Marvel vs DC

[Imaculata]

Yes. You can’t have that many muggers and muscle-for-hire types ready to throw in with psychopaths without some pretty grim living conditions, and a population that is desperate.

However, one could argue that those conditions are created by crime lords like Falcone. Several comics have expanded on the history of Gotham, but all depict it as a city that has always had crime. Some even imply the infuence of the occult in regards to the darkness that hangs over Gotham.

Plus, it's not like psychos such as Riddler or Scarecrow would suddenly give up their life of crime if there was no more poverty. Gotham is a city with many problems, and poverty is just one of them. Whether it is Gothem's main problem, is open to debate. Batman doesn't seem to think so.

In the Nolan verse, the Wayne family has actually tried to improve the living conditions of Gothams citizens, but the city got swallowed by crime none the less. In part due to the work of Raz al Gul and his League of Shadows.

I think Gotham's problems are so deeply rooted, that simply waving some dollar bills at the problems will not make them go away. I don't think real life thinking applies here, since Gotham is a fictional city obeying by fictional rules. Even if you solved all poverty in Gotham, there would still be crime and corruption, which then creates new poverty.

 

[Ryujin]

Is Gotham's biggest problem poverty though? The way Gotham City is usually portrayed, its biggest problem is crime. There's little point in trying to solve Gotham's poverty, when the city is so corrupt. Gotham needs someone like Batman. It is written that way on purpose.

Gotham already has an asylum where Batman's villains can be treated, but they have to be caught first. It is never suggested that Arkham Asylum needs a renovation. Batman's villains just keep escaping due to plot convenience. Better security and higher walls wouldn't solve that problem; the place is already a fortress.

As for Mr Freeze's wife, he already had funding originally. Bruce does try to help Freeze any way he can, by providing him with a team of specialists. But then Freeze's wife is killed (depending on the continuety). Could Bruce help Mr Freeze further by funding his research? Probably. But after the death of his wife, Freeze chooses crime and revenge. He's not entirely blameless, even if he is sympathetic.

Poverty leads to increased crime. Reduce poverty and, presumably, you reduce crime. Reduce the number of ready-to-hire henchmen and you reduce the impact of the major criminals. No, you don't eliminate them, because psychopaths, but they become less of an issue.

And with fewer henchmen, there's less chance of the major criminals escaping from Arkham. Bring in more security, therapists (hopefully not ones that fall in love with their patients), and staff. Arkham has always struck me as being under funded for what it's asked to do.

And, depending upon the continuity, Freeze's wife is still alive. You just have to wait for DC to do their next reboot. That's what these days; every 5 years or so?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Yep. He mainly needs to have a wake up call that his intellect isn’t going to solve the worlds problems, and he needs to put resources directly into the hands of actual experts. But he has also done things like help stop vaccine research from becoming open source, and instead making deals to get a company he owns stock in get to buy that research privately.

IIRC, the argument against making it open source was that there with vaccines, people need to trust them. And if anything, debate about Corona-Virus vaccines but also persistent myths like "vaccines cause autism" remind us that this isn't wrong. If anyone can make them, then there will also be people making them that are less than competent, if not outright maliciously trying to make a quick buck. And that will damage the reputation of vaccines.
I guess the question is what happens next - if guess if you could still get a license to produce a vaccine provided without fees, if you provided reasonable quality assurance measures (which will still cost money), it would seem that it's not about someone making money, but really about ensuring trust. Unfortunately I don't know enough about that case.

Fundamentally however, the problem with this approach is that its all up to a small number of people to decide stuff that will affect thousands to millions to billions - without the ones being affected - having invested such decision power in them. There is neither social consensus nor content involved in the decision making process.

 

[nevin]

My opinion is Marvel has heroes. DC has gods who step on people and destroy cities while they fight.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Actually, he and his wife have funded some pretty important research and organizations fighting all kinds of issues that strike hardest in developing nations. His reward? Being cast as a RW Lex Luthor by gaslighters and the misinformed.

Nah. Firstly, the Friendliest Oligarch does not need your protection from the mean Internet critics.

He literally has the resources and connections to put every homeless person in the US in a permanent home. His funding of people building toilets that don’t rely on large-scale water infrastructure is cool, but a few billion could be spent actually building that infrastructure in many of those nations. Most of them don’t actually havepsycho leaders who would stop him.

No. People with so much wealth that they’d still be considered extremely rich if they gave away 95% of their fortune don’t get a pass because they spend a few percent per year on good PR efforts.

However, one could argue that those conditions are created by crime lords like Falcone. Several comics have expanded on the history of Gotham, but all depict it as a city that has always had crime. Some even imply the infuence of the occult in regards to the darkness that hangs over Gotham.

Plus, it's not like psychos such as Riddler or Scarecrow would suddenly give up their life of crime if there was no more poverty. Gotham is a city with many problems, and poverty is just one of them. Whether it is Gothem's main problem, is open to debate. Batman doesn't seem to think so.

In the Nolan verse, the Wayne family has actually tried to improve the living conditions of Gothams citizens, but the city got swallowed by crime none the less. In part due to the work of Raz al Gul and his League of Shadows.

I think Gotham's problems are so deeply rooted, that simply waving some dollar bills at the problems will not make them go away. I don't think real life thinking applies here, since Gotham is a fictional city obeying by fictional rules. Even if you solved all poverty in Gotham, there would still be crime and corruption, which then creates new poverty.

I mean, this is why people don’t connect much with Batman anymore, but it’s also a larger issue with comics. The world needs to make some sort of sense in the parts that aren’t magic or x-genes or whatever, for readers to reliably give a damn.

By placing a guy with essentially limitless money in a city that is shown on panels to have a major homelessness problem, and saying, “poverty isn’t Gotham’s problem”, you create a disconnect that just doesn’t work.

Like, even if Gotham is under some magical influence, Batman isn’t spending his time finding that out, while using his billions to improve living conditions in the slums (the city has slums, therefor poverty is at least A major issue in Gotham ).

Also, if it’s crime lords causing the crime (which is completely absurd), then why isn’t Batman focusing his nighttime drop bear impersonations on...the crime lords?
There is no possible model of crime in which putting individual muggers and burglars in the hospital meaningfully reduces crime. It’s just revenge for a trauma, directed at the entire lower class. The poors killed his mom, so he is gonna run around at night in a costume punching as many as he can find, and gather a cult of personality around him that he has convinced of his meaningless “crusade”.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There’s a difference between “He’s not doing enough.” and “He is actively seeking to harm us.”

 

[nevin]

Actually go back and watch all of the dark knight movies. Batman puts more effort in one fight saving innocent bystanders than superman does in any movie starting with man of steel

 

[Shadowedeyes]

I mean, this is why people don’t connect much with Batman anymore, but it’s also a larger issue with comics. The world needs to make some sort of sense in the parts that aren’t magic or x-genes or whatever, for readers to reliably give a damn.

Batman remains pretty popular though. So I'm not sure I'd say most people have a problem with it.

 

[Eric V]

Perhaps, except that he didn't have the funding of a Bruce Wayne. Hell, I don't think that even Tony Stark has Bruce Wayne money.

That really shouldn't be an issue. In the Marvel Universe, it's canon that Wakanda has the cure for cancer; Reed really should have been able to find it by now, to say nothing of curing AIDS, renewable clean energy, etc.

Tony must have Wayne level money if the cost of each of his armours is to be believed.

 

[Ryujin]

That really shouldn't be an issue. In the Marvel Universe, it's canon that Wakanda has the cure for cancer; Reed really should have been able to find it by now, to say nothing of curing AIDS, renewable clean energy, etc.

Tony must have Wayne level money if the cost of each of his armours is to be believed.

There's the comparative thing though. In Stark's world there are many people who have his level of funding. In Batman's world you have to look to one of Superman's foes, Lex Luthor, to find that kind of money.