Reminder that the "no kill" rule is an immeadiate

Or it's the writers recognizing that it's a fantasy superhero comic book and if you try to apply real-world cynical morality to it it turns into the Watchmen world.

>>94183473
>anytime anyone tries to kill someone in a comic it becomes Watchmen
>implying Watchmen isn't its own theme in its entirety
Punisher exists.

>>94183599
Watchmen was explicitly about why characters like Punisher don't work in an endless superhero universe.

Punisher has probably killed thousands and thousands of people and has not curbed crime in NYC one iota, because in a superhero universe crime always has to be bad enough to justify the existence of heroes in the first place.

That said, I think things like War Journal and Ennis' Punisher served as a rebuttal to that notion, saying that Punisher killing crooks is more of a revenge fantasy kind of thing, as opposed to being thought of as a legitimate solution to crime.

But then you have cocksucking edgelords like OP who are like "No superheroes are gay lol they don't even kill anybody, if i were a superhero id kill everyone because im so morally superior and badass"

>>94183944
>purposeful misinterpretation
Nigger it's shit like Batman refusing to off Joker like an autist that I give a shit about. His "number of killers" thing is complete horseshit of the utmost time. I'm not saying its like "run over them with the fucking BatTank" or that's even ok, but just shit like the ending of Killing Joke/AS Bat taking Dick is more of what we need.

>>94183944

Why is that a revelation at all? The Punisher was created to punish criminals. He doesn't give a shit about stopping crime in itself. He is pure retribution in a human form.

>>94183415
Not really no.

File: tasteful consideration.png (772KB, 431x457px)

772KB, 431x457px

>>94183415
This is obvious bait, but I'm biting anyway.
It's not an immediate sign of bad writing, anymore so than a cape killing someone is a sign of edgy writing. It's how the writer takes the concept and plays with it that determines the quality of the writing.
The concept of superman not killing someone doesn't need to just be a testament to how goody-two shoes and unrealistic he is. It can be a restraint that the writer acknowledges is limiting superman in some way. They can write a story about how his refusal to kill comes back to bite him in the ass. Then they can spin that in many different ways. Maybe he staunchly stands out against the cruel nature of the world, refusing to kill even when it hurts him. That fleshes the character out in myriad ways. Or they could go for a more tragic 'his dream can't possibly exist in this cold cold world' and it ends up being his downfall.
It's the conflict of a character's viewpoint with a world that doesn't support it that makes a character sympathetic yet flawed.

File: Chase.gif (2MB, 500x270px)

2MB, 500x270px

>No kill rule
>"hero is a pussy who can't get the job done"

>hero kills bad guy
>bad guy comes back a few months later

>>94184395
This is why addressing the "kill or don't" thing happens very rarely. It's just not that interesting and usually feels stupid either way.

>>94184073
The number of killers thing isn't a real Batman quote.

File: vashthestampede.jpg (41KB, 260x390px)

41KB, 260x390px

>>94183415
technically not /co/ but explain (pic related)
pls dont ban me

>>94184073
lol