Just what is the appeal of Batman these days?

[Devonix]

Yes, yes, we know. And he can't actually glide with his cape without crashing into something at lethal velocities, and his grappling hook gun wouldn't actually work, and his utility belt can realistically only hold a very finite number of items, and the list goes on.

There's realism, and then there's comic book realism right?

If a comic book explained that Bruce uses polyphasic sleeping so that every time he naps for twenty minutes he goes directly into REM sleep and gets all of the restorative sleep he needs, it's enough to explain how he can be Batman and Bruce at the same time. Because it's a comic.

Bruce always gets just enough sleep unless the story says that he hasn't and makes it a plot point. Simple as that. It's just like how people go nuts about Bruce being Peak human and then say that he can't be peak human because humans can't do what he can do.

Humans in the real world can't do what he can do. But he's not in the real world.

[Lacuna Caster]

Hoo boy, this thread really blew up while I was away. I'm gonna have to skim here and there, so allow me some leeway in case I may have missed some of the fine print.

Sure, Supes may feel bad of the about 7 rapes and 20 muggings he has to ignore when he wants to have dinner with his family, but that's something he has to make his peace with, because at his power level there is always someone he could save, and always other people that will be left unsaved no matter what he does. We allow "arbitrary ticket punching" for fire fighters and voluntary workers, so Clark's earned that too.

Superman also serves as a beacon. What he does is he inspires people. He inspires the average citizen to be better, to help people. He inspires those with powers to use those powers for the good of all. Superman simply by existing makes the world better.

I'm not going to tell you you're wrong, given that many individuals can attest to exactly that kind of effect (even though the specific example of Superman comforting a suicidal teen is a more-or-less perfect example of what I'm talking about, given there are hundreds of suicide attempts every day in our world.)

But again, let's be fair here. I would submit that the Dark Knight is also not the least inspirational of fixtures in the DC pantheon. Does this mean that he should therefore be exempted from reasonable criticism about his methods, motivations, characterisation and place in the world? Yes? No? Because whatever your answer is, the same should apply to Big Blue.

The argument I'm hearing is that, given Bruce Wayne's evidently mammoth financial resources and ostensibly perfect intelligence, he really shouldn't be wasting his time on anything as petty as street muggings if his ultimate goal is to efficiently save lives. (Of course, canonically he does spend vast resources on wider social initiatives and his street-work is supposed to be part of long-term investigations into corruption and black-market trafficking, but let's pretend that he doesn't.)

I would assert that given Clark Kent's evidently overwhelming superpowers and ostensibly perfect benevolence, his observed behaviour is somewhat at variance with the expectable conduct of a morally optimal decision-maker. He could virtually eliminate crime on at least a continental level just by quitting the daily planet and flying around full-time. He could probably make himself the world's first dollar trillionaire just by contracting with space agencies. Why does this get Superman off the hook for his failure to tackle world hunger, or the fact that he spends an inordinate amount of time on activities that don't just save lives inefficiently, but don't save lives at all?

Shouldn't we all just be inspired by Batman's relentless zeal, resourcefulness and cunning, thank him for the tiny minority of lives he selectively elects to save, and if beating two-bit mooks to a pulp is how he chooses to spend his spare time, be grateful that he doesn't 'snap' and engineer some kind of global financial meltdown? Because that apparently qualifies as 'heroism' here.

Because regardless of how high he rises, Bruce Wayne will never believe that someone being held at gunpoint in an alley is not important enough to worry about.

Damn straight.

[Lacuna Caster]

I have and I agree. I found Terry, who was unburdened by the whole "batman is invincible" bias, to be a great character.

...Though it was a bit weird that they had to make him Bruce's son. As if it's hereditary.

Well, peak human performance would require peak human genetics in addition to peak human training. Bruce is mortal and all, but he's not an average guy, biologically.

My issue is that none of the billionaire philanthropists in the real world, to my knowledge, dress up as a bat at night to punch criminals (who knows, the rich are different, maybe they do). When you start doing that people start asking questions and holding you to different standards. Also, I'm not blaming Batman for crime (though his presence drawing criminals is an interesting idea). I'm metaphorically blaming the fire department because it spent more money on hats than it did on fire trucks.

I think someone statted out the estimated construction costs for the Batcave and other equipment, and it came to around 200 million dollars. That's not a small investment, but I'm willing to bet it's prevented more than 200 million dollars' worth of property damage.

I'm not arguing against a hypothetical better option. Obviously, a comic of nothing but philanthropist Batman would be hella boring. What I'm arguing against is the people making the answer I've outlined above. If they argued that, say, Batman can't donate tons of money because it's all tied up in Wayne Enterprises stock, hey, no problem. Or if they argued he's spending it all fighting malaria in Africa (a worthwhile cause! See the Gates Foundation), that's fine too. But to say that he is donating huge sums of money to help Gotham but it's still as bad as portrayed in the comics stretches belief.

The comics include, among other things, total resets of temporal continuity and localised earthquakes that destroyed most civic infrastructure. I have no difficulty believing that Gotham City is still a wreck after that, even if every billionaire in DC's america poured money into reconstruction.

(With that said, I thought that Gotham Central was a fine read and the West Wing is one of the better late-90s TV series. In principle, I see no reason why philanthropist Batman wouldn't work just fine.)

[BRC]

Personally, I think there's a lot of interesting storytelling ground in the idea that Batman, and his version of crime-fighting, is, in fact, inefficient, and he knows it.

I'm not talking about an edgy sort of "Batman just wants an excuse to punch poor people" take.

Think about it this way. Batman fights Crime in four ways. Roughly in order of "How much does is actually help that Batman is doing this", they go like this:

1) As Bruce Wayne, he leverages his massive fortune to help address crime at it's source by creating jobs, providing education, helping the police, ect.
2) As Batman, he thwarts the schemes of uniquely dangerous Supervillains. These are cases where, for comic-book reasons, the Police are not fully equipped to handle the problem. They simply can't handle somebody like Poison Ivy, Bane, or even unpowered villains like Riddler or Joker.
3) As Batman, he works to fight bog-standard organized crime. The police are capable of handling people like the Penguin on their own, but Batman is better at it.
4) He patrols around the city, stopping petty crime that he stumbles upon.



Now, #4 is by far the biggest waste of Batman's time. Any cop can probably stop a mugging (Although stealthily taking down the mugger from ambush is less likely to cause harm to the victim). Even if he's more mobile than a cop car and better able to detect crimes from whichever gargoyle he's squatting on, he's not going to be any more effective than putting another few patrols on the street.

Although, in my mind, there are very few superheroes who SHOULD be doing the "Random Patrol Route" thing. Usually they're either not much better than a cop on the street when it comes to stopping petty crime, or they're powerful enough that there's something else they should really be doing at the moment. The two main exceptions I can think of are Daredevil (Enhanced Senses mean he's better able to hear cries for help), and Spider-Man (webbing makes him uniquely suited to taking down criminals without harming them).

That said, I fully understand WHY Batman wants to stop alleyway muggings. An alleyway mugging was what started his whole crusade. Even if he'd do more good getting a full-night's sleep so he can better focus on breaking the school to prison pipeline, his personal worldview holds that maybe saving somebody tonight is more important than probably saving lots of people down the line.

And I think a well-written version of Batman knows that his worldview is defined by his personal tragedy and that his methods are less than perfectly efficient, but I can't think of a single person who lives live 100% rationally.

Also, Comics are Entertainment. "Batman stops a bank robbery" makes a better story than "The bank robbery doesn't happen, because a campaign of strategic investment and debt relief spearheaded by Bruce Wayne means that the bank robbers are too busy building a new hospital to rob the bank."

[Lacuna Caster]

I have to agree. People forget that these things are ultimately made for children. Criticizing comic characters for their lack of depth in adult areas like economics is a non starter. Your 8 year old kid doesn't care if Superman feeds the homeless, or if Batman builds after school activities for poor kids to keep them off the streets. They just want to see their favorite heroes being heroic.

Also, Comics are Entertainment. "Batman stops a bank robbery" makes a better story than "The bank robbery doesn't happen, because a campaign of strategic investment and debt relief spearheaded by Bruce Wayne means that the bank robbers are too busy building a new hospital to rob the bank."

I'm pretty sure this cropped up earlier in the thread, but the very earliest Superman stories consisted entirely of him using superpowers to fix economic, social and political problems in the most direct and brutalising ways. The effect is kind of hilarious, because the solutions are so simplistic that only a child would give it credence, but even if I don't agree with the position, I think you have to love the sheer moxy of it.

I think Mr. Edwards said it best.

Jerry Siegel’s original Superman is almost invisible today, obscured by his radio and then TV adaptation, by his retooling into a patriotic warrior during World War 2, and by a certain skillful blandness characteristic of 1960s DC. It’s hard to remember he was a street super, a tough guy with hardly any powers or science fiction trappings – no eyebeams, no flying, no Fortress of Solitude, no kryptonite. He was quite the scofflaw, kidnapping politicians to teach them a lesson about poverty and fightin’ crooked governors’ goons, admittedly a bit thuggish himself, but standing up for justice as he, Superman, not the establishment, saw it. Those politics were real then, and it was all about now I have some power, and always, always, breaking those chains.

[Psyren]

I honestly don't understand the complaints here. The appeal of Batman is he is a lone ranger beating up criminals in a city that has a mortality rate comparable to a war zone. A lot of kids grow up in bad areas and feel powerless and threatened, Batman is like a violent Santa. When gun shots go off nightly in your apartment complex, or the police have armed pursuits through your living room, or your Dad saves a kid wanted by a rival gang by driving him out of town you want some sense of security. Complexity doesn't come into it because you can't understand complexity, only fear and longing.

If they changed the premise it would no longer be a Batman story, and wouldn't appeal to people who like Batman. There are lots of "fixed" versions of Batman, and people are free to like them as well but that doesn't make them better. Being adult and nuanced is great, but Batman is for kids and people who want to refeel that thrill.

Like King Arthur or Robin Hood, it appeals to kids for its simplicity and to adults for its nostalgia of childhood.

I'm not saying he shouldn't exist at all or that he serves no purpose. He had a fun premise as originally conceived. His current attitude and villains just don't square properly with how rich he's supposed to be, especially not I-funded-the-JLA-satellite-by-myself levels of rich. Clearly there are still plenty of folks not that bothered by the disconnect (yet) but for my part I can only see it growing.

He has just as much reason to stay in character as Superman does to not solve world hunger or poverty. You're just willing to ignore one character's flaws because you like them.

"Like" is a pretty strong word there

[Tvtyrant]

I'm not saying he shouldn't exist at all or that he serves no purpose. He had a fun premise as originally conceived. His current attitude and villains just don't square properly with how rich he's supposed to be, especially not I-funded-the-JLA-satellite-by-myself levels of rich. Clearly there are still plenty of folks not that bothered by the disconnect (yet) but for my part I can only see it growing.

Why would they? Again, the target demographic is kids. There are a dozen fixed versions of him out there, from Iron Man to Dare Devil to Green Arrow. If people prefer those they can read them right now.

Changing core super heroes is silly. You can make a new one in a fraction of a second, why alter existing ones that are still popular and perfect for their audience? Spiderman doesn't need to be darker, the Punisher doesn't need to be more wholesome, Barbara Gordon doesn't need to be healed. The characters don't change because their audience doesn't change.

Take the Punisher. Most 16 year old boys love the Punisher, Fight Club, Boondock Saints and Pantera. When they turn 20 they move onto something else in life, and new kids start liking those things. You don't need to make a newer more adult version of Fight Club, or a jazz Pantera album. People move on, and that is good.

Edit: Honestly it sounds like your complaint is you think people are immature because they like kid things like Batman and Harry Potter into adulthood. You might be right, but changing the base material won't change those people's maturity.

[Lacuna Caster]

Why would they? Again, the target demographic is kids. There are a dozen fixed versions of him out there, from Iron Man to Dare Devil to Green Arrow. If people prefer those they can read them right now.

This isn't any more true of comic-book readers than it is of people who play video games- their average age is somewhere between the mid-20s and late 30s. And 'changing core superheroes' has happened over and over during the course of their history- more so for DC than Marvel, given the former had have longer histories and a somewhat stronger editorial mandate, but hardly unique, given that many MCU character fixtures are barely recognisable in their current form.

I don't even precisely agree with the idea that comic-book superheroes were ever aimed at children in the sense we'd recognise today. The contents of an early Superman comic would never make it into any modern children's programming aimed at 5-10 year-olds, and early Batman isn't exactly light and fluffy reading. Marvel was aiming squarely at a teenage-and-YA audience during the 60s and 70s, and more-or-less aged along with large chunks of the readership.

I'm not disagreeing with the idea that Batman's current portrayal and fictional positioning could stand improvement, or that dragging a character invented in the 1930s into the 21st century doesn't entail a lot of awkward baggage. What I object to is this idea that the usual handwavium explanations that we charitably extend to all other superheroes should suddenly not apply to him.

[Tvtyrant]

This isn't any more true of comic-book readers than it is of people who play video games- their average age is somewhere between the mid-20s and late 30s. And 'changing core superheroes' has happened over and over during the course of their history- more so for DC than Marvel, given the former had have longer histories and a somewhat stronger editorial mandate, but hardly unique, given that many MCU character fixtures are barely recognisable in their current form.

I don't even precisely agree with the idea that comic-book superheroes were ever aimed at children in the sense we'd recognise today. The contents of an early Superman comic would never make it into any modern children's programming aimed at 5-10 year-olds, and early Batman isn't exactly light and fluffy reading. Marvel was aiming squarely at a teenage-and-YA audience during the 60s and 70s, and more-or-less aged along with large chunks of the readership.

I'm not disagreeing with the idea that Batman's current portrayal and fictional positioning could stand improvement, or that dragging a character invented in the 1930s into the 21st century doesn't entail a lot of awkward baggage. What I object to is this idea that the usual handwavium explanations that we charitably extend to all other superheroes should suddenly not apply to him.

I'm not sure what you are arguing here exactly. Children's stories were very dark until the comic book burnings of the 1940s, from Hansel and Grettle through the golden age of comic books.

Arguing that because adults continue to read children's stories the stories should become more adult misses the point. It would be like insisting that Twilight become nuanced because middle aged women like it; the simplicity is why people like it. There are more intricate, realistic stories out there right now.

“Since it is so likely that (children) will meet cruel enemies, let them at least have heard of brave knights and heroic courage. Otherwise you are making their destiny not brighter but darker.”

― C.S. Lewis

[Lacuna Caster]

I'm not sure what you are arguing here exactly. Children's stories were very dark until the comic book burnings of the 1940s, from Hansel and Grettle through the golden age of comic books.

You made a series of false statements. The target demographic for comic books are not particularly kids, and while you'll always get a large contingent of the fanbase who moan and kvetch and scream betrayal over arbitrary ham-fisted changes- sometimes with justice- reinvention and reinterpretation are not the exception here. It is closer to the norm in comics, and always has been.

I don't have a particular problem with comics or super-cartoons aimed at children, but the tone and content restrictions we'd associate with that today synchronise quite poorly with the tone and content of the incepting material. For better or worse- and to be clear, I think kids have far more stomach than we give them credit for- there is no going back to that. There are just different points of departure, and the meticulous-grimdark-deconstruction approach is as valid and relevant as the sanitised-kid-friendly-sandbox approach. So yeah, I'm gonna stick by the idea that, e.g, 'bruce wayne philanthropist' would not be an inherently terrible idea or lead to boring pointless stories or serve no aesthetic function.
.

[Tvtyrant]

You made a series of false statements. The target demographic for comic books are not particularly kids, and while you'll always get a large contingent of the fanbase who moan and kvetch and scream betrayal over arbitrary ham-fisted changes- sometimes with justice- reinvention and reinterpretation are not the exception here. It is closer to the norm in comics, and always has been.

I don't have a particular problem with comics or super-cartoons aimed at children, but the tone and content restrictions we'd associate with that today synchronise quite poorly with the tone and content of the incepting material. For better or worse- and to be clear, I think kids have far more stomach than we give them credit for- there is no going back to that. There are just different points of departure, and the meticulous-grimdark-deconstruction approach is as valid and relevant as the sanitised-kid-friendly-sandbox approach. So yeah, I'm gonna stick by the idea that, e.g, 'bruce wayne philanthropist' would not be an inherently terrible idea or lead to boring pointless stories or serve no aesthetic function.
.

I find this argument strange. Batman's appeal to adults is largely based on nostalgia; how many people do you know started reading Batman as grown adults? Comic books are designed for and aimed at children, the continued participation of adults would wane rapidly if it was actually made for adults because there would be no new readers in a generation.

It's not a false statement to say Batman is for children anymore then to say The Hobbit or Pokemon are. That a large number of adults, myself included, still watch/read them doesn't detract from them not being for adults.

Just look at his primary opponents. A clown, a luchador, a guy who is not only named two-faced but actually is, a penguin guy, a riddling smart guy covered in question marks, a crocodile-man (guess his name), a literal scarecrow, and a snidely-whiplashed mustached guy (he is the plotting one!) and every other obvious name pun on the planet. Even Hush is based around boyhood jealousy.

Any 6 year old could grasp the dynamics of Batman's villains. That is why kids love them and him, everything is obvious and spelled out. If a Robin comic book was made about a cheater at school his name would be Kerk Jeater at best.

Edit: I would also point out that Harry Potter and Twilight both had more adult readers then children or teens. In Western nations there are far more adults then children, anything remotely popular is going to show that.

[Lacuna Caster]

I find this argument strange. Batman's appeal to adults is largely based on nostalgia; how many people do you know started reading Batman as grown adults? Comic books are designed for and aimed at children, the continued participation of adults would wane rapidly if it was actually made for adults because there would be no new readers in a generation.

It's not a false statement to say Batman is for children anymore then to say The Hobbit or Pokemon are. That a large number of adults, myself included, still watch/read them doesn't detract from them not being for adults.

But this is like saying The Hobbit was written for children, therefore so are The Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion. They evidently aren't, despite featuring many of the same characters in the same world dealing with the consequences of the same events. Nor is it fair to say that Tolkien especially intended them for a young audience, and I would suggest that Tolkien's cultural impact would have been greatly diminished had he never catered to an adult audience.

(As an aside, I never see people refer to Mission Impossible or the Bond movies as being aimed at children, for example, even though their casting and premise are only fractionally less outlandish than the Nolan bat-verse once you strip out the funky costumes.)

[deuterio12]

(As an aside, I never see people refer to Mission Impossible or the Bond movies as being aimed at children, for example, even though their casting and premise are only fractionally less outlandish than the Nolan bat-verse once you strip out the funky costumes.)

Bond doesn't recycle every single villain until the readers puke out. Heck, they don't recycle any villain, point. The man with the golden gun and pals aren't gonna escape prison, the man with the golden gun and pals are dead, dead, DEAD!

Also Bond doesn't live in the same world as supes or Flash or any other supers nor does he changes from fighting international criminals to fighting alien gods.

[Psyren]

You don't need to make a newer more adult version of Fight Club, or a jazz Pantera album. People move on, and that is good.

I would argue vehemently that Fight Club very much needs an update from its proto-alt-right-undertones, or at least a more conscious acknowledgement of same. But at least that is a discrete work that wasn't actually aimed at children, as you yourself said.

Beyond that, Lacuna Caster covered everything else I was going to say to you.

[Devonix]

I would argue vehemently that Fight Club very much needs an update from its proto-alt-right-undertones, or at least a more conscious acknowledgement of same. But at least that is a discrete work that wasn't actually aimed at children, as you yourself said.

Beyond that, Lacuna Caster covered everything else I was going to say to you.

I have never understood how people keep coming to this. Fight Club is one of the most Anti Alt right pieces of fiction out there. The whole point of the movie is about how people who see that stuff, as a way to find meaning in their lives are just as delusional if not moreso than the people the deride.

Tyler Durdon and everything he stands for is a lie and the audience isn't supposed to agree with him. He's just a charismatic cult leader, but just like all cult leaders he doesn't actually care about the people following him.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm dying to know what that "update" would look like...

[Psyren]

Yeah, so capable that Bruce can't hold a stable relationship and all of the city's police can't even catch a crazy non-powered clown on their own while the Gotham has been turning into more and more of a hellhole as time goes by.

You know the guy is getting married in his very next issue right? You don't even read these comics, do you?

Yeah about that...

Spoiler

Show

Looks like Deuterio (and everyone with, like, an ounce of pattern recognition) got the last laugh

[Lord Raziere]

Yeah about that...

Spoiler

Show

Looks like Deuterio (and everyone with, like, an ounce of pattern recognition) got the last laugh

I don't read any comics, but I do have pattern recognition let me guess:
the bride is dead or hates him or tricked him, Batman is real sad about this, broods in cave about its his mission to forever fight evil alone despite having Robin, Bat Girl, Nightwing, Alfred, Superman, entire Justice League and so on. the Joker gets a kick out of this and sends a message to mock him about it while proclaiming he is the Batman's only true love/reveals he was the one who destroyed the relationship out of jealousy so Batman would have eyes only for him forever.

how right am I?

[Psyren]

I don't read any comics, but I do have pattern recognition let me guess:
the bride is dead or hates him or tricked him, Batman is real sad about this, broods in cave about its his mission to forever fight evil alone despite having Robin, Bat Girl, Nightwing, Alfred, Superman, entire Justice League and so on. the Joker gets a kick out of this and sends a message to mock him about it while proclaiming he is the Batman's only true love/reveals he was the one who destroyed the relationship out of jealousy so Batman would have eyes only for him forever.

how right am I?

Spoiler

Show

Tricked. Bride was Catwoman. Why Bruce thought this would be remotely a good idea is pretty far beyond me, but the important thing is they didn't go through with it (as expected.)

The best part is it's all over the blogosphere (like every other stunt these comics pull) so I didn't even have to pay for the reveal. Thanks, New York Times!

[Lord Raziere]

Spoiler

Show

Tricked. Bride was Catwoman. Why Bruce thought this would be remotely a good idea is pretty far beyond me, but the important thing is they didn't go through with it (as expected.)

The best part is it's all over the blogosphere (like every other stunt these comics pull) so I didn't even have to pay for the reveal. Thanks, New York Times!

Spoiler

Show

let me guess: she married him for his money, then took it all in a divorce so she could donate it all to cat shelters, didn't she? or was it just so she can steal some stupid trinket, because one would think she'd do the former but its probably disappointingly the latter

...oh. its just Selena thinking that somehow marrying him would make him too happy to be Batman? Wow. this is even more disappointing. I'd thought they'd at least do something cool with it, but thats like promising me a cheeseburger and delivering me two crackers with a cold cheese slice in the middle. sure the original thing wouldn't be all that great compared to a gourmet meal, but they chose the most boring and wishy-washy route this could've taken. if your going to keep the status quo while pulling this stunt, at least make it exciting. at least make it something worth remembering. This is just boring. if your comic can be summed up as "oh lets do a thing! no wait I changed my mind, I'm not going to." and stop it there, whats even the point.

[deuterio12]

Spoiler

Show

Tricked. Bride was Catwoman. Why Bruce thought this would be remotely a good idea is pretty far beyond me, but the important thing is they didn't go through with it (as expected.)

The best part is it's all over the blogosphere (like every other stunt these comics pull) so I didn't even have to pay for the reveal. Thanks, New York Times!

Yeah like anyone who thought that event was going to go forward and hold clearly was the one that hadn't bothered to check the base bats material.

[BeerMug Paladin]

This thought occurred to me in another thread, and now I'm a bit curious. The thought will be lead up to with a series of bullet points as to how I understand the comic characters.

1) Batman is just a human.

2) Batman can defeat Superman.

3) Lex Luthor hates Superman because Superman is "better" at being human than anyone else, without having done anything to earn it.

Is there a story where Lex Luthor idolizes Batman for his ability to be "better" than Superman and wants to train under him?

I'm pretty sure there is probably long-established lore for why this could not happen in any established canon, but is there a non-canon comic where this happens? Because that could be a potentially interesting story.

[deuterio12]

This thought occurred to me in another thread, and now I'm a bit curious. The thought will be lead up to with a series of bullet points as to how I understand the comic characters.

1) Batman is just a human.

2) Batman can defeat Superman.

3) Lex Luthor hates Superman because Superman is "better" at being human than anyone else, without having done anything to earn it.

Is there a story where Lex Luthor idolizes Batman for his ability to be "better" than Superman and wants to train under him?

I'm pretty sure there is probably long-established lore for why this could not happen in any established canon, but is there a non-canon comic where this happens? Because that could be a potentially interesting story.

You missed a key step there:

4) Lex Luthor is a an arrogant narcissist with the ego the size of a star and believes he is the best human ever.

So Lex would never under any circumstances "train under" anybody. At best he would've tried to hire Bats like Lex hires mercenaries and whatnot. And you can see how that wouldn't slide very well either.

Basically a Lex Luthor that goes "you're a better human being than me, please teach me your secrets oh great master!" just wouldn't be Lex Luthor anymore.

Plus you know bats and Lex have butted heads now and then, so there's quite a bit of bad blood between them.

[Anteros]

Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to act smug about predicting something. After it happened. Even though you made no such predictions before hand. Truly, the powers of foresight on display here are incredible.

But yes, it doesn't take Nostradamus to figure out that

Spoiler

Show

comic book marriages don't last.

The overall point about Batman being unable to maintain a relationship was still silly though. The man has probably the largest family in the entirety of comics.

[Devonix]

Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to act smug about predicting something. After it happened. Even though you made no such predictions before hand. Truly, the powers of foresight on display here are incredible.

But yes, it doesn't take Nostradamus to figure out that

Spoiler

Show

comic book marriages don't last.

The overall point about Batman being unable to maintain a relationship was still silly though. The man has probably the largest family in the entirety of comics.

Spoiler

Show

Hey now it took Superman 50 years to finally marry his main love interest and it stuck until just a few years ago, and then came back.

Scott and Jean took 31 years before they got married.
Peter Parker and Mary Jane took 22 years to get married.

It taking this much time for Bat and Cat to finally hook up for good. Isn't without preceedent. They already gave Bruce a kid so people thinking this could stick is possible.

[Lord Raziere]

Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to act smug about predicting something. After it happened. Even though you made no such predictions before hand. Truly, the powers of foresight on display here are incredible.

But yes, it doesn't take Nostradamus to figure out that

Spoiler

Show

comic book marriages don't last.

The overall point about Batman being unable to maintain a relationship was still silly though. The man has probably the largest family in the entirety of comics.

Then I'm smug about your post to, because basic pattern recognition tells me that the internet inevitably always produces someone willing to shoot down someone elses sentiment for any reason at all, seemingly out of spite.

oh look another thing that already happened! Yes I am sure a smug person about predicting your arrival by seeing it in front of me and not being surprised. I'm going to continue being smug by predicting that your next post isn't going to be happy with me over this and is further going to try and shoot down any sentiment or point I make, simply out of internet obligation to not give up making the point of trying to shoot someone else down for the sake of it.

so go ahead, try it, do I look like I care what you think? it was joke we were sharing, get over it.

[Dr.Samurai]

Pattern Recognition:

Batman has a stable relationship with Alfred, Commissioner Gordon, Barbara Gordon, Robin, Bluebird, Superman... therefore Batman can’t hold a stable relationship.

[Psyren]

Spoiler: Summary of Exchange So Far

Show

"Batman has no trouble balancing his all-night crimefighting life with his daytime civilian one."

"But clearly he does, because he is obviously trying to seek romantic fulfillment and routinely failing, in spite of all his resources, looks, and smarts."

"Shows what you know, he's getting married next issue. Do you even read comics?"

*Next issue: marriage predictably fails*

"Hey look, the thing we were talking about happening routinely in comics just happened again."

"Well of course relationships don't work (or even start apparently), it's comics. Stop being so smug, Nostradamus."

"Yeah! And clearly we were talking about his professional relationships the entire time, pay attention!"

*stares at thread, nonplussed*

[Dr.Samurai]

Because let's be honest, no way Bruce can properly focus on tomorrow's meeting about how to improve the city if Bats spent all the previous nights up cracking skulls and getting his own skull cracked.

However in the comics he's been shown very capable at being batman all night long and then putting all of his effort into being Bruce Wayne in the daytime.

Yeah, so capable that Bruce can't hold a stable relationship

I guess when Deuterio said Bruce can't properly focus on tomorrow's meeting, he didn't mean a professional meeting, he meant... a date? And I guess the argument you guys are making is that Bruce can't hold a stable *romantic* relationship because he doesn't sleep enough???

[deuterio12]

Pattern Recognition:

Batman has a stable relationship with Alfred, Commissioner Gordon, Barbara Gordon, Robin, Bluebird, Superman... therefore Batman can’t hold a stable relationship.

Alfred's a butler, it's literally his job to put up with Bruce's antics and even then there was at least one instance where he just got fed up and left.

The gordons too are a professional relationship, they work together to fight crime but don't really go hang in parties together or hug each other or go in pleasure trips.

If you claim the most recent Robin has a stable relationship with bats, I don't know what to say. The other ones either got killed or managed to get away before they got killed.

The relationship with supes is so stable that Bats has multiple contigencies plan to take him down and makes it pretty clear even if they team up when Darkseid or some other planetary threat shows up, that supes should stay the hell away from Gotham city the rest of the time so Bats doesn't run out of common criminals to punch.

Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to act smug about predicting something. After it happened. Even though you made no such predictions before hand. Truly, the powers of foresight on display here are incredible.

I said that Bats couldn't hold a stable relationship. Bats most recent relationship collapsed after I said that. Truly the powers of ignoring writing on display here are incredible.