVER

I also think this is one of the cases where AJ's flaws seem to add to the story. When things don't fully add up the way they should, the game begs us to ask why that is. I think this is absolutely one of those moments we should ask why this is.

It's because the emotional crux of Apollo's arc in turnabout trump has nothing to do with Kristoph. Sure, he probably looks up to his mentor and respects his skill, but Apollo's lack of emotional reaction to Kristoph's crimes suggests that he doesn't actually care about Kristoph all that much. More than anything, he likely sees Kristoph as a means to an end - becoming an independent, full fledged attorney (like Phoenix Wright) - than an actual bond. He's upset about Kristoph's murders, sure, but less because he actually cares about Kristoph and more because he just lost his job.

Apollo's emotions in turnabout trump are entirely fixated on Phoenix. Kristoph is a good lawyer, sure, but he's not Phoenix Wright. Apollo has been looking up to this idealization he has of phoenix for a good portion of his life. Phoenix Wright, who selflessly fought for the sake of the innocent. Phoenix Wright, who was himself uncorruptible in the face of the horrifically corrupted court system. Phoenix Wright, who valued truth and justice above all else. Apollo holds these values and his image of Phoenix higher than he ever could Kristoph. Partially because Phoenix is legendary and also partially because Phoenix was an idea to him, not a tangible person saying real things to him.

So when Apollo learns that Phoenix is willing to forge evidence, it breaks him. Now, this perfect ideal attorney he looked up to doesn't exist. If he forged evidence here, he could have cheated his way through all his legendary trials. In the dark age of the law, Apollo finally found some truth, some purity he could cling to. But now, it was all a lie, a forgery just like the card. And if even Phoenix Wright can fall to corruption, what hope does the law world have for a better future?

Losing his mentor and job sucked, sure, but he's a little bit too preoccupied with losing his hope and entire worldview for that to matter.

[respectthepetty]

The Sign of a Mental Disorder

Tharn has the gift of sight. Yai and the abbot believe Tharn has this gift. Yet Tharn does not share this information with others, including Phaya, because he doesn't want people to think he is crazy.

When Yai questions why Tharn didn't tell Phaya the truth, Tharn immediately thinks Yai is talking about his gift of sight, but Yai is talking about how Tharn likes Phaya. To Tharn, the truth is his gift while his love for Phaya is a fantasy.

Dr. Chalothon knows about Tharn's gift, yet 1) spins it that Tharn has a mental disorder and 2) easily offers up that information to Phaya.

Chalothon, a psychiatrist, might be a childhood friend or a doctor who "treats" Tharn for his condition. Either way, Chalothon knows the truth and uses it as a weapon against Tharn by likening Tharn's (and Phaya's) experience to those of a killer who he immediately labels as Schizophrenic.

Previously, Phaya reminded the doctor that they shouldn't discuss the case because the investigation was still ongoing, yet the doctor, who should know better, has no qualms disclosing Tharn's trauma. If Tharn is a patient, this a breach of confidentially and if Tharn is a friend, this is a breach of trust. But this is also a reminder of how discussions happen about people with mental illnesses and not believing them as victims.

Framing a supernatural show through the lens of a procedural investigation isn't new because it's an effective storytelling device that requires the logical examination of the illogical. And it's also an examination of how we dismiss people and ideas we don't understand.

Even when we should believe what is being presented to us.

Tharn does not doubt his gift. In fact, his gift is a painful reminder that he can't ignore. When he saw Phaya getting stabbed, his head hurt.

So when he was in the woods, his head hurt.

But instead of seeing the future,

he saw the past.

Which is a gift Phaya also shares.

But his family gives a logical reason for his visions.

Remember that Phaya is the one who doubted the victims' stories, so for a logical man from a logical family, it must be painful to not understand what is happening.

However, Phaya gets the same painful reminder that he cannot ignore. His head hurts. A physical manifestation of the unexplainable.

But instead of accepting what is happening, Phaya reacts, with violence.

Others have guessed that the anger comes from the thought that Tharn has betrayed his trust and the idea that Tharn doesn't believe him (but remember that during that conversation with the doctor, Tharn's trust was also betrayed). Others have also stated that seeing Phaya express his anger in this controlled environment is good.

BUT . . . We've already been told this isn't the way to deal with conflict or competition.

And this is where Chalothon thrives.

As a psychiatrist, someone who specializes in mental illnesses and how they physically and emotionally manifest, Chalothon speaks calmly and nicely, yet clearly knows how to ignite rage in Phaya.

The way Chalothon fights is not physical. It leaves no marks. He never lays a hand on Phaya to hurt him. He is mentally attacking Phaya (and even possibly supernaturally). Just like he attacked Tharn without anyone noticing. He is attacking these men in ways that others would not believe because they can't be seen.

Tharn and Phaya's job depends on them providing evidence of a crime, of a victim being harmed, and of a criminal causing harm. Yet the case they are working on has the criminals as the victims and the victims as the criminals. What is the crime then? One of justice?

Tharn wronged Chalothon in a previous life and has been told this multiple times making Chalothon the victim, yet Tharn and Phaya have become the victims of Chalothon in this life. Is this justice? Because the way Chalothon is attacking them makes them seem crazy. Nobody would believe they were victims, just like the audience hasn't truly seen Chalothon as the victim even though it has been stated as the reason Tharn and Phaya's karma is tied together.

Tharn's sight allows him to see victims.

The audience dismissed Chart as crazy. But what if he was the first victim?

Because this story of an elite investigation unit is asking us to look closer at how men can be the victims and how they are being dismissed as crazy. Yai called the suspect a psychopath. Chalothon suggested the man suffered from a mental illness. Tharn saw the man's sister die by suicide. The suspect has yet to actually kill anyone himself, so right now, this man is a victim of a failed system but was quickly labeled as crazy for his tactics toward justice.

It's a way to silence victims. Nothing they say can be trusted because they are crazy. Nothing they experience is real because they are insane. There is no crime if there is no victim. So no matter how hard these men physically fight, they can't beat the label of having a mental illness because everything they do will only prove its existence.

Their every action is a painful sign of a mental disorder.

And the psychiatrist knows that.

Which is why he chose to seek justice this way.

[arashi-no-saxlphone]

Ok I know people on here probably already know this but like. I want to say. Asuka blowing up Japan was not just a "Haha I'm gonna just do this" it was a "Oh fuck what the fuck is happening we need to aim this so the entire earth doesn't get fucked" and last ditch directed it at Japan. I AM NOT EXCUSING THAT! I AM NOT SAYING ASUKA NEVER DID ANYTHING WRONG I JUST WANT PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THE EVENTS CORRECTLY! Asuka's main goal in turning Aria into Justice was to prevent the Gear Project from being used for war so he created Justice out of Aria (THIS is something you can hate him for this is an extremely fucked up thing to do and I'm not going to analyze what he did to Fredrick and Aria in this post because that's a whole other can of worms) as a command type Gear to be able to PREVENT total war by taking control of ALL gears. However UNBEKNOWNST to him the Universal Will was taking control of Justice/Aria as she awoke and was going to destroy humanity (because The Original fucked up in making the Universal Will and some weird clause happened where "protect humanity" ended up being "humanity is a threat to itself so they all have to die") by mutating the people in Japan into bombs. Asuka realized that if it went on like this the world might be destroyed and in the moment he redirected Justice with the last bit of control he had over her using Manual Override to just destroy Japan to prevent this. It was NOT an easy or light decision that he had time to make! He had to try and stop the Gear Project from being used for warfare and destruction, TWICE, and failed both times and ended up destroying the world anyway. He put the Flame of Corruption in Frederick and turned him into a gear as a failsafe before this, likely because Asuka ONLY had Frederick and Aria to rely on as friends at all. IN ABSOLUTELY NO WAY IS HE ABSOLVED OF ANY OF THOSE CRIMES! HE HASN'T EVEN ABSOLVED HIMSELF! HE DID NOT CHOOSE TO BECOME A MONSTER DOING FUCKED UP SHIT FOR NO REASON HE WAS IN A DIFFICULT POSITION BECAUSE OF WHAT HE CREATED WITH FREDERICK AND ARIA!! HE PLANS TO KILL HIMSELF IN HIS STRIVE ARCADE MODE FROM THE GUILT! STOP MAKING ME GO TO BAT FOR ASUKA BECAUSE PEOPLE WON'T READ! ALL OF THIS IS ON THE GGWIKI YOU ONLY NEED TO READ 2 OR 3 ENTRIES TO GET THAT BASIC LEVEL OF INFORMATION!! PLEASE!

I linked Asuka here but also seeing the entry for "Japan" will explain the situation. I am. NOT saying. Asuka was right. I AM saying that the idea that this is a wholly Black and White "everything in the world is his fault" situation is a GROSS FLANDERIZATION and oversimplification of what is an EXTREMELY compelling, horrifying, and tragic story of a man paving his way to hell with good intentions and I need. People to stop talking about Asuka or Chaos lore when they're on screen in Strive when they don't know what the hell they're talking about. Please.

[gilbirda]

The king's dead (long live the king) - Masterpost

In this post I'll be updating everything I have on this AU. The tag will be "Eldritch Ghost King!Danny" if you want to search my blog!

It was a big project I wanted to challenge myself with, with crazy lore and worldbuilding, with a lot of exploration of eldritchness and angst. But I just got absorbed by DPxDC crossover, saw my niche in writing romance, got obsessed with Jason and Jazz and the rest is history.

I feel it's a crime none of this will probably see the light of day, so. Here. Chaotic mode it is. Fish my posts boy. I will post sporadically about this AU. You have been warned.

If someone wants to take anything from the lore or ideas, you are welcome to! Tag me so I can check it out!

Also I'm down for discussing AU with people 👀✨

What is this fic about?

This was supposed to be my magnum opus. It's the "main" fic in my AO3 series You and me and our best friends make three. So far the series has side stories or one shots located in different moments of the story. The main fic was supposed to tell the full story on how it happened, how we ended up here.

Back in 2021, when I went down the rabbit hole with Danny Phantom, I envisioned a neat AU where Danny was this eldritch ghost king... with a twist.

I love eldritch Danny (those who know me can confirm) but I wanted to explore something I haven't seen a lot even in the angst torture-vivisection saturated market of this 20 year old fandom:

What if the Ghost King is not power, but a sacrifice?

What if it is not known that the Ghost King is actually the host of a powerful entity (I called it The Whisper, because it talks in your mind in whispers) who is always hungry. Always. Hungry. And if it doesn't have a host will eat all the Infinite Realms then the Living World.

The Ghost King makes a pact with the Whisper. The King can tap into the ectoplasm, the energy, of every creature, object, city, etc. in the Realms and convert that energy into food for the Whisper.

But nobody knows this. Is a secret shared from King to King, and you only find out after accepting the crown.

Why would you refuse? Is the King, it's an honor, is power, is greatness. Who would deny the Whisper its food?

Only one managed to sever the connection.

His name was Pariah Dark.

He went insane.

What is The Whisper?

Basically this ⬆

Is a cosmic entity that was stranded on Earth a loooong time ago. It created the Infinite Realms with its flesh and blood (ectoplasm) and all ectoplasmic creatures come from it.

But its hungry.

-----

Posted chunks of story so far and their order in the timeline:

Act I:

Desired - Danny meets the Core for the first time

Ceremony - Danny is crowned King

Party like you are dead - the Ghost King invites all of Amity Park to his castle. Reveals all around.

Act II:

Never judge a book by its cover (dpxdc crossover)(my very first dpxdc work!) - Justice League summons the Ghost King to help deal with an eldritch creature. What they get may be a worse monster

Hidden identities? Never heard of them (dpxdc crossover) - direct sequel to the previous part. Batman and some of the colony go to Amity to investigate. They catch glimpses of horrors that they can't help but wonder

Remedy (+18!!!)(my very first DP fanfic!) - self indulgent Porn Without Plot in this universe. Placed in a distant future where everything is fine

Race ya! - funny haha thing set a bit after Remedy

[boyfridged]

I think an really interesting thing about when they have the character's say that Bruce was saving Jason a life of crime or teaching Jason to be good is that it not only isn't true, it directly contradicts other canon.

We have at least two separate alternate time lines (caused specifically by time travel events where the consequences included no Bruce adoption) both of which were Jason was still a moral person. In Flashpoint he is a priest who believes in helping people not matter if they are church goers or not. A world without young justice has AU Jason die trying to do the right thing.

On top of that Jason is at the very least strongly implied to have taken care of his sick mother and the more recent portrayals of him meeting people from his pre-Bruce life also portray him as a caring person.

This adds up to although the writer means for the character to be right, and that Bruce is so noble for helping (failing) this poor child. They are actually being canonically classist towards Jason as what they are saying is an untrue assumption based on his background.

Selina in Gotham War saying he taught Jason to be good is her being classist. Alfred treating Jason like he was just a bad seed Bruce couldn't save is classist. Bruce and his whole reasoning that it is okay for Jason specifically to be endangered because of his background is classist.

Obviously that isn't the intent but when writers who are less classist about Jason write him these classist things aren't be true. It doesn't matter if Zdarsky retcons Jason being such a 'bad kid' when there are a bunch of other writers who didn't do that.

(Zdarsky: Look at this 'bad kid' before Bruce taught him morals. Ignore all the times he was portrayed as a good kid, those aren't canon anymore. Bruce is the source of all his morality. Bruce is actually less classist than Jason. This is definitely not classist writing.)

you summarized it excellently. i think it is also related to bruce projecting both his own trauma and his own worldview on jay and his background. i have written a very long post about this exactly, with receipts too. you can find it here. oh and another one, in which i explain why it would be more interesting to allow bruce to be wrong too.

and as i cited it in the above post – bruce is wrong and that fact is quite evident in-text, at least in the early versions of the story. this is also what i love so much about barr’s detective comics run – because barr calls bullshit and gets leslie to tell bruce his reasoning behind putting jason in field are unbecoming and that he is “doing it for himself.”

of course, post jay’s death that awareness has evaporated and instead we got revised versions of the story that were more than ever deadset on proving that jason did possess some fatal flaw, a violent seed that bruce did not manage to eradicate (like the issues of gotham knights, which again, i have no idea as to why they are so popular, given how malicious they are in the evaluation of jason’s fate). the latest retcons such as zdarsky’s work also fall into the trap of attempting to justify bruce’s decisions irt jason & his role as robin by diminishing jay and rewriting his story to be tainted with inevitability. even a death in the family (2020, the animated movie) provides the audience with plenty alternative endings, all of which are to make a murderer or a villain out of jason.

that is not to say that i think there should not be a sense of inevitability of jay’s tragedy at all – but its source is stubbornly misplaced for bruce’s benefit despite even the actual aditf storyline and barr’s run before placing the responsibility for it in bruce’s inability to compartmentalise his parental and vigilante duties (the chapter of aditf titled choices relates to bruce’s decision to go after the joker instead of jason; it does turn out it did not matter as jason has long been tied up in that family-vs-heroics conflict.)

bringing up the alternative versions of jay is a good way to illustrate it; in the world in which he does not meet bruce, he is not damned to participate in the cycle of abuse forever. i’m not gonna lie, i also wish countdown went in that direction and has given us more glances at realities like that. because i do believe that jason’s resolve to stop at nothing when faced by crime, the sense of obligation to do so that leaves his hands bloody, is something that was cultivated in him primarily by the robin training.

[pikahlua]

I'm sorry but what exactly did you mean in your chapter 423 tags? "People read all sorts of feelings and such into these characters"? What characters are you referring to in what feelings? Thank you

All of them. A lot of people have instilled these characters with meaning and extrapolated their predictions for said characters based on those expectations. Which is fine, we all do that. I do that. The question is, are such people open to the idea that their readings may have been wrong? And will they still retain interest at that point?

This happened a lot with Izuku and Katsuki where so many people projected a victim-bully relationship on them in a manner that wasn't there. It COULD have been there if Horikoshi decided to go that way, but ultimately it didn't pan out.

It happened with Spinner and the heteromorph plotline where people wanted an X-men-like story.

A lot of people projected a certain societal punishment they wanted for Endeavor that to them would have been justice, but that assumes what Horikoshi is trying to do is portray social justice. It also ignores how in many ways Endeavor's story runs parallel to many of the villains'. I've had some similarly weird conversations with some villain stans who just couldn't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that, even justified, their beloved favorites committed unjust transgressions against others, even if those others were nameless and faceless and just as bad and incidental to the story. There's always a reason people do things, even bad things. Does that absolve them of the crimes they've done? And even unabsolved, does that mean they will ultimately face consequences for their actions?

It's about the narrative. Horikoshi is trying to tell a story. Sure, he can put his opinions and philosophies in here and there, but is that the primary goal of making this story? I doubt it. He has a story in his heart and he wants to tell it. Is Horikoshi trying to comment on what he thinks the fate of abuse victims should be with Tomura's alleged end? I have a hard time making that leap if only because sooooo many characters are abuse victims and they all had different treatments and different fates. A lot about Tomura's story changed with the twists that have come up in the story, and AFO's reveal about his involvement in Tomura's life since before his birth does have an effect on what sort of character he is. Tomura's goal was always destruction, particularly of anything that stemmed from "that house," and AFO's trump card reveals that Tomura was also a product of that house. That raises the question: did Tomura ever think of himself as part of that house? I think it's very possible, which means in some regard he wanted to destroy himself. That makes some part of his fate self-determined. I always had a hard time predicting what would happen with Tomura because he seemed like a character whose desires were only to destroy, not to live in the aftermath. He wanted to destroy so that OTHERS could live in the aftermath, but he didn't seem to have any vision for his own future. At least in the very end his own perception of himself changed for the better. He started to see himself as more human.

[saphirafoxgirlspost1]

(Open Rp) Love Story in " The Tale of Asgardian princess and The Monkey king"

(And Yes It's base of The monkey King Havoc in Heaven, 1964 style)

Long time Ago, In the great realm of Asgard Ruled by The Allfather Himself but There's Troubles brewing in the beautiful Realm. Thats Right, His Grand Daughter Name "Princess Saphira Lorraina Fox" of Sakutopia and Asgard just Founded Out Her Horrible Husband name "Daniel Jamerson Rooster" Just Got caught Making Love With another Woman Name "Barbra Minx" and Boy, Saphira wasn't too happy and Not only that He Murdered Saphira's Unborn daughter because he wanted a Son so much. Saphira Founded it out that Daniel and Barbra is been a couple this whole time and they Planned to Get Saphira produce a male heir and Left saphira with the child in their arms.. Saphira was Not only angry but she was in Rage and demands to be on Trials so, she can Avenge her beloved Daughter Name "Serena" and Vowed to get Justice and Punish Daniel For His Sins and His crime as well. Then Odin, Thor and Loki was stood trials against Daniel and Saphira testify against him and told Her uncles and grandfather about what he did, His abuse and his Obsession of having a son and betrayal as well.. Odin was Infuriated at Daniel and he finds Daniel guilty for his crime. He decided to Banish Daniel and Barbra to the Frozen Realm home of the frost giants and He cursed Daniel and Barbra that they will never get ability to have children for good.. When Odin Cast those two Out To the frozen realm, Saphira finally got justice for her daughter.. Sadly, her heart is broken and wounded by Daniels Horrendous Actions. At her Chambers at the balcony She Rained tears at Midgard, Her parents was worried about Saphira's broken and Wounded heart, Then Odin founded out that Serena's soul is Safe by the Hands of Hel, Saphira's cousin and Loki's Daughter and Ruler of Nifelheim, Hela Foretold Odin That Saphira Will get Her daughter back But Only With a New Man Who is Worthy for Saphira's heart and mend it with love, Then Odin has the Idea and Told Saphira That She Must Travel to Find someone Worthy for it and then he said that the Jade Emperor from Heavens in China is Invited her to the Banquet within 3 days, So Saphira accepted and she Got On Sleipnir and rides off to Midgard and travel Far and wide until She landed on

the Land Of Flower Fruit Mountain. She was Curious about this place as she Wore a beautiful White Cloak with Golden Details, While Riding in the Forest of flower fruit mountain She discovered The Bunch Of monkeys in Clothing Collecting fruits and others tells Stories Until they said "The King is here, the King is here!" Saphira had Witness two Guards Opening the Water Fall like a curtain and Lo and behold

The Monkey king appeared with his armor, She was amazed to see him leaping and meeting His people and then The monkey king said after Sitting on his Throne,"Keep Practicing Boys!" She watched his people practice in Combat and all, She had never seen any monkeys Learning to fight in combat until She sees the Monkey king laughs and shows the combat skills with a sword with rings.. but the Sword broke and The monkey king was Frustrated that he can't show combat with a proper weapon.. But the old monkey told Him that there is a weapon at the east sea.. So The Monkey king decided to go there and get it.. Saphira waited Until he got out and shows his people his Weapon, it was a Ruyi jingu bang Staff. She was amazed about it But as she began to Ride off One of them Spotted Her and Shouted Saying Like "There's a Stranger Riding a Strange Horse!!" Saphira Gasp and began to try to Ride off.. But it was Stopped by His People Surrounded her and then The Monkey king made an appearance and he said..

[bixels]

When you're done with Farewell my Turnabout, I'm curious - many fans say that it's one of, if not the best case in the series. Do you have strong opinions one way or the other? What have been your favorite cases so far?

SPOILERS:

By far the best I've played. The highest stakes in any case thus far. So smart of the writers to put a character everyone universally loves DEATH in mortal peril to motivate Phoenix (and the player). They were unafraid of taking risks and hurting characters like Franziska and Gumshoe. They finally gave us what we've were hoping and waiting for too, which is Gumshoe and Edgeworth working alongside Phoenix. It was so, so, so incredibly satisfying seeing Edgeworth on your side and being a genuinely good guy, worrying about Maya's safety, and play-acting to stall for time. The judge was extremely funny. The twists were insane and unexpected.

By far my favorite part of this case is how it throws the entire series' conceit into question. It challenges Phoenix (and the player's) ideas of what it means to "win" at the game. Does finding justice mean finding the "true" killer, pinning the blame on someone else? Or does it mean making sure those who have committed crimes are able to tell their whole story and meet an appropriate sentencing? This is the first time Phoenix has had to defend someone who's 100% guilty. Was it right of him to pursue and accuse Adrian so vehemently? Throughout the case, you're constantly reminded of the trade-off you're potentially making: Adrian's life for Maya's, and Engarde's acquittal (remember those guilty are given the death penalty). Is it right to put someone to death if it means saving someone you care about? These are serious moral dilemmas that the case explores. What are the consequences of trying to "win" the game? Powers even calls out Phoenix's aggressive tactics of humiliating and throwing suspicion onto innocent witnesses, which is something that's been normalized to players. It's the first time I've seen the franchise question its own premise and whether or not it's teaching the player the right lessons about law and order.