Warning this question may ruin Batman for you

[Restingvoice]

Coz I don't read superhero comics for economics

[SiegePerilous02]

I think most just forget the money is just so he can have all the "wonderful toys".

Yeah, that's the main reason he has it, and how he's gone from independently well off, to a millionaire to now a billionaire because the plots and equipment he needs require him to be absurdly rich to function. He went from solving mysteries in his basement and driving a slightly tricked out car to financing the entire Justice League and sci-fi gadgets and bases.

There is also the fact that most of the crime he fights is against supervillains who aren't hurting for money. As the Joker pointed out to the Black Glove, "I've flushed more money down the toilet than all of you put together." So this "Batman beats up the poor" narrative never made sense either.

[Bat-Meal]

Instead of being Batman, why doesn't Bruce Wayne just use his financial resources to getting rid of poverty in Gotham? That would almost surely get rid of the crime

It is a fantasy world where the rules of the real world, and thereby real world logic, do not apply.

Besides, even if he gave a large portion of his wealth to the poor, the corrupt higher-ups world find some way to take is back off them. The rich are frequently stealing from the poor in the real world.

[bat39]

Yeah, that's the main reason he has it, and how he's gone from independently well off, to a millionaire to now a billionaire because the plots and equipment he needs require him to be absurdly rich to function. He went from solving mysteries in his basement and driving a slightly tricked out car to financing the entire Justice League and sci-fi gadgets and bases.

There is also the fact that most of the crime he fights is against supervillains who aren't hurting for money. As the Joker pointed out to the Black Glove, "I've flushed more money down the toilet than all of you put together." So this "Batman beats up the poor" narrative never made sense either.

Its mostly just a left-wing narrative that's slowly seeping into and affecting most media and pop-culture these days.

Batman has, so far, been mostly unaffected by it though.

But yeah, Batman spends most of his time taking on organized crime, super-villains (who are basically terrorists with a gimmick more than ordinary 'criminals' anyway), monsters and other supernature and/or sci-fi threats. Yes, an iconic image of Batman is him beating up thugs in the shadier parts of town, which is where the whole ''rich man beating up poor criminals'' narrative comes up. But said ''poor thugs'' are usually would-be assaulters, killers or rapists, and 90% of their victims are equally if not more poor and vulnerable.

Yes, on some level, the whole idea of Batman is a fantasy. But no more a fantasy than the idea that poor street criminals should be allowed free reign as part of some program of justified 'class warfare' or that simply donating billions to 'the people' is permanently going to fix crime and a whole host of other social issues.

[batnbreakfast]

Joker got the death penalty once, but Batman cleared his name before they could execute him. He apparently wasn't guilty of that one particular crime.

You gotta love Chuck Dixon

[bat39]

Joker got the death penalty once, but Batman cleared his name before they could execute him. He apparently wasn't guilty of that one particular crime.

Joker got the death penalty in a Golden Age story too - this was back when he wasn't considered insane. I don't remember how he got out of it in that story.

Honestly, given real-world politics around the death penalty and rehabilitation vs. retribution, legal loopholes, and the insanity plea, its actually not that implausible that the Joker is never executed no matter how many people he kills. The authorities need to do things by the book, and there will always be a lawyer who can help the Joker exploit the loopholes. I'm pretty sure the DCU has its own contingent of activists, like the real-world, who'll oppose any attempt to execute the Joker, or even try him as a competant adult. Hell, there's probably even a bit of public support for him (White Knight is a good example of that kind of thing, and even New 52 'Tec had a scene where Batman had to fight through a pro-Joker rally).

[Arsenal]

Gotham gets ravaged by supervillains to regularly for Bruce to make any real lasting societal changes with his money anyway.

[Alan2099]

Yeah, that's the main reason he has it, and how he's gone from independently well off, to a millionaire to now a billionaire because the plots and equipment he needs require him to be absurdly rich to function. He went from solving mysteries in his basement and driving a slightly tricked out car to financing the entire Justice League and sci-fi gadgets and bases.

He also went from a guy that trained in boxing and a little bit of martial arts from some experts in Gotham to the worlds greatest super ninja who trained with the greatest masters all over the globe.

[hairys]

It is a fantasy world where the rules of the real world, and thereby real world logic, do not apply.

What are the real-world examples of a billionaire saving a city?

When South Central Los Angeles was devastated by crime and gang wars for about three decades in the 80s, 90s, and 00s, where were the rich liberal billionaires and millionaires of Hollywood to help save their city? (And what should they have done -- besides making tons of movies like Straight Outta Compton, Friday, Menace II Society, etc in order to make a buck off the devastation, lol)

Why is Batman randomly held to a standard that no billionaire in real life has been able to accomplish?

Gotham gets ravaged by supervillains to regularly for Bruce to make any real lasting societal changes with his money anyway.

Even in a world where supervillains don't exist, no billionaire is going to save a city and get rid of poverty with his wealth. When this conversation comes up on comic book message boards, nobody can ever provide with a detailed, specific plan for how Bruce would do it and cause sustainable change. Look how anemic the answer was upthread when I asked for a specific plan, for example.

[SiegePerilous02]

But yeah, Batman spends most of his time taking on organized crime, super-villains (who are basically terrorists with a gimmick more than ordinary 'criminals' anyway), monsters and other supernature and/or sci-fi threats. Yes, an iconic image of Batman is him beating up thugs in the shadier parts of town, which is where the whole ''rich man beating up poor criminals'' narrative comes up. But said ''poor thugs'' are usually would-be assaulters, killers or rapists, and 90% of their victims are equally if not more poor and vulnerable.

Yeah this often gets overlooked.

Like purse snatchers who are desperate and need money to feed their families is one thing, or are drug addicts and need help. A group of thugs who are going to gang rape a woman is a whole other story and they deserve some Bat-vigilante interference, regardless of the class of all participants involved.

[Robanker]

I don't even like modern Batman but this always came off as a dumb "gotcha" question.

It's 'cause it'd be a very boring comic if 80s years of Batman was Bruce in meetings going over how much he's donating to which charity this month or in meetings he has with municipal poverty programs.

Pretty much this.

There are so many unrealistic things about Batman-- and yes, this is one of them-- but the core conceit of the character is that he lives in a fantasy world in which becoming Batman is the best course of action because it's simultaneously the most interesting. It's why nobody just shoots him in the exposed mouth despite some handwavy bullshit about "the mask is heavily armored" or "the symbol draws their fire." Anyone would take one or two shots at the chest and then just shoot him in the mouth, but then Batman's dead, so it doesn't happen.

These stories are tailored to fit around their impossible premises. That's why.

[Bat-Meal]

What are the real-world examples of a billionaire saving a city?

When South Central Los Angeles was devastated by crime and gang wars for about three decades in the 80s, 90s, and 00s, where were the rich liberal billionaires and millionaires of Hollywood to help save their city? (And what should they have done -- besides making tons of movies like Straight Outta Compton, Friday, Menace II Society, etc in order to make a buck off the devastation, lol)

Why is Batman randomly held to a standard that no billionaire in real life has been able to accomplish?

It's a reply to the original post, with the thread starter suggesting that Bruce could better help Gotham by donating his wealth instead of fighting crime. I never said I agreed - take it up with them.

[Arsenal]

What are the real-world examples of a billionaire saving a city?

When South Central Los Angeles was devastated by crime and gang wars for about three decades in the 80s, 90s, and 00s, where were the rich liberal billionaires and millionaires of Hollywood to help save their city? (And what should they have done -- besides making tons of movies like Straight Outta Compton, Friday, Menace II Society, etc in order to make a buck off the devastation, lol)

Why is Batman randomly held to a standard that no billionaire in real life has been able to accomplish?



Even in a world where supervillains don't exist, no billionaire is going to save a city and get rid of poverty with his wealth. When this conversation comes up on comic book message boards, nobody can ever provide with a detailed, specific plan for how Bruce would do it and cause sustainable change. Look how anemic the answer was upthread when I asked for a specific plan, for example.

Of course Bruce can’t single handedly rid Gotham of poverty. All I’m saying is any impact he could theoretically make would be a moot point next time (insert villian here) blows up/sieges/levels a good portion of Gotham.

Hell, I imagine Bruce already has a good chunk of resources dedicated to simply rebuilding the city after any massive supervillain attacks.

[sunofdarkchild]

Every time this thread starts up again I'm reminded of this scene.

[hairys]

It's a reply to the original post, with the thread starter suggesting that Bruce could better help Gotham by donating his wealth instead of fighting crime. I never said I agreed - take it up with them.

To clarify, it seemed like you agreed with the OP's premise that Bruce ending poverty is realistic. You're not alone -- probably a third of the responses have been something akin to "It's supposed to be a fantasy and not realistic." I just don't think that's the right response -- imo, it's not realistic for Batman to end poverty, period, even if the Batman comic is intended to be an action-adventure detective fantasy.