154: Why No Punisher?

[kelmanski]

Other than Ennis's version, I never liked the Punisher. He's too one note. I find it easier to believe that a spider bite could give someone superpowers than Punisher being able to escape police detection (He runs around in busy public restaurants without a mask on!) and avoid killing an innocent person (or an undercover cop) with all the bullets flying everywhere.

I'm pretty certain he's been arrested a few times (the conclusion of Daredevil vs. Punisher) Castle allowed himself to be arrested so he could work inside Rykers and get to the heart of the problem (The Jackal who was manipulating events from inside)

Also, Anton P. Nym, The punisher DOES want the justice system to work, but more often than not he has to do things his own way, because he mainly just sees his way as being right and that's that. There have been occasions where he's helped the police to take down criminal organisations rather than just wipe them out completely. All in all the duality of him winning meaning everyone losing is a very cool way to look at it and I may have to look into it deeper.

Brazuca... The Slavers and Kitchen Irish are MAX edition.

Peace.

 

[Ray Huling]

Hi all,


Thanks for the great discussion and comments. You've raised some issues that I want to address.

Batman vs. The Punisher.

It's been said that there are really only two superheroes: Superman and Batman. Everyone else is just a variation of these archetypes. The idea is that either you're a guy with superpowers or a crimefighter with mad skills and special equipment. The latter type is usually seen as more true to life, though it encompasses sci-fi heroes like Iron Man. You could say, then, that The Punisher is just a Batman variant.

But the differences are important, and they consist of more than just a willingness to kill.

The debate about how each character gets the job done matters only to a point. Neither Batman, nor Superman, nor the Punisher nor any hero ever puts an end to crime. All of them work outside of the law. None thinks the justice system sufficient.

In a way, all comic book heroes are reactionary figures.

Let's move on to other differences. I'd argue that equipment and identity distinguish the Punisher. He has no alter-ego, and he uses mostly real-world equipment. Yes; from time-to-time, the Punisher has used near sci-fi gear, but never anything as outlandish as Batman. Castle kills with real guns.

If you want to read the craziest Punisher comic of all time, pick up The Punisher Armory, a 10-issue series from the early '90s. You never see Castle in the book. The comic consists of nothing but drawings of real-world equipment with Castle talking about it in editor's boxes. Seriously: page after page of guns, knives, body armor, fighting dummies, shooting ranges, tear gas, and so on. Much of this is stuff you can actually buy. And Castle just blabs to you about it. For ten issues.

That realism is part of what makes the P-man so compelling.

Brazuca: thanks for the heads-up on that movie--and thanks especially for the extremely interesting way The Punisher has been translated into Portuguese. But are you telling me that the movie about the Special Brazilian Police Squad has a basis in reality? I'm saying that Punisher comics tell us why there's no Punisher in real life, not in other fiction.

TheUnbeholden and dukethepcdr: you're raising an important question, and girlysprite has pointed the way to the answer. Yes; comic book superheroes were originally escapist fantasy, but when Stan Lee took charge of Marvel in the early '60s, things changed. Superheroes became complicated, and they've been so for over forty years. The Punisher is absolutely a product of this evolution, and that's why I find comparing him to Captain America so interesting. Cap is an unreformed Golden Age character--pure escapism.

So it's okay to talk about superheroes and crimefighters in some depth. They're deep these days! And, if you're lucky, you'll talk with people who have taken just as strong an interest in these characters. I've been lucky here.

Thanks, everybody.

Ray.

 

[Girlysprite]

By the way, a few links relating to this topic.

First a funny little comic, that shows the core idea of superman and justice; http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1204#comic


For those who love the black and white thinking of the fourties and fifties, and the innocence of characters in these times, take a look at the supderdickery site. Yes, the name is a bit iffy, but basically the site was centered around the idea 'Superman is a dick'. Now it also has categories like propaganda extravaganza, seduction of the innocent (innuendo), suffering sappho (all bondage issues of wonder woman), and more. While it is just a good laugh, it is also a fun stroll through the past of super hero comics, especially the propaganda part.

http://www.superdickery.com

You might like the links too ray

Actually, it would be an interesting read too...an article about superheros and their role in propaganda en info/commercials through time.

 

[brazuca]

Yes man how could I forget. Kitchen Irish, was translated as "Kitchen Heell, Cozinha do Inferno". That bomb, the fireman helping him, no cops to run after him, later MI6...
From my point of view the only thing that punisher lacks is a group to help him, back up him. It's to difficult to get out from a shooting by yourself alive. Unless your Rambo or Castle.

About Bope, the squad, yes, true. Just changed their names. They still exist and operate.

 

[brazuca]

To put it simply: Frank doesn't belive in the system. Batman just reinforce the system with his abilitys. (I know Batman sometimes uses ilegal methods, but he has more control).

 

[The Irrelevant Gamer]

Batman believes in the system. Batman knows there are corrupt people in the system, but works with those who aren't because he believes the system can work. The Punisher knows better, and has a healthy mistrust of authority due to his experiences in Vietnam.

Batman is psychologically incapable of murder because of the horror associated with the murder of his parents. Even in The Dark Knight Returns he cannot bring himself to kill the Joker even though he knows it is what should be done. Frank Castle was inured to the horror of death after three tours in Vietnam, and very possibly gained a taste for killing.

Basically they have two very different psychologies due to their different experiences.

 

[beardface]

Wow, great read.

 

[Lebeau's Bounty]

Ray,

I'm so glad I stumbled across this article. What a great read!

I stumbled onto Punisher from a good friend of mine, who gave me the first trade of Ennis' MAX series, and I loved it. As he continued to pass on trades, he taught me all about the different Punisher stories, and writers take on him, and I quickly became sold on (at least for me) Ennis' MAX being the definitive take on him. The latest arc I read was the Barracuda one and I loved it. I thought the almost cartoony nature of the art gave it another great element that made the story more pulpy than the grittier realism of before.

Favorite moment of Barracuda's, if I remember it right: He takes down a bunch of thugs in a jeep, and he's stuffing one of them into the trunk of a car.

The thug begs for his life, "Please man, don't hurt him, don't do this, don't kill me, please..."

Barracuda says, "Man, you cry like a ***** I'm gonna F--- you like a *****."

The next panel is the thug, paused, halfway in the trunk... terrified.

Next panel Barracuda slams it closed.

I'm so sold on MAX as being the definitive Punisher that now when I read other incarnations they just seem... silly. Civil War's Punisher for example. I like that they had Punisher's reverence for Cap in there. But his language was dumbed down. And his character not nearly as hardcore. He just doesn't seem to fit in a world of superheroes.

The new movie I thought was a fun ride, and surely not as good as MAX. But Stevenson did something stoic and magical with the roll which I think rocked.

And my fave line from your article:
"Castle loves war, and he needed his family to die so that he could become the Punisher. Now, he gets to spend his life doing what he loves. Another chance to be a father would spoil his fun - and ours."

That's DARK.
B

 

[new_age_reject]

Great article.
Always wanted to get into Punisher but never got around to actually doing it, dunno why.
I love superheroes that have no super powers.

 

[PopcornAvenger]

First off, I have to say I actually, if not loved, liked the original with Dolph. It's far superior to the last two movies, which is a sad comment on their quality.

There's no Punisher, because, really, there's little that's original or hasn't been done already by scores of other t-shirt clad, gun wielding vigilantes. It's not the Punisher's (or his authors) fault, it's just that the way was already paved, and trod upon, and trod upon, by the Rambo's, Dirty Harry's, and Death Wish's of the past.

Until someone manages to give him a different spin, or write a truly outstanding story/plot, it's unlikely the Punisher movie will ever succeed. Beyond pleasing fanboi, that is.

 

[Osloq]

You have to remember that the Punisher and Batman have two different modus operandi.

The Punisher is simply avenging the death of his family on anyone who gets in his way. He's like the Count Of Monte Cristo, in that his vengeance is in order to make himself feel better. He is, when you come down to it, a little self-obsessed in his goal.

Batman, however, fights crime out of a sense of justice. His parents death was crucial in shaping his future, but his crusade isn't simply based on revenge. Rather, it's based more around helping Gotham City and its citizens, a city that deep down he loves. And this is where the crucial difference lies.

Castle, in his pursuit of vengeance, is free to choose whatever means of 'justice' he deems necessary. In most cases, this involves lots of guns. He answers only to himself, so why should he worry about death and murder?

Batman, on the other hand, has to accept responsibilities in his role as protector. He answers not only to himself, but to the city of Gotham as well. In order to fulfil his role as the city's 'Dark Knight' he needs to rise above fascist murder in the streets, and show the citizens of Gotham that he is above the monsters he fights against. Murder can have just as many unforeseen repercussions as letting someone live.

Killing the Joker may save lives. However, it would also cause the inhabitants of the city, both criminals and the innocent, to live in fear of Batman. And that isn't why he donned the cape and cowl.

You also have to remember that if either the Punisher's or Batman's methods did work, comic writers would soon be out of work.

I disagree, I think Batman, in a lot of ways, is self indulgent in his war on crime. The way I've always interpreted him as a character was as someone who hates the criminal fraternity that murdered his beloved parents. He inherited his love of Gotham from his father but didn't have the courage to explore the way of peace so instead he turned to the martial option.

He has no responsibility to anybody in Gotham. He answers to no one except for his own sense of self worth and conscience. While he does not kill anybody his methods are brutal and panic inducing. The original idea behind the bat as a symbol was Bruce Wayne's terror of them as a child. He would become an entity that the criminals of Gotham would fear and they would feel what it was like for the normal citizens. I love Batman but he's a thug who preys on the strong (criminals) out of a need to do something.

That's my personal interpretation anyway.

OT: That was a great read, one of the best I've gone through on this site. I'm definitely going to have to see if I can dig up Ennis' punisher somewhere around here and get into the character again.

 

[Sylocat]

Except for Batman.

Not really. Batman doesn't kill people, for one thing, which does away with whole layers of complexity the character could embrace. There was a Batman/Punisher crossover years ago, during the time when Azrael took over as Batman, and it was... meh. Largely forgettable. But one bit of it that did stick with me was the inevitable confrontation between the Punisher and the Joker. Just before Frank pulled the trigger, Batman leapt in to save the day, and held the Punisher off so the Joker could get away.

How many people has the Joker killed? At least hundreds, probably thousands. Batman can't stop him. No facility can hold him. Only one thing will bring him down and save innumerable lives - and Batman let him get away to keep that from happening.

That, to me, shifts from unflinching morality to far outside the boundaries of suspended disbelief. If Batman would sacrifice a thousand lives to save one - not to mention that the life in question is an irredeemably insane mass murderer - then he really is a douchebag.

Keep in mind that this is the Joker we're talking about, and if Batman did kill him, we don't know that hell would be any more secure a prison for the Joker than Arkham Asylum. They'd probably kick him out, and he'd come back with demon powers. Batman doesn't want that.

Although, with all the fun he had in Batman: Arkham Asylum, I can't help but wonder how the Joker would fare in the ORIGINAL Arkham [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkham] Asylum [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkham_Horror].

 

[Slash2x]

Loved this article! I am a huge Punisher fan and will continue to be as well regardless of the movies they make.

Just a point to all the people saying that there is no point in killing one man to save thousands, because then you are no better than the murderer.

Ummm no... That would make you significantly better than them because you just saved many innocent people from painful death. While the now dead killer CAUSED pain and suffering on innocents. Moral high ground works great if you never ever ever deal with people who do not have moral low ground. Moral high ground just means that you are willing to let the bad guy get away with something until they get bored with it or they kill you instead. "Now do not shoot that man in the face! Blam! See now you should feel bad and never do that again. HEY do not shoot that pregnant lady now! Blam! Well now you should feel really bad and that will stop you. HEY are you really going to blow up a school bus now?!"

See the Punisher would have saved all the people past the first death by killing the criminal before they had a chance to kill again.

Just a reminder high morals do not stop bullets

 

[samsonguy920]

It's the principle Malygris. It's like in The Killing Joke- the Joker captures Jim Gordon, locks him up and shoots/paralyses his daughter. However, when Batman comes to rescue him, Gordon tells him to get the Joker by the book. "Show him that our way works".

Batman could kill the Joker, but then he'd be no better than the thugs he takes down. He isn't a cop who's allowed to use lethal force, he's just a man looking for justice. If he started killing his opponents, he'd move from being the 'Caped Crusader' to being a simple psychopath asserting his alpha-dominance over other psychopaths. Why shouldn't he then be locked up?

It is that line of thought which leaves me wondering how the next Batman movie will go, with the Batman perceived to be a killing vigilante with his confession of committing the crimes that Harvey Two-Face Dent actually committed. Batman can't recant, since that would logically put the blame back on Harvey and would cause a lot of harm to a city trying to bring itself from the darkness it had been in for decades.
The Punisher, however, is free from that conundrum. His reputation is of no holds barred when dealing with criminals. One asks why he returns to the battle when he does have a daughter he could be raising himself, gaining back the family that he once lost. I don't think it is so much love of the battle, as it is that Castle feels nobody else can do what he can. Punish without remorse while maintaining a focus of dealing with only those who deserve it most. Barracuda is a strong reminder of how carried away someone can get, and innocents get caught in the crosshairs.
Why is there no Punisher? That is actually a good question, one which actually scares me. One part of the answer is possibly that there is such a strong gray area between right and wrong in today's world that it would be difficult to know who really deserves a bullet and who doesn't. I guess since that is my perception, I am thankfully safe from becoming a Punisher.
Or a Barracuda.

 

[heyheysg]

Wow managed to find this in Google, was wondering about it myself.

Think the thread got derailed though to about morality instead of the practicality of having a Punisher.

Someone who may be a private detective, IT guy, marine who can use GPS, Google Earth, iPhones, credit reports to find any person on Earth.

Someone who has a strong sense of justice and is against crooked politicians taking money from lobbyists, against gangsters in the neighborhood.

Someone who can easily buy weapons from a store and has time to isolate their targets one by one.

Someone who lives in a world with so many crime dramas that a perfect crime is not too hard to plan out.

Someone who doesn't simply complain on the internet.

Why no Punisher indeed?

 

[Worgen]

But by now, somebody - Batman, Robin, Alfred, somebody - should have figured out that it doesn't work.

The only reason it doesn't work is because the Joker is popular characters and writes are too lazy to come up with new characters so they install a revolving door in Arkham Asylum. Obviously, there is no possible way he could escape so many times.

Other than Ennis's version, I never liked the Punisher. He's too one note. I find it easier to believe that a spider bite could give someone superpowers than Punisher being able to escape police detection (He runs around in busy public restaurants without a mask on!) and avoid killing an innocent person (or an undercover cop) with all the bullets flying everywhere.

Also the marvel universe version of him makes no sense. With so many shape shifters, illusionists, psychics, and people from other dimensions running around, how can the Punisher be sure who is guilty? The first issue he showed up in, he tried to kill Spiderman! That's why Batman doesn't kill people and I oppose the death penalty. What if you're wrong about someone being guilty?

The Slavers and Kitchen Irish arc was good though.

it would be an interesting story arc if he ended up killing a bunch of innocent people he thought were guilty and had to deal with it, really thats what I was hoping from death note

 

[Nerdstar]

You have to remember that the Punisher and Batman have two different modus operandi.

The Punisher is simply avenging the death of his family on anyone who gets in his way. He's like the Count Of Monte Cristo, in that his vengeance is in order to make himself feel better. He is, when you come down to it, a little self-obsessed in his goal.

Batman, however, fights crime out of a sense of justice. His parents death was crucial in shaping his future, but his crusade isn't simply based on revenge. Rather, it's based more around helping Gotham City and its citizens, a city that deep down he loves. And this is where the crucial difference lies.

Castle, in his pursuit of vengeance, is free to choose whatever means of 'justice' he deems necessary. In most cases, this involves lots of guns. He answers only to himself, so why should he worry about death and murder?

Batman, on the other hand, has to accept responsibilities in his role as protector. He answers not only to himself, but to the city of Gotham as well. In order to fulfil his role as the city's 'Dark Knight' he needs to rise above fascist murder in the streets, and show the citizens of Gotham that he is above the monsters he fights against. Murder can have just as many unforeseen repercussions as letting someone live.

Killing the Joker may save lives. However, it would also cause the inhabitants of the city, both criminals and the innocent, to live in fear of Batman. And that isn't why he donned the cape and cowl.

You also have to remember that if either the Punisher's or Batman's methods did work, comic writers would soon be out of work.

I disagree, I think Batman, in a lot of ways, is self indulgent in his war on crime. The way I've always interpreted him as a character was as someone who hates the criminal fraternity that murdered his beloved parents. He inherited his love of Gotham from his father but didn't have the courage to explore the way of peace so instead he turned to the martial option.

He has no responsibility to anybody in Gotham. He answers to no one except for his own sense of self worth and conscience. While he does not kill anybody his methods are brutal and panic inducing. The original idea behind the bat as a symbol was Bruce Wayne's terror of them as a child. He would become an entity that the criminals of Gotham would fear and they would feel what it was like for the normal citizens. I love Batman but he's a thug who preys on the strong (criminals) out of a need to do something.

That's my personal interpretation anyway.

OT: That was a great read, one of the best I've gone through on this site. I'm definitely going to have to see if I can dig up Ennis' punisher somewhere around here and get into the character again.

not really oslq its quite the opposite (chiming in a bit late but hey better then never) batman invest heavily in Gotham as Bruce Wayne using his inheritance, he feels a responsibility to the people of Gotham,hes the main source of funding for arham when ever it gets destroyed he uses his influence in Washington to try and help the people of Gotham (he tried to stop them from closing off Gotham during no man's land and helped to reopen it)

castle on the other hand dos not invest in anyone or new york(true he don't have as much as Wayne but he dos have an impressive amount from all his busts)he hates the criminal fraternity that murdered his family its frank He answers to no one except for his own sense of self worth and conscience.

there was one batman story in particular shows exactly this. batman is chasing a thief all over Gotham on christmas eve and when he finley catches him in his house he reveals that he did it to support his kids who are right there with him and that hes obviously repent(he returned the goods before batman caught them) and was prepared to go to jail for his crimes batman just looks at him sternly and says not to to it again, and as he leaves he leaves a large amount of cash (enough to keep his family fed for quite some time). the punisher would have just shot the guy in front of his kids and left it at that.
this shows that the punisher is the " thug who preys on the strong (criminals) out of a need to do something" while batman punishes the criminals but works with the system and care for his charges(Gotham and its people)

don't get me wrong i love the punisher as much as i love batman, and your interpretation of batman is probably the right one for you but i myself feel that its the opposite that's true for batman and vice versa the punisher.