Show
^ Specific question. Guess they also asked if they would like Bruce Wayne.
I fundementally have NO idea what the answer here is lmao.
^ Specific question. Guess they also asked if they would like Bruce Wayne.
I fundementally have NO idea what the answer here is lmao.
They would love him. A billionaire instead of using his money to end poverty spends it on devices to beat the shit out of poor people.
Keep in mind that if he were real they would not know that Bruce and Bats are the same person. So they wouldnt know he's a billionaire.
Also keep in mind that depending on the version/portrayal, Bruce Wayne does a fair amount of anti-poverty stuff in Gotham. But "Would they like Bruce Wayne" is a side question here.
Also keep in mind, that the best way to answer this question is to assume all of Gotham comes with him, otherwise its a completly different question for two reasons
So to have a Batman that is fundementally the same as the comics, we have have most of the rest of Gotham so those two things are the same.
This means that he's not just beating up poor people. He's fighting mass murderous supervillians. He's breaking up organized crime. He's exposing police corruption (he does this last thing a lot lol). And most of the poor people he "beats up" are like, muggers who are victimizing other poor people. He also does dumb shit like stop bank robberies, but lets keep the full scope in mind here. Hell if we bring the entire DCU with him, then he's also a member of the Justice League and regularly saving the world from destruction lol.
I largely agree, I think, that real world Republicans would like real world Batman, but I want to make sure you understand all the nuance of the question and arent opperating on a surface level understanding of the character and his world.
A lot of billionaires do the same (obviously for tax benefits), in fact libs/conservatives use this as an example of the system "working" to show how under gommulism the same wouldn't happen.
Like I said to bucky above.
Bruce Wayne is not like any real world billionaire, especially in recent comics portrayals. He simply cant be analyzed the same way.
I'm really not sure I understand how it's any different? Doesn't he just pour more money and a little more effort into it? The effects are the same.
There is no amount of charity or anti-poverty stuff that can make up for being a billionaire.
If we bring the whole Gotham, we bring Poison Ivy, the real hero of the setting who Batman opposes.
He does it in a way that no real world billionaire has ever done or will ever do. Its not reasonable to hold real world standards because he doesnt do milquetoast philinathropy lol. Its a completly different thing that you cant analyze the way you do real world billionaires.
Poison Ivy is a fairly minor villain, who noteably is actually not purely a hero because she's done some pretty awful things. I know good leftists who actually hate Ivy, I forget the full reasoning but I read a good essay on it once. Again, you're subtracting nuance to a fictional character so you can do the surface level buzzword takes every leftist does lol.
In modern portrayals Ivy is an anti-hero usually, and Batman hasnt fought against her in like over a decade.