Detective Comics #944

[history79]

Comments

[caivu]

As much as I want to say the First Victim is Alfred Stryker, the fact that FV is being kept androgynous makes me wonder.

Really interested to know why the VS is targeting Steph specifically, other than the obvious.

[zechs80]

You think the leader of the VS is Cluemaster too don't you?

[caivu]

Nope, I don't. If it *is* one of the Browns, it's Crystal, even though that doesn't make much sense. It makes no sense for it to be Arthur, either.

[mrstatham]

It'd be a much more intimidating villain aesthetic if it didn't look like someone had haphazardly tipped a tin of Dulux over the latest Clive Barker design.

[caivu]

That's part of what I love about it, and the rest of their looks. Three of them aren't even wearing costumes at all. That helps sell the idea that they're just a bunch of schmucks who got hurt by Batman's actions and are rightly pissed off about it. They don't have any funding and whatnot.

On the other hand, the First Victim and Madame Crow just go in the opposite direction, of trying way too hard to look scary. I think that's kinda great.

[jlbarnett]

they didn't get hurt by Batman's action

[caivu]

Oh, you get what I mean. They all got caught in attacks or situations that were intended for Batman. No Batman, no attacks that disfigured or otherwise hurt them. It's not a direct link, but it's close enough for them to have a legitimate issue.

And the First Victim makes it sound like they *were* directly hurt by him, and if they're who I think they are, then they definitely do.

[jlbarnett]

I don't accept it though, because if Batman wasn't there they'd have been hurt by the villains who were targeting the police or just commiting a crime

[caivu]

Exactly, that's the point. I don't think the VS believes that any of Gotham's villains would exist if not for Batman. No Batman, no villains who rise up in response to him, as one theory goes. No villains, no getting hurt by them.

They're also blaming Batman for widespread property damage and the like, which is accurate. They themselves may not have been directly hurt by him, but they're appealing to the rest of Gotham, to reach out to others who were. And they're accusing the GCPD of enabling hus behavior, which is also true.

Any way you slice it, they do have a point.

[jlbarnett]

no, because I agree with the Batman the Animated Series ep where the villains admit they'd probably be doing the same thing jsut maybe in a different way.

The way I slice it they're full of shit

[caivu]

...you realize that doesn't make sense, right? Using a non-canon source like that?

Why are they full of shit? Batman does protect the city, that's true. But he also causes a lot of damage and harm while doing so. That's their main point, and they're not wrong.

[jlbarnett]

because I believe it was accurate characterization

[caivu]

Okay, that's fine, but do you have an actual reason, or...?

In other words, why do you think it was accurate characterization? Accurate compared to what?

[jlbarnett]

compared to the idea that in a world without batman his enemies wouldn't be committing crimes

[caivu]

And what are you basing that on?

I was asking about the characterization, by the way. You called the BtAS characterization accurate. All right, fine. Accurate to what?

[jlbarnett]

my opinion

And what are you basing the idea they wouldn't be on

[caivu]

That's not how it works. You can't base arguments on your own opinion. You have to base them on evidence. In this case, you need to base them on something from the main DCU that supports your position, not from the animated shows, since those happen in a different universe and have no bearing on the comics.
That's what I'm at least trying to do here.

[jlbarnett]

well you're seriously starting to get on my nerves and you have no evidence supporting your claim either. We're arguing characterization here

[caivu]

That's true, we are. But you're using examples from BtAS to support your interpretations of characters from the comics. That doesn't work because those are two unrelated universes. You'd need to find something from the main universe comics to back up what you're saying.

The "why" of the VS remains to be seen, that's also true, but based on their backstories it seems a reasonable interpretation that they would blame Batman for their misfortunes. Maybe not at first. Maybe they were guided in that by the First Victim, and are striking back because they feel they have a cause now, a means for revenge. We'll see.
But they're absolutely not wrong about Batman causing property damage. We only need to look back to Night of the Monster Men to find examples of that. That alone would be a fair reason to be against him, and that sounds like a way they're trying to convince the rest of Gotham to join them.

[jlbarnett]

I didn't use it as evidence I said I agreed with the characterization
And considering the property damage that would happen without him no it isn't a good enough arguement

[caivu]

That's okay if you like that interpretation, but if there's nothing in the comics to back that up that same sort of thing, it doesn't really matter in this case.

The VS's argument doesn't need to be good from our standpoint. We as readers can recognize that it may be weak, but people in Gotham, who are dealing with the sort of things we never will, would be easier to convince. They remember all the damage associated with Batman over the years, most recently the monster attack. And it's not like bad things really stop happening in Gotham at all.

So if they were presented with the idea that Batman is at the root of all Gotham's problems, and that removing him and his allies will fix things... well, I imagine they'd at least pay a bit of attention. The VS has made that pitch now, at least to a few people.

[joetuss]

I guess it's easier to be angry with the firefighter, than the fire itself

[caivu]

If the firefighter manages to damage other buildings during the course of his work, or inadvertantly hits people with high-pressure water while spraying, then yes, that would be a reasonable reaction.

[lizard_of_aus]

Maybe so, but too many superhero stories nowadays are slipping into the habit of having muggles getting caught in the crossfire and then blaming the people that saved the day. Not that that's anything new in comics, but you'd think they'd try harder to address the logic gaps in this day and age.

[caivu]

What logic gaps? I don't think this is a logical situation, but an emotional one. It's very easy to shift the blame around in high-stress situations like that, even when there's no one at all to blame.

[lizard_of_aus]

The muggles aren't the only ones leaving logic out the situation, though. Take for example the movie version of Civil War. Thunderbolt Ross lays the damage for New York at the Avengers' feet, and not one man or woman in the room thinks to point out that if they hadn't done something, the World Council would have nuked the isle of Manhattan in the ultimate display of pissing in the wind.

[caivu]

Did any of them know about that? I didn't think anyone other than Nick Fury did.
Even if they did know, none of that changes the fact that they still caused a lot of damage themselves, and New York wasn't the only situation Ross was talking about anyway. And didn't the World Council try to nuke everything in spite of what the Avengers were doing? Because then that argument of "we had to do something, or else nuke" falls apart.
I'm not seeing a logic issue here, sorry.

[lizard_of_aus]

All right, fine, maybe logic wasn't the term I was looking for. Still, if Iron Man hadn't flown the missile through the portal, then Manhattan would be a smouldering wasteland and it would all be the World Council's fault. In Civil War, if Scarlet Witch had done absolutely anything other than lift the bomb into the air, there would be a hell of a lot more people dead. In Age of Ultron, if...okay never mind, Ultron was kind of Tony's fault to begin with.

My main point is, I'm about sick and tired of stories wherein the heroes are blamed ENTIRELY for averting disaster in the least damaging way humanly possible, and then having no adequate rebuttal for all the ingrates who should have learned by now.

[caivu]

Are there really that many stories of the type you're talking about (as in, enough to get sick of)? I'm not doubting you, I just don't know of more than a handful.

[lizard_of_aus]

Hrmm...To be honest, I'm trying to think of any other superhero stories, but my mind keeps drifting to films, cartoons, TV shows, web shows and even story-based adverts where this kind of discussion crops up. Maybe that's why I'm so tired of it: immerse yourself in enough fiction and you start seeing the same annoying stories everywhere. Either that or the first example stuck in my mind enough to get excessively annoyed at.

[donnblake]

These guys look a little less silly than the last iteration of a group like this. What happened to the guy with the Batarang sticking out of his head, or the Bat-boot-print on his face?

[donnblake]

These guys look a little less silly than the last iteration of a group like this. What happened to the guy with the Batarang sticking out of his head, or the Bat-boot-print on his face?