#those stories' ideas about crime and justice

[literaryvein-reblogs]

hiii, i am writing my first book/novel. its highlighting d***th, romance, mystery, politics, pretty questionable characters w revenge, thriller and lots of women n power play. its my first book and im not that educated about such themes. but this rough plot i have in my mind is so beautiful that underperforming this excellent trope would be a shame....ive never written before so could you please what to do to actually write this kinda theme to my heart's satisfaction. I've never written a freaking chap before and now im really lost

Writing Ideas: Revenge Tropes

some tropes related to revenge, thriller, women, and power play

Afterlife Avenger: This trope involves the circumstance where a character explicitly still chooses to pursue conflicts against whatever's left of their hated target long after they've passed.

Best Served Cold: Named for the French (or Sicilian, or Klingon, or drow, depending on who you ask) proverb, "Revenge is a dish best served cold." At least in the case of drow, it also means one can have well-planned revenge and drive them mad with fear as a bonus.

Crusading Widow: The death or murder of their significant other motivates the character to seek revenge.

Defeat as Backstory: A protagonist (or some other character's backstory) in a story begins by having been defeated either before the story began, or early on in the story (often in a prologue).

Dying Curse: With his dying breath, a character wishes ill fortune upon his killers, or some other personal enemy.

Pay Evil unto Evil: In real life, the sort of thinking behind this trope is called "retributive justice".

Revenge Through Corruption: Instead of inflicting physical harm, the villain attacks the mind and soul.

Villain-by-Proxy Fallacy: When someone goes after not only a crime's perpetrator, but those who supplied the perpetrator or were otherwise marginally connected to it, whether or not the people involved had anything to do with the actual crime.

Woman Scorned: A woman who's been dumped, cheated on, or otherwise done wrong by her significant other (or, in some cases, merely thinks she's been).

Examples

Alexandre Dumas's The Count of Monte Cristo, probably the greatest revenge story of all time.

In the original version of Beauty and the Beast, the Prince's widowed mother goes off to fight a war and leaves a wicked fairy to help him rule. When the Prince comes of age, she tries to seduce him and turns him into a Beast when he refuses her advances.

In Moby-Dick, Captain Ahab makes it clear throughout the book that he'll pursue Moby Dick to, into, through, and out of Hell, and even then he still won't be satisfied until the whale suffers forever for its slight against him.

Crime and Punishment: One of the antagonists of the novel, Porfiry, works as a police officer and interrogator, which usually would qualify as a good-aligned job. As you further witness this officer's tactics in catching criminals, you see him commit to bribery, thievery, death-threats, and psychological torture to force an admission. Furthermore, he seems to actually enjoy it, toying with amateur criminals like a cat torturing a wounded mouse. The justification, of course, being that the victim of this was a murderer, and therefore deserves it.

George R. R. Martin's Fire & Blood: After the war, Lady Joanna Lannister has a beef to pick with the Greyjoys, who've taken up raiding the coast, including killing a few Lannisters. She decides the best course of action is go to the Iron Islands and kill every man, woman and child she can find. She just settles for burning a lot of things and abducting one Greyjoy, gelding him and turning him into her fool.

Feyd Rautha Harkonnen receives a Dying Curse in Dune. After killing a combat slave in the arena, his opponent's final words are "One day one of us will get you." Given that this fighter is not just a slave, but one of the soldiers from the army of the Harkonnen's blood enemies, the Atreides, this may be prophetic.

In A Song of Ice and Fire, Arya Stark's conflation of justice and personal vengeance leads her to Villain-by-Proxy Fallacy. While many of people on her death list certainly deserve to be brought to justice, such as the Tickler for torture and Weese for abuse, others were merely acting on orders, such as the Hound, doing their jobs or are just guilty by association. Cersei Lannister is on her death list for being involved in the execution of Ned Stark, but Cersei wasn't complicit in that activity, and even spoke out against it. Same with Ilyn Payne, who was just doing his job as the royal executioner. The real mastermind of Ned's death, Littlefinger, is not on the list. Meryn Trant is on the list for killing Syrio Forel, but there isn't any evidence to confirm the crime. Polliver and Dunsen are on the list for flimsy reasons, like stealing. She has Chiswyck murdered for the crime of not being as funny as he thinks he is (granted, Chiswyck was joking about a gang rape, but that isn't the reason Arya cites as his crime). The conflation of justice and vengeance, and how that conflation leads to this trope, is one of the key themes of the entire story.

Queen Dido in The Aeneid, who prophesies that her and Aeneas's people will meet again in war (the Punic Wars — her future, Virgil's past). Particularly tragic in that it's made fairly obvious that he'd have stayed with her if he'd had the choice.

Sidney Sheldon's The Best Laid Plans: Leslie Stewart plots to ruin the career of Oliver Russell when he leaves her at the altar to marry a woman whose father promises to further his political career.

The Hunger Games: The Pay Evil Unto Evil trope is discussed all the way through Mockingjay, and reaches its culmination when President Coin suggests either executing all Capitol citizens or forcing their children into the Games.

Source ⚜ More: References ⚜ Writing Resources PDFs

Hi, here are some tropes I found related to the themes you described. You can find more in the source linked above. Study how it is portrayed in different types of media, and in your favourite films/books, to gain inspiration for your own story. You can take the rough idea/plot you already have, and try to incorporate techniques and tropes used by other authors, but then deviate from borrowing those ideas when your story starts to flow naturally. All the best with your writing!

[tgirlranting]

okay so i saw some of the discourse ajout Emilia Perez and wantes to see it for myself.

TL;DR: dogshit movie. masterclass in transmisogyny.

the opening song tells us this is a story about violence and love, and it delivers on that promise: in this movie, masculinity is violence; a violence which Emilia (Karla Sofía Gascón) wishes to escape through transition. the film firmly states that Emilia's wish is a doomed one. she was born violent and violence will always be a part of her.

this is an idea inherent to transmisogyny: male bodies are violent, and therefore transfem bodies are violent. "abuser-bodied" is a term used to other us and justify our exclusion from queer and women's spaces. the film Emilia Perez sets out to repackage this idea in a veneer of shitty music, crime and family drama, and toothless takes on too many social issues to count.

the film is apparently interested in many topics; drug trafficking, kidnapping, murder, corruption, sexism, ineffective justice systems, etc. it takes time out of its two hour length to mention all of these, but not to say anything about them. midway through the film, lawyer Rita (Zoe Saldana) sings a #deep song about how all these corrupt politicians are "going to pay, to pay, to pay, to pay"—the implication being that they are going to pay for their crimes—but Rita has no intention of making then do so. the reason she's in this ballroom with them is to ask for their money for her and Emilia's charity—shes not making them pay, she's asking them to. the film wants to act as if it's commenting on social issues here, even though its completely uninterested in doing so. instead of highlighting social issues, it unintentionally paints Rita as a corrupt, hollow sellout. she knows these people, knows where their money comes from, but gets into bed with them anyway. her performative rage at the system is a hollow edifice that appeals to liberal Academy voters, and no one else.

considering what the film is interested in saying, i almost prefer that approach. in a widely (deservedly) memed-on song, Rita is introduced to the world of gender-confirming surgery in a spectacle meant to elicit the macabre, the exotic amd erotic. a doctor sings "man to woman, penis to vaginaaaaaa" while Rita excitedly dances and asks for more. The doctors voice is made robotic, calling to mind cyborgs and robotic women; robotic women like Emilia is soon to become.

Rita later attempts to convince a reluctant doctor to perform those surgeries on Emilia. in a tone of profundity, she claims, "if you could only see what he's shown me."

Note the masculine pronoun. Not only does Rita continually misgender Emilia during this conversation (for which Emilia is not present), but the two of them have only had one on-screen conversation: their first meeting, in which Emilia shows Rita her boobs and says in a raspy, hyper-masculine voice, "I wish to be a woman."

So what is Rita talking about here? The only possible answer is the range of strange, wondrous surgeries she has just been informed of, or the fact that trans people exist, both of which this doctor is well aware of. I suspect the film is gesturing at some nebulous idea of the unloveable other showing us true beauty through their resilience, but frankly that is a reach. The film chooses not to say what Rita is talking about here, likely because the film itself has no idea. What we are left with in that gesturing absence is that the surgeries, the act of changing your body in a way that others find both disturbing and fascinating, is not only the sum total of trans existence, but is itself somehow meaningful; aren't the trannies brave for mutilating their bodies this way? For choosing to make themselves an artificial mockery of womanhood in order to be true to themselves? Isn't there beauty in their struggle to be recognized as something they clearly are not? It's a dismal, patronizing view of transfemininity. But before the conversation ends, a song breaks out in which Zoe Saldana, not Rita, turns to the camera and proclaims to the audience that she will always have our backs. Forgive me if I don't fall at her feet in gratitude.

the specter of Emilia's past, as a cartel boss and as a man, hangs over her constantly in a way the movie does not seek to challenge. she tries to change her ways: fake her death, become a woman through extensive surgeries, and use her money to help those affected by cartel violence. but of course, when her formee wife, Jessi, tries to move on from the husband she believes is dead, Emilia immediately sinks into her "male" voice and physically assaults her, then sends goons to beat and threaten the boyfriend's life. this results in Jessi and her boyfriend kidnapping Emilia during the climax of the film. As Jessi begins to suspect who Emilia really is, she asks "who are you?"

her reply of "Emilia," is drowned out by Jessi singing her deadname. immediately after this, we see Emilia for the last time as she is thrown in the trunk of a car, and all three of them perish in a burning wreck. Emilia cannot escape her manhood, the violence inherent in her body. everyone weep for her; what a tragic figure, the tranny.

[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.

[eveningdawn222]

people who act like batman isn't "judge jury and executioner" because he doesn't kill people are like. genuinely so funny to me because. they're very obviously thinking of "executioner" as like. the stereotypical guy with axe who chops people heads off, and not, yknow, the literal definition of the idiom itself, which is about someone who has the ability to judge and then subsequently punish someone unilaterally. which is quite literally what batman does.

he has the ability to decide what is a "crime" to him, he is the one who decides whether people are guilty of those crimes, and he is the one who executes their punishment. the severity of the punishment doesn't matter - he is unaccountable to anyone else, and indeed is allowed to commit as many crimes as needed to reach his arbitrary ideal of "justice."

the ideal of batman is this: a man who is so fundamentally changed by an act of senseless violence that he takes it upon himself to fight back against the rot and corruption in the world. he does this not through political activism, not through ridding himself of his wealth in favor of a greater good, not through community outreach, but through an individualistic fantasy of being a hero.

and you'll say: charlie, but he does do that !!! he donates his money all the time, he funds social programs, hospitals, orphanages, gets people jobs -

and i will say this: so why don't things get better?

because here's the base of it. gotham, at its core, can't get better. no matter what bruce wayne does, there will always be more crime, more villains, more death, more people for batman to beat up in back alleys. because that's what sells.

reoffending rates don't matter in gotham, prison reform doesn't matter in gotham, what actually causes crime doesn't matter in gotham because that doesn't sell books.

and so here it is; dc has unintentionally created a world where batman can't win, but can't be wrong, and where thousands of nameless, faceless, only-created-to-die civilians must be pushed into the meat grinder that is gotham, to fuel bruce wayne's angst and vindicate his constant, tireless, noble fight against the forces of evil.

and then: a new robin, who is poor and who's parents are dead or gone because of this cycle; who is happy go-lucky and hated by editors and fans for being robin, for not being dick grayson, for being poor.

and this robin is written, unintentionally or not, to be angry at the ways in which batman's (the narrative's) idea of justice is detached from its victims. bruce seems perfectly fine to allow countless unnamed women to be at risk from garzonas in his home country, yet robin is the one who is portrayed as irrational and violent.

this robin is not detached from gotham in the way bruce wayne is: this robin is a product of gotham.

(and here's the thing. you can't punch aids. you can't fight a disease with colorful fights and nifty gadgets. and how would robin dying from aids add to batman's story; it would call into question the systemic changes that haven't been made in gotham. how does a child get aids, in batman's city?)

so robin dies, and then bruce (the narrative) spends the next couple of decades blaming it on him. it is jason's fault; he was reckless, he just ran in, he thought it was all a game. if only bruce had seen what was coming, if only he could have known that jason wasn't rich enough or smart enough or liked enough to be robin.

batman gets a little more violent, a little more self destructive. he hurts people more and almost (!!) kills a couple guys. this is bad because it's self destructive and "not who he is." it is not bad because batman should not be able to just beat people up when he's angry.

and then he gets a shiny new robin - who is all the things jason "wasn't": rich and smart and rational and he doesn't put who batman is into question. batman and robin are partners, and jason is a grave and a cautionary tale, and (crucially here) never right.

the joker kills thousands and it doesn't matter because they were written to be killed.

batman beats up thousands and it doesn't matter because they were written to be criminals.

and then jason comes back, and nothing has changed. there is a batman and a (shiny! rich!) robin and the joker kills thousands. (because it sells)

and jason is angry - he has been left unavenged - his death has meant nothing, just as willis' had, just as catherine's had, just as gloria's had, just as -

thousands. ten of thousands. hundreds of thousands. written to be killed.

but one of them gets to come back.

and he is angry - not only at the joker, but at bruce (the narrative) - because why is the joker still alive (when thousands-)

here is the thing - jason todd is right. not because the death penalty is good, not because criminals deserve to die, not because of everything he says -

but because of what he calls into question. why is the joker alive?

because he sells books.

and dc has written a masterful character, through no fault of their own, because jason knows what is wrong, and he knows who is at fault - batman. (the narrative)

so the argument that bruce can't kill because he's not judge jury and executioner; the argument that jason is a cop or that jason is insane or that jason is in the wrong here; they hold no weight.

batman can't kill the joker because the joker sells comic books.

and jason can't kill the joker because the joker sells comic books.

so he will beg and plead and grovel - he will betray everything that is himself, he will forsake his family and his city and kill himself - just so that bruce (the narrative) will let the joker die.

he was condemned to death by an audience, and after he came back he has spent his whole life looking us in the eyes and screaming, asking, pleading; why is the joker still alive?

why are thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands (the number doesn't matter, see, because they're just a number. not people. not real.) why are we expendable for his story? why did i have to die just for nothing to change?

and the answer is money. and the answer is the batman can never be wrong. and the answer is shitty writing. and the answer is -

nothing jason can ever change.

which is the worst of it all. he is a victim with no power, and no one else in the world can see it. he is raging and crying and screaming at his father and his writers and you - and it doesn't matter. jason doesn't matter. and he knows it.

[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!

[dg-outlaw]

Why Jason and Bruce Will Never See Eye to Eye

At least, when it comes to Gotham.

The short answer: Because they each see Gotham through a different lens.

I thought about this after I read Absolute Batman #4 and how that universe's Batman is almost a fusion of Bruce and Jason. Absolute Bruce is an AU version that has the love and support from Thomas and Martha, the childhood tragedy of loss, and also the lived experience of being raised in Park Row without loads of wealth, but still chose to become Batman.

But going back to Prime Earth/canon Bruce and Jason...

For Bruce, it's one alley, one night, and one tragedy that set him on a course to becoming Batman. Of course, throughout the years he's learned more, grown, and understands the nuances of crime and corruption in Gotham, but it's still an outsider's view. He can have empathy and a desire for justice, but at the end of the day, the world he knows is Wayne Manor, his loving childhood with Thomas and Martha, the Batcave, fancy galas, corporate buildings, and near limitless wealth. Yes, he has slummed it as Matches Malone and has studied crime and how socio-economic poverty can lead to crime, but it's all cerebral and it's not Bruce's lived experience.

If anything, Matches is a perfect example of this. Just as rich, playboy, devil-may-care Bruce Wayne is a mask, so is Matches. It's a pretend, make believe persona he can put on and then take off once he's back home. Yes, he has a mission, an oath, etc. and he's fully dedicated to it, but at the end of the day there's still a hot meal from Alfred and a comfy bed with Egyptian cotton sheets waiting for him when it's all over.

For Jason, it's more than just one alley and one bad day. Patrols as Robin were probably a constant reminder of the all the things he had seen and experienced as a child. That alley over there is where he saw his first dead body, long before Robin was even an idea in his mind. Another alley is where he first saw someone having sex before he understood what sex was. That apartment complex is where Catherine OD'd that one time and the complex next to it is where his friend's older brother got shot in a gang-related shooting. He knows most of the names of the different people on the street corners, just trying to get by, as well as their violent pimps he knew to avoid. One of the girls once shared half a sandwich with him back when he was orphaned and on the streets. Her pimp said she was getting fat, but in reality she was starving and malnourished, but she took pity on Jason because she had been friends with Willis. And the list of memories goes on.

Yes, little Jason was a "good kid", and I have a rant for that, but those memories while on patrol probably gave him pause because that was his world and his history. Whereas, for Bruce, it was part of his job. He may know the names and the stories, but they're a step removed from Bruce and Batman.

Flash forward to teen Jason, the "angry" Robin who might've thrown a guy off a balcony. That little boy who lucked into the orphan Annie Cinderella story is now a bit more aware of the world and it's injustices, despite having a cape. Now, he sees those familiar places, but the dead body in the alley is one of his childhood friends that he used to play basketball with and who'd geek out with him over their favorite Saturday morning cartoon. The girl on the corner, slightly strung out and looking for her next John? That was his teen babysitter from down the hall. She used to watch MTV religiously and go on about that one guy from her favorite boy band, certain that she'd marry that guy someday because she had a collage of him on her wall. That dead-eyed man who appears to have just OD'ed in the empty apartment Robin and Batman are searching in for clues as to Sacrecrow's location? Jason's favorite English teacher who told him that reading wasn't girly and that he could read whatever seemed interesting to him. And the memories go on.

Task Force Z, Issue #6

That little boy, adopted by Bruce Wayne, was probably extremely grateful and often quietly anxious. Probably constantly afraid that he'd mess up and lose that golden ticket he'd found. So he did everything he could to be perfect; straight A's in school and perfect Robin flips just like Dick. But teen Jason started to see the reality of the world, like most teenagers do, and things changed. Things that Bruce could never understand.

I imagine Jason often asks himself the question, "Why me?" Why was he the lucky one and they weren't. Other than amusing Batman by stealing his tires and being another random orphan within Bruce's orbit, nothing about Jason ever said he deserved the brass ring more than anyone else. He just got lucky, then he died... and then came back.

If anything, Jason and Selina Kyle probably relate to each other the most. They know those dark, "scary" parts of Gotham and they not only see the scars, but they feel them because they share those scars with Gotham.

And that's why Jason and Bruce will never see eye to eye, especially when it comes to Gotham. It isn't the same for them, and it never will be.

[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.

[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..

[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.

[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

[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.

[glitter-stained]

for wip game: ok i HAVE to ask about the horse movie. I NEED to know more about the horse movie.

Okay so this one I love the AU but am hesitant to share because it's ooc and I'm self-conscious about it. The thing is it's a civilian AU that pulls from canon, arkhamverse, young justice show etc. so obviously it's gonna be different (but I think the mere fact of not dressing up to fight crime at night is gonna change stuff lol). Plus, of course, those horsegirl books I read when I was a preteen and a couple of long-lost fanfics about horses.

Anyway you know how sometimes in those stories a complicated girl with issuesTM goes to a ranch and is told there's this one horse is super wild and dangerous because of how it was abused by its previous owners before, but the horse recognises that the girl is complex and that she was hurt by life, too, and they're the same, and week after week they slowly get to know eachother and stop being so nervous and weary and they end up best friends and she's the only one allowed to ride the horse? Well, that's Jason and Red Hood.

Basically Jason goes to work at the Queen ranch to help with like cooking and cleaning because Roy needs help around so he can spend the time designing himself a prosthetic arm and the ranch takes so much time he needs to delegate, especially since Lian is there. And there, Jason who swore he'd never ride again, meets Red Hood the untamable horse and begins bringing her treats after a hard day of work and the develop a ✨ connection ✨. It's very indulgent, still pretty angsty because of both of their traumas, Roy's addiction and Catherine, their insecurities about Lian, the fact Roy has no idea Jason is his best friend's presumed dead little brother... But it also has all the cliche scenes of riding together, having a picnic by the river, going to dance at the nearby town, and yes, there is a scene where Jason takes Roy's hat and puts in on his head. I have to confess, this is a very feel-good one where yeah bad things happened but it's all in the past and now we're learning to heal and trust again, with just a very obvious metaphor about befriending a horse with treats. It's mostly arrowfam with the batfam kinda in the background. though there's a decent enough dose of dickroy friendship. And Jaymia friendship because if I have an opportunity to create an AU in which they get along then by god I will.

Every hero identity (batfam and arrowfam) is a horse, except for Speedy, Robin and Cheshire Cat which are poneys.

[sourvers]

I believe the real power or poignancy of Arcane that makes it so intrinsically difficult to analysis/discuss especially on moral/ethics/relationship/values and much, much more is how nuanced every character is- how nuanced the world truly is. Each character is by no means “completely innocent” yet, we as viewers experience their pains and their joy; ultimately forming interpretations & ideas based on not only the show itself but the thoughts of others and the values of our own. Arcane is a show that makes you think, and think hard.

Personally, I’ve been seeing so many interesting interpretations, opinion and analysis that sometimes I just get so lost. However, here are my thoughts on Arcane specifically on the premise of human nature.

Arcane extends beyond the concept of “twin cities”, “doomed sister”, “prejudice & political corruption,” “the cost of ambition” and so on. Arcane is this strange, twisted, gut wrenching cacophony of the human need to be seen and more importantly, felt. It is the way in which nations, societies, and individuals seek understanding. It is this gritty fight, cry, and perhaps dream that attempts others to catch a momentary glimpse of the whole picture: to be heard, to be tender, to run the course of life wild and free, to experience profound regret, to be confused, to bring about havoc, to long for rest, to let go. All these collective experiences- at the same time or not- come together with the initiative or wish to be felt by individuals or even groups with various motives. Some as personal as to not walk through life alone and others with aims at serving justice. However, to be felt utterly and wholly is impossible. It requires living that individuals life start to finish. Which is why societies and individuals strive for the closest act: empathy. This need to be both felt and seen is littered across Arcane: we have Victor and Jayce with their intertwined characters arcs, the brutality between Zaun and Piltover, along with Vi and Jinx with sisterhood, defining what sisterhood means to them, and the blunt reality of their actions and circumstances.

Through tragedies such as (but not limited to) the death of Caitlyn’s mother, enforcer brutality, discord within and between the cities, or simply the utter haunting of the past, Arcane creates a portal of seemingly endless interpretation and debate because human nature is at it’s core- debatable, obscure, and in some ways, undefinable. What defines actions as justifiable? What is justice? What defines actions as selfish or blatantly wrong when faced with the entire story? If, as Caitlyn said, “No amount of good can undo our crimes,” then what’s next? What’s next for those who carry the burden of regret? Shame? Of crimes that simply can’t be taken back? What is the fate, the outcome, judgement or verdict of these individuals, or in this case, characters? In some cases, it is evident based on morals or certain values. In others, there are spaces of grey. Then there is the next question, “When is it right, acceptable, or even necessary, to move on? Either from loss, pain, injustice, or hurt? Or is ‘moving on’ even the correct phrase to encompass the myriad emotions, experiences, and influences that lead individuals to take the steps into the possibilities of now without abandoning the people, lessons, or memories of the past?”

(There are more questions in the show that truly intrigue me and hurt my brain a touch because I personally can’t answer it. Such as “What is a necessary evil?” “Does maintaining the status quo lead to a false sense of security?” “Is violence the necessary means for change?” “What defines forgiveness and what defines naiveness?” “What justifies creation/ambition?”)

Perhaps, Arcane is just as its title suggests. Maybe I’m wrong. Ultimately, human nature is a concept not new to Arcane or any media for that matter. We have it in books, poetry, art, and music as a means to express the frustrations or pleasures of human life. We have it in math and science as a means of understanding the fundamentals of our world in attempts to rid ourselves of our fear of the unknown or perhaps to satisfy human curiosity. Maybe it’s a mix of both. Regardless, Arcane is a show that brought me to some difficult yet eye opening conversations that has reflected out into how I comprehend and approach other media. That at the end of the day is my true takeaway despite my own mixed feelings about the show— Arcane is that nuance: the nuance of life.

Feel free to drop your thoughts! (respectfully please) I’d love to read them regardless of where you stand.