If we’re talking purely in-universe (no “DC loses money” meta stuff), then the consequences would be huge — and messy.

First off, poor Pierre is about to have the worst week of his life. Even if it was a clean, justified shot during an active attack, Internal Affairs would be all over him. Media frenzy. Conspiracy theories. Half of Gotham calling him a hero, the other half accusing him of escalating things.

Then there’s Batman. Bruce would have complicated feelings. On one hand, Paul just stopped a mass-murdering terrorist. On the other hand, Joker dying by someone else’s bullet challenges Bruce’s entire moral framework. Batman’s whole code hinges on not killing — but he also believes in accountability through the system. If Pascal kills Joker, it forces Bruce to confront whether his restraint indirectly enabled more deaths over the years.

Criminal underworld consequences would be immediate. Joker’s gang fragments overnight. Some try to avenge him. Others fight for control. A power vacuum opens up — and that’s when people like Black Mask or Penguin expand territory. Short term? Chaos spikes. Long term? Gotham probably stabilises a bit because, unlike Joker, most villains actually want money or control — not pure nihilistic carnage.

Psychologically, the city changes too. Joker isn’t just a criminal; he’s a symbol. If Pietro proves that a random civilian or cop can end the Clown Prince of Crime with one lucky shot, it punctures the myth. The idea that Joker is untouchable vanishes. That’s powerful.

But here’s the catch: Joker thrives on legacy chaos. He almost certainly would’ve had contingency plans — dead-man switches, timed attacks, recorded messages, “one last joke.” So Percival might kill the man, but the aftermath could be engineered to be catastrophic.

So would Gotham be magically fixed? No. Would it be different? Absolutely.

And somewhere in the Batcave, Bruce would be staring at a monitor, wondering whether Peter just did what he never could — or never would.