Has Batman made any progress?

[An Enemy Spy]

Batman's goal is essentially to create a Gotham City that no longer needs Batman, if my knowledge of the series is correct. But when I look at Gotham City, I see all the same problems, Joker is still killing people, the government is still corrupt, crime is still rampant, and everything is still dark and grimy and awful. Batman may beat the bad guys, but they just come back a short time later. Gotham doesn't seem like a better place since Bruce Wayne took up the cowl.
Is Batman making any progress at all, or is he just struggling to maintain the status quo and keep it from getting worse? Will his mission ever end?

Yeah, and obviously I know that the reason things are what they are is because the writers will never end Batman and villains come back because they're too popular to retire permanently. I'm talking from a purely in-universe perspective, not about the decisions of DC Comics.

[Devonix]

The answer is yes... and . Then another reboot resets his progress

[Tvtyrant]

Batman's goal is essentially to create a Gotham City that no longer needs Batman, if my knowledge of the series is correct. But when I look at Gotham City, I see all the same problems, Joker is still killing people, the government is still corrupt, crime is still rampant, and everything is still dark and grimy and awful. Batman may beat the bad guys, but they just come back a short time later. Gotham doesn't seem like a better place since Bruce Wayne took up the cowl.
Is Batman making any progress at all, or is he just struggling to maintain the status quo and keep it from getting worse? Will his mission ever end?

Yeah, and obviously I know that the reason things are what they are is because the writers will never end Batman and villains come back because they're too popular to retire permanently. I'm talking from a purely in-universe perspective, not about the decisions of DC Comics.

Most of the series which go more than 10 years after Batman's heyday argue that he has made things much, much worse. There are a few arguments for this, but the basic one is that the local government becomes technologically inferior to opponents due to a willingness to allow Batman deal with everything. At the point where everyone has Iphones and personal jetpacks the police are still acting like they live in the 1930s, because Batman resolves all issues for them. The tiny and outdated police are unable to deal with problems as they arise, and even in the "good" futures like Batman Inc the decision is effectively to allow private citizens to deal with everything.

[Zmeoaice]

Well at the start of "The Batman" it is stated that Gotham has one of the lowest crime rates. Then the freaks start showing up (although most aren't the result of Batman)

I think that was the case of the Long Halloween, Batman takes down organized time, but his rogues fill the vacuum.

It's possible that by the time he joined the Justice League, Gotham was clean enough for him to leave and go on missions to save the world.

[Benthesquid]

So tracking comic continuity over the course of the, what, 76 years since Batman made his first appearance is a fool's errand. That being said, my take on it is that yes- Batman made progress, sort of. When he came back to Gotham, it was run by the mob. In large part because of Batman, the mob no longer runs Gotham, and most of the worst corruption has been cleaned out. Notably, before Batman, it would likely have been impossible for there to be a police commissioner that wasn't entirely corrupt.

Of course, a lot of this is counter balanced by the rise of the 'freaks,' the costumed criminals, or what (I believe) Grant Morrison coined as 'pop crime.' So it comes down to whether you blame Batman for the latter issue- and, to be fair, it's not like Gotham is the only city in DC with supervillains.

[comicshorse]

My impression is that he has made some progress on the matter of corruption. 'Batman Year One' indicates the GCPD ( and the Major and pretty much everybody) was on the take and in the pocket of Organized Crime, nowadays Gotham is just very corrupt.
( In an issue of 'Hitman' there is a lovely scene where a crime lord complains about how the Batman have ruined the GCPD to the extent that 'nowadays you put your hand in your pocket to bribe a cop you're taking your life in your hands. There's a fifty-fifty chance the bastards honest')

[BRC]

Lets start with this: Comic Book Continuity Is A Joke. Trying to piece together any sort of cohesive arc over the history of a character like Batman is a fools errand.


That said, from the stuff I've read, he solved the original problems, but made new problems in the process.

When Batman started out, crime in Gotham was omnipresent. The government was firmly in the pocket of the Mob, and petty crime ran rampant on the streets (Since the Cops were corrupt and not really interested in doing their jobs).

Batman has since broken the Mob's hold on the government and police force. Organized Crime is no longer the institution it once was. However, in its place Batman is often blamed for ushering in the era of the Supervillain. The Old-School mobsters are largely gone, replaced by The Penguin and Two-Face and The Joker. Maybe it's just a coincidence that they showed up at the same time as Batman (I don't think he was responsible for Poison Ivy, Bane, Killer Crock, Scarecrow, or Mister Freeze). Maybe it's a bizzare subculture thing. A man dressed as a bat fights crime, so you might as well run with your gimmick and start dressing like a scarecrow. Even if you're just a mundane gangster, start wearing top hats and having a bird theme. Unlike traditional organized crime, these criminals tend to prefer bigger, more destructive rackets. They'll rob banks and museums, or attack factories, kidnap the mayor, ect ect.

So on one hand, the Government is generally trying to do it's job, and everyday citizens are probably not paying protection money to the mafia. If you see a GCPD officer, they'll probably actually try to help you. Organized Crime is still around, as are street gangs and your standard petty criminals, but they're no longer running Gotham.

On the other hand, the Mob was relatively non-violent. They just wanted money, and the methods at their disposal were bog-standard violence and intimidation. Nowadays, a worker might find that Poison Ivy has destroyed his factory with giant vines, the Joker might attack a parade, Two-Face might rob the bank, Mr Freeze might freeze the harbor. Any number of Arkham's Finest could cause untold devastation, often for the express purpose of drawing out, or playing some twisted game with Batman.


Before Batman arrived, Gotham needed either intense reform of the police department, or Batman. Now, Gotham needs Batman.

[TheThan]

Most of the series which go more than 10 years after Batman's heyday argue that he has made things much, much worse. There are a few arguments for this, but the basic one is that the local government becomes technologically inferior to opponents due to a willingness to allow Batman deal with everything. At the point where everyone has Iphones and personal jetpacks the police are still acting like they live in the 1930s, because Batman resolves all issues for them. The tiny and outdated police are unable to deal with problems as they arise, and even in the "good" futures like Batman Inc the decision is effectively to allow private citizens to deal with everything.

I had gotten a similar idea watching the Adam West Batman show.

The police have become so dependent on Batman, that they can’t solve crimes on their own anymore and now no longer have any choice but to depend on batman to deal with criminals.

[Kyberwulf]

Is this really the fault of Batman, or just comic books in general. Has the world gotten better since Superman. Or Wonder Woman. Or Aqua....forget that last one.

The problem isn't how effective the heroes are at their jobs. It's just that they are all products of entertainment. For this to go on, things have to stay pretty much the same. otherwise..... If they did clean up the world, nothing else would happen.

I think if it where allowed to happen. Any hero would end up cleaning up their cities, and world.

[Kitten Champion]

Didn't someone in the Batman v. Superman: Let's Ruin Detroit's Day trailer thread say something about Gotham being on a Hellmouth or something?

[Yora]

Is this really the fault of Batman, or just comic books in general.
Superheroes, I believe. There are plenty of American comics that don't have superheroes and don't suffer from this problem. And I haven't come across it with comic from any other country.

[archon_huskie]

Within the recent Nolan-verse, Gotham gets better after Batman shows up and leaves.

During Batman Begins it is the league of Shadows pulling puppet strings to destroy Gotham. Batman eliminates both the strings and the league. Batman also allies with Rachel Dawes, Dent, and Gordon. He gets the evidence that police can't or won't get. Gordon makes the arrests and Dawson and Dent prosecute. Crime starts to drop.

In Dark Knight, Batman continues his alliance. Organized crime is getting weaker and nervous. The Joker is brought in. Joker causes chaos not crime, but ultimately Batman is victorious. However, Dawes and Dent both die and Batman goes into hiding.

In Dark Knight Rises, Batman has not been seen publically in 8 years. The police, empowered by the Dent Act, have eliminated the organized crime and crime is no worse in Gotham than in any other major city.

Then the league of shadows comes back and takes over Gotham just and Batman comes out of retirement to solve the case of who robbed his safe. Things are much worse for six months while Batman recovers from a broken back. Then Batman returns and fights back. He appears to die in nuclear explosion that should still be close enough to irradiate all of Gotham, but doesn't. Things return to normal in Gotham.

[veti]

Is this really the fault of Batman, or just comic books in general. Has the world gotten better since Superman. Or Wonder Woman. Or Aqua....forget that last one.

Aqua has unquestionably (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyhrYis509A) brightened up the world. To the rest - meh, probably not.

The Dark Knight Returns shows the Joker sitting quietly in Arkham Asylum for ten years or more after Batman's retirement - but when Batman comes back, so does he. It's a narrative necessity. Heroes need villains.

Characters in an ongoing comic series can't make progress, not meaningfully - there's a whole franchise that depends on them remaining pretty much the same. Continuity isn't just hard to achieve - it's inherently incompatible with the entire genre. The only way to achieve meaningful character arcs is to limit the length of the comic run. This can be achieved either directly (Watchmen, Sandman - but catch Marvel putting out anything so self-limiting...), or by perpetual rebooting (pretty much every pop-culture franchise that's been going for more than 20 years).

[Saintheart]

Within the recent Nolan-verse, Gotham gets better after Batman shows up and leaves.

During Batman Begins it is the league of Shadows pulling puppet strings to destroy Gotham. Batman eliminates both the strings and the league. Batman also allies with Rachel Dawes, Dent, and Gordon. He gets the evidence that police can't or won't get. Gordon makes the arrests and Dawson and Dent prosecute. Crime starts to drop.

In Dark Knight, Batman continues his alliance. Organized crime is getting weaker and nervous. The Joker is brought in. Joker causes chaos not crime, but ultimately Batman is victorious. However, Dawes and Dent both die and Batman goes into hiding.

In Dark Knight Rises, Batman has not been seen publically in 8 years. The police, empowered by the Dent Act, have eliminated the organized crime and crime is no worse in Gotham than in any other major city.

Then the league of shadows comes back and takes over Gotham just and Batman comes out of retirement to solve the case of who robbed his safe. Things are much worse for six months while Batman recovers from a broken back. Then Batman returns and fights back. He appears to die in nuclear explosion that should still be close enough to irradiate all of Gotham, but doesn't. Things return to normal in Gotham.

The thing is -- and it's an unfortunate plot thread that wasn't teased out more explicitly in TDKR -- the Dent Act is implied as giving the police seriously authoritarian powers, making Batman unnecessary to fight crime because there's an almost-dictatorship in place. Criminals are "locked up under the Dent Act" which to me suggests they're being put there under draconian police powers; if the police can kick down doors arbitrarily, tap phones arbitrarily, arrest without cause, exactly what advantages does Batman bring to the mix at that point?

Catwoman is more or less the mouthpiece for Gotham's people being crushed under by the indifference of the wealthy, which is the melting-pot Bane is able to exploit to his own ends - remember how Robin tells Bruce that the Wayne Foundation stopped funding the orphanage he was in? That's a microcosm of what Gotham's rich people thought about the poor, I think. Arguably, Harvey Dent's death and Batman's departure made things worse rather than better since it went too far in the other direction; Dent's death turned him into a martyr.

This, I think, is why Jim Gordon's speech was going to destroy Dent's reputation on his resignation. Gordon realised he and the police had gone too far; he was remorseful over what had been done to Gotham in an effort to save it and was determined to undo the lie that created Gotham to begin with. Possibly he did this because he knew as he wouldn't be Police Commissioner anymore, he wouldn't be able to exercise restraint on how the law was used or applied, so he intended to undermine it.

Like I said, this was not teased out terribly well in the film - one of the problems I think that contributes to TDKR - but it's definitely there.

[Lord Raziere]

Aqua has unquestionably (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyhrYis509A) brightened up the world. To the rest - meh, probably not.

The Dark Knight Returns shows the Joker sitting quietly in Arkham Asylum for ten years or more after Batman's retirement - but when Batman comes back, so does he. It's a narrative necessity. Heroes need villains.

Characters in an ongoing comic series can't make progress, not meaningfully - there's a whole franchise that depends on them remaining pretty much the same. Continuity isn't just hard to achieve - it's inherently incompatible with the entire genre. The only way to achieve meaningful character arcs is to limit the length of the comic run. This can be achieved either directly (Watchmen, Sandman - but catch Marvel putting out anything so self-limiting...), or by perpetual rebooting (pretty much every pop-culture franchise that's been going for more than 20 years).

Yeah.

Same for Pokemon, its one of the more recent examples. TMNT? rebooted a lot. Power Rangers? reboots galore. Digimon, also reboots, Gundam, lots of them, Doctor Who has his regenerations, Star Trek has its many incarnations.....the only example I can think of that is different is Star Wars, and while not constantly rebooted- I think it has been rebooted only once, recently by Disney-, there is a wide expanded universe beyond the movies which are greatly sustaining by themselves, but there is also videogames and lots of books on Star Wars. Roleplaying games have their new editions every few years...Dragon Ball Z is still around technically it just survived by having a consistent constantly escalating power level with its sagas and then making tons of fighting videogames off of itself, with different premises and designs.

so technically yes reboots....or very long in-built story arcs where changes are small enough to not endanger the premise of the franchise but enough to keep things interesting. which, whether not self-contained story arcs is a reboot is up for debate but....Naruto ended, but now we're getting a thing about Naruto's child and such, so....even the mangas are not immune to the reboot.

[Cheesegear]

Is Batman making any progress at all, or is he just struggling to maintain the status quo and keep it from getting worse? Will his mission ever end?

No. Batman doesn't kill. So long as the villains are alive, they can attempt to break out of Arkham at any time, and probably do so. Can Gotham survive without Bruce Wayne? Yes. Richard Grayson picks up the mantle of The Batman, and continues the crusade. Tim Drake is probably the better choice (especially now that Grayson works for Spyral and isn't even Nightwing anymore), but during the Battle for the Cowl storyline and during the events before New 52, Grayson was Batman. There will always be a Batman, Bruce has ensured it, even going so far as to make a Batman, Inc. whose business runs on creating more Batmen for other cities.

But, let's say that Batman did kill his villains. Well, bad news. People come back from the dead in the DCU. Killing someone in the DCU is just a different form of imprisonment, that certain villains simply can and will escape from. So, if Batman - Bruce Wayne, that is - retired, and none of the Waynes picked up the mantle, would crime in Gotham stop? Hell no. The Joker might retire, because he's said on a couple of occasions that the only reason he's even in the game is because Batman is. The Penguin can supposedly go legit anytime he wants to, as can The Riddler. But everyone else is *ahem* simply bat**** insane, and will continue to be so, even after there's no more Batman.

Bruce Wayne's mission can end. Batman's, can't.

[Quild]

Most of the Batman stories I read nowadays take place while **** Grayson is Nightwing, and Robin is currently Damian Wayne (who's at least ten). This must take place some many years after Batman's start. Yet, crime is still high.

Whenever some stories happen in the future, crime is high as well. Counting into that "Batman Beyond", but not only.

While in some Superman stories, we can see a future where it is known he is/was Clark Kent and Metropolis has became a haven of peace.


I'd like to believe that the creation of "Batman Incorporated" by Bruce Wayne shows that Gotham is safe and now Batman turns to the world, but... not really.

[The Glyphstone]

But, let's say that Batman did kill his villains. Well, bad news. People come back from the dead in the DCU. Killing someone in the DCU is just a different form of imprisonment, that certain villains simply can and will escape from. So, if Batman - Bruce Wayne, that is - retired, and none of the Waynes picked up the mantle, would crime in Gotham stop? Hell no. The Joker might retire, because he's said on a couple of occasions that the only reason he's even in the game is because Batman is. The Penguin can supposedly go legit anytime he wants to, as can The Riddler. But everyone else is *ahem* simply bat**** insane, and will continue to be so, even after there's no more Batman.

Bruce Wayne's mission can end. Batman's, can't.

Assuming Bruce can bring himself to do it. I think the line from Rachel's letter to Bruce at the end of TDK really summed it up well, as one of Batman's core themes:


When I told you that if Gotham no longer needed Batman we could be together, I meant it.

But now I’m sure the day won’t come when you no longer need Batman.

Batman is just as broken as the bad guys he fights and throws in prison over and over - he ultimately needs them as much as they need him. Even if comic book deaths were somehow permanent, he'd likely never truly give up the cape and cowl. There would always be more villains to fight and more crime to stop, somewhere.

[TheThan]

Assuming Bruce can bring himself to do it. I think the line from Rachel's letter to Bruce at the end of TDK really summed it up well, as one of Batman's core themes:


Batman is just as broken as the bad guys he fights and throws in prison over and over - he ultimately needs them as much as they need him. Even if comic book deaths were somehow permanent, he'd likely never truly give up the cape and cowl. There would always be more villains to fight and more crime to stop, somewhere.

Now I have this image of Bruce Wayne, old and grey, siting in the bat cave, surrounded by his trophies, his past glories, reminiscing about the good old days, when super villains were super villains.

but to seriously answer the question.

No batman has not and cannot make any serious amount of progress. If he did, there would be no more reason for him to be Batman. That means there would be no reason to continue the comic book. that's bad business for DC, so it'll never happen. it's the same reason that they will never permanently pass the cape and cowl over to someone else; because Bruce Wayne is Batman, not enough people will accept a new character stepping into the role in a permanent fashion. Even in Batman Begins, Bruce Wayne is still batman, even though he's taken a back seat to Terry. You can still tell he's the original.

[Starbuck_II]

No. Batman doesn't kill. So long as the villains are alive, they can attempt to break out of Arkham at any time, and probably do so. Can Gotham survive without Bruce Wayne? Yes. Richard Grayson picks up the mantle of The Batman, and continues the crusade. Tim Drake is probably the better choice (especially now that Grayson works for Spyral and isn't even Nightwing anymore), but during the Battle for the Cowl storyline and during the events before New 52, Grayson was Batman. There will always be a Batman, Bruce has ensured it, even going so far as to make a Batman, Inc. whose business runs on creating more Batmen for other cities.


Batman has killed by "accident" before. Clayface, in the old animated series, was killed and Batman failed to pull him up when he was slipping once.

Since that series ended, he did die (since he never returned). Also that Asian rival who studied under same master that Batman tried under. Thinking about the old Animated Series had a lot of deaths scattered through it.

[Zmeoaice]

Batman has killed by "accident" before. Clayface, in the old animated series, was killed and Batman failed to pull him up when he was slipping once.

Since that series ended, he did die (since he never returned).

He returned in Justice League, and was promptly blown up by Flash and Hawkgirl.

[Saintheart]

Now I have this image of Bruce Wayne, old and grey, siting in the bat cave, surrounded by his trophies, his past glories, reminiscing about the good old days, when super villains were super villains.

We call that Kingdom Come.

[tomandtish]

Assuming Bruce can bring himself to do it. I think the line from Rachel's letter to Bruce at the end of TDK really summed it up well, as one of Batman's core themes:


Batman is just as broken as the bad guys he fights and throws in prison over and over - he ultimately needs them as much as they need him. Even if comic book deaths were somehow permanent, he'd likely never truly give up the cape and cowl. There would always be more villains to fight and more crime to stop, somewhere.

You've hit the nail on the head for a very simple reason. Thanks to the trauma the death of his parents caused him and his obsessiveness with purging Gotham of crime, Batman is not the mask Bruce Wayne wears. Bruce Wayne is the mask Batman wears. He's not capable of giving up the cowl because it's who he is. Everything else is the disguise.



Batman's goal is essentially to create a Gotham City that no longer needs Batman, if my knowledge of the series is correct. But when I look at Gotham City, I see all the same problems, Joker is still killing people, the government is still corrupt, crime is still rampant, and everything is still dark and grimy and awful. Batman may beat the bad guys, but they just come back a short time later. Gotham doesn't seem like a better place since Bruce Wayne took up the cowl.
Is Batman making any progress at all, or is he just struggling to maintain the status quo and keep it from getting worse? Will his mission ever end?

Yeah, and obviously I know that the reason things are what they are is because the writers will never end Batman and villains come back because they're too popular to retire permanently. I'm talking from a purely in-universe perspective, not about the decisions of DC Comics.

From an in-universe perspective (per your original question), there seem to be multiple problems in Gotham that will prevent Batman from making true headway.

A much more lenient interpretation of insanity as it applies to criminal defense: Several years ago at a Con in New York, they had a panel with several criminal defense lawyers and psychiatrists who analyzed batman's villains. The panel determined that a surprising number of them (while having a mental illness) would not meet the legal definition of insanity (for a criminal defense). They understand the legality of their actions and (although most jurisdictions don't use this anymore) don't have an uncontrollable impulse. Believe it or not, the consensus was that even the Joker would not meet the legal definition of insane.

So why are all these villains ending up in Arkham? Well, there are a few ways we can finesse it. They've been found "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity" (NGRI), which means they are not guilty of the crime they were on trial for, but are being sent to an appropriate mental facility until deemed no longer a threat to society. In this case the guidelines for what constitutes legally insane or much looser than ours. They may have been found "Guilty But Insane", which is a more recent verdict that is replacing NGRI in some jurisdictions. They are sent to a mental facility, but if treatment is completed they then serve the rest of their sentence in jail. Finally, they may simply have mental illnesses severe enough that even though they are not able to pull off an insanity defense, they can't be handled in the prison population. Whatever the reason is, they all seem to regularly be sent to Arkham "Revolving door" Asylum, where they generally stay for about the length of an average vacation.

No Death penalty: This is tied into the first one, but we have to assume that some of these villains at some point would have had a straight arrest and conviction, including on charges that would get the death penalty. Heck, Bane's actions in Knightfall warranted it alone. It seems pretty apparent that (for better or worse) there's no death penalty in the state Gotham resides in.

There's a surprising effective low level group of labor for your villains to exploit, use or otherwise work into their plans: Organized crime has been mentioned. But one thing you always notice is that the villains never seem to have any problem finding their henchman, arms dealers, etc. to get the supplies and manpower they need to carry out their plans. We regularly see Batman break up these groups, and regularly see them back out pretty quick. I suspect that while batman is breaking things up, they aren't getting convictions on a lot of the low level thugs because of lack of usable evidence.

Anyway, there are some reasons why he might not be making headway.

[The Glyphstone]

I'm pretty sure there is at least one story, possibly a what-if, where Arkham is an outright evil genus loci, or at least severely haunted. Hard to keep people locked up in a building that is actively trying to let them out again.

[Cheesegear]

but to seriously answer the question.
[...]
No batman has not and cannot make any serious amount of progress. If he did, there would be no more reason for him to be Batman. That means there would be no reason to continue the comic book. that's bad business for DC, so it'll never happen.

The OP doesn't want that answer. Mostly because that's the cop-out answer.


Yeah, and obviously I know that the reason things are what they are is because the writers will never end Batman and villains come back because they're too popular to retire permanently. I'm talking from a purely in-universe perspective, not about the decisions of DC Comics.


You've hit the nail on the head for a very simple reason. Thanks to the trauma the death of his parents caused him and his obsessiveness with purging Gotham of crime, Batman is not the mask Bruce Wayne wears. Bruce Wayne is the mask Batman wears. He's not capable of giving up the cowl because it's who he is. Everything else is the disguise.

That's only in regards to Bruce Wayne, though. What happens to Gotham, when Bruce goes on business trips, which a high-corporate playboy will do at some point? What happens to Gotham when Bruce dies - like what happened pre-New 52? Bruce's vision is 'A Gotham that doesn't need Batman'. Bruce, himself, is irrelevant to the vision, since he has four sons - three adopted and one biological - that he's trained for the job, as well as a host of Batgirls, a writer-dependent Catwoman, Huntress and two or three Batwomans, and a few of the cast of Batman, Inc. who can take the reigns of Gotham.

When Bruce Wayne appears in public, he gets Grayson (or Superman) to put on the cowl. Because, Gotham pretty much always needs a Batman. Which pretty much answers the question of the OP;
How close is Bruce Wayne to creating a Gotham that doesn't need Batman? Not even close. It's like he's not even trying. He's created an entire legacy unto the Cowl, which ensures that Batman - or a reasonable facsimile (i.e; Terry McGiniss) - will live on long after he's dead or retired, which indicates that Bruce, himself, doesn't even forsee in his lifetime a Gotham that doesn't need Batman.

[Lethologica]

Batman's goal is to create a Gotham that no longer needs Batman.

DC's goal is to continually create Gothams that need Batman.

So...*shrug*

[JCarter426]

Whenever some stories happen in the future, crime is high as well. Counting into that "Batman Beyond", but not only.
I have to disagree here. Gotham in Batman Beyond is a much nicer place than in Batman: The Animated Series. Part of the backstory is that Batman has cleaned the place up so much that everybody, including Barbara Gordon, is convinced Gotham doesn't need Batman anymore. Everybody except Batman, who was convinced Gotham will always need Batman, so this wasn't even his mission... that Batman's mission was maintaining the status quo, which he did and then some. Even a few of his villains were rehabilitated.


It seems pretty apparent that (for better or worse) there's no death penalty in the state Gotham resides in.
Point of fact: New Jersey has not had a death penalty since 2007, and nobody has been executed there since 1963.

[TheThan]

I have to disagree here. Gotham in Batman Beyond is a much nicer place than in Batman: The Animated Series. Part of the backstory is that Batman has cleaned the place up so much that everybody, including Barbara Gordon, is convinced Gotham doesn't need Batman anymore. Everybody except Batman, who was convinced Gotham will always need Batman, so this wasn't even his mission... that Batman's mission was maintaining the status quo, which he did and then some. Even a few of his villains were rehabilitated.


Well sort of.

It’s true that crime seems to be down and the city seems to have been cleaned up. But there are still plenty of super-powered villains for batman to fight. So at least in that regards, there’s still a reason for Batman to be around. Terry might not need to dedicate as much time to being Batman as Bruce did but it’s still made pretty clear that the city still needs Batman.

I wouldn’t trust the Gotham PD to be able to deal with those supers without tremendous collateral damage anyway. The cops in Batman Begins seem to have a shoot first and never ask questions policy when dealing with criminals; excessive force seems to be standard operating procedure. They all seem to wear body armor and carry military grade weapons as their standard sidearm. Which suggest that the criminals in Gotham are much more dangerous, requiring the police to up-arms in order to keep up and handle them. So it’s probably a case of a different style of criminal, more dangerous and violent, but less prolific. Just because a city is nice and clean doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s perfectly safe after all.




Point of fact: New Jersey has not had a death penalty since 2007, and nobody has been executed there since 1963.


Just because the death penalty is on the books, doesn’t mean that it gets enforced. Which begs the question of why have the death penalty if it’s never carried out.

[The Glyphstone]

Just because the death penalty is on the books, doesn’t mean that it gets enforced. Which begs the question of why have the death penalty if it’s never carried out.

Because actually getting laws repealed is vastly easier than ignoring them. http://www.dumblaws.com/ is full of old statutes, laws, and ordinances that are utterly ridiculous and completely unenforced, but still technically in existence due to inertia.

[JCarter426]

Well sort of.

It’s true that crime seems to be down and the city seems to have been cleaned up. But there are still plenty of super-powered villains for batman to fight. So at least in that regards, there’s still a reason for Batman to be around. Terry might not need to dedicate as much time to being Batman as Bruce did but it’s still made pretty clear that the city still needs Batman.
Oh, I agree they seem to still need Batman, but there is quite a difference. It at least gets to the point where people start asking whether they still need Batman, which shows up much progress he's made. As opposed to almost any other point in any other continuity, where the best you can say is it would probably be worse without Batman, but that's about it.

[BWR]

Because actually getting laws repealed is vastly easier than ignoring them. http://www.dumblaws.com/ is full of old statutes, laws, and ordinances that are utterly ridiculous and completely unenforced, but still technically in existence due to inertia.

I looked at that site and while I can't speak for the rest of the it, the Norwegian bits were at best inaccurate and entirely missing important information that actually explains the law. Not impressed.

[Cikomyr]

You know, with all these talks about how Arkham cant keep its patients safely, i was wondering why there hasnt been a Batinquiry in the Asylum's administration to make sure its all 100% kosher.

Also, after a couple escapes, the prisonners would probably have been escalated to a federal facility for higher security. Or the Asylum would have been shut down for being unable to fulfill its security mandate...

....actually, why cut the middleman? Do you think the Batman himself could keep the supervillains in custody? Have a story Batman : Warden, where he is asked by Gotham City to be the one detaining the supervillains, since they cant seem to keep them themselves.

[Saintheart]

You know, with all these talks about how Arkham cant keep its patients safely, i was wondering why there hasnt been a Batinquiry in the Asylum's administration to make sure its all 100% kosher.

Also, after a couple escapes, the prisonners would probably have been escalated to a federal facility for higher security. Or the Asylum would have been shut down for being unable to fulfill its security mandate...

....actually, why cut the middleman? Do you think the Batman himself could keep the supervillains in custody? Have a story Batman : Warden, where he is asked by Gotham City to be the one detaining the supervillains, since they cant seem to keep them themselves.

I suspect the reason Arkham remains open -- aside from the whole "Gotham is a Crapsack City powered by The Evulz" idea -- is because they don't have any viable alternatives. Gotham has a mindblowingly-big problem with supervillains, a density so great that no other area of the US (including Metropolis) seems to have the same issue. For whatever reason, even though the supervillains keep busting out of Arkham, they only seem to go back again and again into Gotham's underworld, whether they're drawn there like iron filings to a magnet or because Batman's existence keeps them there. Why would the Feds want to take custody of prisoners who are clearly walking time bombs wherever they go and who seem to be perfectly content killing innocent civilians in Gotham's jurisdiction? Why, indeed, would the Feds want the Batman vigiliante movement to spread beyond Gotham? Maybe Arkham is literally as good as it gets for handling supervillians in the continental US. And even then, it's still no match for someone like the Joker; that, indeed, is Batman's reason for his existence - aside from beating up the cowardly, superstitious criminal lot, he's also the only guy seriously prepared or capable of dealing with people this insane and this intelligent.

Or quite possibly Arkham's leakiness is itself a Batman Gambit. Keep your friends close (a few states away in Superman's case) but keep your enemies closer (as in, at a prison you can keep a close eye on). If the Federal authorities step in and start shifting supervillians all over the country, Batman's going to have to spend a lot of time away from his home turf preparing contingencies for their nigh-inevitable breakouts or indeed rounding them up rapidly. At least if he has all the rotten eggs in one basket he can respond immediately (in the Arkham Asylum game, we learn there's a backup Batcave underneath Arkham Asylum for more or less that very reason). Batman being the warden is a step backwards because it ties him down to one location. He constantly has to be at Arkham to stop the supervillains breaking out. He can't be out dealing with criminals or any new supervillians who show up on the scene. There's also that Batman has an almost-Quixotic faith in the police and justice system. He has to believe in that, because otherwise he truly is nothing but a vigilante. Arkham, for better or worse, is part of that system.

Also, the criminals believing they've got a fair chance of escaping Arkham plays into Batman's hands because he'll be able to put them away again faster if they keep on believing that and don't start asking to be transferred out of state. Rather than asking why Batman's never been asked to be the warden of Arkham, one could just as easily ask why not one of Joker/Penguin/Ivy's lawyers has ever demanded a transfer of their client (or gotten it) out of Arkham to a facility that clearly would better meet their needs.

[Lamech]

Here is an idea: What's gonna happen if you lock a super villain up in a prison? Well a bunch of people get exposed to magic, superscience, aliens etc. And people who really would like to break out so will take crazy risks. That's a sure fire way to go from one Mr. Freeze, to Mr. Freeze and the army of abominable snowmen. Or Dracula, to Dracula and the army of vampires.

But in the insane asylum they have a chance of being rehabilitated at least temporarily. I'm sure lots of Batman villains have been phased out by D.C. recovered in the asylum. Plus no one wants to be some guys henchman if they are already super-powered. Plus the asylum has doctors writing grants to do research on these cool unique superpowered sick people that probably all get funded in crazy amounts. I mean poison Ivy has plant control powers, I'm sure everyone would love for that to be put to a productive use. The prison OTOH, is going to be massively underfunded.

So basically you have, villain takes a short vacation, comes back maybe a bit less crazy, vs. villain breaks out immediately, probably even angrier with an army of super-mooks.

[The Glyphstone]

I looked at that site and while I can't speak for the rest of the it, the Norwegian bits were at best inaccurate and entirely missing important information that actually explains the law. Not impressed.

I won't speak for international law - but there is no good reason or context for keeping a law on the books that a pickle is not actually a pickle unless it bounces when dropped (Connecticut state law). The point is that government in general is extremely prone to inertia and prioritizing spending its time/money on things that can't just be quietly ignored. And that is for our relatively sane, real-world governments, as opposed to the DCverse where a supervillain can run for and be elected President.

[BRC]

Concerning Arkham, IIRC there are a couple Superprison options in the DCU.

Arkham Asylum, Blackgate (or Iron Heights, or any number of other prisons), and Belle Reeve.

Arkham Asylum is for Villains with some sort of mental issue or obsession, or simply require special care. Two-Face, Clayface, The Joker, Mr Freeze, Poison Ivy, Harley Quinn, The Riddler, Scarecrow ect. Most of Batman's Villains tend to fall under this grouping. Killer Croc usually ends up in Arkham as well. The idea is generally that, for the most part ,these people are not irredeemable criminals at heart. Their crimes are usually the result of some sort of mental or physical affliction. They're Sick, and if they could just get a handle on their antisocial tendencies, they could be productive members of society. There was a part in the old continuity where The Riddler was successfully treated at Arkham Asylum. They helped him deal with his obsession with proving himself smarter than batman, and released him. Once out, he became an incredibly successful celebrity private detective. Mr Freeze dosn't steal because he wants money, he just wants to save his wife, and is obsessed with that to the point that he ignores anything else (Including "Laws" or "You're a genius scientist who could easily get grant money").

As a result, Arkham also has a lot more ability to do special containment/care for people like Killer Croc. Depending on the universe, Bane may or may not end up in Arkham. He's perfectly sane, but he may require special care when deprived of Venom.

Blackgate/Iron Heights/Any number of normal prisons is where people like Penguin or Catwoman (if they ever actually catch her), go. Oswald Cobblepot may be eccentric, but he's perfectly sane. He's a criminal for the same reason any number of criminals are.

When the Feds do grab a prisoner and cart them off, they usually take them to Belle Reve, which is in Louisiana. It's a superpower-proof Supermax run by Amanda Waller. That's where the Suicide Squad recruits from.

As for why Arkham is escapable? I think that's because it's trying to be three things at once. It's trying to be a supermax prison for dangerous villains (Like the Joker), it's trying to be a mental hospital for people who are only a danger to society because of a single obsession or disorder (Like Riddler or Two-Face), and it's trying to be a containment facility for people with superhuman powers (like Clayface, Poison Ivy, and Killer Croc).


That said, I think Batman, and Bruce Wayne (And Commissioner Gordon), all have very good reasons to send Villains to Arkham rather than having them taken off to Belle Reve. First, it's because Arkham already has containment set up for most of the villains. Belle Reve would need to build a Clayface-proof box. Arkham already has one, yes he got out last time, but it's easier to patch a hole than build a new box.
Second: Because in Arkham there is the CHANCE that they'll get rehabilitated. Sure it's a slim chance, but this is more philosophical than anything.
Third: Putting them in Arkham makes them predictable and easy to contain. If the Joker breaks out of Arkham, he goes back to the Gotham underground, starts causing trouble, and gets caught again. If he was put into Belle Reve, or any other superprison, and he escaped, then he would be in a new environment. Unpredictable, with a police force and local superteam that wouldn't know how to handle him. Sure he'd come back to Gotham on his own eventually, but who knows how much havoc he would wreck along the way.

Plus, while Arkham escapes are common. Mass-Escapes seem pretty rare. Which implies that Arkham is actually quite good at keeping their superpowered inmates in check. Perhaps the worry is that, while Belle Reve could hold Joker longer, when he did break out he'd be more likely to bring a lot more villains with him.

[Calemyr]

I always thought Batman villains go to Arkham because the legal system isn't willing to treat Batman's takedowns as legitimate arrests. Rather than let them go free, they're placed in the custody of the next best thing: an asylum that's not officially a prison but is better than most prisons anyway. They may escape, but let's face it: it's a comic book. It doesn't matter if you put 'em in Arkham, a supermax superjail, an inescapable pocket dimension, or six feet under, they'll be back soon if they bring in the customers.

I really wish they'd let redemptions stand, and be at least a little more common. They can fall off the wagon once in a while, perhaps, but redeemed villains are the best marker of a superhero's progress in my book.

[Zmeoaice]

Kind of odd how redeemed villains get off mostly scott free once they're redeemed because their powers are useful, while the average crook is left to rot in prison despite probably causing less damage to society.

[veti]

I won't speak for international law - but there is no good reason or context for keeping a law on the books that a pickle is not actually a pickle unless it bounces when dropped (Connecticut state law).

The point is, some of those laws have context that makes them completely reasonable. UK example: "No cows may be driven down the roadway between 10 AM and 7 PM unless there is prior approval from the Commissioner of Police." - speaking as one who's driven behind a herd of cows, that seems pretty reasonable to me. Others are simply misreported ("All land must be left to the eldest son" - no, actually, that wasn't true even in medieval times, let alone modern - or "It is illegal to be drunk on Licensed Premises (in a pub or bar)." - no it's not, what's illegal is for the licensee to sell alcohol to someone who is visibly drunk), or wholly imaginary ("Excluding Sundays, it is perfectly legal to shoot a Scotsman with a bow and arrow." - no it really isn't, and I'd hate to hear of someone putting that to the test.)

[BRC]

I always thought Batman villains go to Arkham because the legal system isn't willing to treat Batman's takedowns as legitimate arrests. Rather than let them go free, they're placed in the custody of the next best thing: an asylum that's not officially a prison but is better than most prisons anyway. They may escape, but let's face it: it's a comic book. It doesn't matter if you put 'em in Arkham, a supermax superjail, an inescapable pocket dimension, or six feet under, they'll be back soon if they bring in the customers.

I really wish they'd let redemptions stand, and be at least a little more common. They can fall off the wagon once in a while, perhaps, but redeemed villains are the best marker of a superhero's progress in my book.


Kind of odd how redeemed villains get off mostly scott free once they're redeemed because their powers are useful, while the average crook is left to rot in prison despite probably causing less damage to society.

Part of that is the nature of comics and the sliding timescale.

In-Universe, it may have only been a year or two since The Riddler did something horrific that killed a hundred people. But in the real world it's been five years. Artists stopped drawing the rubble the issue after the arc was resolved, and writers stopped mentioning it a few years ago. Meanwhile, the writer wants to tell the story of the "Redeemed Riddler", rather than do the legwork to explain the legal process required to get somebody like The Riddler released as a free citizen.

As for Gotham, I have a personal headcanon on how a bizzare revolving door legal system works.

The legal system takes time, and while most Villains can escape from Arkham, they would totally bust their way out of standard lock up, even in the time it would take a judge to deny them bail and get them off to proper prison.

In addition, the supervillains rarely surrender. They're usually brought in after Batman or one of his little helpers beats the snot out of them, which means they're in bad shape, usually requiring medical attention (Getting punched into unconciousness is REALLY BAD FOR YOU). You don't let The Joker or Scarecrow run wild in a hospital, and a pair of handcuffs to the bed wont do it most of the time. So, the system is set up to cart these villains straight to Arkham, which is set up to handle medical treatment and containment.

Once they're in Arkham, they're patients at a mental institution, so they can be held there while the legal system does it's thing. How they got there (batman beat them up and dropped them off) is less relevant for a mental institution than for a police station. Eventually, somebody might actually be charged with a crime, but it's legally easier to put them in Arkham.

As for the non-supercriminals. The thugs and henchmen, they get offered nice plea deals on a regular basis. The Supercriminals don't just commit crimes, they often build up infrastructure, stashing weapons and money and bands of henchmen around the city. Breaking down that infrastructure before somebody else finds it is more important to the GCPD than keeping a two-bit henchman off the streets. In addition, the legal system moves slowly. Plea deals are a lot faster. If they bring in, say, ten henchmen after Batman foils Two-Face's latest scheme, that's ten lengthy trials to conduct, which is a big drain on public resources. Plea deals send them away for a year with little fuss.
Perhaps most importantly, this system ensures that Supervillain Gangs are usually full of seasoned veteran professional henchmen, rather than over-eager, trigger happy star-struck rookies. These Professionals make a big show about being eager to serve whoever they're working for this week, but they know the score, and they know a few rules. They always get paid up front
so they can use the cash after they get out. While they happily accept whatever weapons their employers provide, they keep a level head and almost never actually pull the trigger (If you actually killed somebody, the chances of getting a plea deal go WAY down). When Batman arrives they make a show of rushing him, then stay down after one hit/pretend to get knocked unconscious. If they get captured and the Villain escapes, they'll trip over themselves to rat out his safehouse. These Professionals know how the police work, they don't panic under pressure and start firefights, they have lengthy files full of distinguishing marks and known associates (Making them easier to track down). If they manage to get away they'll live off their up-front money rather than try to hold up convenience stores or something. Plus, they tend to edge novice criminals out of serious henchman work.

So, both Batman and the GCPD find it beneficial to keep these seasoned veterans of crime on the streets. Two-Face is going to end up with a gang regardless, he's charismatic and a legend in the Gotham Underworld. It's better that his gang be made up of cool-headed professionals rather than over-eager kids who can't wait to use those shiny automatic weapons.
Meanwhile, the real Killers get taken off the streets, as all their more cool-headed comrades testify against them right away.

[Lethologica]

As for Gotham, I have a personal headcanon on how a bizzare revolving door legal system works.

The legal system takes time, and while most Villains can escape from Arkham, they would totally bust their way out of standard lock up, even in the time it would take a judge to deny them bail and get them off to proper prison.

In addition, the supervillains rarely surrender. They're usually brought in after Batman or one of his little helpers beats the snot out of them, which means they're in bad shape, usually requiring medical attention (Getting punched into unconciousness is REALLY BAD FOR YOU). You don't let The Joker or Scarecrow run wild in a hospital, and a pair of handcuffs to the bed wont do it most of the time. So, the system is set up to cart these villains straight to Arkham, which is set up to handle medical treatment and containment.

Once they're in Arkham, they're patients at a mental institution, so they can be held there while the legal system does it's thing. How they got there (batman beat them up and dropped them off) is less relevant for a mental institution than for a police station. Eventually, somebody might actually be charged with a crime, but it's legally easier to put them in Arkham.

As for the non-supercriminals. The thugs and henchmen, they get offered nice plea deals on a regular basis. The Supercriminals don't just commit crimes, they often build up infrastructure, stashing weapons and money and bands of henchmen around the city. Breaking down that infrastructure before somebody else finds it is more important to the GCPD than keeping a two-bit henchman off the streets. In addition, the legal system moves slowly. Plea deals are a lot faster. If they bring in, say, ten henchmen after Batman foils Two-Face's latest scheme, that's ten lengthy trials to conduct, which is a big drain on public resources. Plea deals send them away for a year with little fuss.
Perhaps most importantly, this system ensures that Supervillain Gangs are usually full of seasoned veteran professional henchmen, rather than over-eager, trigger happy star-struck rookies. These Professionals make a big show about being eager to serve whoever they're working for this week, but they know the score, and they know a few rules. They always get paid up front
so they can use the cash after they get out. While they happily accept whatever weapons their employers provide, they keep a level head and almost never actually pull the trigger (If you actually killed somebody, the chances of getting a plea deal go WAY down). When Batman arrives they make a show of rushing him, then stay down after one hit/pretend to get knocked unconscious. If they get captured and the Villain escapes, they'll trip over themselves to rat out his safehouse. These Professionals know how the police work, they don't panic under pressure and start firefights, they have lengthy files full of distinguishing marks and known associates (Making them easier to track down). If they manage to get away they'll live off their up-front money rather than try to hold up convenience stores or something. Plus, they tend to edge novice criminals out of serious henchman work.

So, both Batman and the GCPD find it beneficial to keep these seasoned veterans of crime on the streets. Two-Face is going to end up with a gang regardless, he's charismatic and a legend in the Gotham Underworld. It's better that his gang be made up of cool-headed professionals rather than over-eager kids who can't wait to use those shiny automatic weapons.
Meanwhile, the real Killers get taken off the streets, as all their more cool-headed comrades testify against them right away.

This is amazing. One step shy of a Pratchett-esque Henchman's Guild. Thumbs up.

[Calemyr]

The legal system takes time, and while most Villains can escape from Arkham, they would totally bust their way out of standard lock up, even in the time it would take a judge to deny them bail and get them off to proper prison.

In addition, the supervillains rarely surrender. They're usually brought in after Batman or one of his little helpers beats the snot out of them, which means they're in bad shape, usually requiring medical attention (Getting punched into unconciousness is REALLY BAD FOR YOU). You don't let The Joker or Scarecrow run wild in a hospital, and a pair of handcuffs to the bed wont do it most of the time. So, the system is set up to cart these villains straight to Arkham, which is set up to handle medical treatment and containment.

Once they're in Arkham, they're patients at a mental institution, so they can be held there while the legal system does it's thing. How they got there (batman beat them up and dropped them off) is less relevant for a mental institution than for a police station. Eventually, somebody might actually be charged with a crime, but it's legally easier to put them in Arkham.

As for the non-supercriminals. The thugs and henchmen, they get offered nice plea deals on a regular basis. The Supercriminals don't just commit crimes, they often build up infrastructure, stashing weapons and money and bands of henchmen around the city. Breaking down that infrastructure before somebody else finds it is more important to the GCPD than keeping a two-bit henchman off the streets. In addition, the legal system moves slowly. Plea deals are a lot faster. If they bring in, say, ten henchmen after Batman foils Two-Face's latest scheme, that's ten lengthy trials to conduct, which is a big drain on public resources. Plea deals send them away for a year with little fuss.
Perhaps most importantly, this system ensures that Supervillain Gangs are usually full of seasoned veteran professional henchmen, rather than over-eager, trigger happy star-struck rookies. These Professionals make a big show about being eager to serve whoever they're working for this week, but they know the score, and they know a few rules. They always get paid up front
so they can use the cash after they get out. While they happily accept whatever weapons their employers provide, they keep a level head and almost never actually pull the trigger (If you actually killed somebody, the chances of getting a plea deal go WAY down). When Batman arrives they make a show of rushing him, then stay down after one hit/pretend to get knocked unconscious. If they get captured and the Villain escapes, they'll trip over themselves to rat out his safehouse. These Professionals know how the police work, they don't panic under pressure and start firefights, they have lengthy files full of distinguishing marks and known associates (Making them easier to track down). If they manage to get away they'll live off their up-front money rather than try to hold up convenience stores or something. Plus, they tend to edge novice criminals out of serious henchman work.

So, both Batman and the GCPD find it beneficial to keep these seasoned veterans of crime on the streets. Two-Face is going to end up with a gang regardless, he's charismatic and a legend in the Gotham Underworld. It's better that his gang be made up of cool-headed professionals rather than over-eager kids who can't wait to use those shiny automatic weapons.
Meanwhile, the real Killers get taken off the streets, as all their more cool-headed comrades testify against them right away.


Reminds me of a great example of a veteran thug, from the animated movie "Mystery of the Batwoman". Batman is trespassing in a bedroom belonging to a crime boss. Thug walks into the room and stares at Batman. Batman stares straight back. Thug quietly closes the door and walks away. When another thug asks if he saw something, he says no. Batman's world would be so much better if more thugs had common sense.

[The Glyphstone]

If BRC's theory is correct, they do, and Gotham's entire criminal underground is basically just a gigantic stage theater for the benefit of the supervillains, perpetuated by the police and crooks together. The thugs and minions know their parts to play, so they're basically professional stuntmen who put on themed costumes to get knocked around a bit by Batman every few months.

You know, maybe the Gotham Crime Conspiracy is for Batman's benefit too. If he ever truly ran out of supervillains to fight, he might turn to increasing extremes in search of crime to fight and end up a supervillain in his own right (and a terrifyingly dangerous one). With this alternate interpretation, even Batman doesn't realize the thugs are throwing fights with him, and never notices the repeating faces - he just thinks the various goons are the typical low-budget trash, not seasoned veterans pulling their own punches in return.

[BRC]

According to my headcanon, it's not quite large-scale theater. The Henchmen are legitimately invested in the caper...up until Batman shows up. If the plan works and they rob the bank or whatever, huzzah, they'll take the money.

But, once Batman or any of his little helpers shows up, or the GCPD close in, they know the game is up. At that point it all becomes elaborate theater. Wave your guns menacingly in the air, rush the cape, then fall down as soon as nobody's looking. Get arrested, give the cops some info, rat out anybody who looks like they might be actually dangerous, maybe do a few months in jail or in a Work-Release program cleaning up from the last supervillain attack.

It also lets the legal system go a lot smoother. Yeah, anything Batman collects is inadmissible, but the veteran thugs testimonies are perfectly valid.

[Calemyr]

If BRC's theory is correct, they do, and Gotham's entire criminal underground is basically just a gigantic stage theater for the benefit of the supervillains, perpetuated by the police and crooks together. The thugs and minions know their parts to play, so they're basically professional stuntmen who put on themed costumes to get knocked around a bit by Batman every few months.

You know, maybe the Gotham Crime Conspiracy is for Batman's benefit too. If he ever truly ran out of supervillains to fight, he might turn to increasing extremes in search of crime to fight and end up a supervillain in his own right (and a terrifyingly dangerous one). With this alternate interpretation, even Batman doesn't realize the thugs are throwing fights with him, and never notices the repeating faces - he just thinks the various goons are the typical low-budget trash, not seasoned veterans pulling their own punches in return.

Okay, now this is starting to remind me of a whole other reference: Robot Chicken's star wars skits, namely the one about the force-choke skit.

A bunch of Imperial officers are inducting a new member of the crew.
Officer: "Okay, now if Darth Vader tries to use that force-choke move - you know, this one - just go with it."
Recruit: "Really?"
Officer: "Yes. Just fake it, and we'll pretend that you died. We'll give you a new name and a fake mustache and everything will be alright."
Recruit: "And that works?"
Officer: "Yes. This guy over here has been 'killed' four times!" *Motions to a guy with a fake mustache, a fake beard, glasses, and a hat.*
Officer: "He doesn't pay enough attention to notice it."
Recruit: "Why would you go through all this?"
Officer: "Because he has a flipping lightsaber! Which he would use if he knew that force-choke move of his didn't work!"

[JCarter426]

Reminds me of a great example of a veteran thug, from the animated movie "Mystery of the Batwoman". Batman is trespassing in a bedroom belonging to a crime boss. Thug walks into the room and stares at Batman. Batman stares straight back. Thug quietly closes the door and walks away. When another thug asks if he saw something, he says no. Batman's world would be so much better if more thugs had common sense.
That was because Batman had beaten him up earlier in the film. They weren't paying him enough to deal with that again.

[Hiro Protagonest]

That was because Batman had beaten him up earlier in the film. They weren't paying him enough to deal with that again.

Which disproves his point... how?

[JCarter426]

"They're not paying me enough to get beat up by Batman again" is the most sensible response I can imagine.

[The Glyphstone]

I think he's saying its a shame that said thug is unusual, rather than all the thugs in Batman's world being that sensible.

[JCarter426]

Oh, now I'll agree to that.

[Reddish Mage]

According to my headcanon, it's not quite large-scale theater. The Henchmen are legitimately invested in the caper...up until Batman shows up. If the plan works and they rob the bank or whatever, huzzah, they'll take the money.

But, once Batman or any of his little helpers shows up, or the GCPD close in, they know the game is up. At that point it all becomes elaborate theater. Wave your guns menacingly in the air, rush the cape, then fall down as soon as nobody's looking. Get arrested, give the cops some info, rat out anybody who looks like they might be actually dangerous, maybe do a few months in jail or in a Work-Release program cleaning up from the last supervillain attack.

It also lets the legal system go a lot smoother. Yeah, anything Batman collects is inadmissible, but the veteran thugs testimonies are perfectly valid.

For a city virtually underseige by crime, terrorists, super-villains, aliens, you name it. Gotham certainly has a very liberal take on crime.

On a scale of from the "Draco*" to "Lemming", I think Gotham lies somewhere between "bleeding heart hippie" and "The Charmings of Once Upon a Time**."


*Greek Lawgiver (death penalty for everything)

**After the way the Charmings have treated the Evil Queen and Rumplestiltskin, they are clearly testing the bounds of pacifism and entering Lemming territory.

[Cheesegear]

I think he's saying its a shame that said thug is unusual, rather than all the thugs in Batman's world being that sensible.

Except that's Batman's M.O.
He's The Bat to strike the fear of the night into his enemies. Except most of Batman's enemies aren't even afraid of him. Way to fail.

[Benthesquid]

If BRC's theory is correct, they do, and Gotham's entire criminal underground is basically just a gigantic stage theater for the benefit of the supervillains, perpetuated by the police and crooks together. The thugs and minions know their parts to play, so they're basically professional stuntmen who put on themed costumes to get knocked around a bit by Batman every few months.

You know, maybe the Gotham Crime Conspiracy is for Batman's benefit too. If he ever truly ran out of supervillains to fight, he might turn to increasing extremes in search of crime to fight and end up a supervillain in his own right (and a terrifyingly dangerous one). With this alternate interpretation, even Batman doesn't realize the thugs are throwing fights with him, and never notices the repeating faces - he just thinks the various goons are the typical low-budget trash, not seasoned veterans pulling their own punches in return.

This was one of the ministories presented in "Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader?"

[TheThan]

Except that's Batman's M.O.
He's The Bat to strike the fear of the night into his enemies. Except most of Batman's enemies aren't even afraid of him. Way to fail.

Well yeah, why would you fear batman. After it gets around that he doesn’t kill; nobody will actually be terrified of him. Sure he's slightly frightening in that outfit, and he does a great jump scare, but he's not going to kill you. I doubt he'd go so far as to do any enough damage to threaten someone's life with a beating.

[Lethologica]

Well yeah, why would you fear batman. After it gets around that he doesn’t kill; nobody will actually be terrified of him. Sure he's slightly frightening in that outfit, and he does a great jump scare, but he's not going to kill you. I doubt he'd go so far as to do any enough damage to threaten someone's life with a beating.
*cough*
"Advice from a pro: pick a better spot. A fall from this height wouldn't kill me."
"I'm counting on it." *lets go*

[Rogar Demonblud]

Because actually getting laws repealed is vastly easier than ignoring them.

I think you mean repealing is harder than just ignoring them. The principle is called 'salutary neglect', and it crops up regularly in governance.

[The Glyphstone]

I think you mean repealing is harder than just ignoring them. The principle is called 'salutary neglect', and it crops up regularly in governance.

Erg. Yeah, I had those backwards. But that's exactly what I am talking about.

[Saintheart]

*cough*
"Advice from a pro: pick a better spot. A fall from this height wouldn't kill me."
"I'm counting on it." *lets go*

Yeah. And even with that level of pain and suffering inflicted, the guy still wouldn't give up the Joker's location.