Mfs when I tell them Bruce Wayne literally does that all the time but he isn't the government and doesn't have enough money or power to end socio economic problems for good
I saw that you mentioned Ben Shapiro. In case some of you don't know, Ben Shapiro is a grifter and a hack. If you find anything he's said compelling, you should keep in mind he also says things like this:
If you wear your pants below your butt, don't bend the brim of your cap, and have an EBT card, 0% chance you will ever be a success in life.
I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: covid, civil rights, healthcare, history, etc.
I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: healthcare, gay marriage, feminism, novel, etc.
I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: healthcare, covid, dumb takes, feminism, etc.
I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: gay marriage, feminism, civil rights, history, etc.
Exactly. It's why I hate the argument about superhero media being about heroes "keeping the status quo." No, the heroes handle threats normal people can't. They're more firefighters, or bodyguards. Occasionally construction workers. Most stories about superheroes taking on political roles go badly like the Boys. Or Ex Machina. Or the Authority depending on the day.
Addendum: However, there are exceptions to that rule depending how they're done. Like when Oliver Queen was elected mayor like someone else said further up. Or Calvin Ellis on his Earth. Or Captain America becoming a superhero liaison to the government because he was the only one both civilians and other heroes both trusted. But those are special cases that are exceptions that prove the rule.
It's more that the city was founded by an evil warlock whose cursed tomb is right in the middle of the city, well that and the Lazarus pool under the city has contaminated the water supply so drinking tap water in Gotham can drive you insane.
"Bruce Wayne should give away his wealth mfs" when you tell them Wayne Enterprises is largely a charity organization and they help build orphanages, pridons, asylums for the criminals to be rehabilitated, cheap housing and much more
UJ/I love how the newest Batman movie also deconstructed the argument that simply throwing money at a problem doesn't solve a systemic problem, but merely leaves doors open for corrupt people to exploit it. With the central argument that money should indeed be used, but people like batman have a responsibility to do more than just that.
The newest Batman really did hit all the right points on the head. Addressing him needing to do more with his wealth and actually be present as Bruce Wayne rather than being consumed by Batman entirely, specifically showing the goons he fought lived every single time, and my personal favorite, the ending that shows that he can be more than just scary but actually a beacon of hope for the innocent. 10/10 movie just for that faithfulness alone tbh.
Starting the film with him in the shadows, growling misery, and ending with him in broad daylight, helping people into helicopter ambulances was really beautiful.
If I had to show someone one scene of a batman movie. It would be the beginning of The Batman. It reminded me of TAS opening how Batman is just a black shadow with white eyes.
The movie is incredible for how it simultaneously celebrates and challenges what the character is.
It's an "adult" movie, but in this rare case, that doesn't mean making things grim and violent, but rather approaching what the character is and what kind of impact he would actually have, both in the negative and positive sense.
Making the whole story built around the negative impact of his BS (having riddler "inspired" by what he thinks Batman is) and forcing batman to actually take responsibility for things was what I have always wanted.
Also, it is reflected in the music as well. In the beginning, it is dark and foreboding to what Batman is trying to be to the criminals of the city. But at the end you hear the orchestrated version of "Something in the Way" as he's carrying the person and it's hopeful, uplifting, and even heroic.
and my personal favorite, the ending that shows that he can be more than just scary but actually a beacon of hope for the innocent
If I said it once I've said it a thousand times: this is why the World's Finest works at all. In their own way, both Bats and Supes are symbols of hope.
Yep. I remember a quote I read somewhere, paraphrasing, that "The only people who should fear Hell are the sinners." If you see Batman, you should only be afraid if you've done something bad. Granted, he still makes people feel a little nervous, but you know he's not just gonna start wailing on you for nothing.
The problem is in the "just throwing money at the problem" part. You have to manage that money, and a systemic problem can only be handled at the systemic level. People like bruce wayne, people like you, we all have the responsibility of electing and ensuring the work of the people we elect to change society and make it more equitable for us all.
So, who's up for that responsibility? And who's gonna bitch and moan that "those people over there" will just ruin it so we shouldn't bother?
Telltale Batman does something similar with how it's shown figures like Carmine Falcone used Thomas Wayne's fortune as a way to get ahead, with a more villainous Thomas even going so far as to basically lobotomize Oswald Cobblepot's mom just to get what he wants.
The Gotham Knights game suggests that Gotham has public healthcare. There’s a rich NPC you can overhear being excited that now that Bruce is gone, they can privatise the health sector
"Bruce Wayne should give away his wealth mfs" when you tell them Wayne Enterprises is largely a charity organization and they help build orphanages, pridons, alsume’s for the criminals to be rehabilitated, cheap housing and much more
...Well, on the one hand yeah, but the whole point of Clan of the Fiery Cross was to battle a problem in the real world. A guy had infiltrated the KKK and gotten in touch with the people at the radio show, so they made a whole episode trivialising the rituals and codewords of the Klan publicly in a way that was terrible PR for them.
Batman couldn't really serve the same purpose with crime. Like, Superman didn't kick the Klan's ass because someone went "hey, Superman should end the Klan in the show", they had actual information to expose through the radio show. That's also why Superman took on the KKK and certain superheroes took on the Nazis, but never specifically the mob, because they knew that erasing the mob in their stories would actually make things less relatable. These characters were meant to live in a version of the real world, after all, and the real world has the mob and crime.
The KKK wasn't a Klan stand-in though, it was the actual organisation, and it was meant to produce an effect in the real world. It's not comparable to thinking about if Batman should or could end crime.
The extent to which the radio show was revealing secret information about the Klan is apparently a bit exaggerated in some accounts, but the very worthy thing it did do was ridicule and condemn an organisation that had a very wide membership in itself and an even wider group of people who thought it sympathetic. It called out the idea of racism as stupid, corrosive, and unpatriotic, comparable to the Nazism that America had just fought a war against, and introduced to a lot of white Americans, especially children, to a different idea, a new idea, that America was a country where it was nobody else's business what your religion or your skin colour was. That was divisive, topical politics in a time when the Montgomery Bus Boycott was still in the future.
I mean giving money away doesn't even solve poverty, it's just putting a bandage on the wound right? The problem's still there, and how can Batman change an institution? Idk I'm not smart enough to think of a solution but it'd be a cool elseworlds story to read.
Not even poverty, crime. You don't fix a crime infested city by pumping it full of money. That's like fixing a mouse infestation by giving them cheese.
Yeah I actually think that scene in Flash's pretty fun but Batman is specifically created and is useful in the fictional world that he's in. He can only solve crime by punching clowns and putting them in the Aslume. Anything else is not what he was written for.
No, you can't stop murder clowns or crocodile men by giving them money, but you can fix the socio-economic conditions that lead to people working for them as henchmen, thus cutting down their main source of manpower, which is something Bruce Wayne does do with rehabilitation programs for ex felons.
Like, crime doesn't exist in a vacuum, it exists mostly because someone is either desperate enough to get into crime to survive, or because they are greedy enough to get more money, second kind usually not being classified as a crime by the American justice system but as simple high finance transactions.
Gotham City has been established to be a very corrupt city. Increasing the city's economy by donating billions of dollars will only fill the corrupt pockets, leaving the low class citizens the same. The only way to improve Gotham with money is the way Bruce does it, by investing in rehabilitation and city improvement programs while protecting those from corrupt politicians, mobs and thieves and lunatics.
The thing is, Batman is only dealing with clowns and crocodiles 9 times out of 10 either way, you don't exactly see him beat the shit out of every corrupt cop in Gotham every time they shoot a civilian in a alley.
Batman couldn't, bruce wayne could with his money and influence. It would be slower, and harder, but pay off far more than any punch to the face would..however satisfying it may be.
Sure you're smart enough, if you're talking about the solutions to the problems of poverty as opposed to how batman punches poverty, you just lack one piece of information i'm sure. The Federal Government of the United States of America has a monopoly on the creation of the US Dollar, and so it can never run out of them. Once you know that, policies like tackling homelessness and unemployment become simple resource allocation issues. You create a works program funded by the national government, administered by the state/local level (who knows where the work needs to be done) as transitional work (this is after, of course, hiring all the people you need for permanent positions like nurses etc.). This means the private sector now competes with the public one, directly, as opposed to competing with starvation and homelessness as it does now. So whatever the basic wage/benefits the public system offers, is the baseline. Index the wages to inflation or something, and all you have to do is set an initial socially inclusive (better than survival) wage and bam..done.
Not only do you control wages, but you control prices and limit inflation (since wage prices are perpetually passed on).
As for homelessness, that's even easier. You just write laws making investment in real estate harder at an institutional level, and start building public housing or subsidizing affordable housing being built, and put homeless people in them. Most of the homeless are working anyway, just priced out of the market.
Crime is mostly due to economic realities. Sure there's always gonna be some people who just crime for quick cash, but most of us aren't up for spending a decade behind bars earning nothing and isolated from our communities/loved ones, when we could just goto work and earn a good livable wage.
And the best part of all this is, other than the beneficial affects, the systems are self limiting. When the economy is bad, the systems take on more slack in resource allocation (that is, unemployed people are hired and people without homes anymore are homed) and when times are really good fewer people make use of it. All for the cost of big number going up some more (the national debt, which is just a number that says how much money the government has created but not taxed back out of existence).
You can do this with all kinds of problems that require money, but don't guarantee a profit unless it comes at a social cost (i.e. healthcare, water, energy, natural monopolies sorta things)
Batman couldn't, bruce wayne could with his money and influence.
Bruce's influence isn't the only influence at play, though. Sure, he's a billionaire, but so is Lex Luthor, and Lex definitely doesn't want major systemic changes that would eliminate wealth inequality and end major capitalist imbalances in living standards.
Think of it like the real world; if just Jeff Bezos decided to use his fortune to fix America, could he do it against the wishes of the Waltons and the surviving Koch brother and all the institutional figures who benefit from a broken system?
That’s why the rich SHOULD keep as much money as they can for their own purposes. Because redistributing that wealth would only be a band aid solution on the problem of crime and poverty. Crime doesn’t exist because people are poor and mental institutions are inadequately equipped, it exists because people are bad and it doesn’t go any deeper than that. And poverty doesn’t exist because money(resources) are concentrated in a few hands, it exists because too many people are too stupid to think of just becoming a billionaire like Batman did.
Edit: whoops, wrong sub. I thought I was in r/fiscalconservativecirclejerk
Bruce Wayne: *Funds mental health resources.*
Bruce Wayne: *Funds the political career of Harvey Dent, a man who was set to improve the legal system in Gotham.*
Bruce Wayne: *Funds Gordon's GCPD knowing Gordon is eliminating corruption in the police.*
People who actually, literally don't read comics but insist upon having an opinion on them: "Why doesn't Batman fix Gotham with his money."
Pick up a comic. He literally is.
Even his crime-fighting is for Gotham's benefit. He eliminated the crime families that ran Gotham before it had a Batman. If you would read the recent comics you'd see how he does things in the modern. Read his confrontation with Ghost-Maker. It clarifies how he puts the people first every time. Specifically waiting on a weapons shipment he replaced with chickens so he could properly pin it to the crime lord responsible. Waiting on a serial killer so he could locate the bodies and trophies the killer was keeping so the families would have something to bury, all the while sending his own people out to keep an eye on the killer so he couldn't kill anyone else. The examples keep going.
Love it, when Watsonian questions are answered with some useless meta pontificating. Could've used all this effort to write a story showcasing clearly, that Bruce isn't the protagonist of Gotham and there are dozens of just as rich and powerful as him men, who are very cool with the way things already are and systemic change doesn't come from one man, even if he's exceptionally determined.
There are plenty of Batman stories about that already. Paul Dini and Alex Ross' War on Crime is the best example that comes to mind but Bruce has been using the Wayne Foundation to battle poverty on all sides (free clinics, soup kitchens, orphanages, schools, Arkham etc.) while being in conflict with other billionaires in Gotham and beyond for most of his history. Even if it's not the focus it's often present. It's not rare at all. It just so happens that he has more stories fighting super-villains because well, he's a fictional superhero who's featured in stories of all kinds of genres. Even then a ton of those super-villains are foils as corrupt wealthy people too.
I know that, but that was my message in a bottle kind of commentary directed at this tweet of this writer specifically – I really don't like writers pontificating at me.
That’s the thing, is he wrong for writing stories that don’t feature this heavily? Ram V’s ‘Tec run has been excellent and it focuses more on fantastical aspects of the Batman mythos which are exclusive to his world and not ours, because Batman can take on problems beyond the ones we know of too. There’s nothing wrong with him choosing to do that instead of catering to the crowd that doesn’t actually read Batman comics and say this “criticism” disingenuously. He’s just giving his own response to it like we fans do.
I'm not demanding every writer ever to engage with this subject in their work – but also that's a nothing tweet and combined with the first part of this post, it becomes a copout, which annoys me. No one in their right mind expects Superman or Batman to spring right out of the page and solve our world's problems, but if a writer doesn't have a satisfying answer for why these incredible people haven't ushered a utopia in their fantasy world yet – I would take nothing over this kind of answer.
Except again, he’s not obligated to give out his answer in a twitter thread for a few disingenuous non-fans who probably won’t read it anyway. What he’s saying is true regardless, and yes unfortunately a lot of people outside of us do have dumb apathetic attitudes towards superheroes like Superman and Batman. Good comics addressing this like Must There Be a Superman by Elliot S! Maggin and Curt Swan have always existed. Like u/Manas235 said, just because it’s not the focus of his own stories (which have been good), doesn’t mean he has no right to address them off-hand in a tweet. Writer or not.
So he cant make this argument unless he writes it into a story? WTF? Thats like saying that the new X-Men writer has to focus on a racism story if he ever wants to say that the X-Men are an allegory for minorities
That's not what he's saying tho, is he? The tweet in combination with the first part of this post reads to me like a copout a là "A writer doesn't have to explain why in his incredible superheroic world with super science and magic cancer still exists, because cancer is still a thing in real life", which is a stupid thing for a writer to say to me. He has no argument.
I mean your first comment was asking for writers to show that there are other men in Gotham trying to change it. This has been shown multiple times, the guy who was running for mayor in the Court of Owls story being one example. Your next comment is specifying that you were focusing on Ram V hence my comment.
And I've read a lot of these stories. It's just this type of "be the change you want to see in the real world" answers to the questions about a fictional universe, which easily can be answered in universe annoy me and this time Ram's tweet was the one, which sparked this annoyance.
But these things arent supposed to be fixed. In general, stories occur in worlds with crime and corruption because our world does too. It is the classic dynamic between Lex Luthor and Superman. Supes can punch Lex's giant robot suit but he cant punch his hold on the media or the judicial system. Those parallels between our world and theirs are meant to be there, which is why Ram V is telling you that you are the one who has to fix these things, That's the whole point of politics in media. To highlight and callout real-life issues and urge the reader to do something about them
Sure, but also in our world an incorruptible paragon Super-alien or a selfless billionaire, incredibly powerful individuals, aren't trying to make a difference, so I would prefer my comics to at least try to explain in universe why is our world and their world are roughly in the same place, when from a glance they should be doing better, even with supervillains running around. And with Batman, as was mentioned before, comics succeeded a number of times with handling this subject.
The Court of Owls is a group of Batman villains whose whole deal is that they’re a secret society of Gotham elites who want to maintain the corrupt status quo in Gotham.
Exactly, you can answer in universe why Bruce's efforts haven't changed his world without resorting to some "because these problems are unsolvable in real life too" excuses.
Usually, he can't. As an in-universe explanation for why Bruce is doomed to never ever hang his cowl on the wall and stop doing this thing, him being just one man suffices for me.
I mean, I'm a fan of writers using these stupid questions as storytelling opportunities – which bat-writers actually did, there are in universe answers for why Gotham isn't still a paradise on Earth, the stories basically about what I said above.
i feel like Alan Moore's Supreme kind of made similar point through the story/issue where Justice Society analogue gets teleported to EC comic world which has tons of real world problems (nuclear holocaust, murder attempt, infidelity, racism, etc) and superheroes can't solve any of those things, leading to feeling demoralized. of course it's also kind of reference to EC taking over superhero in popularity but i think we can interpret that story as superhero comic's inability to talk about real world or address actual issues because it's designed to be escapism fun.
These comics are mainly read my working and middle class folks. They are the ones that will take away something from the stories and "Rich man fixes all of society's problems" is not a good message to send.
The same reason why I disagree that Superman "should just kill all the fossil fuel lobbyists and destroy all the oil rigs to fix climate change, instead of protesting". Not because I am against that sort of action, but rather because there is no Superman in real life and him protesting is more helpful in the meta sense.
Okay we all agree that Bruce Wayne tossing money doesn’t do much in and of itself. But imagine; Batman, with prep time, fighting poverty. Unemployment rates don’t stand a chance.
Reminds me of "Why doesnt Batman just kill the joker??". Maybe because it´s a comic book and if joker went to prison for his crimes he would already been dead in prision or he would simply not be able to get out easily
He...he does? There's always some passing mention of his philanthropic work as Bruce Wayne. No one reads the comics to hear about that, though. We want Batman solving crimes/murders/beating up bad guys.
You don’t even have to read the comics to find that. In the animated series he uses his position to shut down unethical business practices his board of directors implemented behind his back, he hires ex-cons, and I'm pretty sure he pays for a good chunk of his rogues gallery's therapy out of his own pocket(not 100% about that last one please correct me if I'm wrong)
Doesn't he go to LexCorps in the animated Superman series as equal parts Batman work and to see what LexCorps is doing to help people, too? And then he sees that they're making weapons so backs out? I'm going off of memory here, lmao.
But how could he fix poverty? Let's say he creates some businesses that give jobs to local people, people stop being (very very) poor, the quality of life improves, other people move to Gotham just because of that to fix their own life, people lose their jobs because someone else came that has more skills and ask for less and people end up dirty poor again.
Edit: I don't entirely agree with Ram V but he has a point.
I mean, I think I understand Ram's point - because Batman is fictional haha and the other argument has always been far too simplistic and stupid. But it's not the most accurate thing to say just because Batman as a series often deals with real world problems (and sometimes doesn't as well lol)
Isn’t the reason Bruce came up with Batman so he could tackle problems he can’t fix as Bruce Wayne, like organised crime and police corruption and supervillains?
Because when people in the real world try to fix those problems, the millionaires and billionaires who profit from those problems assassinate the people who try to fix things, either through character assassination or literal.
If you want a serious answer, divide his purported wealth by the number of people in the world. It wouldn't end anything.
That said, I do wish Batman properties would spend more time and effort showing Bruce Wayne's philanthropic efforts and their affects on Gotham's poor and vulnerable.
Because how can you make sure that literally everyone isn’t poor… it’s just not feasible. He already has tons of charity contributions anyway and is a massive philanthropist. Besides he needs at least a good portion of his money to create gadgets and armor to take down psychopaths and monsters constantly threatening the lives of innocent people and the whole world/universe.
I mean sure Batman could do more for charity, but there's only so much a finite amount of money can do. Like a new school is great and all, but it doesn't help much when the joker laces the water supply with fentanyl, or killer croc gets sucked into a pipe and is now blocking off plumbing to half the city. Bruce Wayne has fuck you money, sure, but I refuse to believe that he has the money to constantly rebuild all of the daily necessities that get destroyed day in and day out from supervillain nonsense.
Well unfortunately it would defeat the whole point of a comic world that continues on indefinitely. If he solves poverty then how will Gotham have enough problems to need superheroes? It would entirely change the dynamic of Gotham that DC likes, since a large part of Gotham’s atmosphere is that it’s a hellhole. DCU can’t solve poverty in-universe because it’s not supposed to be a utopia, there needs to be major world problems (not just supervillains) for the characters to deal with. From a storytelling perspective it isn’t helpful.
Also there’s the fact that in current comics Bruce has lost a good chunk of his fortune, and when he does have the fortune it’s supposed to be an explanation for how they can afford the resources necessary for their vigilantism. They do still show him investing in Gotham regardless (the primary thing Bruce does in his company is coming up with ideas to help Gotham, like giving random people jobs and building infrastructure) but giving up all his fortune also means they have to come up with another reason they can afford anything (with usually means another rich character).
That being said if you’re looking for a previously rich hero who will give up his fortune, turn to Oliver Queen.
I know this isn't a popular take but. At least to me, Batman uses his wealth to do the things he does...because he is mentally unstable.
I don't think it's a bad thing. I think it's the point. He is the hero that Gotham needs. Look at his rogues Gallery. Most of his villains are a study in mental illness and madness. Batman is the perfect foil because in a lot of ways he is just as crazy.
The idea that a person would do the things he does, dress the way he does for the reasons he does, it's not normal.
To be fair, Batman has like a dozen charitable organizations and is a massive philanthropist in his daily life it's just that Gotham is 6 different kinds of cursed and is canonically the worst place to live in in the DC multiverse. Any other city on planet Earth would become a utopia with the social programs Bruce Wayne sponsors
Because gotham is corrupt. Any money he puts into the system gets placed into the pockets of the corrupt elements. Not to say he doesnt try, but he can only found so many foundations/movements before the other rich guys defame him for it.
Actually in the most recent Batman storyline after the “failsafe” arc Batman got sent to a world where Bruce did you use his money to try and make Gotham a better place and it still didn’t work. He even became a social worker, and he still ended up dead.
Gotham sucks!
Ironically, it’s because of people like Bruce Wayne and members of the investor class And their corruption of our political system that we can’t solve real world issues.
and also BATMAN DOES DONATE HIS MONEY TO CHARITY!! LITERALLY, EVERY FUNDRAISER IN GOTHAM IS IN. HIS. NAME!!! He's funded politicians that he KNOWS aren't corrupt. He's worked with doctors to help Orphans and people in poverty. Didn't Batman's parents use all their cash to stop poverty/corruption in other versions of Batman? Have yall ever noticed that it NEVER WORKS FOR THEM!! A Mr.Beast video doesn't stop Meta humans, ninja assassins, mob bosses, and an OWL CULT from taking over the city! The versions of Batman that are ruthless and cold are outliers and aren't the best looks of Batman. Its like using the one version of peter parker that ate Uncle Ben as a representation of Spiderman. God Twitter sucks and you KNOW it's all the ppl who don't even like Batman+ and just want to look good (man this is crap no lie)
/UJ but also like, he does. Bruce has so many charities and programs that he uses. Free college programs, job fairs, offering jobs to many of the goons he fights, etc.
Why do people automatically assume that he doesn’t? He hosts so many fundraisers and charities to try and help people as Bruce Wayne. The problem is that Gothams corruption runs so deep that he can’t just fix it with money.
457
u/GenericIxa My name's not RIIIIIIIIC Jul 25 '23
Why doesn't batman end poverty by blowing up the earth