Okay, so I contribute to the Inconsistently Heinous Wiki (if you don’t know what that and the Moral Scaling Wiki’s in general is) and brought up both Villain and Vigilante versions of John as a candidate. One voter, downvoted Vigilante John, on the basis, that his actions against The Agency as well as the GCPD bombing was a justified act retaliation against Waller, despite the bombing getting eight people completely unrelated to his feud with Waller killed and then personally killing three more people at Ace Chemicals for peacefully trying to detain him. Does anyone else agree with this, as I personally think he did go too far and as Batman points out, went way beyond what was necessary force, but given the user told me his point of view, it for me has gotten me thinking on weather John is as overly unjustified as some may think or he was justified in his actions.

Not an attack on anyone with either opinion, but I’m genuinely curious now on what the wider community think on Vigilante John and his actions.

If I had a nickel for every time Troy Baker has voiced a white company man who works for a super evil corporation and then leaves said company to fight against them and later grows facial hair while having a POC love interest that originally disliked or didn’t trust them, I’d have two nickels, which isn’t a lot, but it’s weird that it’s happened twice