Comic Vine News

91 Comments

Off My Mind: Should Batman Be Promoting Vigilantism?

Is Batman Inc creating an army of vigilantes?

Batman is considered one of the greatest heroes in comics. With the creation of Batman Incorporated, Batman is taking his war against crime on a global level. As Batman and Bruce Wayne, he will be traveling to locate and set up Batmen in different countries. Is Bruce Wayne trying to create an army of vigilantes around the world? 
 
In the recent Detective Comics Annual #12, Bruce Wayne goes to Paris, France and informs the head of the Police Nationale that he is expanding his Batman Inc franchise into their country. He doesn't ask for permission but simply tells him this is what he's doing.  
 
When questioned about setting up a franchise of masked vigilantes, Bruce replies that their representatives are strictly regulated from their central office but will also be answerable to the head of the French police force.  
 
Batman isn't one to make brash decisions but is he out of line in thrusting his Batman Inc idea on other nations? 
 == TEASER == 
Bruce refers to Batman Inc as a peace keeping agency but that's just fancy talk for the way he bullied his way on the French. Even if they are answerable to the head of police, the Batman Inc operatives are still operating outside the law. 
 
If people are willing to accept an American peace keeping agency into their country, what's to prevent others (with ulterior motives) in trying to set up similar groups? This could inspire even more vigilantism by individuals not trained or approved by Batman.  
 
There's also the possibility of random people dressing up in homemade Bat-costumes and trying to operate under the Batman Inc umbrella. How will the authorities tell one Batman representative from another? We have Bruce and Dick dressed as Batman. We know the difference is in the costume and Bat-symbol but others won't necessarily know that. 
 
There's also the question of accountability. Is Wayne Enterprises responsible for any actions or damage caused by a Batman? Perhaps that should be a discussion for another day.  
 
Batman is breaking the law. He has the best intentions but he's now encouraging and helping others to break the law in their own countries. The different representatives don't need to disclose their identities to the local authorities. They may work with or be answerable to the local police but I doubt they'll be taking direct orders from them. Is Batman Inc a peace keeping agency or a bunch of masked vigilantes
91 Comments
  • 91 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by Eyz
Vigilantism is good~
 
Huh..? What? Did I wrote that?
 Anyway, let's not forget that in the end of the day, the Batman Inc acts in the DCUniverse, a place that as seen a Manhunters invasion, multiple universes crisises, people raising from the dead, colorful Villains United and many more fantastic events~
I can imagine why cops/the law/goverments would accept these "super" men.

Posted by FadeToBlackBolt

I'm not afraid to say it, Vigilantism is good. It's a necessity in our corrupt world.

Edited by Emperor Gonzo Noir

I long questioned why Bruce Wayne didn't immediately get arrested for admitting that he had been funding a vigilante (himself) for years. 
There is a website called Law and the Multiverse. They give the theory that Batman acts as a state actor or some who acts on the behalf of a government body 
 
here's an excerpt :
 
Commissioner Gordon is certainly a person for whom the State is responsible, and Batman often acts together with Gordon and obtains significant aid from Gordon in the form of information and evidence. Batman's conduct is also otherwise chargeable to the State because the Gotham Police Department has worked with Batman on numerous occasions (and thus knows his methods) and operates the Bat Signal, expressly invoking Batman's assistance in a traditionally public function. This suggests state action under the public function theory: "when private individuals or groups are endowed by the State with powers or functions governmental in nature, they become agencies or instrumentalities of the State and subject to its constitutional limitations." Evans v. Newton, 382 U.S. 296, 299 (1966).

Edited by FoxxFireArt

Isn't Bruce kind of talking out of both sides of his mouth with the issue? First he tells the French government that they have no choice of having a Batman franchise, then tells them this Batman would be accountable to the French government. How can you be accountable to someone who has no real choice or ability to remove?

The whole reason Gotham needs a Batman is because the police are just not in a position to really take care of crime. It's so deeply seeded and corruption is rampant. When you think about all the resources that are going to be spread across the globe. They would work better to taking care of the corruption of Gotham. Investigating and removing corrupt officials.
 
It just strikes me as off that Bruce, a private citizen, as the power and influence to strong arm a foreign nation, but lacks any power to solve corruption in his own city. Does the Secretary of State know about this??

" Bruce refers to Batman Inc as a peace keeping agency "

Isn't  that the Justice League??
 
Before when Batman or someone associated with Batman caused damages or injury. No one knew where to go. Now, everyone knows to look to Wayne Enterprises for responsibility. You know this can't last, but how do you pull back from something this huge? From now on, peole will always wonder if Batman is being connected to Bruce. He's linked to criminal vigilantism on a global scale.
Posted by FadeToBlackBolt
@Emperor Gonzo Noir: One could argue that he just enforces Citizen's Arrests in conjunction with the police force while operating on a semi-sanctioned "Private Detective" license.
Posted by Baron_Emo

I can almost see this getting out of hand, and the JL has to put a stop to this. I can see a big even with Batman Inc. vs the DCU.

Edited by evo23

I honestly don't see how this whole enterprise doesn't fail. Batman and by extension Wayne Enterprises is now financing its own private army. No matter how hard you screen people you always make a mistake Batman himself has been guilty of this. One of these Batmen is going to screw up, turn on Batman or take things farther than Bruce intended. He can't be everywhere at once that's the whole point of Batman Inc. but you end up with a "Who watches the Batmen?" scenario I see Batman stretching himself too thin and this thing crashing down all around him. A team of highly trained, armed and extremely well financed people just told your government they don't know how to police themselves or you and they will be taking over. Somehow i just don't see this being accepted everywhere.

Posted by Theodore
@FadeToBlackBolt said:
" I'm not afraid to say it, Vigilantism is good. It's a necessity in our corrupt world. "
true that
Posted by Nova`Prime`

Batman has officially become the Tony Stark of the DCU, after all Stark's funding of the Avengers is one of the reasons why he had to take it apart because it was costing him to much money. And we all saw how that worked out for him. But yeah I don't see how Bruce has the pull to tell a government that they need a Batman, then again these are the French we're talking about and they love to cave to any a moment of pressure.
 
Also hasn't Batman been building a vigilanty army since the introduction of Robin? I mean Robin, Nightwing, Oracle, Batgirl, Huntress, sometimes Catwoman the list could probably go on but I am not that familiar with all the characters Batman brought into the fold. And this from the man who didn't want other Supers in his town.

Posted by InnerVenom123
@Baron_Emo said:
" I can almost see this getting out of hand, and the JL has to put a stop to this. I can see a big even with Batman Inc. vs the DCU. "
Yeah. That'll last about ten seconds when the big guns of the JL are called in....
Posted by blaakmawf

No, and that is what makes this so interesting.

Posted by InnerVenom123

This is such a stupid idea. 
 
Wayne's company is responsible. If he HADN'T revealed he was funding Batman, this might seem more plausible.
 
Oh well. It's not.

Edited by johnny_spam
Posted by FadeToBlackBolt
@InnerVenom123 said:
" This is such a stupid idea.   Wayne's company is responsible. If he HADN'T revealed he was funding Batman, this might seem more plausible.  Oh well. It's not. "

I tend to agree, despite my almost unhealthy love for Batman, Morrison and Morrison's Batman run so far (R.I.P being one of the best trades ever, imo), I too am very hesitant as to how this could possibly work out well, both in and out of the story itself.
Posted by NightFang
@blaakmawf said:
" No, and that is what makes this so interesting. "
Posted by dondasch

Appreciating superheroes is one thing, forcing an ideology on an entirely different country with its own set of rules and regulations is another.  My question though is this:  What happens when someone, such as a head of state, etc says no to Mr. Wayne and actively goes after him, engages the JL, etc ?  Now that would be interesting to have Batman vs the JL. 

Posted by tgaxgriffenx

FoxxFireArt  It makes so much more sense to use these resources to rid Gothem of the crime and corruption and then move to the next hot spot. Bruce's mobile Bat-Army can go around the world cleaning up  hot-spots  and  criminally   corrupt  areas world wide. Would this be too efficient? Would Batman really have a chance at stopping crime if he had 15 other Batmen  trained  by him to help? And if he did stop crime then what would he do? I think he would sit around and play CLUE to hone his detective skills and deductive reasoning.

Edited by DMC

poor poor planet Earth.............so many vigilantes and super powered beings just strutting around doing as they please "for the greater good".....I think
 

Posted by Grim
@blaakmawf said:
" No, and that is what makes this so interesting. "
ditto.
 im more interested to see exactly how this goes wrong. Is one of the Batmen going to start Murdering the others? Is some Batvillain (Jason maybe) going to start killing off the lesser trained Bats? is the JLA gonna go head up with Batman Inc.? Or is Bruce going to realize the error of his ways and take down all of his Bats himself?

Posted by Joe Venom

Hes in waaay over his head, I think were looking at the future fall of Wayne Enterprises. Has any other superheroes pulled Bruce to the side and tell him he may be going too far with this.

Posted by entropy_aegis

Vigilantism=good 
and DC earth isnt as smart as some people think,i mean the morons elected lex luthor as president.and batman met carla bruni in the annual(off panel)
Posted by Jotham

More like promoting awesomeness.

Posted by Ellocobruja

On our world this would be wrong. 
Very wrong.... 
 
But looking at the history of the DC earth  I say do it! It's needed. 
If you really look at it from the point of view that  as a nortmal person in the DCU if you want to live to 80  you have two choices hide in an underground bunker or accept the hfact that the only true power in the world is vigilante and super powers. 
 
Batman is just doing the right thing (With little tact) by letting the world know you are not in charge, we are in charge and we just let you think you're in charge. 
 
 
 
Posted by Grouchy224

Batman? promoting Vigilantism with an army of Batmen (not to mention the child protege's he's had the past 70 or so years?) DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Posted by They Killed Cap!

I always felt that Batman was kinda an oximoron. On many occasions he denounced other viglantes because he didn't feel their methods or skills were up to par. In essence he knows he's the best and and trust only his judgement (excluding the most of the robins). With that being said I feel this new direction of Batman Inc. is a complete funemental shift from this approach and attitude. I don't like the new direction.

Posted by Jerry Seinfeld

I don't know if he's supporting vigilantism but if he is I like it. I like the idea of people putting the law into their own hands.
Posted by thatlad

Maybe that's the point, Bruce is taking on too much and this is part of his downfall. The Batman name is tarnished and it leads to Dick disposing of the Batman identity

Posted by InnerVenom123
@Ellocobruja said:
" On our world this would be wrong. Very wrong....  But looking at the history of the DC earth  I say do it! It's needed. If you really look at it from the point of view that  as a nortmal person in the DCU if you want to live to 80  you have two choices hide in an underground bunker or accept the hfact that the only true power in the world is vigilante and super powers.  Batman is just doing the right thing (With little tact) by letting the world know you are not in charge, we are in charge and we just let you think you're in charge.     "
So Batman's a dictator? Great.
Posted by THEBlaqueBasterd

 Cant believe how many of my esteemed Vine Colleagues are missin the POINT.. he isnt forcing ideaologies on anyone or forcing govs to do anything.. Just because he didnt "ask permission" doesnt necessarily mean hes SAYIN u have no CHOICE. He could have setup Bat Cells in Paris/Japan &not told nyone, but he chose to inform the correct guys of his impendin prescence so they would know the deal, u also have to remember Bruce is a master strategist and will have researched all the Commisioners/Superintendants/Commandants prior to even approachin them everythin from what party they support to wether ther crooked or left/right wing or would PERSONALLY even support such a move in the first place..

Your ALSO forgettin that each of these cities already HAVE there own (if not quite as well trained/funded) vigilante networks.. gettin things done under the radar on whats most likely a shoestring budget.. who no doubt Bats has already got DETAILED dossiers on esp as to who would fit into this new network... Your all thinkin a lil too small, too petty &WAY TOO "REAL WORLD Politique" for my liking here..These ARESTILL COMICS afterall?
 But to each his own..  I can understand the apprehension..
PERSONALLY I didnt/dont even think this Inc storyline should be happening, but not for the same reasons some of you have expressed..

But because its like a baby monster that theyll have no idea what to do with once it starts growin &takin on a life of its own...I just hope they dont turn Bruce into a sad Dyonisian version of Stark...Cause there are certain INHERENT chaaracter traits/failsafes that have concistently been written/hadwired int Buce to just NEVER allow that to happen.. so if thas where there headed theyre just plannin to piss allover the ideaology of The Bat...
THAT would be a lot more uncool... than havin a French Batman

Posted by OnlyWonderBoy

I think everyone is too hung up on the logistics of it all. As it's been stated, in a word of alien invasions and the dead rising, why can't we just suspend out disbelief that  Wayne Enterprises can fund Batman without any repercussions from the law.

Posted by grrlgenius
@Ellocobruja said:
"On our world this would be wrong. Very wrong....  But looking at the history of the DC earth  I say do it! It's needed. If you really look at it from the point of view that  as a nortmal person in the DCU if you want to live to 80  you have two choices hide in an underground bunker or accept the hfact that the only true power in the world is vigilante and super powers.  Batman is just doing the right thing (With little tact) by letting the world know you are not in charge, we are in charge and we just let you think you're in charge.     "

Well said 
 
Edited by Roldan

Yeah, they'll probably announce "Batman: Bruce Wayne vs. Batman Inc. soon.
 
Can't wait!

Posted by Mainline
@onlywonderboy said:
" I think everyone is too hung up on the logistics of it all. As it's been stated, in a word of alien invasions and the dead rising, why can't we just suspend out disbelief that  Wayne Enterprises can fund Batman without any repercussions from the law. "
Logistics aren't the end-all and be-all to quality writing, we can certainly get past them, but the question is why did the story confront us with it then?  If Batman Inc has no real accountability and no real cooperation, why write in a scene to make a point of it when the same story could be told without it at all? 
 
For example, in the film Avatar, we get the epic gathering of the tribes from every corner and culture of Pandora to create an army en masse for the final confrontation.  Wonderful, great, it pulls it off without a hitch and few would ever question it nor should they.  However, let's say they suddenly injected a scene about supply chains, material support, food, water, latrines, etc.  Then went about their merry way fighting the Sky People.  At that point, since the film confronted you with the issue, it would make sense for audiences to start questioning... "Hey, if they're so ecologically minded, wouldn't all the food, water, and waste requirements of such a large force utterly decimate the local ecology?  Even if they all held it in and didn't eat or drink a bite, wouldn't the sheer mass and volume create a destructive swath the way the masses do through national parks?  How are they supporting all that biomass?" and so on. 
 
If the Batman story itself raises questions of law, accountability, cooperation, and roles... how is it at all unreasonable for the audience to take a look at those things?
Posted by Darksied

Bruce is gonna go bankrupt paying for all of this.
Posted by Mainline
@THEBlaqueBasterd said:
"  who no doubt Bats has already got DETAILED dossiers on esp as to who would fit into this new network... "
That definitely isn't true of Nightrunner who they didn't recognize at all when he appeared and they chased him down.  We don't know what recruitment entails or what Batman Inc actually is at this point, but since we know Nightrunner is going to be amongst the first of those inducted, there's a serious question of quality control with respect to "franchising"... essentially a guy Batman doesn't know, never heard of, and is equipped only with the skill of ~2 years worth of amateur free-running is suddenly qualified to constitute a Batman? 
 
And that's part of the question challenging the idea, because Batman has always been more about his own psychosis and personal attachment to both his mission and his city... it was never about efficacy per se, which is why he hasn't been running around in an Insider styled suit all along, overcoming his discomfort with guns (killing Darkseid with a gun represented a triumph of pragmatism over his own issues with guns and killing), he didn't reject children in favor of adult disciples, and so on.  Now that he's shifted into trying to be effective- powered suits, more Batmen, etc.- it's less clear what the point of his mission is when you get diluted examples of what he considers "Batman Inc" worthy if Nightrunner qualifies or if Bruce Wayne's stunt constitute diplomacy, cooperations, and accountability. 
 
Batman Inc is still, as of yet (there are more Bat issues coming out today that I haven't read), very ill defined so it's difficult to critique but equally difficult to justify support for it based on in-story reasons.  If it's all just a vehicle for new Bat characters and international stories, that might be fine and enjoyable, but the story is still asking us to consider rationales, purpose, and plausibility at this point.
Posted by Mainline
@G-Man said:  
 

"

1. Should Batman be promoting vigilantism?

2. Is Bruce Wayne trying to create an army of vigilantes around the world? 

3. Batman isn't one to make brash decisions but is he out of line in thrusting his Batman Inc idea on other nations? 
  
4. How will the authorities tell one Batman representative from another?  

5. Is Wayne Enterprises responsible for any actions or damage caused by a Batman? 
 
6. Is Batman Inc a peace keeping agency or a bunch of masked vigilantes?  "
0. Initial comment, vigilantism on the whole in the real world is bad.  The KKK was a vigilante group, "honor killings" constitute vigilantism, lynch mobs, prison reprisals, etc. there are very few examples of real world vigilantism worthy of praise.  The essential function of vigilantism is to fill the gap when the law isn't enforced... the problem is "what law?" and "how?" because some may default to what they consider natural law, religious or cultural law, or other "laws" that aren't actually written, ratified, accepted, etc. and even if the law to be enforced is one that's on the books and accepted, the "how" of enforcement tends to exceed what's justified... even if it is illegal to molest children and enforcement demands punishment, does that mean that as a civil society we should desire that person be raped, castrated, or killed in prison as a reprisal?  Characters like Batman have a special brand of vigilantism that mitigates (but does not remove) the problems with vigilantism in that they tend to serve and obey the significant written laws and have strict prohibitions on how they elect to enforce those laws (no killing, no maiming, etc)... but their behavior is far from legal.  Perhaps desirable, but that's a different discussion... utility in and of itself isn't a complete justification, but there are too many nuances to Batman's code to parse why it's maybe OK right now and how it contrasts against other heroes who operate more openly.
 
1. I don't know if that's what he's doing, though to be fair it's absolutely confusing as to what his actual plan and motives are at this point.  With his first encounter with Nightrunner, he basically scolds the vigilante for doing exactly what he's doing- running around rooftops in a mask looking to protect people- so at least on an individual basis Batman doesn't seem to be promoting vigilantism (even his brand of it).  So far, Batman Inc seems to be mostly a private affair minus Wayne's bold announcement... but since the announcement lacked any details or explanation, there's no real way to know how to respond to it.  Do you start acting like a vigilante hoping to get recruited?  Do you knock on Wayne's door?  Only the announcement has been in the public eye and the announcement itself is unclear as to what it is selling / promoting other than the Batman Inc brand itself. 
 
2. Again, I'm not sure if that's what he's doing.  Maybe it's just the pace of the stories, but recruitment is slow considering about a dozen Bat books since Inc launched.  By tonight we get maybe the addition of Nightrunner?  Plus one isn't exactly an army.  That's part of question lingering in the air, what is the point of Batman Inc?  Is it numbers, quality control (accountability / resource tool), a PR stunt, or what?  We sort of get the implication of numbers but we just haven't seen it yet. 
 
3. I think so, particularly when the vision isn't clear and when there was no need to do so.  Wayne sort of marched in and said, "This is how it's going to be, Batman, Inc... love it!" but leaving the official with very little idea of what Batman Inc is, what it was doing, or what his role was in it all.  Why give the guy ulcers when you're not even really using him or require his cooperation?  If the whole scene was about getting the clue and getting carte blanche, I find it difficult to believe that Batman couldn't have just ninja'd in to get the clue without bothering the official and simply operated inside Paris without authorization giving themselves de facto carte blanche (I mean, this is essentially what Nightrunner is doing and whom they will induct into Batman Inc)... you know, like they've been doing for Batman's whole history in Gotham! 
 
4. They can't, particularly with the Spartacus effect post-franchising and Wayne's theoretical ability to hire stooges to take the fall... this is a major thing that distinguishes Batman from his more public heroic counter-parts who can be held to account even under the heroic personalities. 
 
5. Yes.  That seems to be the only point of Incorporation so far as I can tell... to limit the liability of any individual Batman and have the burden born by the corporation / Wayne... that's what incorporation is after all... but not exactly a vote of confidence for the individual batmen themselves then or really convincing to foreign governments: 

"Look, we've got this set up so no matter how bad our guy screws up we'll pay for it and we'll hold him accountable." 
"In other words, your agent on our soil doesn't have to worry about paying for damages to us and our sovereign government will not be able to hold the individual taking actions in our land accountable?" 
"Our agents will be answerable to you." 
"What does that even mean?  Can we arrest them, question them, reveal their identities, convict, or punish them?" 
"Uh no, but they'll be answerable to you." 
"Hm, no thanks." 
"Well, you don't really have a choice anyways." 
"Then what was the point of this conversation?" 
Shrugs. 
 
6. No idea yet, but it definitely isn't a peace keeping agency except under such a strained definition as to be meaningless.  Muslim/Franco relations is a powder keg of political and cultural issues that you can't resolve just by wandering into town and punching people while in masks and with carte blanche... that's a recipe for riots or worse- not peace.  Granted, what they're taking down is more likely to spark riots, sure, but the Batman methodology isn't the ideal method here.  Their intentions are good- putting out a serial killer fire to preserve peace- but it's questionable whether Batman Inc makes sense as a solution... but we'll see, the story's not done yet.
Posted by blindcrimson

I'm sure Batman thinks he's doing the right thing, but he isn't fully understanding the technicalities of his actions. He's just doing what he thinks is best.

Edited by Lovingdamnation

 He's getting ready for when Sup's goes all Irredeemable on everybody. Also I kind of hope this incites a Joker Inc.


 
Posted by Midnight Monk

I think I remember seeing something similar to this in a little book called "Kingdom Come" I guess Maxwell Lord didn't solve anything, it gonna happen and Bruce Wayne knows it lol
Posted by GabrielNox

How many Bats are we actually talking about here?

And shouldn't he expand Bat Inc. over USA first?One Bat per country, give it a test run before going global?If it's going to be one Bat per country, that's an awful lot of weight on one persons shoulders.And what poor schmuck is going to get stuck in France anyway?

Posted by Karkarov

hey now batman is just doing the french a solid.  What would happen if their white flag factory went down?  batman is simply offering them a method of protection that actually has some level of competence to it cause he knows they can't defend themselves.
 
Seriously though... He may be saying "I am going to do this regardless" but he is saying "I will hold my organization to a higher standard and meet your expectations" as well.  Yes it is big talk and maybe arrogant but I think Batman has probably banked enough rep to get away with it.  Plus that pic up top just gets me laughing every time.

Posted by batman_is_god
@FadeToBlackBolt said:
" @InnerVenom123 said:
" This is such a stupid idea.   Wayne's company is responsible. If he HADN'T revealed he was funding Batman, this might seem more plausible.  Oh well. It's not. "

I tend to agree, despite my almost unhealthy love for Batman, Morrison and Morrison's Batman run so far (R.I.P being one of the best trades ever, imo), I too am very hesitant as to how this could possibly work out well, both in and out of the story itself. "

TOTALLY AGREE. I love R.I.P. for some weird ass reason as well, it's in my top 5. 
 
Inc. is wildly out of character for him though. However, because it is Morrison, not too many people will point that out.
Edited by Decept-O

Who cares?  Sounds like fun to me.   
 
Governments around the world are always in peoples' bizshniznitz, why not Brucey baby.  I love the idea that psychos and nutsos may emulate Batman and dress up in homemade costumes, equipped with Altoids mint tin cans and A.LI.C.E. packs duct taped to their belts, and blankets tied around their necks.  Woo-Hoo!   
 
"Look at me, I'm the God-Da#ned Batman!", he yells as he plummets to his death falling from the roof of a warehouse.   
 
OK, OK, sarcastic "humor" aside, aren't there a number of  costumed vigilantes in the DCU already?   It is very interesting to consider how this all will play out, albeit there might be some heavy handed political and social implications as you point out in the article.   That much I don't know, not really that interested in.  I mean, how many superheroes are already doing the same thing? 
Posted by Aetheldod

All I can think off that this is leading to a major cluster f**** for Batman ( story wise I mean ) , Wayne enterprise going bankrupt from sues , nations hunting down for Batman inc. members , and super villians  taking advantage of the Bat costumes (why wouldnt they?)

Posted by skullduggery pleasant

I am pro Vigilantism.

Posted by JonesDeini
@Eyz said:
" Vigilantism is good~  Huh..? What? Did I wrote that?  Anyway, let's not forget that in the end of the day, the Batman Inc acts in the DCUniverse, a place that as seen a Manhunters invasion, multiple universes crisises, people raising from the dead, colorful Villains United and many more fantastic events~ I can imagine why cops/the law/goverments would accept these "super" men. "
Yeah considering the status quo of this world, these kind of actions are necessary and acceptable. Also nearly all superheros, at the core, are Vigilantes.  
Posted by Evilsbane

This stuff is totally Batman.

Posted by CosmicSpiral

Batman was promoting vigilantism when he was a member of the Justice League. Every superhero group in comics is derived from a bunch of vigilantes getting together. Superheros are ultimately vigilantes themselves.  
 
So the question is somewhat redundant. Batman was "promoting" this behavior from the moment he decided to fight crime.  

Posted by Judge_Dredd

For those saying it's out of character, Batman was recently a pirate and a caveman and whatnot, that changes a man. He hasn't really revealed much personality since he got back except for a "bigger picture" thing, and long story short... he's  crazy. In a good way. Maybe.

Posted by howlett76

The last thing that bruce is doing is promoting vigilatism,   anyone that tries to get into  his line of work  unless they can meet his standards and be controlled by him   they get flushed faster than  dead goldfish...   he just knows that you need a certain edge to go against certain crimmials, simple police work doesn't  cut it....

  • 91 results
  • 1
  • 2