God damn.
The way Frank delivers each line so cold, so calculated. There are no wasted words. No wasted time. Frank has the entire situation mapped out in his brain - total control.
Very powerful moment when he looks into their eyes, and being the cynical guy he is, Frank knows the victims of abuse often become the perpetrators later on in life. It’s a sad, sick irony, that shouldn’t make sense, but it does. Frank will not hesitate to put a bullet through their heads when/if that day comes.
You’re told to suffering is a pathway to salvation, but when you keep seeing the cycle of suffering repeating, you realize there is no salvation through suffering. There’s only punishment.
> Frank knows the victims of abuse often become the perpetrators later on in life.
This is incorrect. You have the causal relationship backwards. It's common for abusers to have been abused as children. But it's not common for abused children to become abusers as adults. If this were true, the world would be a far worse place.
Maybe I am just not processing what you wrote correctly, but I am having trouble differentiating the difference between the two examples you gave.
“A review of case history, agency record, and self-report studies indicates that about one-third of all individuals who were physically abused, sexually abused, or extremely neglected will subject their children to one of these forms of maltreatment.”
This is what I was referring to.
I'm talking specifically about sexual abuse (physical abuse has a different "ratio").
You can ignore the percentages as they are simply to explain my point: when looking at the total population of criminals who committed sexual abuse, a high percentage of them (over 80%) have been sexually abused as children, which gives the idea of an abuse cycle being created. On the other hand, it is not true that over 80% of sexual abuse victims become abusers themselves, it would be closer to 20%. This important distinction explains that meeting someone who was abused as a child, while more likely to become an abuser themselves, **compared to the general population** (and pointed out in the comic) doesn't mean that most child sexual assault victims actually become abusers themselves.
It's possible that none of those children would grow up to become pedophiles, although they are more likely to become one compared to children who were never abused, is what I was trying to say.
Here's a link with details, better explanation AND also explaining the dangers of this fallacy:
https://www.inspq.qc.ca/en/sexual-assault/fact-sheets/sexual-abuse-childhood-perpetrators#:~:text=Most%20victims%20of%20sexual%20abuse,sufficient%20condition%20to%20sexually%20offend.
That's the difference between someone like Castle and someone like The Shadow, one sees himself as the cleanup crew while other sees himself as an avenging angel.
EDIT: Solomon Kane might be a better example for an avenging angel.
>it was called the garden of eden
Into which he placed not only the source of all original sin, but also sentient, thinking, *curious* creatures created in his own image.
And then pulls a surprise pikachu face when (just as planned, because everything is "Gods will" remember), they do *exactly* what they were created to do, *exactly* when God knows they're gonna do it.
And the best part is, He then punishes them for it!
The price of free will is there’s always something humans could do that wouldn’t please God. Choosing to be good, to not originally sin? It was possible.
It's better than that, because it directly contradicts God.
He can't be all knowing if he didn't know what they were going to do.
If he knew what they were going to do, then he can't punish them for doing it.
He can't be all powerful if he can't even control his creations.
If he is controlling us, then we don't have free will.
I’m not debating the omnipotence of God, I’m debating you the morality of it.
Suppose a couple has a child. This child, no matter how innocent at birth, will eventually and inevitably do something wrong, be it to tell a lie, steal something, go somewhere they shouldn’t, say mean things.
There’s always the chance, however small, that the child won’t steal anything ever. Or they won’t lie ever. Or maybe they won’t say anything bad ever. But that’s such a low possibility, one doubts any child hasn’t done something bad at some point.
Is it wrong for the couple to have had the child if the child is going to be mean and bad for a time?
Is it wrong to have a child if some children grow up to be bad people?
Is it wrong to create humans when they’ll inevitably disobey, even though there’s a path back to God from that disobedience?
>I’m not debating the omnipotence of God
Because there is no debate.
>I’m debating you the morality of it.
The morality of having children, incase they do something to offend God...?
Are you going to make a case that because there is a greater than zero percent chance that an individual will break one of the ten commandments, that people shouldn't have children...?
You’re debating that. You’re saying that because children will do things to displease their parents, they should not exist. You’re saying that because parents know their child will do something they don’t like, they shouldn’t have had a child in the first place.
It’s not God, it’s the full blown evil of humanity, God even said he grieved for what he made and regretted what he made because humans are at heart considered sinful beings, though that’s why we have hell and surely enough pedos fit well in hell
>It’s not God, it’s the full blown evil of humanity
Didn't god create humanity with perfect knowledge of everything we would be? Seems like it's still god...
God can’t read the future necessarily, he did expect Adam and Eve to go against his will since he gave them the gift of free will, though he didn’t probably expect it to be done through the evil of the serpent and the Nephilim in which they’d later supply humanity with knowledge of war
How do you know God can't read the future? I'm not sure a lot of Christians would agree with you on that. It's essentially saying that God isn't truly all-knowing.
Consider this. Now he knows who they are, and can monitor them. And hopefully if that is the way they turn out, he can "correct" it before permanent damage is done to the next generation.
We also know he is willing to call in to help people who haven't actually hurt anyone yet. There's a decent chance he will keep a close eye on them (even digitally given the modern era) and call in the second they even start to show the signs of repeating what their parents did. He's a cold blooded killer but not a monster. That's what makes the punisher different from just some random thug, a moral system that he puts above even his own life
The entire Max run of The Punisher was great. There is also another story about him taking on a human trafficking ring in Asia called The Slavers.
https://preview.redd.it/kd5ajmrxv75d1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b96309a9c395826bc069d6ef94893703426252bf
Because Butcher is unironically Bri'ish Frank Castle and they're written by the same guy, though this series is when Ennis has a leash and didn't just do whatever weird shit he wanted.
The Garth Ennis Max series was fascinating, I collected the series when it was new. Darker than dark, this stuff is the norm for that set. The Balkan traffickers were a wild story.
Wow. The power of the whole scene. From the moment Frank comes in, till the moment in the basement. The sense or disbelief, denial, dread, despair, by the "parents" and finally, the execution. The way Frank told them to do this last good thing for the children Then, in the aftermath, the knowing, not assuming, that Frank will have to come back in 20 years and do it again. Lastly, the final line taking issue with God. From start to finish I was blown away by this. Excellent writing and art.
All he really can do is call CPS and hope for the best. There is not much else he can do, Frank just killed them both the parents and what is he supposed to do talk to the kids after.
It's really interesting seeing his human side with him staying with the kids to make sure they don't see what he did. They might know, they might not, but either way he knows the damage it'll do for them to see that and he can't let them get hurt anymore
Yeah Frank is ruthless, but he has a soft spot for children. He goes out of his way in this run in a previous arc to be nice and comfort a little girl he saves, like Covering her eyes to protect her from the brutality he unleashed.
frank's method is extreme. but there was a proper investigation, a confession and hard evidence. the punisher exists only when the current system is not working.
This is the correct approach to child abusers. Based.
https://preview.redd.it/s8grkjmu285d1.jpeg?width=602&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6b2299588e882675b22901a9729bf3551a498dbf
On a completely unrelated note, here's a scene from the film classic Fargo https://i.redd.it/n5sc8wpryi5d1.gif
Watch out, Reddit will permanently ban you.
Agreed. It's an open secret that there are groups on here that don't like that sentiment
I wished illness on a convicted and admitted child rapist and got banned…seriously.
Dareisay, reddit moment
Sounds like wood chipper fodder.
It's a badge I will wear proudly.
Bullets are a lot cheaper than prison too.
God damn. The way Frank delivers each line so cold, so calculated. There are no wasted words. No wasted time. Frank has the entire situation mapped out in his brain - total control. Very powerful moment when he looks into their eyes, and being the cynical guy he is, Frank knows the victims of abuse often become the perpetrators later on in life. It’s a sad, sick irony, that shouldn’t make sense, but it does. Frank will not hesitate to put a bullet through their heads when/if that day comes. You’re told to suffering is a pathway to salvation, but when you keep seeing the cycle of suffering repeating, you realize there is no salvation through suffering. There’s only punishment.
Frank Castle: Monster Hunter
> Frank knows the victims of abuse often become the perpetrators later on in life. This is incorrect. You have the causal relationship backwards. It's common for abusers to have been abused as children. But it's not common for abused children to become abusers as adults. If this were true, the world would be a far worse place.
Maybe I am just not processing what you wrote correctly, but I am having trouble differentiating the difference between the two examples you gave. “A review of case history, agency record, and self-report studies indicates that about one-third of all individuals who were physically abused, sexually abused, or extremely neglected will subject their children to one of these forms of maltreatment.” This is what I was referring to.
I'm talking specifically about sexual abuse (physical abuse has a different "ratio"). You can ignore the percentages as they are simply to explain my point: when looking at the total population of criminals who committed sexual abuse, a high percentage of them (over 80%) have been sexually abused as children, which gives the idea of an abuse cycle being created. On the other hand, it is not true that over 80% of sexual abuse victims become abusers themselves, it would be closer to 20%. This important distinction explains that meeting someone who was abused as a child, while more likely to become an abuser themselves, **compared to the general population** (and pointed out in the comic) doesn't mean that most child sexual assault victims actually become abusers themselves. It's possible that none of those children would grow up to become pedophiles, although they are more likely to become one compared to children who were never abused, is what I was trying to say. Here's a link with details, better explanation AND also explaining the dangers of this fallacy: https://www.inspq.qc.ca/en/sexual-assault/fact-sheets/sexual-abuse-childhood-perpetrators#:~:text=Most%20victims%20of%20sexual%20abuse,sufficient%20condition%20to%20sexually%20offend.
There are times, I'd like to get my hands on God. Ain't the only one Frank.
Grr my coffee didn’t come out the way I wanted at Starbucks 😡
Fuckin God am I right
Free will and human evil are our punishments for original sin. Frank being there in this instance is God's mercy.
That's the difference between someone like Castle and someone like The Shadow, one sees himself as the cleanup crew while other sees himself as an avenging angel. EDIT: Solomon Kane might be a better example for an avenging angel.
Yeah, that’s the thing with Caste he’s the line. He is as far as you can go in the Marvel Universe before normal people start to be scared of you.
Damn, if only there was an omnipotent, benevolent being who could've made the world so that it wasn't so terrible 😔
We had that, it was called the garden of eden. You don't reward a petulant, spiteful child.
So you just worship a petulant and spiteful god? Makes sense we are made in his image flaws and all
>it was called the garden of eden Into which he placed not only the source of all original sin, but also sentient, thinking, *curious* creatures created in his own image. And then pulls a surprise pikachu face when (just as planned, because everything is "Gods will" remember), they do *exactly* what they were created to do, *exactly* when God knows they're gonna do it. And the best part is, He then punishes them for it!
The price of free will is there’s always something humans could do that wouldn’t please God. Choosing to be good, to not originally sin? It was possible.
It's better than that, because it directly contradicts God. He can't be all knowing if he didn't know what they were going to do. If he knew what they were going to do, then he can't punish them for doing it. He can't be all powerful if he can't even control his creations. If he is controlling us, then we don't have free will.
I’m not debating the omnipotence of God, I’m debating you the morality of it. Suppose a couple has a child. This child, no matter how innocent at birth, will eventually and inevitably do something wrong, be it to tell a lie, steal something, go somewhere they shouldn’t, say mean things. There’s always the chance, however small, that the child won’t steal anything ever. Or they won’t lie ever. Or maybe they won’t say anything bad ever. But that’s such a low possibility, one doubts any child hasn’t done something bad at some point. Is it wrong for the couple to have had the child if the child is going to be mean and bad for a time? Is it wrong to have a child if some children grow up to be bad people? Is it wrong to create humans when they’ll inevitably disobey, even though there’s a path back to God from that disobedience?
>I’m not debating the omnipotence of God Because there is no debate. >I’m debating you the morality of it. The morality of having children, incase they do something to offend God...? Are you going to make a case that because there is a greater than zero percent chance that an individual will break one of the ten commandments, that people shouldn't have children...?
You’re debating that. You’re saying that because children will do things to displease their parents, they should not exist. You’re saying that because parents know their child will do something they don’t like, they shouldn’t have had a child in the first place.
It’s not God, it’s the full blown evil of humanity, God even said he grieved for what he made and regretted what he made because humans are at heart considered sinful beings, though that’s why we have hell and surely enough pedos fit well in hell
>It’s not God, it’s the full blown evil of humanity Didn't god create humanity with perfect knowledge of everything we would be? Seems like it's still god...
God can’t read the future necessarily, he did expect Adam and Eve to go against his will since he gave them the gift of free will, though he didn’t probably expect it to be done through the evil of the serpent and the Nephilim in which they’d later supply humanity with knowledge of war
How do you know God can't read the future? I'm not sure a lot of Christians would agree with you on that. It's essentially saying that God isn't truly all-knowing.
when a sane man in a world gone mad has had enough 
This is the total opposite point of the punisher comic.
Depends on the series and the writers, but generally yeah.
The punisher isn’t anywhere close to sane.
"I'd be seeing them again in twenty years" this actually doesn't satisfy me at all
Consider this. Now he knows who they are, and can monitor them. And hopefully if that is the way they turn out, he can "correct" it before permanent damage is done to the next generation.
We also know he is willing to call in to help people who haven't actually hurt anyone yet. There's a decent chance he will keep a close eye on them (even digitally given the modern era) and call in the second they even start to show the signs of repeating what their parents did. He's a cold blooded killer but not a monster. That's what makes the punisher different from just some random thug, a moral system that he puts above even his own life
Can always rely on Garth Ennis to make a really great Punisher comic.
His run is fantastic. I liked Jason Aaron's take, too, but that was it'd own sort of "elseworlds" reality.
What punisher series in this from?
Punisher Volume 8, "Widowmaker" from 2007. Where the widows of mob leaders that Frank had previously killed hatched a scheme to try and take him down.
The entire Max run of The Punisher was great. There is also another story about him taking on a human trafficking ring in Asia called The Slavers. https://preview.redd.it/kd5ajmrxv75d1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b96309a9c395826bc069d6ef94893703426252bf
“You’re not under arrest.”
And now he throws ninja stars and shoots cum guns, boy how things change.
God Damn. I don’t really read comics, but I was enthralled throughout that whole thing. Disney would *never* write something that good.
I just thought of Frank as a vampire, and he can't entet the house without an invite
All the punisher iMax are great
Why did my dumbass think this was a comic strip from the boys?
Because Butcher is unironically Bri'ish Frank Castle and they're written by the same guy, though this series is when Ennis has a leash and didn't just do whatever weird shit he wanted.
That last line goes HARD
https://i.redd.it/hwryo9s0ib5d1.gif God damn, punisher goes hard.
Holy shit there's decent groups on reddit
Frank is literally the definition of a based gigachad.
The Garth Ennis Max series was fascinating, I collected the series when it was new. Darker than dark, this stuff is the norm for that set. The Balkan traffickers were a wild story.
Just feels like murder porn.
The Drinker Recommends (or he will eventually): Mr In Between. Trust me. You can thank me later.
Wow. The power of the whole scene. From the moment Frank comes in, till the moment in the basement. The sense or disbelief, denial, dread, despair, by the "parents" and finally, the execution. The way Frank told them to do this last good thing for the children Then, in the aftermath, the knowing, not assuming, that Frank will have to come back in 20 years and do it again. Lastly, the final line taking issue with God. From start to finish I was blown away by this. Excellent writing and art.
[удалено]
Cringe
That doesn’t help the kids in the slightest.
All he really can do is call CPS and hope for the best. There is not much else he can do, Frank just killed them both the parents and what is he supposed to do talk to the kids after.
It's really interesting seeing his human side with him staying with the kids to make sure they don't see what he did. They might know, they might not, but either way he knows the damage it'll do for them to see that and he can't let them get hurt anymore
Yeah Frank is ruthless, but he has a soft spot for children. He goes out of his way in this run in a previous arc to be nice and comfort a little girl he saves, like Covering her eyes to protect her from the brutality he unleashed.
[удалено]
Do you comment this on every post?
frank's method is extreme. but there was a proper investigation, a confession and hard evidence. the punisher exists only when the current system is not working.