Does anyone seriously think Bruce Wayne can just fix Gotham with his money?

[bat39]

So a criticism of Batman that has come up off-late is the idea that Bruce Wayne, if he really cared about 'saving' Gotham, would simply spend his billions fixing the city and its socioeconomic issues, rather than funding a one-man war against crime.

James Tynion IV has in fact stated that this is one of the reasons why he 'defunded' Batman in his run.

"First, let’s bring him back to being a less problematic kind of Wealthy. Bruce Wayne, Millionaire, rather than Bruce Wayne, Billionaire," Tynion continued. "He’s not so rich that he could effectively buy Gotham City and fix it overnight. There are a bunch of much wealthier people than him in the city trying to maintain their power and influence and Batman is from their world and fighting against them, he doesn’t have the ability to just buy and sell them and walk away."

Now, admittedly, I haven't been following his run, so I don't know how this has all played out. Nor is the focus of this post his run.

But this got me thinking - does anyone seriously believe that Bruce Wayne could just single-handedly 'fix' Gotham with his money, making Batman redundant?

Apparently, in Tynion's run, Lucius Fox now has control of the Wayne fortune and he's using that money to fund philantrophic efforts across Gotham. Which is great...but isn't that what Bruce Wayne had been doing anyway all these years? And Thomas and Martha Wayne before him?

Can the philantrophic efforts of one man/company (or hell, all the philantrophists in Gotham put together) really 'eliminate' crime in Gotham? Or anywhere for that matter? Yes, it can certainly reduce, to some extent, the socioeconomic factors that turn some people towards crime. But will it really strike a blow against organized crime? Or violent psychopaths? Or eccentric criminal masterminds?

Of course, part of the problem is trying to apply real-world logic to Gotham - a city that is supposed to perpetually be a hive of crime and corruption. But in the real-world, if we look at violent street crime, or organized crime for that matter, its usually policy decisions at a city or state (or federal) level that make a difference - policy decisions with regards to the legal/justice system, police powers, the economy, social security, mental health awareness etc. Philantrophists can help out by funding governmental or private initiatives, or supporting political candidates with the right ideas (assuming there are any one-size-fits-all 'right ideas'), but the notion that one man can single-handedly 'fix' a city by throwing around billions of dollars is a bit absurd.

And that's before we consider the fact that Gotham's problem is often not 'normal' crime, but the likes of the Joker, Scarecrow, Riddler, Penguin etc.

Ultimately however, the important thing to remember is the nature of Batman's mission, and his motivation. When he talks about 'saving Gotham' he talks about spending his life 'warring on all criminals'. He's a man who's been psychologically scarred by the loss of his parents to a violent criminal in a dark alleyway...his mission, boiled down to its fundamentals, is about stopping other people from being victims to a Joe Chill. It was never about socioeconomic and political reform in Gotham, even though he does try to contribute to those efforts as well, the way his parents did before him (and its something he likely would have done anyway even if he wasn't Batman).

Would be interested to hear some thoughts about this...

[Avi]

You already said almost everything I could add to this conversation. Especially this:

the notion that one man can single-handedly 'fix' a city by throwing around billions of dollars is a bit absurd.

puts it in a nutshell. I would even leave the "a bit" out.

As of now Tynion or DC or whoever came up with the notion that Bruce can flex his finger and fix Gotham with nothing but his money pretty much completely ignores the socio aspect and only looks at a fraction of the economics behind the issues Gotham faces.

And "effectively buying Gotham" sound so strange? Like, idk, maybe American's can buy cities as if a city is a business, but I don't think that's how it works. Even then, people that buy a business, don't automatically change the work climate.

I also want to throw in that Bruce being the richest person in Gotham doesn't mean he has 55% of the whole city's wealth. There are a ton of people who have a **** ton of money (the Owls, the Fox [even before this status-quo change], other Wayne E investors, all the mafia families, some of the villains like Penguin) and most of them are not on his side. They will actively work against him.

And as you say those philanthropic efforts aren't anything new. It's simply that they often get destroyed or the efforts get intercepted by the villains. As an example: In Ed Brubaker's Catwoman run Bruce and Selina invest in a community center. It gets blown up the same night.

[Restingvoice]

You need to ask this on Twitter. Half of this board members are loremasters and the other half are lorestudents that the short answer is no and the long answer is nooooo are enough.

[Vakanai]

No. But he could just buy a new Gotham instead of trying to fix the broke one. I mean I'm not even on the same planet as "rich" much less the ballpark, and I still replace most broke things instead of fixing them.



(it's a joke!)

[bat39]

And as you say those philanthropic efforts aren't anything new. It's simply that they often get destroyed or the efforts get intercepted by the villains. As an example: In Ed Brubaker's Catwoman run Bruce and Selina invest in a community center. It gets blown up the same night.

You actually raise another great point I didn't in my OP!

Bruce Wayne, and maybe a handful of like-minded members of the Gotham elite, are probably the only ones with both the means and the willingness to invest in a city with not only an astronomically high violent-crime rate, but the equivalent of a mini (and sometimes not-so-mini) terrorist attack happening every other week.

Money alone can't be the answer if a philantrophist, say, invests 5 million in building a new community center, and the center gets blown up the same night by the Mob, or the Joker, or someone else.

You had a certain degree of peace in order for there to be prosperity. And that means police action (or Batman action in the case of Gotham).

[The tall man]

Well this can be applied to all superheroes. With all their abilities can Superman stop all crime in Metropolis, The Flash in Keystone/Central City or any other hero in anywhere? One would think that with the combined powers of the JL the earth would be a crime free Utopia. I think for Bruce to truly clean up Gotham he would have to hard and in a sense take over the City. Surveillance drones, armed enforcers, the whole works; essentially become the Magistrate. In effect crime can be reduced but never truly eliminated unless maybe with mind control and that would be a bridge to far.

[sunofdarkchild]

No one person could 'fix' Gotham no matter how much money he has. His goal as Bruce Wayne is to inspire the rest of Gotham's elite and wealthy to follow his lead in investing in a better Gotham instead of ignoring the plight of the city's underclass. But even if the entirety of the upper class got up their butts to help, there's still a limit to what throwing money at the problems can do. It's ultimately in the hands of the political class to adopt good policies and prevent corruption, which is why Harvey Dent was so important.

[Agent Z]

but the notion that one man can single-handedly 'fix' a city by throwing around billions of dollars is a bit absurd.

Then again, so is the very concept of Batman.

[Tzigone]

But this got me thinking - does anyone seriously believe that Bruce Wayne could just single-handedly 'fix' Gotham with his money, making Batman redundant?

No, but I don't think Batman can can single-handed fix anything, either.

You had a certain degree of peace in order for there to be prosperity. And that means police action (or Batman action in the case of Gotham).

I think that might be backwards. The people having prosperity would reduce crime and that would reduce police action more than police action increasing prosperity, IMO. Changing the culture of the police department if it's corrupt (and that isn't easy), civic programs, jobs, legislation that decreases inequity, etc. And, of course, I think prosecution of all those corrupt officials (including white collar) would help. But frankly, those are less thrilling to watch. Poverty, though, is more a cause as symptom, IMO, and that gets ignored sometimes.

But then, I'm on record as disliking hellscape Gotham, where absolutely everything is broken. I thinks there should be some corruption, yes. And crime. And income inequality, as big cities typically have. But I think it should, in essence be a fairly ordinary city, even if a bit higher on crime, corruption, and poverty are higher than the national average for big cities. Despite all those things, there are good neighborhoods and bad, and the majority of people go through their day not worried about being robbed, raped, or shot. Where it's still a functioning city that's not being hollowed out by the bulk of the middle class fleeing from crime, or inexplicably staying just because the city needs to stay large, even though life is hell.

Money alone can't be the answer if a philantrophist, say, invests 5 million in building a new community center, and the center gets blown up the same night by the Mob, or the Joker, or someone else.

Like I said, I don't like Gotham working that way and loathe that Joker. Shake downs for money from businesses or the mob taking over the community center make more sense than them blowing up the community center (at least until/unless shakedowns fail). That said, I also think you are going way too small with the money. Given the richness Bruce Wayne has been elevated to (space station rich), he should easily be able to donate more than Gates and Bezos combined and he should be donating several billion per year. Mind you, I also think he's too rich, and it's become another aspect of Batgod.

Boring as it is, advocating political change and donating to appropriate politicians to shape the changes (and local politics does matter so much) and maybe even running for office would probably do most. But that's not really what I'm interested in seeing from Batman. I do think it would suit Green Arrow, but it'd have to be mostly off-panel, or just framework for adventures, because it's dull. And actually running for office when you or your immediate loved ones have secret identities is not a smart move (and I prefer GA with secret identity).

So, in summation, no, just donating money can't fix it. But neither can being Batman. Both are insufficient, and I think that without supervillains, the money would be far more helpful. But we aren't without Supervillains. But the worst problem of all is that Gotham has been turned into literally cursed ground that cannot be helped and will not improve no matter what actions are taken by Batman, other heroes, police officers, or ordinary citizens.

[prepmaster]

So, in summation, no, just donating money can't fix it. But neither can being Batman. Both are insufficient, and I think that without supervillains, the money would be far more helpful. But we aren't without Supervillains. But the worst problem of all is that Gotham has been turned into literally cursed ground that cannot be helped and will not improve no matter what actions are taken by Batman, other heroes, police officers, or ordinary citizens.

If Gotham was a paradise, there would be no story about Batman. Batman cant fix Gotham because he himself is a product of Gotham. Batman becomes a crime fighter due to the crime that took his parents' lives.

If Earth had never been invaded by aliens, there would be less stories about the JL. You think Gotham is bad but other cities are battlegrounds.

The problem lies on making things not repetitive.

[bat39]

No, but I don't think Batman can can single-handed fix anything, either.

I think that might be backwards. The people having prosperity would reduce crime and that would reduce police action more than police action increasing prosperity, IMO. Changing the culture of the police department if it's corrupt (and that isn't easy), civic programs, jobs, legislation that decreases inequity, etc. And, of course, I think prosecution of all those corrupt officials (including white collar) would help. But frankly, those are less thrilling to watch. Poverty, though, is more a cause as symptom, IMO, and that gets ignored sometimes.

But then, I'm on record as disliking hellscape Gotham, where absolutely everything is broken. I thinks there should be some corruption, yes. And crime. And income inequality, as big cities typically have. But I think it should, in essence be a fairly ordinary city, even if a bit higher on crime, corruption, and poverty are higher than the national average for big cities. Despite all those things, there are good neighborhoods and bad, and the majority of people go through their day not worried about being robbed, raped, or shot. Where it's still a functioning city that's not being hollowed out by the bulk of the middle class fleeing from crime, or inexplicably staying just because the city needs to stay large, even though life is hell.

Like I said, I don't like Gotham working that way and loathe that Joker. Shake downs for money from businesses or the mob taking over the community center make more sense than them blowing up the community center (at least until/unless shakedowns fail). That said, I also think you are going way too small with the money. Given the richness Bruce Wayne has been elevated to (space station rich), he should easily be able to donate more than Gates and Bezos combined and he should be donating several billion per year. Mind you, I also think he's too rich, and it's become another aspect of Batgod.

Boring as it is, advocating political change and donating to appropriate politicians to shape the changes (and local politics does matter so much) and maybe even running for office would probably do most. But that's not really what I'm interested in seeing from Batman. I do think it would suit Green Arrow, but it'd have to be mostly off-panel, or just framework for adventures, because it's dull. And actually running for office when you or your immediate loved ones have secret identities is not a smart move (and I prefer GA with secret identity).

So, in summation, no, just donating money can't fix it. But neither can being Batman. Both are insufficient, and I think that without supervillains, the money would be far more helpful. But we aren't without Supervillains. But the worst problem of all is that Gotham has been turned into literally cursed ground that cannot be helped and will not improve no matter what actions are taken by Batman, other heroes, police officers, or ordinary citizens.

I agree that Batman alone can't single-handedly 'fix' everything. But Batman can make a concrete and lasting difference...in a setting where Gotham isn't 'cursed' with a fresh super-villain attack every month.

Consider the Nolanverse. Yes, Batman alone couldn't save the city all on his lonesome. But Batman dealt a severe blow to organized crime, and through his actions, inspired honest cops and officials like Jim Gordon and Harvey Dent to step up, and was able to create an environment where they could do their jobs effectively. Batman essentially gave Gotham's justice system a shot in the arm. The result? Once the likes of Falcone and Maroni and the rest of their ilk were of the streets and all the thugs were locked up in Blackgate, Gotham enjoyed an unprecedented eight years of peace and prosperity - broken only by Bane's attack (that had nothing to do with Gotham, but was part of a revenge plot against Batman). And yes, the lie about Harvey Dent helped sustain the peace, but the lie was only necessary because of the Joker corrupting Harvey. Without that happening, Harvey would have been there himself to usher in that era of peace and prosperity that made Batman redundant.

Batman is needed to deal a severe blow to crime and allow the good citizens of Gotham some breathing room. Yes, philantrophy, from Bruce Wayne and others, did help (also, related to my earlier point, Bruce in the movie does support Harvey as the honest and effective official who can bring about lasting change). But it only helped in an environment where crime and violence was greatly reduced through Batman's efforts.

But yeah, I agree with you - Gotham being this cursed hellhole that'll never change makes any real-world solutions to its problems difficult to apply. But that in turn makes the argument that Bruce Wayne can just fix the city by throwing in a few billions even more ridiculous.

As for running for office, there's that old 70's story (a Green Arrow team-up incicentially) where Bruce does became a Senator for all of 10 minutes just to pass a crucial anti-crime bill! Good times

But yeah, on a more serious note, that is something which suits Green Arrow better, and which actually did happen back during the Winick run. In fact, Arrow dealt with it even better, during the two seasons where Oliver was mayor. It was basically a two-pronged approach to saving Star City - Green Arrow and his team wipe out organized crime and protect the city from super-villain threats on the one hand, and on the other hand, Mayor Queen enacts the laws and reforms to make the city worth living in. Someday, I'd like a new adaptation/reboot of GA to tackle this in greater depth than the CW show did.

[DanMad1977]

Did money ever fix something, like a crime ridden city?

[Nite-Wing]

I wonder what fantasy world some posters on this board think Gotham must be for one man(very wealthy no doubt) to be able to shift the massive amounts of police corruption, income inequality,and years of social degradation
Now even a main writer like Tynion has to address the problematic wealth that Batman has amassed but somehow set him apart from all the other corrupt rich in Gotham

I mean Gotham is a city where the wealthiest people get murdered by the poorest that's in Batman's origin story
You can only change so much before you break the mythology
The wealthy fuel the crime and in turn are subjects to all societal ills they produce.

Batman is responsible for creating some villains by inspiring them with his theatrics but Bruce's money would just cause the same thing that happened to his parents

When has money ever fixed a problem in society? It just moves the problems to other areas

[Vordan]

It’s a product of seeing stuff like Batman funding the Watchtower out of pocket like it’s no big deal. Building the Watchtower would easily run into billions of dollars, so Batman must be a trillionaire to do that. And if he can afford to blow money casually on something like that, why doesn’t he just buy all of Gotham and give everyone free money to stay home? Or give everyone jobs? It’s a consequence of the claim that Batman is “realistic”. “Realistically” anyone who can afford to blow money the way Batman does would be better suited to combatting crimes in other ways.

But Batman isn’t realistic and Gotham can’t be fixed by money alone, so it’s a dumb “gotcha”.

[Alan2099]

At the very least, Bruce could have Arkham bulldozed to the ground and he could afford to build a new mental health institute that doesn't look like a haunted house.