I can't remember the exact name, but there's a common process with ongoing characters where the writers find themselves making their toughest characters nicer over time.

Both Wolverine and Jack Reacher were presented as unapproachable loners at first, and both mellowed considerably over time.

Rorschach was 'lucky' because he got to die a noble death before being forced to become civilized.

He's also capable of backing his words up with actions. Although in the prison scene I guess the actions came first.

Pretty sure the "you're locked in here with me" vibe. is what all the fanboys envision themselves as, but would never actually be to emulate.

He does have a rock solid sense of right and wrong

As long as it is not informed by the white supremacist tabloid he was reading. Did you miss the parts where we read his thoughts about gay people or welfare queens (dogwhistle for black people)?

and a love of beans

Well the willing suspension of disbelief is adjusted based on the story being told. If you say there's a made-up kingdom where animals talk in the exposition, that's fine. But if you say it takes place in a world that's basically our own, then one person can randomly shoot lasers from their eyes, you should give some explanation. It doesn't even have to be a particularly good one, but even in-universe people would be asking about that.

And well the joker isn’t an “anti-hero” he’s a straight up psychopath

That seems way to general. I wouldn't label Tony Montana or Walter White anti heros.

That's like saying Atticus Finch isn't a hero in To Kill A Mockingbird because you, personally, are racist and don't think fighting for the rights of black people is a noble persuit. A character is a hero in a story if they are good according to the morals implicit in the story's world.

Beating the absolute shit out of people isn't lawful.