BvS Is Gotham City better (safer) with Batman in it?

Is Gotham City better (safer) with Batman in it?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Other- (Explain Below)


Results are only viewable after voting.

Herolee10

No More Miracles
Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
30,137
Reaction score
6,656
Points
103
Couldn't figure out where else I should put this thread, so I figured that it would be okay over here... for now.

So basically, my question to everyone is...

"Is Gotham City better with Batman in it?"


One of the things that I have noticed in a lot of takes of his character is that even though there was a lot of corruption in the city before Bruce took on the mantle of Batman, it's only after that he starts operating as Batman that more crazy and even powerful villains start emerging within there.

Some villains owe their very existence, albeit unintentionally, because of Batman's actions (aka the Joker and Red Hood).

So do you guys see Gotham as still being better off with Batman being there?
 
Batman's World

Gotham is probably better with the effort he puts into it.



This issue does a good job showing how Gotham could have been like if not for Batman being part of it.
 
I can see how it can come off that Batman is the cause of the calamities in Gotham since he essentially created the vacuum that his rogues gallery filled after taking out the organized crime element or at least weakened them to the point where gangs run by costumed criminals were an alternative power in the underworld. Still, on balance he saves lives. Period. He avenges the dead and brings justice to those who would otherwise go unpunished. The problem in Gotham isn't the Batman. I think the main problem is the apathetic citizens that let Gotham sink to the level it did. Batman can't touch everyone in the city's heart or conscience but if he could it would be a much different place.
 
Batman should just let Jason Todd do what he wanted to originally do, take control over crime.
Having an ally helping clean the city from the top of the crime business (and it is business in those worlds) could be helpful, especially since he is unable to change Jason's attitude.
 
It depends on what was the state of Gotham before he became Batman.

I like to think that Gotham already slipped so much into darkness and became a pisshole that such an extreme measure had to be applied. I believe it is a better place, in the manner that Batman serves as a short-term cure and keep it from completely succumbing to disease and dying (it would be a long-term cure, if he would kill the criminals, but he wouldn't be allowed to operate if he did so). If we go by the "Year One" comic, police was corrupt, politicians were either in deal with mafia or completely uninterested to try and fight it and common citizens were just to indifferent and drained of life to try to change anything, even if they could. So city was on verge of completely going to hell, when he decides to fight that and act as a protector of its citizens.

There is also that theory that he accidentally created more colorful and dangerous Gotham's rogues and actually made it a worse place and it isn't without reason. But if only other alternative was to let the city die and as long as he's still there fighting for common people and keeping the balance, I believe that he did make a right choice and Gotham a better place. Or, more correctly, makes it a better place whenever he dons the cowl and goes on patrol.

In a sense, Gotham was already doomed, it will never be a pleasant place to live in and his crusade can never really have an end, he'll never eradicate the crime completely (though, again, according to "Year One", along with Gordon he eliminated corruption and made police force be what it is supposed to be) and his crimefighting is an never-ending loop. But for so many people that have no alternative, but to live there, he's very much needed and he's there, every night. That is the tragedy and the sacrifice of the character.

And if Gotham was already of need of someone as Batman to keep it alive, then his crusade is more than justified.
 
Gotham would be in a much worse state if Batman didn't exist.
 
Gotham would be in a much worse state if Batman didn't exist.
Indeed. There's a Superman: TAS episode where Batman is absent from Gotham for a short while and crime goes up 15 percent.
 
I voted no. Batman himself is not a sane person, plus he brings out the craziness in others escalating their behavior to theatrical proportions. Gotham would not have nearly as many crazys to the extreme if not for Batman.
 
I think Gotham was doomed either way.but I voted no because of the same reasons others have mention that he brings the extremist out.
 
Within the fictional confines of the DC Comics universe where real-world logic doesn't apply, yes, Gotham is safer with Batman in it.
 
What's the point of having a hero if city is better without him?
 
A personal battle of obsession, guilt, anger, and willpower for Bruce Wayne. I always loved batman for that. The dark knight trilogy, yes.
 
Still no.

If you understand that Batman is essentially a power fantasy, the answer is yes. It's ultimately up to the author, though, because we're dealing with fictional content here. If you endeavor to write a make-believe story where Batman's presence makes a difference in a city where the criminal element is prevalent and most of the cops are corrupt, that's just what it is. You (as the author) decide. In similar fashion, you can write a bunch of comics about Superman where no one ever sees through his Clark Kent disguise. It's your story. You make the rules. You don't even have to extrapolate. There are plenty of "what if scenarios" published by DC over the years; and most (if not all) of them depict Gotham as being the worse for the wear in the absence of a Batman.
 
If Batman never comes onto the scene then it would just be anarchy where anything goes.
 
I think the answer is yes, BUT I also think vigilante justice is not the way to go. Then again, Gotham is a ****ing cesspool.
 
I wonder how Gotham is doing in the present in this universe seeing as we could be getting a Batman who was retired.
 
I guess one potential way of looking at this topic is, which is Gotham better facing off against?

The Mob and Corrupt Officials without Batman's Aid?

Or a Group of Super Villains and Worldwide Terrorists with Batman's Aid?


Plus, isn't Batman being in Gotham the reason why the likes of Ra's Al Ghul targets Gotham so many times? And if it wasn't for Batman, the likes of the Joker (who's like the city's biggest curse/plague) wouldn't exist.

But yeah, it's really a no win situation at times when it comes to this.
 
Ultimately yes, but they'd be even safer with a more stable superhero living there.
 
The Mob and Corrupt Officials without Batman's Aid?

Or a Group of Super Villains and Worldwide Terrorists with Batman's Aid?

But yeah, it's really a no win situation at times when it comes to this.

Both of those reasons are why Gotham is known to be a very dangerous to be in.

A certain segment of the public would be protest-hungry/revolutionanists, since they blame the system for the bad things happening to the city.

And how some would blame Batman for the city getting worse, because of the villians. :whatever:
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
201,844
Messages
22,034,123
Members
45,829
Latest member
AheadOfTheCurve
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"