The city is designed so that Batman is the solution, any argument like “Batman should just do boring X thing instead” would be foiled by the writers. It’s that simple.
Saying a comic where Batman is responsible with his money would be boring doesn’t mean Batman is doing good. It means it’s just entertainment. That’s fine enjoy your comic. Doesn’t change the fact Batman isn’t acting responsibly. It doesn’t change that Batman is bad for Gotham.
Let me explain it this way.
Horror movie charecter goes to investigate a strange house in the dark. Was it necessary for the movie? Yes. That doesn’t mean they made a good choice. It was a bad idea to go out unarmed to investigate the strange noise in the darkness.
It would be a boring movie had they not done that but that doesn’t change the fact that the idea that person had was bad. It’s fine to call that charecter stupid for doing that.
Doesn’t change the fact Batman isn’t acting responsibly. It doesn’t change that Batman is bad for Gotham.
Was it necessary for the movie? Yes. That doesn’t mean they made a good choice
Depends on how Gotham is written. And as the other commenter has described, Gotham has many reasons why the “responsible” method doesn’t work.
Besides, unlike a single movie, comics are constantly growing and evolving. So whatever plothole the readers come up with, the writers can just patch in the next volume.
So agin your argument is “it’s a comic book” cool. Enjoy your comic book. It doesn’t mean Batman is acting responsibly. An interesting story doesn’t mean the charecter is good.
And as I’ve said to the other commenters each problem has other solutions. Move the asylum away from the pit to hell… Bruce has the power to do that without being Batman. Yet he does not do that.
Let’s talk about “depends on how it’s written”
How it’s written is Batman doesn’t accomplish anything. The same problems keep happening over and over again and he keeps trying to solve it with Batman. That’s how it’s written. It’s written that his batmaning doesn’t accomplish anything at all long term.
It doesn’t mean Batman is acting responsibly. An interesting story doesn’t mean the charecter is good
“Good” and “responsible” have to be judged relative to the context, in this case the comic book world.
problem has other solutions
I read the thread, and each of your solutions has more problems. It’s a long back and forth and after reading it I’m frankly unconvinced that your solutions would work.
How it’s written is Batman doesn’t accomplish anything.
It’s shown that the world is better because of his actions. It’s not completely solved, sure. Crime still exists in our world too, so police are useless and shouldn’t exist? Gotham is just a much tougher problem so the current equilibrium between crime and crime-stoppers, still has a lot of crime.
You must’ve missed my points about our police. It’s a slow process but it works. We have corruption and problems in our world. We don’t solve them with a batman. We use elections and police and there are problem with our system but they can’t be fixed with a Batman. Vigalante justice has been shown to cause more violence not less.
That’s the problem with Gotham. Instead of having the government move the mental asylum everyone escapes from to an area that isn’t above a portal to hell would have great outcomes. Instead they have a violent rich person with trauma issues beating up people with mental health problems and the desperate goons that follow them.
He should run for city council, hire private security to guard the good people, finance campaigns that create actual change. It’s slow progress that way but he’s not making fast progress as Batman either.
It’s a waste of money. I’m sorry. That’s just how i see it.
Police work in our world. Vigilante justice is bad in our world. That doesn’t mean that you can’t construct a universe where vigilante justice is better.
As mentioned in the other comment thread, there are prisons in alternate dimensioms that prisoners still somehow escape. Moving the prison might be a bigger waste of money than batman.
It’s been shown in the comics that most public services there are either corrupt or ineffective. Pouring more money into them won’t help. Becoming a mayor means you are beholden to the other politicians there, many of whom are corrupt.
Batman’s vigilante justice is plenty well justified in the comics.
It’s a exaggerated reflection of our own world. And like our own world vigilantes don’t work.
I only know the movies forgive me. The joker in that one Batman movie seems to have showed up with the specific intent to fight Batman. That’s what I mean about vigalante justice.
In that movie, would joker have come to Gotham, rise to power, make deals with the gangs… would he have done that in the movies if Batman didn’t exist?
Violence breeds violence. In this world and in written commentary about the world.
When you say something along the lines of “it would be more expensive to move the prison than Han to just have a Batman” I can again point t out Bruce Wayne is a billionaire. He could move it doozens of times and still be insanely rich. At the very least you can concrete over the portal to hell like they did in Chernobyl.
Look I don’t have all the answers to problems in Gotham or in our world. I don’t pretend to have all the answers. What I am saying is Bruce could hire the best experts in the world and hire guards to protect them. Instead he built a Batmobile. He is not qualified to fix these problems and he has other options because of his wealth.
His parents that he respected did it the right way. He should have continued thier legacy instead of being a Batman.
The city is designed so that Batman is the solution, any argument like “Batman should just do boring X thing instead” would be foiled by the writers. It’s that simple.
Saying a comic where Batman is responsible with his money would be boring doesn’t mean Batman is doing good. It means it’s just entertainment. That’s fine enjoy your comic. Doesn’t change the fact Batman isn’t acting responsibly. It doesn’t change that Batman is bad for Gotham.
Let me explain it this way.
Horror movie charecter goes to investigate a strange house in the dark. Was it necessary for the movie? Yes. That doesn’t mean they made a good choice. It was a bad idea to go out unarmed to investigate the strange noise in the darkness.
It would be a boring movie had they not done that but that doesn’t change the fact that the idea that person had was bad. It’s fine to call that charecter stupid for doing that.
Batman is stupid for doing a Batman.
Depends on how Gotham is written. And as the other commenter has described, Gotham has many reasons why the “responsible” method doesn’t work.
Besides, unlike a single movie, comics are constantly growing and evolving. So whatever plothole the readers come up with, the writers can just patch in the next volume.
So agin your argument is “it’s a comic book” cool. Enjoy your comic book. It doesn’t mean Batman is acting responsibly. An interesting story doesn’t mean the charecter is good.
And as I’ve said to the other commenters each problem has other solutions. Move the asylum away from the pit to hell… Bruce has the power to do that without being Batman. Yet he does not do that.
Let’s talk about “depends on how it’s written”
How it’s written is Batman doesn’t accomplish anything. The same problems keep happening over and over again and he keeps trying to solve it with Batman. That’s how it’s written. It’s written that his batmaning doesn’t accomplish anything at all long term.
“Good” and “responsible” have to be judged relative to the context, in this case the comic book world.
I read the thread, and each of your solutions has more problems. It’s a long back and forth and after reading it I’m frankly unconvinced that your solutions would work.
It’s shown that the world is better because of his actions. It’s not completely solved, sure. Crime still exists in our world too, so police are useless and shouldn’t exist? Gotham is just a much tougher problem so the current equilibrium between crime and crime-stoppers, still has a lot of crime.
You must’ve missed my points about our police. It’s a slow process but it works. We have corruption and problems in our world. We don’t solve them with a batman. We use elections and police and there are problem with our system but they can’t be fixed with a Batman. Vigalante justice has been shown to cause more violence not less.
That’s the problem with Gotham. Instead of having the government move the mental asylum everyone escapes from to an area that isn’t above a portal to hell would have great outcomes. Instead they have a violent rich person with trauma issues beating up people with mental health problems and the desperate goons that follow them.
He should run for city council, hire private security to guard the good people, finance campaigns that create actual change. It’s slow progress that way but he’s not making fast progress as Batman either.
It’s a waste of money. I’m sorry. That’s just how i see it.
Police work in our world. Vigilante justice is bad in our world. That doesn’t mean that you can’t construct a universe where vigilante justice is better.
As mentioned in the other comment thread, there are prisons in alternate dimensioms that prisoners still somehow escape. Moving the prison might be a bigger waste of money than batman.
It’s been shown in the comics that most public services there are either corrupt or ineffective. Pouring more money into them won’t help. Becoming a mayor means you are beholden to the other politicians there, many of whom are corrupt.
Batman’s vigilante justice is plenty well justified in the comics.
It’s a exaggerated reflection of our own world. And like our own world vigilantes don’t work.
I only know the movies forgive me. The joker in that one Batman movie seems to have showed up with the specific intent to fight Batman. That’s what I mean about vigalante justice.
In that movie, would joker have come to Gotham, rise to power, make deals with the gangs… would he have done that in the movies if Batman didn’t exist?
Violence breeds violence. In this world and in written commentary about the world.
When you say something along the lines of “it would be more expensive to move the prison than Han to just have a Batman” I can again point t out Bruce Wayne is a billionaire. He could move it doozens of times and still be insanely rich. At the very least you can concrete over the portal to hell like they did in Chernobyl.
Look I don’t have all the answers to problems in Gotham or in our world. I don’t pretend to have all the answers. What I am saying is Bruce could hire the best experts in the world and hire guards to protect them. Instead he built a Batmobile. He is not qualified to fix these problems and he has other options because of his wealth.
His parents that he respected did it the right way. He should have continued thier legacy instead of being a Batman.
This is getting too hypothetical for me. The other comment chain made it clear that we can run circles doing hypotheticals until the universe ends.