Wake the **** Up Discussion

"Once you’ve lost your virginity to this ■■■■■■■ movie and then you come and say to me something about like ‘my superhero wouldn’t do that.’ I’m like ‘Are you serious?’ I’m like down the ■■■■■■■ road on that.

It’s a cool point of view to be like ‘my heroes are still innocent. My heroes didn’t ■■■■■■■ lie to America. My heroes didn’t embezzle money from their corporations. My heroes didn’t commit any atrocities.’ That’s cool. But you’re living in a ■■■■■■■ dream world."
– Zack Snyder 2019

I really want to break this quote down a little bit and explain why Zack’s logic is severely flawed and why I couldn’t care less about him and I’m glad he’s not in charge of the DC movies anymore.

Zack Snyder is a great director, don’t get me wrong, but he’s wrong about this. People always ask why doesn’t Batman kill the Joker? Why doesn’t Batman kill? After everything that the Joker’s done; Jason Todd, Barbara Gordon, Tim Drake, and so much more, Batman still refuses to kill.

It is not because he doesn’t want to. If anyone wants to it’s Batman, but the thing is he CHOOSES not to do so because he is afraid of what will happen AFTER he kills the Joker.

There are two rules Batman strictly follows:

Never kill
Never use a gun with bullets.

Even in the Dark Knight Returns which features a darker Batman who uses a gun with rubber bullets for a brief period, Batman takes the guns and breaks them across his knee basically saying “we don’t use guns, criminals use guns, we don’t need to” or something along those lines.

But the fact is Batman NEVER kills unless he is absolutely forced to like in Justice League Unlimited when Deadman controls his body. This rule is very personal for Bruce because it’s part of his origin. Whenever a teammate of his tries to kill the Joker, Bruce is willing to protect the Joker because he’s afraid of what they will do next. Jason and even Barbara would have no issue justifying the need and want to kill criminals especially the Joker.

But the reason why he keeps that strict rule is because he doesn’t want to become the very criminal that killed his parents the night he really became Batman.

Even justifying one kill for a man that has done way more harm that good is still inconceivable to Batman because he’s afraid that justifying one death will only help justify the next.

Let’s say he decided to kill the Joker. The Joker dies. What next? The Scarecrow steps up and tortures Barbara. He The justifies well he killed the Joker so now he should kill the Scarecrow, but why stop there? Why not kill Ivy and Harley? What about Mr Freeze? Even Catwoman who while she isn’t all bad, she has done her fair share of crime.

The whole idea is that once you justify the murder of one person, you are more likely to kill the next person and then it becomes much easier to kill the next and the next.

Look at the Arrow who killed for a full season, he grew darker and more distant, the lines started to blur until he decided to no longer kill. And even when given the opportunity to kill one of his most heinous villains, he spared his life because as soon as he decided to kill that one person, he would destroy everything his moral code stood on.

It’s the same with the Batman. Once you have Batman killing, you can no longer justify why the Joker and the other Rogue Gallery is still alive.

It’s not a “■■■■■■■ dream world” it’s called logic. And the whole point of the COMIC BOOKS is it’s not a real world. Yes there is real crime. Yes Oliver Queen probably should be arrested for tax evasion for being declared dead for 7 or so years but it’s still a comic book. And I don’t even care that Batman killed in his dream. What bothers me is that this just shows how careless Zack truly was. I was fine with Superman killing Zod. I was fine with Diana killing Ares (even though there’s no way he’s actually dead). But that doesn’t mean you go on your high horse and rant about a genuine question of interest.

The whole point of superheroes is they ARE supposed to be better than us, they ARE supposed to be the role models. It’s fine if you want to go down the road of cases where they would kill. When Diana killed Maxwell Lord it wasn’t out of character. When Hawkgirl killed Solomon Grundy to ease his suffering it wasn’t out of character. But when you break the one thing that justifies why Joker is still alive, it destroys the whole point of the Batman comics.

It ruins the very basic structure of the whole thing.

But what do you guys think of Zack Snyder’s comments?


I don’t really love it when adaptations are being made by people who harbor disdain for the source material. That’s all I’ll say.


Never liked Supes killing Zod and never liked Batman using guns multiple times in the " Snyderverse". He’s a great director dont get me wrong but maybe he should stick to morally ambiguous heroes like the watchmen and half naked historically inaccurate brutes. Between him and Chris Nolan I don’t think a film maker who’s read something other than a few Frank Miller stories is too much to ask for when it comes to making a Batman movie.


Sorry, he already lost me at “lost your virginity to this movie.” The guy’s a delusional narcissistic clown.


Sorry mods! Sometimes my Irish flares. I’ll be less trouble when we can delete and edit replies ourselves.

1 Like

The problem with the discussion I’ve seen over this is that it was taken EXTREMELY out of context. From what I remember, Snyder was talking about all that stuff in relation to the adaptation of WATCHMEN, not having anything to do with his work on the standard DCU other than “this is the stuff I was working on before I came here.”


@Jay_Kay He was part of a Q&A relating to a screening of the Watchmen, but his remarks were in response to someone saying the Ben Affleck Batman killed people. Or so I read here: https://www.vox.com/2019/3/26/18282194/zack-snyder-batman-kills

I don’t know if Snyder is, necessarily, a good director. I thought “Watchmen” was an okay enough adaptation, but I felt it didn’t translate the themes very well. “Man of Steel” seemed to kind of undercut the idea of Clark choosing to be Superman, as well as made certain other choices unclear. If Zod is “programmed” to do what’s best for Krypton, and his choices are limited to that, how does he make the choice to attempt genocide when he could restore Krypton on an uninhabited world? Even if you want to say he wanted to force Superman to kill him (he’d assume Clark would go through with it), he’s still making a choice that isn’t about what’s best for Krypton. They talk about hope, but it takes a back seat to bleak visuals and heavy cynicism. Then you have BvS, which ramps the worst elements of MoS up to 11.

I think Zack Snyder likes him some explosions, destruction and death. Now when it comes to visuals, he might have some good ideas, but they seem to be more important than story cohesion or the plot making any sense or the actors having decent material to work with. He’s not happy, so he thinks that a “real world with superheroes” wouldn’t be happy, either, and he’ll cram that depression into every facet of every character, and he won’t bother explaining it in the narrative or have it make any sense, the important thing is that he wants it there, so it’s there. I see comments about how “Batman’s worn and broken” or “Superman struggling against a world that hates him” (despite building him a statue), as they framing it in a more poetic context than it deserves. Yet I wonder, did those people realize that on their own, or did they need an expository interview from Snyder or DVD commentary to tell them that, because the movie didn’t do a good job getting it across. I can see where they’re coming from one scene showing this or that, but the film overall was not entertaining or engaging. I can see where it attempted to be cerebral and intellectual, but it fell flat on its face in the attempt. But I’m supposed to applaud it because of how grown up it thinks it is? This movies about as genuinely mature and philosophically stimulating as an 8 year old deepening their voice to sound like an adult on the phone.

Sometimes, when people get caught making a mistake or having erred in some way, they lash out, in particular at those correcting them. To paraphrase Proverbs 9:8, correct a scoffer and he’ll hate you; correct a wise man and he’ll appreciate you. Snyder gets wind that people didn’t universally love his work, despite doing “everything right” according his own biased mental checklist, and he doesn’t take it well. It isn’t that he “knows for sure” a real-life Batman would be totally up for killing or that Superman would “realistically” have to kill from the outset, it’s that he, Zack Snyder, thinks so, and thus it must be so. That’s why he doesn’t bother having either character possess common sense to avoid killing, and the killings must be brutal and visceral because that’s what’s “cool”. His “virginity” crack may’ve been aimed at people who aren’t sexually promiscuous and are therefore deserving of contempt according to stupidity, but it may be more indicative of his delusion that his movies are so “grown-up” and “mature”, that watching them is a right of passage into adulthood. That in itself is egocentric and ludicrous; he’s not that good a filmmaker. He has an angry middle-schooler’s concept of what being an adult entails, and if his work screwing up two iconic characters didn’t show that, his comments sure do.

Batman and Superman didn’t kill because they “had to” or PTSD or lame interpretations about God. They killed because Zack Snyder finds it entertaining, and he wants to seem like a smart guy by throwing in dialogue some people will mistake for genuine intelligence. Now he’s mad that more people aren’t buying it.


Lol this is hilarious


Lol this is hilarious

Zack Snyder did good early work Watchmen is a very good film, however, it was very obvious that visually he stole/was told to/fanboy of that comic. There are shots that are pulled directly from the page. I still don’t think he wen’t deep/strong enough into the Watchmen characters with his actors. There was plenty of character “meat” on all of their bones. Sucker Punch was OK as well.

With that said, Synder had early success and got contracts to do films “his way”. Watchmen characters were new and existed only in the book.

With Bats. Supes, WW, & co. There are very historical backstories that are there and have remained there for very good reason.

Let’s take Bats. as long as you keep that Bruce’s parents were killed by a “street thug” with a gun. Bats will never do two things, kill or use a gun. Period. Full stop. To do either, is letting the criminals win. He has become just like them. (I will take tht issue so far that it would apply to NOT having “gattling guns” available on the batmobile.)

The one thing Titans did VERY well, was the last episode where Grayson goes into the “Trigon induced dreamworld”. We find out what would happen if Bats crosses the line and kills the Joker. He crosses the line, and everybody is now a target. From major bads like Bane, Riddler, Penguin, Catwoman (unless Selina has totally changed her stripes) down to street level thugs, and if necessary, gotham cops (because there is so much corruption in the GPD and NOTHING will stop his mission, and if that means killing cops, so be it. By doing that Bats becomes that which he swore never to be, it destroys his entire reason for being The Batman. He has now dishonored his parents memory.

Once Bats crosses the line, he cannot uncross it. Being as OCD as Bats is, Gotham is turned into a bloodbath. All Snyder had to do is watch the 1 hour doco on “The Psychology of The Batman” (on DCU as it turns out, and anybody with any interest in Batman should watch it.)

Synder thinks “oh, I know better.” No, Zack. You don’t. If you want to do that, do an “Elseworld” movie. Do JL Gods and Monsters. Or a Crime Syndicate movie and do Owlman. That is a Bruce Wayne who takes the vow to “beat them at their own game” when his parents are killed. That’s fine and making a movie like that is fine, but it’s an Owlman movie, NOT a Batman movie.

Canonized source material exists for a reason. in 80 years nobody will give a RATS about your movie, but the writing and art of people like Bob Kane, Bill Finger, Denny O’neil, Neal Adams, Jim Lee and a host of others WILL still matter. Why? Because while the stories are different, the character is true to his mythos.

I could go through and break down every other DC character he bleeped up by ignoring canonical material. But, I think folks get the idea.

Sorry, not sorry Zack. You are a $h!t director, who did not do their homework, and doesn’t understand the absolute core fundamentals of a character(s) you have been given the PRIVILEGE to be a part of. What you have done is given future directors a film to look at and go “don’t do this”. That is your DC legacy.

I am glad DC has parted company with him. It was ABSOLUTELY the correct choice.


He’s right though. If you are watching movies for no other reason than to see if a no-kill rule is adhered to than you are missing the forest for the trees. You arent even letting it be a story. Snyder made Batman take lives on purpose, it was literally a huge plot-point. Not because he didnt “get it”, in fact it might be safe to say that if you’re upset about death in cinema, you didnt get the story.
It wasnt because “oh, man death is SO cool” but because the audience as a whole is used to a completely non-lethal Batman. The intent was to make him the antagonist. It’s as if some if you are willfully ignorant of stories being about conflict.
A Batman v Superman movie where they are morally correct, righteous and perfect representations of their cartoon counterparts doesnt really leave much to explore as far as story. You are asking for DC movies to be void of conflict, moral exploration, relatable characters who grow as a result of their ideology being challenged, and void of any emotional weight or impact. It’s as if you dont want these characters to be characters, you want them to just be empty vehicles for the value sets toy manufacturers have agreed to portray so they cant be seen as peddling violence to children.
Batman started without a rule against taking life. They gave him the rule and Robin to make him more marketable to children. There is no other reason than that, because a no-kill rule is a completely empty moral that falls apart the second its challenged. I can respect the intent implied but only if the stories are aimed at children. Since these were aimed at everybody who watches movies and not just fans with who value a strict adherence to the source above a quality movie, they shouldnt stifle their creativity and waterdown the story just to avoid fan-outrage. They are always going to find something to complain about (they think it shows they are hardcore fans).
The movie has to entertain. A movie where Superman shows up and talks the situation away, without conflict, is boring to everyone without a fan-checklist of cardinal “do’s and don’ts”.
Are these characters in league with the Avengers, X-men, Star Wars, and Star Trek (none of which would ever constrain their stories with such heavy handed limitations as “no-kill period, context be damned”) or are they in league with Tom and Jerry, Dudly Do-right, and George of the Jungle? Because the limitations some if you demand in a DC story absolutely genericise these characters into stories and characters only fit for babies.



I disagree. IF you want to do a version of Richard III with no deformations, no killing princes in the tower. (Some of which have VERY strong evidence that these are the true events.) That’s great and a great story to tell.

However, don’t tell me you are doing a “Shakespeare’s Richard III” movie, because you aren’t.

If you Synder believes, as you state, making Batman lethal is the only way to get conflict in a story and make him an “antagonist”, you have
A: A very limited view of storytelling.
B: A very, very limited view of conflict between characters.
C: Doesn’t know jack bleep about writing a script, because in comics any “villian” is the “PROTAGONIST” and the hero is the “ANTAGONIST”. Snyder obviously needs to look up those words. Or if he needs it explained so his 12 year old brain can understand it, he can watch “Necessary Evil”.

Snyder took the cowardly and chicken-bleep out of making a Batman character in the movie. He in fact DIDN’T make a Batman character in the movie. He was to lazy, stupid, & egocentric to communicate with the costume designers that he was making a movie with a character that is not Batman and the costume should reflect that. A “Batdude” or “Batass” or “The Bat” movie, or at best an “Elseworld” movie, fine. Not Batman. Sorry Zack, you don’t own the characters, in point of fact, the characters own you. You are beholden to them and their truths.

Is a “Sherlock Holmes” movie where the character of Sherlock Holmes deduces nothing a “Sherlock Holmes” movie?
No it’s not. It is just taking the name and overlaying it onto a different character. This is EXACTLY what Snyder did.

If audience members can’t discern that, than shame on them for being so limited and narrow-minded in their ability to define characters and understand individual character’s psychology. Those poor little audience babies can’t use their brains, but, the director didn’t either. So they have that as an excuse for being so juvenile in there ability to think and actually understand a character. Or be fooled into thinking that such a character is Batman, when in point of fact is just some vigilante character overlaid with the garb of Batman. They were sold a fraud and not smart enough to realize it.

Snyder is the P. T. Barnum of superhero movies…there is a sucker born every minute.


While I think saying that the villains are protagonists requires an excessively literal definition of “protagonist,” I broadly agree with DeSade-acolyte. Batman stories have been about a guy who doesn’t kill people and the moral implications of taking or failing to take a life for eighty years. Even Christopher Nolan understood that, and he managed to flub just about everything else. Batman doesn’t kill. Sometimes that doesn’t make sense. You know what that is? It’s a character flaw, and a far more mature and interesting one than “is a psychopath who murders and brands everyone he fights.”

I mean, Batman: Under the Red Hood is not exactly Tom & Jerry, but suddenly when there’s a live action actor in the suit, he has to kill people or it wouldn’t be realistic? Why?


I think there are really good stories that can be told (and have been told) about the hypocrisy of “my heroes” refusing to kill, but doing more damage in the long run, or doing things that are practically no better. But that means actually telling stories where that hypocrisy is dealt with and the hero makes a decision. It doesn’t just mean making movies where heroes behave like Rambo with no justification in universe, and can only be explained out of universe by a really condescending creator.

Don’t get me wrong, I like a lot of his material. But they’re not good because of his inconsistencies in these characters. They’re good because there’s enough quality material that I’m willing to overlook the flaws. Burton and Bale (who had Batman clearly driving his tank over cop cars and flipping innocent cars in explosions) had the same types of issues. But it’s something that’s just often inherent in the blockbuster medium. Trying to pretend that there’s some sort of validity to the approach is a joke, and cheapens what Zach was trying to make.


@Zombedy No one is being willfully ignorant of anything. Snyder’s ignorance of the No-Kill rule is one of hia most prominent deviations; the movie clearly revels in Batman’s lethality. From throwing cars full of goons onto other cars full of goons, to branding people that get killed in jail for being branded, to trying to take out Superman, to killing a few dudes in the warehouse, that gets a lot more attention than the concepts of justice or consequences. If you want, we can also point out how “the world’s greatest detective” was so stupid he mistook a boat for a guy, thought 1% equals an absolute, and somehow never caught on that Luthor was playing him. Saying “PTSD” in this case isn’t much better than, “it’s magic, we don’t have to explain it.” Oh, how about the ambiguous reasons Clark wanted to quit being Superman? “The world hated him”, so…they made a big statue in his honor? He wanted to help people but he constantly looks like doing so is a massive inconvenience for him? Or how these heroes usually don’t kill because they’re morally opposed to it, but Snyder’s versions barely have a problem with it because it’s “cooler” and “more real” that way? If he cared about the inner conflict of these characters, not only would Clark have spent more than 30 seconds anguishing over killing Zod, he wouldn’t have flown a human warlord through three walls when he could’ve saved Lois without doing so.

“No killing” is an empty rule? “Falls apart the second its challenged”? Have you done any reading on this yourself or are you just continually taking Snyder at his word? There are plenty of people who don’t kill. In fact, most people don’t kill, otherwise there wouldn’t be billions of people on the planet right now. You think a non-killer Batman is for children? Do you know any children? When they get upset, they’ll quickly turn to physical attacks and saying “I’ll kill you” if they’re agitated enough. Adults have to show more restraint and rational thinking. So if Batman’s go-to move is “kill’em all”, isn’t that really more childish? I’ve seen kids cartons respectfully and appropriately deal with heavy themes a great deal better than Snyder did, so maybe they aren’t as “for babies” as you think.

I’ll agree with you on one point, a movie should entertain. People have thought Tom & Jerry are entertaining, but they…wait, they try to kill each other all the time…Anyway, no one is expecting Superman to talk his way out of a conflict, but if you think the only options to every adverse situation is “kill them or do nothing”, then maybe you should expand your understanding. I also fail to see how a hero refusing to kill isn’t interesting. Removing the kill option means creativity to get through a dangerous scenario in alternative ways, especially from a writing standpoint. All the movies out there with killing the bad guy as a common convention, guns firing, bullets flying, bodies dropping, but it’s the idea of someone choosing not to kill that’s far-fetched? Why is it so important that Batman be just another action hero goon solving every solution with a bullet? You want to do that in Die Hard, Commando, Fast and Furious, fine, go ahead, no ones stopping you. But why Batman, Superman, or any other costumed hero known for refusing to kill? Let’s be honest, it’s not about what’s “mature” and “adult” and “grown-up”, no matter what Snyder says to excuse himself. It’s because there exists a mentality that won’t let others, even fictional characters, be morally upright or be a figure to aspire to; be better. Some don’t like that because it makes them feel inferior or lesser, so they want to drag that figure down, sometimes to “they’re no better than me” or in some cases, “they’re worse than I’ll ever be.” That’s why we get such fervent defense from Snyder about how “great” his murder-Bats is, among other twisted head-canon concepts.

Just as his Lex Luthor understood nothing about God, so too does Zack Snyder not understand these characters. He understands that he prefers them brought down in the muck and trash along with him. He took these normally competent and capable characters and dumbed them down for his angry fanfiction. He doesn’t need to properly or clearly show themes in the narrative (or those wicked emotions that aren’t “angry” and “depressed”), he doesn’t need faithful portrayals, he just needs to bend and twist them into something he wants to fit his story, like a lot of bad writers.


First off, protoganists are “heroes” antagonists are “villians”, get your terminology straight. Antagonists antagonize, that should help you guys out.
Secondly, Batman comics have NOT been “about a guy and his adherence to a no kill rule”. The stories are all different and typically not “about” a the no-kill rule. Consider this, the Comics Code Authority made it so comic writers could not depict death in any context, negative or positive. Sex, drugs, death, all real life problems that are worth exploring and at some point in every person’s life will be relevant, off limits because “it’s for kids, no real life allowed”. This is where you get “Batman in space” with Ace the Bathound and Batmite. Bad stories that even children didnt like as evidenced by Batman almost being canceled all together and consistantly being outsold by all other comics. The campy TV show saved the franchise, but the comic started reflecting the show. As soon as the show was canceled, sales for the comics sharply declined, because despite the mainstream popularity of the TV show, comic readers werent interested in a jokey Batman.
The Batman they were interested was the one portrayed in The Brave and the Bold by Neal Adam’s, a darker and more mature Batman that was closer to his roots. So popular that Adam’s was teamed with former crime reporter Denny O’neal to take Batman in a more mature and realistic direction. That direction saved Batman comics and was HUGELY successful with readers. Believe it not, people werent looking to be beaten over the head with a near empty moral, they wanted to see exciting conflict and more mature stories.
Under the red hood was great, up until the speech about “it’s a slippery slope”, especially the part about “not being any better than them”. That is the moment where the story stops being tangible and relating to real life. “Batman does not take revenge” or “that isn’t justice, that’s revenge”. That is where it turns Tom and Jerry, for me.
I dont understand how if a story isnt about this rule, Batman automatically becomes the Punisher. He still took criminology and studied justice through all the different systems of value throughout the world, his principle traits are still temperance, moral superiority, and the will to exhibit whatever force is necessary to any given situation. Just because killing someone will stop them, doesnt mean that’s now how he stops problems. That is either ridiculous exaggeration or a complete deficit in imagination with a huge removal from reality. You have to just be obtusely ignoring the entire history of comics, Batman, film, storytelling, literature, human nature, and world history to put this characters value on something so intangible and irrelevant to storytelling. It can be used well, but the reaction to MoS and BvS is just knee-jerk reactions to having expectations put in place by children’s programming subverted.

Heres what it all really boils down to: What is the worst case scenario I’d Batman takes a life on film? “Die hard fans” complain. That’s it. The movie still drew waaaay more interest than Shazam or Into the Spiderverse, because overall dramatic conflict is more engaging than stories exclusively for children. Avatar, Titanic, all Marvel films, Star Wars, Mission Impossible, ect, dont waste time trying to push the empty morality of a no-kill rule because they are aware that most people over the age of 10 already know death is real and essentially the ultimate consequence. Taking that story option out completely robs the conflict of dramatic weight. Larry Hama, writer of the g.i. Joe comics the cartoon was based off of agrees. He feels the decision to take “death” out of the animation robbed his stories of their impact, he ause it does. If the punching bags cant die and always have a parachute, how the hell am I supposed to think the main character is in any danger?
This is like complaining about Avengers “not getting time travel right”…time travel isnt real, there is no “correct” way to portray something that exists only as theory. You have to want a problem for most of these things to matter. General audiences arent looking to be disappointed, they just want to be entertained.


Yes, @Mr. Mobach you are being willfully ignorant of the fact Batman has killed in every era of comics. He started out without the rule, a fact you are totally ignoring. He has killed after the establishment of the rule too, a fact you are ignoring. You are willfully ignoring that there is a difference between murder, pre-meditated murder, manslaughter, deadly force, ect. There IS a difference and you ARE ignoring that. Saying someone using deadly force against someone who is actively murdering people is the same as said murder is just stupid. Not even ignorant, stupid.
You and your ilk are willfully ignorant that morality isnt so black and white. You are ignoring that morality is an excess or deficit of any given virtue SITUATIONALLY. Meaning you can have a no-kill rule, but that will more than likely run against your protect the innocent rule.
You are willfully ignorant that every “code of virtues” is aware that death can be the moral victory, this is real world virtues and morality we’re talking here. That is why it falls apart.
It’s not that he didnt get the character, it’s that you want a live action movie with the rules and regulations of content for kids. In the real world the audience includes police officers, soldiers, and real world survivors of life or death situations. No-kill rule doesnt hold up in reality to anybody who has analyzed it longer than a 22 minute episode of Superfriends has.
You are also ignorant of the fact portrayals of fictional characters cant be right or wrong, correct or incorrect because they are not real. You can say 1950s Batman gets it right, but you’re ignoring the poor sales and near cancelation of the book. You can say Frank Miller gets it wrong but it ignores the cultural revival of the character being a direct result of his work. You can say Burton gets it wrong, but you’re ignoring that those films were smash-hits. You can say Schumacher gets it write but you’re ignoring those changes were made to increase happy meal sales, not because there was some universal consensus on morality.
As far as “getting God wrong” not everyone subscribes to your faith of choice.
If you can reply without insults I might take you seriously, but all I see are “suckers” standing on a soapbox virtue signaling about being “true fans” and basing it all on their inability to apply critical thinking to fictional stories and misunderstanding the "why " of the no kill rule.


I also dont get why you guys have to deal in absolutes to have a leg to stand on. Only a Sith deals in absolutes. To think that Batman can only murder or not murder if it wasn’t a rule…what are you basing this on? Is there a real world case of someone having a no-kill rule, failing to adhere, and murdering in every situation from there on out? No? Is there a fictional one?..humm, also no apparently. It’s based on nothing as far as I can tell

1 Like

Only a sith deals an absolute😂


Pathetic thread.

1 Like