PixelNomad

“never read a comic” part though just hurts any argument. Actually, no, it doesn’t hurt any argument, and I will prove it to you. Let’s look at some arguments against Batman. “He beats up poor people.” You could, again, say this about any rich superhero, but Batman doesn’t “beat up poor people.” Most of the people he fights are rich and wealthy crime lords who hurt innocent people in his city. That’s what the entire Court of Owls storyline is about. And even if the criminals are poor, these are still people who are going out of their way to choose to rape, kill, and maim people. The criminals who are criminals because they are poor—Batman gives them tons of job opportunities. If someone is a pimp who pimps out underage girls, and is a rapist, an assassin, or a gang leader, should we not stop them because “they are poor”? Especially when they make so much money they could retire or go legit? “He beats up the mentally ill.” Again, Joker is doing what he’s doing because he wants to, and this is an insult to mentally ill people, because there are tons of mentally ill people who choose not to commit evil acts and want to treat their mental illness. Batman’s rogues gallery is not—and again, most supervillains are mentally ill—so this point is stupid. “He recruits children.” Teen Titans—the sidekicks of damn near every League member. And then they might say, “Well, they have powers.” They are still fighting threats that can kill them. Also, by this argument, you’re basically saying a teen should not be a superhero because he has no powers. “Why doesn’t he use his wealth to help Gotham?” Literally every comic, animated show, and movie shows he’s using his wealth to help Gotham. People who use these arguments literally have not read a comic, nor are they Batman or DC/Marvel fans in general. “probably just want to be included in the discussion” If you have no real knowledge of something you can’t discuss it.

The people in my previous post have a problem with Batman being a billionaire and recruiting kids. If you were a real fan, you would suspend disbelief and realize it’s a fictional story. We watch Law & Order because they live in a world where cops actually care about victims, and we want to live in a world where cops are reformed and act like them. We are aware that it’s unrealistic, but we suspend disbelief. Batman being rich—same with Iron Man—is just a part of the character, so suspend disbelief. Robin and Batgirl have been a part of Batman lore for centuries. The reason I say they aren’t real fans is because they aren’t—they hop on the Batman bandwagon hate train because it’s popular. That’s it. They don’t have this same criticism for Green Arrow, Blue Beetle, Emma Frost, Kate Bishop, Swordsman, Sunspot, and every other rich superhero. They don’t have a problem with the rest of the league that recruits children as sidekicks. If you don’t like Batman because he’s rich and has a sidekick, that’s fine—but extend that same level of dislike to every other rich superhero. That’s all—be consistent. If you are a real fan and have an issue with Batman, then I would have to assume this same argument applies to the characters I just mentioned. In Absolute Batman, Bruce isn’t rich—he’s a working-class construction worker. And for an “altering what-if” story, that’s fine. But you still have to explain some things, because him being “poor” plays no part in the story at all. He still has gadgets, a Batmobile, a dump truck, etc. He never struggles with money, and Martha is still alive. So again, please explain: how does he have all this equipment if he’s not wealthy? And why be Batman if his mom is alive? Please explain this.