Batman would definitely be pro-Israel. Joker doesn't give a fuck, but might go pro-Palestine purely to fuck with Batman
In the Injustice storyline Superman stops a drone attack, implying that in the regular universe America just like in the real world also kills tons of civilians with drone attacks but Superman lets it happen.
The DC heroes are not saviors of the planet, they're saviors of Western countries.
The DC heroes are not saviors of the planet, they're saviors of Western countries
That’s all comic book heroes. If there was an afghan superhero who destroyed drones or a Vietnamese superhero who lurked the jungles, they would be classified as evil monsters and face the full might of Avengers and Justice League
I think the boys had a plotline about some Afghani superhero. I could be wrong though
Yeah there is a whole plot where the US freaks out because non-white countries started having super heroes also
seeing the bat signal illuminated in the night sky, batman rushes to his bat-email and drafts a letter to nyu demanding the immediately expulsion of several freshman students
The bat signal shines above Gaza. The batplane strafes apartments below.
He wouldn’t be drafting emails. He’d just stalk the students as they’re going to their cars after a protest and assault them and leave them dangling on top of the library
"[thing i like] is [pop culture protagonist], [thing i don't like] is [pop culture villain]
this is my worldview, and no amount of "theory" or "getting dunked on" will ever change it"
Head empty, no thoughts. Lobotomized by liberal media consumption.
Hope everyone knows this is satire. Or maybe not, idk. But it definitely isn't anti-Palestine, it's anti-batman.
Honestly, that was my take-away too. Like, yeah, of course batman would be pro-Israel. He's a billionaire fuckwit that gets his jollies beating up poor people rather than flying a dick-shaped rocket to space. Same energy, though.
you're right, he should let the riddler kill people because he's poor(citation: vibes)
Are any of batman's villains poor? Thermian arguments aren't when you interact with a text. His villains are constantly spending money on gizmos or contraptions, the bigger question to ask is why the stories are so grim, or wy a character who has at various points been seen as good to the people been made fascist.
Most of the day-to-day mooks and goons are thieves, escaped prisoners, the usual throwaway "criminal scum" types. It can't be ignored that many many of Batman's fights are against stereotypical depictions of street criminals who in the context of reality, are overwhelmingly poor. The assertion that many of the super villains aren't poor is true, but in turn many of those are clearly not mentally sound. Over his decades of depictions Batman has definitely not always shown care or empathy towards this fact. In some depictions they acknowledge that his method is not a solution to any of these problems and he could use his money, power, and influence to try to make systemic change, but him individually beating the tar out of these people isn't solving the problems, aside from one of the mentally ill or poor villains having their hands on a bomb (or whatever) in that particular issue. It's a legit critique that is raised in-text many times that to some degree he does get his jollies beating up poor people
"hmm, I'm poor and starving. Gotta work with the guy who gassed a movie theatre, no other options." In the same way we can judge poor people who join the military, we can also judge the fictional mooks who side with serial killers instead of holding up a gas station or joining one of the heist-themed villains. I guess there is the problem of a million different depictions and some do try and fix problems and others just like beating people up.
except there are stories where he goes after dirty cops, real cops wouldn't do that
Given that Batman's favorite pastime is beating up carricatures of neurodivergent and mentally ill people in precarious situations, he would obviously choose to be active in an area that cannot offer any support to these groups because the entire medical and social infrastructure has been destroyed.
tired of this shitty take, if a neurodivergent person is about to poison the city you don't just leave them be. He beats them up because the alternative is to just kill them, and he genuinely is trying to rehabilitate them. Arkham keeps failing to do this for one reason or another. "oh them he should fix Arkham" he has tried repeatedly. "he should fix the problems of poverty" he's also tried to do this. The reason he can never quite finish it is because if he did we wouldn't have batman stories anymore.
Your last point is the problem! He could use his ridiculous money and power more effectively - he's a fucking multibillionaire head of a global megacorporation (and often arms manufacturer/military supplier so yeah great job Brucey). He could fix Arkham easily with his pocket change, it's just not done because yeah the story "needs" him to beat up mentally ill and neurodivergent people. That's the meta-criticism of Batman as a character and franchise, that it is in no small part fundamentally grounded and based on those things.
A massive part of the character has always been him donating to charity, start up foundations, and finding ways to help people. Like yeah, it is a valid critique that all the villains are depicted as neurodivergent, this does not make it batman's in universe fault that he has to fight them. The writing is built not to resolve, so every time he makes some fix to gotham it gets undone. That's a critique of the comics industry as a whole, not batman's in-universe failing. It bothers me that people criticize the character batman, who often is doing the best he can in the stories he is in, instead of the story itself. It's just as weirdly thermian to act like gotham's problems are his fault.
no one here likely cares about batmans 'in universe fault', this is a meta-analysis of the franchise as a media product. avoid diegetic essentialism
The post is about how the charavter would react to real world politics
A Reddit link was detected in your comment. Here are links to the same location on Teddit and Libreddit, which are Reddit frontends that protect your privacy.
Jesus was a Palestinian refugee born into a Roman military occupation. I have a feeling his position on Palestine would not be warm to the occupation.
And at least he was probably a real person that actually existed at one point.
Watch this Batman!I'm turning all of Gotham's water into wine and feeding it's poor with a fish and two loaves of bread!Batman:
This is literally the angriest I have ever been
At what point does something stop being a military occupation and just become integrated into an empire? genuine question.
That's the neat part, it doesn't! Empire is always enforced with military occupation, even if sometimes that military occupation takes the form of so-called "police forces."
I just don't feel like that works in every case though. Rome conquered many places that still considered themselves Roman after the empire started to collapse. At some point they were just part of it.
I'd say it's the point where hegemony instead of brute force works as the primary control mechanism.
All you'd need to get Bruce wearing a Keffiyah is showing him one orphaned Palestinian child.
Oh God, can you imagine a comic where Batman hears about this genocide and his reaction is to blame Hamas for the deaths of Gazan civilians?
(What's left of) A Gazan family begs the Justice League on a monitor for help and Batman asks them if they condemn Hamas before terminating the line because they're still begging for help without condemning Hamas.
Gotham = Gaza
Batman = IDF
Joker = hiding in a tunnel under the hospital
