batricide: (Default)
damian wayne (injustice) ([personal profile] batricide) wrote2018-05-28 07:06 am

IC INBOX



@hafid.alghul| ■ ▲ ◌ ▼



rehandle: (298)

[personal profile] rehandle 2020-01-23 01:27 am (UTC)(link)
How many murders are we using to determine an irredeemable killer? If someone arrives who's a known murderer in somebody else's world, do we take them out based on reputation alone or do we have to wait for a crime to be committed? If we only have one person's word against theirs, do we assume our friend is honest, or do we have to wait?

If we have to wait, do we contain the threat in the meantime? If we can contain the threat in the short term, why can't we do so indefinitely?
rehandle: (pic#12484580)

[personal profile] rehandle 2020-01-23 01:51 am (UTC)(link)
The Loki of my world attempted to overtake the Earth by route of alien invasion, killing some himself in pursuit of making way for his army, others dying in the battle that ensued. Who knows how many would have died without the input of the Avengers.

By your rule, Loki would be dead now. He's been here since I arrived, I've yet to see any heinous crimes.
rehandle: (284)

[personal profile] rehandle 2020-01-23 02:15 am (UTC)(link)
So we do have to wait for evidence of a problem before action should be taken. That's a clear limit, good.

Do we take a person's heritage and related morality into account when coming to a decision?
rehandle: (272)

[personal profile] rehandle 2020-01-23 03:17 am (UTC)(link)
So it's not without leniency.

The conversation with Dick doesn't need to be complicated. Tell him you have some differing opinions that it's best to get out of the way early. Explain that in a situation where someone proves to be an irredeemable and active threat to innocent life, your decision would be to nullify that threat by killing the individual rather than risking imprisonment and escape. Let him know that you've discussed it before, maintain your view due to previous experience, understand that it isn't a majority stance and don't see the merit in continuing to discuss a hypothetical. Provide him with any specifics he asks for, but if he pushes you to debate it with him you can politely decline to continue the conversation.

It's the same as last time. Listen to what he's saying and acknowledge it without feeling the need to contest it. He can't fight you if you're not throwing punches, you just may have to take a few hits.
rehandle: (pic#12284577)

[personal profile] rehandle 2020-01-29 10:01 am (UTC)(link)
Then you'll need to make it clear to him that the law here cannot and will not apply to us, whether or not we wish it would. Police custody doesn't stick. We're overseen by someone who doesn't want us noticed.

For better or worse, we're our own law. If he doesn't like what he thinks you'll do, it's up to him and everyone else who disagrees with you to act first and keep you out. Our justice is self-defined, that part isn't negotiable.
rehandle: (293)

[personal profile] rehandle 2020-02-01 09:37 pm (UTC)(link)
You can send him directly to me if you think he's going to start another civil war. Or me directly to him.

[ It wasn't fun the first time, but it was at the very least a learning experience. He's learned he'd rather not watch it happen again, and he's more than happy to put the work in to achieve those ends. ]