I saw someone say a while ago that Jason attacking Tim at Titans Tower was just Tim hallucinating bc he was feeling guilty about being Robin even though Jason's not dead. Which is great, amazing, I think the whole Titans Tower thing is Bonkers, but I think it would be so much funnier if Jason tried to Gaslight Tim into believing the Titans Tower incident never happened, not because he's like evil, he's just super embarassed about it. like
Or Tim did actually hallucinate Jason at TT but thinks it was real, so when he tells Jason about it, Jason's so fucking confused, and Tim thinks Jason's Gaslighting him
Tim: Remember that time when you broke into Titans Tower and beat me half to death while wearing a Robin costume from party city
Jason: What? Tim, I know i'm crazy, but I'm not...Insane.
Tim, pulling down his collar: I literally have the scar to prove it
Jason: Bruce told me that was from Clayface pretending to be me, which, might I just say rude. Tim... are you ok? Did you hallucinate me attacking you? like, I know I've done that before, but...
Tim, frowning: I don't think I hallucinating. I was benched for a while after because I had to recover-
Jason: well, you were benched around the time I was dropping hints that I knew who Bruce was outside of Batman, he probably just benched you to keep you safe. You probably were working too many cases with too little sleep and your imagination started to run wild.
Tim: Are you gaslighting me?
Jason: Are you gaslighting me?
9K notes
·
View notes
My mon always said that Bruce wayne of ben affleck was the most handsome, when I was younger and I watched bvs the movie I didn´t liked him, but now that Im older..oh god he is so dilf, brrrrr I love old sexy man
He has just enough DILF energy to be wildly sexy while also technically having 0 children who are alive and/or talking to him.
116 notes
·
View notes
Bruce should kill the Joker because he created the Joker. Batman is the one that chased him into ace chemicals which resulted in him falling into the acid and the Joker is obsessed with Batman. We’ve seen (at least in one DC movie) that the Joker just stops being the Joker when Bruce dies. Could this all have happened without Batman? Yes and then it would be someone else’s problem but right now Joker is a monster of Batman’s creation and he should be the one to end him.
On your same logic should it also be on Joker's parents since they also created him, or maybe on the government / social systems since they were the ones that failed joker to begin with and made him turn to a life of crime ? If anyone has the legal right in America to kill the joker it would be the criminal justice system so why dont they sentence joker to death? Bruce hands joker off to the local authorities every other week shouldnt it be their responsibility at that point to keep joker incarcerated until he can be deemed no longer a threat to himself and others? And just bc one dc movie said joker would stop after Bruce dies doesn't mean that always happens especially with how dc keeps insisting there are multiple jokers- does Bruce have to kill all the jokers or just the one he personally spooked off the side of a platform by accident? I don't totally think you can blame Bruce for joker being as insane as he is since harley took the same dip and she still redeemable, and I don't think it should be on Bruce to compromise his morals just to kill a clown that literally several other people can kill - and I know " "ohh but Bruce gets in the way" then don't tell batman about it don't invite batman to your execution of the joker don't let him find out when Bruce's no kill rule is at its maximum (bc writers can't decide how extreme it should be) he can't let anyone die if he knows about it so just be sneaky and don't let him know
76 notes
·
View notes
Regarding Batman and Responsibility: A Rant
So, whenever there is talk about the age old question of "Should Batman kill Joker?" there is always, and I mean always someone who says something along the lines of: "But it's not Batman's responsibility to kill Joker so it's wrong to put the burden onto him." and on the surface this seems like a reasonable argument. After all, there is a police department in gotham, there is a government, so shouldn't we hold them accountable as well? Well, not exactly.
(Warning: I probably mispelled responsibility and responsible a LOT in this post, please don't begrudge me for it.)
Of course, those institutions ARE responsible for the Joker to some degree but the real question, to me, is: why is Batman considered as "NOT responsible" when he very much is.
People who make this argument usually say: "Well Batman is a volunteer, a vigilante! This is practically none of his bussiness." And true, Bruce isn't required to be a vigilante, he does it entirely out of his own volition. But is that not the whole reason why he IS responsible? I mean, Bruce is the one who CHOSE to take up that responsibilty, he is the one who CHOSES to shoulder that burden. In that sense he isn't that different from a government official/cop/etc. those people do it of their on will too don't they? Bruce, day after day, year after year, choses to fight for Gotham, to protect it and its people; he takes those responsibilities onto himself and yet... stopping Joker somehow, isn't one of them?
In my opinion, it is hypocritical. Bruce is the one who says things like "Gotham is MY city" or "I don't allow metas in Gotham, you need MY permission." or "You can't operate as a vigilante in Gotham without my say-so."(Stephanie Brown, anyone?) he routinely describes his vigilantism as a "war on crime"(which, yikes) and calls it a "crusade" and says it is his "mission" no? He chooses to do these things all on his own, no one forces him to. At a certain point, it's a matter of integrity. He can't pick and choose what exactly constitutes to protecting Gotham and what doesn't. He can't decide that beating up muggers in the streets is extremely important and is his job while improving Arkham isn't. He can't decide that, despite putting Joker in Arkham over and over again knowing he's going to escape, he isn't at least partly responsible for Joker's future victims. He can't keep stopping people from killing Joker(Under the Red Hood, hello!), saving Joker from the death row, putting Joker into a Lazarus Pit, or saving him from natural disasters(because you KNOW he would) and then claim "Oh, but killing Joker isn't my responsibility." He can't willingly claim responsibility for Gotham in every other scenario, EXCEPT for that. That's just having your cake and trying to eat it too. Unless he decided that by saving Joker he is not actually harming Gotham, by allowing Joker to live he is actively NEGLECTING his mission, his duty. And anyway, I thought the whole point of superhero comics was that people with power to better things shoud use those powers to do exactly that. Batman DOES have the power to "better" Gotham, he just isn't using it.
"Killing Joker isn't Batman's responsibility." No, it is. Because protecting Gotham and its people IS his responsibility, as he took it onto himself. If he didn't want to deal with the consequences of such a thing then he shouldn't have become a vigilante in the first place.
Mind you, this doesn't mean he's the ONLY one responsible, far from it, just that he is.
(I genuinely don't remember whether I made a post on this before but I have ranted about this to myself outloud when alone multiple times and if I have to think about this so do you)
[And YES we all know the real reason is because Joker is DC's cashcow, that is not the point of this post...]
24 notes
·
View notes
Does cass give Bruce batman back when he comes returns or is she just like “nope Batman’s mine now no take backs” and forces him into retirement
She doesn't give it back straight away just bc he needs some rest after the whole lost in time thing but she does give it back also Damian shows up and Alfred makes him Robin so cass just peaces out she's not got the patience for that
101 notes
·
View notes