DC Injustice Superman did nothing wrong

King Arts

Well-known member
In honor of the new show made about a video game that is based off comic books. Let's have a morality debate! In the setting of Injustice where Joker nukes Metropolis and causes the death of Superman's wife and unborn child then Superman killed the Joker and established a dictatorship to deal with criminals. Who was in the right, Batman or Superman?
 

PsihoKekec

Swashbuckling Accountant
Superman was less wrong the Batman and most of the escalation in the story was due to Batman pushing Superman deeper into dark, just because Batman couldn't get over the death of his one true love.
 

Free-Stater 101

Freedom Means Freedom!!!
Nuke Mod
Moderator
Staff Member
Superman may have been pushed but ultimately he made his choices of his own free will while Batman more or less was a victim of his personal issues.

Clark wasnt evil for killing Joker spur of the moment but that doesnt mean he didn't do anything wrong.

Ultimately Diana is the real bad guy here as she fed and enabled all of Clark's worse fears intentionally for her benefit.
 
Last edited:

Abhishekm

Well-known member
I for one welcomed our Kryptonian Smallvillian overlord. 👨‍🌾🦸‍♂️

Hey if its death penalty happy Supes or the DC comics equivalent of whatever we have now go for it.
 

Lord Sovereign

Well-known member
That's the justice systems failings in comics not Batmans.

That makes it all the worse. When the Gotham system is so corrupt and ineffective that this maniac keeps evading the death penalty and escaping to murder hundreds, what other choice is there to stop him permanently? The moral and pragmatic thing to do is end him, or let one of his schemes going wrong do your dirty work.

Edit: If Batman is so sanctimonious over the "no killing rule" (most of the Avengers would have put down Joker long ago), he should just imprison the Joker himself.
 

Free-Stater 101

Freedom Means Freedom!!!
Nuke Mod
Moderator
Staff Member
That makes it all the worse. When the Gotham system is so corrupt and ineffective that this maniac keeps evading the death penalty and escaping to murder hundreds, what other choice is there to stop him permanently? The moral and pragmatic thing to do is end him, or let one of his schemes going wrong do your dirty work.
But Bruce isn't that type of morally sacrificial person and furthermore he has good reasons for not killing.

It's also unfair to blame the Gotham courts for the Joker living as it has nothing to do with 'Justice' but everything to do with the writers not wanting to kill him for plot reasons.
 
Last edited:

Lord Sovereign

Well-known member
It's also unfair to blame the Gotham courts for Joker living as it's nothing to do with Justice but everything to do with the writers not wanting to kill him for plot reasons.

Quickly off topic, but yes, you are right there. It's made all the more messy by some characterisations of Joker (IE, a bit closer to what he started out as, an unstable crime lord with a flair for the theatrical) really not deserving death. For example, I'm not sure Caesar Romero's Joker, or the Joker of TAS's earlier seasons, would have laughed too much at what Injustice Joker did.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
Injustice, I feel, kind of touches on an elephant in the room that comics try very hard to ignore.

Specifically, the reason for superheroes is because the authorities come in three flavors, worthless, more worthless, and actively malicious. A government that did its job would negate any reason for Batman to go out in a fancy suit and fight individual muggers. The super prisons leak like a sieve, the justice system is incapable of even managing to capture, much less prosecuting, the Joker or various other weirdos, many of whose entire superpower consists of wearing a costume.

Logically speaking this leads to only one outcome, the authorities get removed and replaced by a new government actually capable of protecting their citizens, the people should not and in a reasonable world, would not stand for being led by the equivalent of infomerical humanity. However the story the comics are based around isn't normally Superman taking over the world and ruling as God-Emperor so they jump through all manner of hoops to keep the government in charge, while also having to jump through an equal number of hoops to make sure the government can't do anything without Superman holding their hand.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
That's the justice systems failings in comics not Batmans.
Injustice, I feel, kind of touches on an elephant in the room that comics try very hard to ignore.

Specifically, the reason for superheroes is because the authorities come in three flavors, worthless, more worthless, and actively malicious. A government that did its job would negate any reason for Batman to go out in a fancy suit and fight individual muggers. The super prisons leak like a sieve, the justice system is incapable of even managing to capture, much less prosecuting, the Joker or various other weirdos, many of whose entire superpower consists of wearing a costume.

Logically speaking this leads to only one outcome, the authorities get removed and replaced by a new government actually capable of protecting their citizens, the people should not and in a reasonable world, would not stand for being led by the equivalent of infomerical humanity. However the story the comics are based around isn't normally Superman taking over the world and ruling as God-Emperor so they jump through all manner of hoops to keep the government in charge, while also having to jump through an equal number of hoops to make sure the government can't do anything without Superman holding their hand.

Yes it is Gotham's and America's fault since the American legal system that give Joker the protections he has. That's why I said Injustice Superman and his regime did nothing wrong. He brought world peace and even ended the war between Israel and Palestine for good. Him as Emperor is good.
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
Injustice, I feel, kind of touches on an elephant in the room that comics try very hard to ignore.

Specifically, the reason for superheroes is because the authorities come in three flavors, worthless, more worthless, and actively malicious. A government that did its job would negate any reason for Batman to go out in a fancy suit and fight individual muggers. The super prisons leak like a sieve, the justice system is incapable of even managing to capture, much less prosecuting, the Joker or various other weirdos, many of whose entire superpower consists of wearing a costume.

Logically speaking this leads to only one outcome, the authorities get removed and replaced by a new government actually capable of protecting their citizens, the people should not and in a reasonable world, would not stand for being led by the equivalent of infomerical humanity. However the story the comics are based around isn't normally Superman taking over the world and ruling as God-Emperor so they jump through all manner of hoops to keep the government in charge, while also having to jump through an equal number of hoops to make sure the government can't do anything without Superman holding their hand.
This doesn't actually happen.

You see, superhero comics originated in times and places where a "masked vigilante going after criminals" didn't actually see so far fetched given systematic corruption of the criminal justice system at the time. Look at the initial two boom era for the origin of superhero comics: the 1930s and 1970s. Both of these times were noted for the widespread corruption and soft of crime attitudes by the elites, corrupt and ineffective police forces where it was a reasonable response for someone to kind of force the issue, cut through the corruption and basically make it so that the police couldn't avoid doing their job.

Gotham city isn't actually noteworthy for it's level of corruption, New York in the 70s, Chicago... well just fucking Chicago, LA, or Washington DC of the 1980s all gave Gotham a run for it's money in the amount of crime going on.

I would also point out that we're living through one of the largest crime booms since the 1970s right now, give it a few more years, especially in the big cities, and vigilantism is likely going to be seen as a viable recourse once again, and masked vigilantism especially given how protecting one's identity not just from criminals but also the Twitter cancel mob for going after protected classes (whom happen to be criminal) is developing.

Just as with these previous cycles, eventually the situation will get so bad that "tough on crime" attitudes will once again dominate politics as they did in the 80s and 90s, which will again result in massive diminishment of crime as they did in the past. We might even see a major boom in superhero crime comics again, though not from Marvel or DC...

Man, I wish I could draw... a modern superhero working in the modern world attempting to avoid their identity not just to avoid the criminal elements but the Twitter mob attempting to cancel them... that might actually make for an interesting twist.
 

Free-Stater 101

Freedom Means Freedom!!!
Nuke Mod
Moderator
Staff Member
Must be a short television series if he did nothing wrong.
I have the DVD but I havent watched it yet so I only know a few clips from YouTube. But he still kills a bunch of teenagers who have misguided ideas on who the joker is and actually represents and calls him a 'facist' but given this is supposedly after he seizes control of the world by force and becomes an authoritarian its more understandable than otherwise.

In the comics and games thought, Superman is a monster regardless of any good that he does. Not only is he okay with seeing Martian Manhunter burned alive, but he also tries to kill Black Canary after she understandably gets mad with him when he shows up to to Green Arrows funeral after killing the man, he also straight up kills Billy Batson for questioning him, brainwashed Batman into being a slave and subtly threatens to do the same to his teenage cousin Kara should she not bow to his whims.
 
Last edited:

King Arts

Well-known member
I have the DVD but I havent watched it yet so I only know a few clips from YouTube. But he still kills a bunch of teenagers who have misguided ideas on who the joker actually represents l and calls him a 'facist' but given this is supposedly after he seizes control of the world by force and becomes an authoritarian its more understandable than otherwise.

In the comics and games thought, Superman is a monster regardless of any good that he does. Not only is he okay with seeing Martian Manhunter burned alive, but he also tries to kill Black Canary after she understandably gets mad when he shows up to to Green Arrows funeral after killing the man, he also straight up kills Billy Batson for questioning him, brainwashed Batman into being a slave and subtly threatens to do the same to his teenage cousins should she not bow to his whims.
Don’t really read comics but I know that last part from the video games. Anyway the first part there is nothing wrong with that those were people who could become a problem later a danger to the state.
 

Free-Stater 101

Freedom Means Freedom!!!
Nuke Mod
Moderator
Staff Member
Don’t really read comics but I know that last part from the video games. Anyway the first part there is nothing wrong with that those were people who could become a problem later a danger to the state.
The video games and comics exist within the same universe and are canonical with each other.

And as for the rest that's bullshit because your initial argument praising Superman was about him taking no chances with the Joker and yet that's exactly the chance he is taking here in not killing Batman.

Furthermore Kara was already in a red sun cell, the same one that had successfully held him for a few years and unlike himself she has no allies to speak of by that point that would want to risk their rears saving her which more or less would be worse if you removed Batman completely from the equation.

Batman may have aided his fall but Superman is a tyrant and a complete monster by his own actions.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
The video games and comics exist within the same universe and are canonical with each other.

And as for the rest that's bullshit because your initial argument praising Superman was about him taking no chances with the Joker and yet that's exactly the chance he is taking here in not killing Batman.

Furthermore Kara was already in a red sun cell, the same one that had successfully held him for a few years and unlike himself she has no allies to speak of by that point that would want to risk their rears saving her which more or less would be worse if you removed Batman completely from the equation.

Batman may have aided his fall but Superman is a tyrant and a complete monster by his own actions.
I know they exist in the same continuity I’m saying I don’t know them I don’t read comic books. Also unlike Joker Batman can actually be useful so mind controlling him isn’t dumb. The same with his cousin another Kryptonian would be useful. And no injustice Superman is not a tyrant he is the rightful ruler, and his regime improved the world.
 

bintananth

behind a desk
That's the justice systems failings in comics not Batmans.
It's also unfair to blame the Gotham courts for the Joker living as it has nothing to do with 'Justice' but everything to do with the writers not wanting to kill him for plot reasons.
Side effect of the format. Back the day the Comics Code said "the villian is not allowed to get away scot-free" and these are long-running series.

If the villians of the issue are limited to a more realistic "one-and-done" rule for really horrible stuff, the writers would run out of ideas and resort to:

- same schtick, different costume
- mostly harmless and only commits misdemeanors with the occasional minor felony that gets tossed for lack of evidence
- WTF villians like Razorfist*
- bad guys who don't commit any crimes are just unlikeable twatwaffles

Injustice Superman ending Joker once and for all: understandable and justified

Injustice Superman going off the rails and taking over: yup, that's the villian

* That character could have been well written, but he wouldn't be a villian if he was. He'd be like this guy:

 

Free-Stater 101

Freedom Means Freedom!!!
Nuke Mod
Moderator
Staff Member
I know they exist in the same continuity I’m saying I don’t know them I don’t read comic books.
Then you should change the OP to say movie only or make it a two scenario debate. But the movie seems to just be a b*stardized version of the comic and that will come up.
Also unlike Joker Batman can actually be useful so mind controlling him isn’t dumb.
He can also break free most likely and cause the entire thing to re-ignite again, which will outweigh any benefits keeping him around would have.

The risk simply isn't worth it to say nothing of how low a moral character it shows Superman to have.
The same with his cousin another Kryptonian would be useful.
Maybe but in doing so he will have ensure old that if she ever breaks feee she will only ever see him as a tyrannical enemy rather than a misguided relative. Making her actually go all out rather than holding back or taking the opportunity to just flee earth.

And even the Superman has a city of Krytonians at that point so she isn't irreplaceable.
And no injustice Superman is not a tyrant he is the rightful ruler, and his regime improved the world.
There is only one man who has a fair claim to being ruler of DC earth and that's Lex Luthor.

In any case there is no such thing as a 'rightful ruler' plain and simple Superman didn't get made world leader because it was owed to him, but because he seized it by force.

And 'Yes' he very well is a tyrant under every the very definition of the word.

a cruel and oppressive ruler.

That is literally the Oxford Dictionaries definition of the term and he fits the bill.
 
Last edited:

bintananth

behind a desk
And 'Yes' he very well is a tyrant under every the very definition of the word.

a cruel and oppressive ruler.

That is literally the Oxford Dictionaries definition of the term and he fits the bill.
In Ancient Greece a Tyrant wasn't "a cruel an oppressive ruler". A tyrant was someone who illegally seized power, usually from a cruel and oppressive ruler and with the support of the oppressed.

Conversely: in Ancient Rome a Dictator was someone who was legally granted absolute power for six months by the Senate to deal with a crisis.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top