307 Comments
Posted by Boom_goes_the_dynamite

Candyman huh?  For me it was Bloody Mary

Posted by Eyz
@AgentOfAnarchy: I fear that's exactly what Morrison's aiming at....
You know how much he likes to shake the Bat-fundations...
Posted by Illyana Rasputin

Stephanie Brown in England?
Posted by Doctor!!!!!

Too many Batmen or just not enough....

Posted by RedDrake

I think it sounds promising 

Posted by entropy_aegis
@batman_is_god:
Batman confidential ? ha .and those urban legend lovers need to read knightfall,war games.and JLA ,he hasnt been an urban legend in decades,babs explanations are outdated.
Edited by vincethekid

Batman Inc.  goes against everything that Batman is.  Grant Morrison has lost his damn mind.   Seriously.  This is the stupidest idea ever.   
 
I've been telling everybody since day one: 
  
There is only one Batgirl and her name is Cassandra Cain and there is only ONE Batman and his name is Bruce Wayne.  Nightwing is Nightwing.

Posted by entropy_aegis
@hushicho said:
"This is, in a word, crap.  The Wayne Foundation was one thing that was initially made to combat social ills that Batman couldn't help with, and Batman wasn't so reluctant to be in the spotlight. That made sense as an organisation. Essentially this is just undermining the whole point of the character though, not that there has been any integrity to him since his senseless retcon in the mid-80s that threw everything out of whack.  Gotham City and its characters need a serious reboot. Damian is the worst character possibly ever developed in comics. Dick is a pathetic Batman, and he shouldn't be expected to take up the role. He should be his own person, not the inheritor of a legacy he has long since divorced himself from (or been divorced from, if you read Chuck Dixon's garbage). Barbara turning into Oracle not only didn't make sense, but the graphic novel in which her injury took place that forced her down that shoehorned-in plotline was never meant to be taken into continuity. It's insulting that her capability as a crime-fighter and a positive political force, as well as a strong female protagonist, was completely disregarded from the mid-80s Bat-retcon and after. Bruce Wayne as a character is utterly FUBAR and should have stayed dead, if they were going to bother to kill him off.  If you're going to have a public Batman presence, you might as well go more towards the presence that existed in the late 70s and early 80s, which were some of the finest Batman stories I have read. He wasn't as 'out in the spotlight' as in the mid-to-late 60s, but he was clearly known and yet maintained his intimidating presence.  This is just yet more nonsense with yet more poor writers who are so caught up in their own egos and name recognition that they forget comics are more about actual writing quality than just names, names, names. "

What an idiotic post bruce wayne should be dead,dick is a pathetic batman,damian is trash,yeah dream on buddy if you are a batman hater why dont you just say so.
Posted by entropy_aegis
@vincethekid:
Goes against what?everything frank miller said or did.newsflash batman wasnt created by miller,grant morrison is acknowledging the existence of batman before miller showed his overrated face.
Posted by thecheckeredman

Meh

Posted by Sobe Cin

Really not interested in the storyline. I enjoy watching the movies and whatever cartoons that are on tv. But I will stick with my x-men.
Posted by entropy_aegis
@Sobe Cin:
Then why come here?
Posted by Spellca2
@entropy_aegis: 
 
Lol
Edited by Chris2KLee

Love the idea of Batman INC. Because it moves the character forward, instead of the typical comic book move of trying to always bring the character "Back to Basics". The rest button will be kicked when Morrison leaves, no doubt, but I am in for the wild ride.

Posted by mightiness

I think the whole Batman Inc. Idea is absolutely terrible.

Posted by Xion
@Bruce Vain said:
" The whole Batman Inc. idea is flat out dumb.  Like Sara said - Batman is about him being a shadowy , urban myth figure and now they're trying to  make him a public figure ? WTF is this crap ?     
Yeah, but it has been years now that everyone in Gotham know that Batman is not an urban myth. So going back to being an urban myth after already being a public figure? I dont think that can work. But it is just the beginning so i would just give it a few more issues to see if it gets better or not. Too soon to judge in my opinion
Posted by Blackestnight

Fox News already spoiled this see my blog.

Posted by not2baad

I love Batman

Posted by Jekylhyde14

I like this new direction. First off, I never bought the whole "urban legend" thing. Most of you won't remember this but the Urban Legend explanation first popped up in late 1994 after Zero Hour. It was an attempt to explain how Batman could exist as a renegade vigilante (which was how he was characterized post-Frank Miller) and not be hunted down by the police. In this way it was supposed to make the idea of Batman more "realistic" (because that's the only aspect of Batman that isn't believable.. :/). Honestly, it never came off to me as that realistic. If you had a man in a big city running around dressed like a bat and beating dudes up then how do you not know he exists? In this age of cell phone cameras, facebook, twitter, youtube, and comicvine, how would something like that remain completely off the radar? One of my favorite scenes from Morrison's run, which in part exposes the whole urban legend stuff for the B.S. it is, is when Batman and Robin catch the idiot dressed in the home-made parrott costume and the video of it ends up online. Or how about when Jason Todd captured Dick and Damian and almost exposed their identities over the web? I read someone else mention earlier that the Urban Legend explanation was undone in continuity during War Games when Batman was forced to save the day in broad daylight and got caught on camera (which is true). In this day in age with such intrusive and public media  outlets, there's no way that Batman could remain a myth or a boogey-man forever.  
 
What Grant is trying to do with Batman, Inc. is bring Bruce back into the light in more ways than one. Think about what a sociopath Bruce Wayne has been in the modern age. Under Frank Miller he was basically Rorschach; during Tower of Babel we discovered he came up with contingency plans to take down all his friends; during the Bruce Wayne Murderer saga he almost left his secret identity behind to remain Batman 24/7; in Batman #588 we learn that he took the Matches Malone identity after learning the real Matches was dead and hid that info so the identity could remain useful to him; and all of this culminated in Batman building Brother Eye to monitor his friends and the world at large. This was Batman in the shadows. This was the Urban Legend: A creepy paranoid who pushed his friends away and did as much harm as good. And in the meantime, Bruce Wayne-the man-was becoming less and less a factor.  
 
Grant wants to take him back to a simpler time when Batman could work with the authorities and not be hunted down by them. He wants to allow Batman to work in the light of day like he did in the Golden and Silver ages. Working out in the open with the police AND actively recruiting other vigilantes shows that Bat's is no longer a creepy loner and that he's changed his crime fighting philosophy. By bringing the idea of Batman into the light like this he's giving people an option outside of crime AND outside of traditional order and authority (I.E. the police and military). In this way, Batman is showing the public that there's a third option in the "us vs. them" equation in society. Don't like authority but also hate crime and savagery? Then choose the Batman option.  And,  considering the fact that most fans don't want to see either Dick or Tim killed off, what else is Batman to do with all of these sidekicks he has?
 
And I don't think it was pointless to have Bruce Wayne announce he's funding Batman. This will allow Bruce to come back into the story. Most modern age Batman stories had no use for Bruce Wayne because the writers saw Batman as the man's true identity. Making Bruce the financial face of the Batman enterprise will give Wayne a reason to be written back into the Batman mythos. And it matters very little that this puts a target on Bruce's head for Batman's enemies since it's not like the criminals of Gotham left Wayne Industries alone before (on the contrary, they are ALWAYS messing with Bruce simply because of how rich he is). In fact, you could argue that by publicly acknowledging Batman as an asset, that makes people less likely to mess with Wayne Industries since you'd have to be a pretty big badass to openly pick a fight with Batman and his army like that. Meanwhile, more of the company's wealth can be funneled into Batman this way and they'll be busy working on non-lethal crime fighting weapons and gear which could be used to build a safer, more peaceful world (which would be a nice change from the murderous satellites that Bruce built in secret). So I think this direction is just what Batman needed after decades of being hostile, paranoid sociopath. It's going to redirect the character from the becoming the monster he's portrayed as in All Star Batman and Robin and back to a more positive direction in the war against crime.  
 
Grant Morrison is not overrated. He's the literary genius who is saving superhero comics. 

Posted by xxSadisticSmilexx

No.  This is a bad move.

Posted by Jekylhyde14
@entropy_aegis said:
" @vincethekid: Goes against what?everything frank miller said or did.newsflash batman wasnt created by miller,grant morrison is acknowledging the existence of batman before miller showed his overrated face. "
Amen to THIS. I think a lot of Batman fans just want to see the Dark Knight Returns over and over again out of their Batman books. And that's just ridiculous. They've spent the last two decades of Batman books (about four or five a month) trying to replicate what Miller did in the late-80's and it just doesn't work anymore. I'm tired of seeing Batman chase down paint-by-number "psychotic" serial killers and fight gang war after meaningless gang war. Or how about the real horror that is Frank Miller's All Star Batman and Robin where Batman really does read like a crazy dick head. That's what that vision of Batman leads to. Yet, it seems like every time someone tries something different with Batman, all of these zombies come out of the wood work to whine about how Batman isn't fighting grim and gritty crime. Which, again, is stupid because he always is. Don't like Morrison's Batman? Fine. Then read Detective Comics or Batman Confidential or even Finch's new book (which I'm sure is going to be just like his Moon Knight work , I.E. Post-Miller Batman) because there are like six Batman books now and a few are still doing Batman in that same, formulaic CSI style. Let us keep Morrison's Batman since Grant has been doing the most original Batman stories I've read since the late 80's and is taking him on a brand new journey fighting crime around the world. You're still getting your grim and gritty BS. Just let Morrison do his thing. I know it's going to be great.
Posted by Mainline
@Jekylhyde14 said:
"In this day in age with such intrusive and public media  outlets, there's no way that Batman could remain a myth or a boogey-man forever."
Disclaimer: There's a difference between critiquing a rationale and disliking an author or his work... The Matrix has holes but it doesn't mean it isn't entertaining.  I've stated I'm willing to give Morrison an opportunity to either address the holes in motivations or move past them, but we're not there yet.
 
There's a large gulf between "knowing" something exists and knowing anything about that thing.  We know black-ops exist, we know covert operations are being run, we know ambassadors have opinions... that's different that knowing who the operators are, what the operations are, and what the opinions are- if, say, published by WikiLeaks.  A photo on a camera phone, a video on YouTube, or heck- even an appearance in public with the JLA- is still only confirmation of existence not parameters.  Photos get faked, the MythBusters debunk viral videos, and anyone can dress up in costume to appear with the League.  If you've read Chase (which DC recently re-released in the 100-page format) the DEO never doubted Batman's existence but needed confirmation on: 1) That the identity was unique (only one Batman); 2) That the identity was human; 3) Who that identity was.  Those questions remain salient up until the announcement, because until then you didn't know if Batman was meta-human, demonic, magical, cosmic, spiritual, or what.  Confirmation of existence is not confirmation of nature
 
Bruce's announcement undoes that because he expressly states there has been just one Batman and Bruce has been supporting him all along.  So Bruce confirmed: 1. There was one Bat.  2. He was but a man.  3. That man was reliant on technology, financing, and secret.  The natural question then is: Why?  You've defaulted to meta-logic (bringing Bruce into the story, Morrison is a genius, etc. etc.) but that doesn't cover the internal logic of Bruce's decision or rationale. 
 
@Jekylhyde14 said:
"  Working out in the open with the police AND actively recruiting other vigilantes shows that Bat's is no longer a creepy loner and that he's changed his crime fighting philosophy. By bringing the idea of Batman into the light like this he's giving people an option outside of crime AND outside of traditional order and authority (I.E. the police and military)."
Note what names you used.  The "Bat's (sic) is no longer a creepy loner" and "Batman into the light"... NOT Bruce Wayne.  Even if you want to call it a call-back to the Golden and Silver Age, in neither of those did Bruce actively seek to compromise his secret identity.  There's literally nothing we've been shown so far that required BRUCE make the announcement... BATMAN could have and accomplished all the same goals ("I'm no longer working alone, I'm being financed by anonymous donors, etc. etc.") which is even assuming your statement of his goals is correct because Grant hasn't told us what those internal-logic goals are yet.  We have NO EXPLANATION for the announcement so far (at best, reading into the message, he wants "the public's help" but he's provided no follow-up as to what that means and, once again, nothing is stopping Batman from making that same announcement instead of Bruce).  Even if you want to claim recruitment is public, the actual comics show differently... both in The Road Home and The Return and Batman, Inc... his recruitment has been personalized, private, and one-on-one... and if we assume your thesis that Batman is a known quantity, then Batman wouldn't need an announcement to spur recruitment since everyone- according to you- already knows Batman. 
 
@Jekylhyde14 said:
" I don't think it was pointless to have Bruce Wayne announce he's funding Batman. This will allow Bruce to come back into the story. Most modern age Batman stories had no use for Bruce Wayne because the writers saw Batman as the man's true identity. Making Bruce the financial face of the Batman enterprise will give Wayne a reason to be written back into the Batman mythos."
Does Bruce know he's a fictional character?  Because that's the only scenario where this reason helps to explain his rationale for making the announcement. 
 
@Jekylhyde14 said:
" (1) And it matters very little that this puts a target on Bruce's head for Batman's enemies since it's not like the criminals of Gotham left Wayne Industries alone before (on the contrary, they are ALWAYS messing with Bruce simply because of how rich he is). (2) In fact, you could argue that by publicly acknowledging Batman as an asset, that makes people less likely to mess with Wayne Industries since you'd have to be a pretty big badass to openly pick a fight with Batman and his army like that. (3) Meanwhile, more of the company's wealth can be funneled into Batman this way and they'll be busy working on non-lethal crime fighting weapons and gear which could be used to build a safer, more peaceful world (which would be a nice change from the murderous satellites that Bruce built in secret)."
1. Again, it doesn't explain Bruce putting a target on his employees' heads, much less their desire to continue working for Wayne.  That sort of callousness, focused just on Wayne's personal risk rather than what he's about to put his employees through undercuts the image of a the valiant team-player knight you're trying to paint... instead of securing his employees and ensuring their happiness (with the venture) and safety, he's off having adventures with Catwoman and Japanese tentacles.  Additionally, your reasoning isn't sound ("Wayne Enterprises shouldn't worry about getting attacked because they get attacked anyways!")... that's like saying, "Batman's rogues escape Arkham all the time, he might as well stop capturing them and help them escape!" (of course, I "fixed" your statement to be directed at WE instead of just Bruce)  Once again, Bruce doesn't know he's fictional.  His concerns would extend beyond just himself as star of our comic book. 
 
2. Doubtful.  Bruce confirmed that Batman was but a single finite man who can only realistically bring so much wrath to bear upon you.  You can pick any one of Wayne's subsidiaries and strike at Batman without being within 1000 miles of him.  If the "franchise" was supposed to defend against this, why not franchise and recruit first before making the announcement?  Of course, this all assumes the pool of attackers are rational, which is no guarantee now that Bruce has opened it to everyone (and, incidentally, lives in the only DC city with an entire asylum dedicated to villains)... if Batman- at all- acted as a deterrent to his rogues, why do they keep trying again and again anyways? 
 
3. How much money does this venture need?  Again, we can only assume because it hasn't been explained in story yet.  However, it seems doubtful that anything he's currently doing exceeds the scale of anything he's done in the past, particularly considering his rate of recruitment. 
 
@Jekylhyde14 said:
" So I think this direction is just what Batman needed after decades of being hostile, paranoid sociopath. ... Grant Morrison is not overrated. He's the literary genius who is saving superhero comics."
Again, after OYL, Batman was already freed from all of that stigma five years ago before Morrison took over.  We had all the character ground work necessary to make Batman positive and team-oriented back then.  In fact, his global retraining would've been a perfect impetus for him to go global back then as well ("Going around the world, again, this time no longer consumed by vengeance, I saw their plight and knew my responsibility...").  The point is, it's unclear why RIP-on was necessary to bring us here because Grant hasn't explained where we are (why global, why franchise, why the announcement?)... can you even really say what "Batman, Inc." is?  What does it entail?  What responsibilities will you bear?  What support will you get or controls will you be subject to?  Will you be on-call?  What's the cut-off are meta-humans excluded?  The vision is patently unclear and the rationale only the faintest of outlines... it's fine to have faith, but that doesn't mean the story is great (or even clear) at this point. 
 
It's too early to say the direction is wrong, but it's also too early to say the direction is right because we don't know what the direction is!  You can't honestly say you know exactly what Morrison's in-story rationale was for Bruce's announcement or what exactly Inc means... we can only guess at this point.
Edited by Jekylhyde14
@Mainline said:

" @Jekylhyde14 said:

"In this day in age with such intrusive and public media  outlets, there's no way that Batman could remain a myth or a boogey-man forever."
Disclaimer: There's a difference between critiquing a rationale and disliking an author or his work... The Matrix has holes but it doesn't mean it isn't entertaining.  I've stated I'm willing to give Morrison an opportunity to either address the holes in motivations or move past them, but we're not there yet.
 
There's a large gulf between "knowing" something exists and knowing anything about that thing.  We know black-ops exist, we know covert operations are being run, we know ambassadors have opinions... that's different that knowing who the operators are, what the operations are, and what the opinions are- if, say, published by WikiLeaks.  A photo on a camera phone, a video on YouTube, or heck- even an appearance in public with the JLA- is still only confirmation of existence not parameters.  Photos get faked, the MythBusters debunk viral videos, and anyone can dress up in costume to appear with the League.  If you've read Chase (which DC recently re-released in the 100-page format) the DEO never doubted Batman's existence but needed confirmation on: 1) That the identity was unique (only one Batman); 2) That the identity was human; 3) Who that identity was.  Those questions remain salient up until the announcement, because until then you didn't know if Batman was meta-human, demonic, magical, cosmic, spiritual, or what.  Confirmation of existence is not confirmation of nature.   
Well, first off, I was never assuming that everyone critiquing Batman, Inc. was also hating on Morrison. However, I've seen many posters (not saying you) calling Morrison overrated and since I'm a big fan of Grant's (not that I keep that a big secret) I felt the need to defend him a bit from aforementioned comments. I will also admit that Batman, Inc. has moved a bit fast in the first few installments so I do understand why critiques are popping up.  
 
I will also give you the point that, though the world of DC might have known of Batman's existence before, Bruce's announcement MIGHT have revealed a bit more about him. However, true or false, knowing something exists for a fact proves that it is not a myth or an urban legend. That was my original point. The whole explanation of Batman's urban legend status goes out the window in a world that can photograph him and place it on facebook within an hour. Also, so far, Bruce only confirmed that he funded the Batman, his equipment, and technology. For all the DEO, the public, or anyone else knows Batman could still be metahuman, demonic, magical, or whatever. Though, again, if someone had an actual photo (and remember with today's technology we can prove whether photos are real or fake) they could probably tell that he's more or less human. Bruce also has not confirmed that he is the Batman. People may make the connection that he is in fact the vigilante, but they still have no solid proof. Confirmation of involvement is not confirmation of identity. This may seem like when Tony Stark announced he is Iron Man, but it's not that (at least not yet). Plus, Bruce is a tabloid magnet and his family has recently had terrible rumors spread about them. I'm sure the idea of Bruce being Batman will still be treated with the same level of speculation and reasonable doubt. I'll admit that this could make his secret identity easier to guess, but maybe not as easy as you might think. Bruce Wayne is a wealthy man and could hire just about anyone (even multiple guys) to be Batman and since he's just about to hire more vigilantes it wouldn't be out of the realm of rational to believe that.  
 
@Mainline said:


Note what names you used.  The "Bat's (sic) is no longer a creepy loner" and "Batman into the light"... NOT Bruce Wayne.  Even if you want to call it a call-back to the Golden and Silver Age, in neither of those did Bruce actively seek to compromise his secret identity.  There's literally nothing we've been shown so far that required BRUCE make the announcement... BATMAN could have and accomplished all the same goals ("I'm no longer working alone, I'm being financed by anonymous donors, etc. etc.") which is even assuming your statement of his goals is correct because Grant hasn't told us what those internal-logic goals are yet.  We have NO EXPLANATION for the announcement so far (at best, reading into the message, he wants "the public's help" but he's provided no follow-up as to what that means and, once again, nothing is stopping Batman from making that same announcement instead of Bruce).  Even if you want to claim recruitment is public, the actual comics show differently... both in The Road Home and The Return and Batman, Inc... his recruitment has been personalized, private, and one-on-one... and if we assume your thesis that Batman is a known quantity, then Batman wouldn't need an announcement to spur recruitment since everyone- according to you- already knows Batman.   

I'll repeat myself to answer this segment. Bruce made the announcement public so: 1) he could funnel more Wayne funds into his Batman, Inc. project. It was incredible that he could get away with funding his personal mission without the board of directors noticing, but if he's going to have an army of vigilantes with robot suits then he's going to need more of the company's money and support. Making his funding of Batman public and making the idea an enterprise opens that option up for him. 2) To present the idea of Batman to the public as an ideology. Batman said in the Return that he wants to fight the idea of crime with the idea of Batman. Granted, I made some assumptions about what this means in my earlier post, but it does signify that he wants to use Batman as a philosophy for the world at large (to combat a basic principle like crime). This would be much easier to take from a public figure like Bruce Wayne than a mysterious vigilante like Batman. Bruce's announcement makes sense to me. He needed the money and wanted to get the word out there without having to force Batman to talk with the media which could, in a very real way, expose his secret identity. Knowing Batman exists is different from hearing him talk or watching him on 60 Minutes. 
 
@Mainline said:


1. Again, it doesn't explain Bruce putting a target on his employees' heads, much less their desire to continue working for Wayne.  That sort of callousness, focused just on Wayne's personal risk rather than what he's about to put his employees through undercuts the image of a the valiant team-player knight you're trying to paint... instead of securing his employees and ensuring their happiness (with the venture) and safety, he's off having adventures with Catwoman and Japanese tentacles.  Additionally, your reasoning isn't sound ("Wayne Enterprises shouldn't worry about getting attacked because they get attacked anyways!")... that's like saying, "Batman's rogues escape Arkham all the time, he might as well stop capturing them and help them escape!" (of course, I "fixed" your statement to be directed at WE instead of just Bruce)  Once again, Bruce doesn't know he's fictional.  His concerns would extend beyond just himself as star of our comic book. 
 
2. Doubtful.  Bruce confirmed that Batman was but a single finite man who can only realistically bring so much wrath to bear upon you.  You can pick any one of Wayne's subsidiaries and strike at Batman without being within 1000 miles of him.  If the "franchise" was supposed to defend against this, why not franchise and recruit first before making the announcement?  Of course, this all assumes the pool of attackers are rational, which is no guarantee now that Bruce has opened it to everyone (and, incidentally, lives in the only DC city with an entire asylum dedicated to villains)... if Batman- at all- acted as a deterrent to his rogues, why do they keep trying again and again anyways? 
 
3. How much money does this venture need?  Again, we can only assume because it hasn't been explained in story yet.  However, it seems doubtful that anything he's currently doing exceeds the scale of anything he's done in the past, particularly considering his rate of recruitment.   

I'm still not convinced that the employees of Wayne Enterprises are any more in danger than before. Most of them already work in the most dangerous city on the planet and have survived plagues, earthquakes, No Man's Land, and multiple Joker schemes. Wayne Enterprises is already a major target for crime being Gotham's most successful business. Also, would you really want to take a company head on if it has robot armor and vigilantes (he does have multiple already if you count his sidekicks AND they have Justice League connections) that go toe-to-toe with metahumans? Not unless you're already a major player who wouldn't shy away from preying on Wayne Industries anyway. It MIGHT make them more of a target, but Stark Industries has always seemed to deal with it in Marvel and they had Iron Man on the books from the beginning (long before Tony Stark even thought of revealing his identity). You may think it's irresponsible of Bruce to possibly put his employees in more danger, but if you believe in what you're doing then sometimes you have to take risks.  
 
@Mainline said: 

Again, after OYL, Batman was already freed from all of that stigma five years ago before Morrison took over.  We had all the character ground work necessary to make Batman positive and team-oriented back then.  In fact, his global retraining would've been a perfect impetus for him to go global back then as well ("Going around the world, again, this time no longer consumed by vengeance, I saw their plight and knew my responsibility...").  The point is, it's unclear why RIP-on was necessary to bring us here because Grant hasn't explained where we are (why global, why franchise, why the announcement?)... can you even really say what "Batman, Inc." is?  What does it entail?  What responsibilities will you bear?  What support will you get or controls will you be subject to?  Will you be on-call?  What's the cut-off are meta-humans excluded?  The vision is patently unclear and the rationale only the faintest of outlines... it's fine to have faith, but that doesn't mean the story is great (or even clear) at this point. 
 
It's too early to say the direction is wrong, but it's also too early to say the direction is right because we don't know what the direction is!  You can't honestly say you know exactly what Morrison's in-story rationale was for Bruce's announcement or what exactly Inc means... we can only guess at this point. "

You're right that the groundwork for this was set up with 52 and OYL, but it was set-up BY Grant, and it was only the beginning of the journey to Bruce's change of heart. He needed to be taken to his lowest point, to his death even to finish it. I believe he had to be reborn to come back a more or less new man. If you're not convinced now then I hope you will be as the story goes on. Give it a chance like you say you are and I don't think you'll be disappointed by the result. I don't think I will be. 
Posted by Mainline
@Jekylhyde14 said:

" Also, so far, Bruce only confirmed that he funded the Batman, his equipment, and technology. For all the DEO, the public, or anyone else knows Batman could still be metahuman, demonic, magical, or whatever. Though, again, if someone had an actual photo (and remember with today's technology we can prove whether photos are real or fake) they could probably tell that he's more or less human. Bruce also has not confirmed that he is the Batman. People may make the connection that he is in fact the vigilante, but they still have no solid proof. Confirmation of involvement is not confirmation of identity.  . . . . I'll admit that this could make his secret identity easier to guess                                         "

Additionally, he confirmed that: 1) Batman is a man; 2) There is only one Batman; 3) That Bruce has ties to him.  Most DCU meta-humans look human so a photo doesn't support the mystery, but Bruce's announcement makes it clear Batman is dependent on technology, material, money, and secrecy, which makes him far more mortal than most DCU meta-humans.  It wouldn't make sense for Superman, GL, WW, or The Flash to have a secret sponsor suddenly appear because they don't need sponsors.  So, Bruce is essentially confirming that Batman isn't as scary as your worst fears... that without Wayne's money or "your support" Batman would be compromised.  Further, I never said it revealed his identity, I merely said it compromised it, which it did... Gordon calls Wayne Batman's boss, now Batman is mortal, etc.  The question is: What did Bruce think he got in exchange for that?  Answer: We don't know, we can only guess. 
 
@Jekylhyde14 said:

"1) he could funnel more Wayne funds into his Batman, Inc. project. It was incredible that he could get away with funding his personal mission without the board of directors noticing, but if he's going to have an army of vigilantes with robot suits then he's going to need more of the company's money and support. Making his funding of Batman public and making the idea an enterprise opens that option up for him. 2) To present the idea of Batman to the public as an ideology. Batman said in the Return that he wants to fight the idea of crime with the idea of Batman. . . . This would be much easier to take from a public figure like Bruce Wayne than a mysterious vigilante like Batman. Bruce's announcement makes sense to me. He needed the money and wanted to get the word out there without having to force Batman to talk with the media which could, in a very real way, expose his secret identity. Knowing Batman exists is different from hearing him talk or watching him on 60 Minutes.  "

1) Batman built Composite Superman/Batman Mecha, Brother Eye, the Watchtower, and dozens of Bat-Bunkers, there's no way his current plan costs more than that at his current recruitment rate of... -1 (Mr. Unknown getting crossed off).  There are no "armies" in play.  Everything is in prototype phase, which begs the question, why not make private invitations first and THEN make the announcement?  Batman still believes in free-will doesn't he?  What if he makes this big announcement and no one joins?  Then how did his announcement make any sense?  Finally, Wayne Enterprises had always been privately held meaning the board is meaningless, if Wayne was accountable to the board and needed to "come out" to escape scrutiny, they'd have him on criminal, civil, and contractual charges in seconds after the announcement... admission after-the-fact doesn't suddenly make your embezzlement retroactively OK... the only way the announcement works is if Wayne always had unfettered use of the funds. 
 
2) Again, you haven't addressed why BRUCE had to make the announcement in-story instead of BATMAN.  Everything you're saying works for BATMAN's rationale, not Bruce's.  Batman could accomplish all your speculated goals by making the announcement.  If the whole point is that Batman's ideas should go public, how does it make sense that someone other than Batman should spread those ideals- I thought you said Batman wasn't "mysterious"?  Making Bruce does it compromises Bruce's "secret identity"... for years he's cultivated the public perception of a lazy and irresponsible playboy... trying to pretend a grim crime-fighting message coming from him would be more credible is like saying Ashton Kutcher would be the go-to man for speaking about global trade policy (even if Bruce manages to convince people, then he simultaneously proves he's been a liar, skilled actor, and secret holder all this time).  There's no "either Bruce announces it or there's no announcement"... Batman is creative, there's at least a dozen other ways to get the message out authoritatively without compromising Bruce or Bat.  Batman has Oracle at his beck and call, what does he need the media for? 
 
@Jekylhyde14 said:

"I'm still not convinced that the employees of Wayne Enterprises are any more in danger than before. Most of them already work in the most dangerous city on the planet and have survived plagues, earthquakes, No Man's Land, and multiple Joker schemes.Wayne Enterprises is already a major target for crime being Gotham's most successful business. Also, would you really want to take a company head on if it has robot armor and vigilantes (he does have multiple already if you count his sidekicks AND they have Justice League connections) that go toe-to-toe with metahumans? Not unless you're already a major player who wouldn't shy away from preying on Wayne Industries anyway. It MIGHT make them more of a target, but Stark Industries has always seemed to deal with it in Marvel and they had Iron Man on the books from the beginning (long before Tony Stark even thought of revealing his identity)."

"WayneCorp continues to achieve excellence across a wide range of industry sectors and markets, employing some 170,000 people in 170 countries." 
 
Most of them do not live in Gotham, the only way to be as wealthy as Wayne is to be global.  Bruce confirmed it: One man, who's looking to franchise (as in has not franchised yet)... so you've got 170,000 targets in 170 different countries with almost nil risk of immediate wrath plus a predisposition towards risk anyways (that is, not particularly worried about wrath at all)... heck, now that you know Batman's "public" you know Batman isn't going to kill you and risk unraveling his global franchise.  Worst case, you take a beating and get sent to revolving door detention but now you've a way to strike at the Bat who was always hidden and unassailable before.  Wayne has established that the Bat depends on Wayne, so you get to do all the mayhem you'd do anyways but now know you're hurting the Bat in the process. 
 
Further, did Bruce Wayne announce robot armor?  Did Wayne say they had numbers, armies, and sidekicks?  Did the announcement say anything about League endorsement or protection?  No!  So why would a villain take any of that into account (even presuming they're sane to begin with)?  All Wayne did was present a juicy target, he didn't share any of the barbs or barriers to ward or deter a crazy from taking a knock at it. 
 
And again, it still doesn't account for how the employees feel themselves.  Half of the Justice League- Batman's own colleagues- have issues with his approach to crime fighting... and these are people who know him, work with him, and have seen his results... how can you guarantee the average citizen who has nothing but a womanizing playboy's word on what Batman represents is going to support that, stick with the company, etc.  Additionally, what about corporate espionage or bribes or other non-confrontational ways of attacking Wayne Enterprises?  Superheroes and robot armies are really good at punching things, but they're terrible at stopping white-collar crime (whether induced by the lure of money or the threat of a family held hostage). 
 
With respect to Iron Man, Bruce doesn't know he's a fictional character and has never read Marvel Comics... whatever happened there doesn't affect his rationale for his own actions.  Stark Industries failed to deal with it, incidentally, if you've been reading Iron Man he had four fifths of his global head quarters leveled by a longtime rival trying to get at him.  The casualties were kept to a minimum and everyone- apparently- stayed to work at Stark, but only by writer fiat not out of rational plotting (which, again, I've allowed for... Morrison may not care about providing rationales so long as he hits his meta-goals of sexy international Bats + involved Bruce even if it doesn't make sense; but right now it's too early to tell). 
 
@Jekylhyde14 said:
"You may think it's irresponsible of Bruce to possibly put his employees in more danger, but if you believe in what you're doing than sometimes you have to take risks."
Except this is exactly the rationale you've claimed we've left behind, particularly since it's not him that's taking the risk... he's making them take the risk without giving them a say in the matter before thrusting it upon them. 
 
The whole thing with Babel, Brother Eye, War Games, etc. is this rationale.  That something is immoral and dangerous and risky, but Batman believes in it so he keeps it around until it blows up.  Suddenly drafting a hundred thousand employees into a war on crime is not responsible risk taking. 
 
@Jekylhyde14 said:
"You're right that the groundwork for this was set up with 52 and OYL, but it was set-up BY Grant, and it was only the beginning of the journey to Bruce's change of heart. He needed to be taken to his lowest point, to his death even to finish it. I believe he had to be reborn to come back a more or less new man. If you're not convinced now then I hope you will be as the story goes on. Give it a chance like you say you are and I don't think you'll be disappointed by the result. I don't think I will be.  "
It sounds nice but it didn't really play out like that, he wasn't really put through a crucible in "death", if anything he was glorified... he had the ultimate hero's death slaying a dark god to save the universe and then a series of wacky time-travel adventures.  If it was about breaking the Bat, IC did it better, or it could have immediately followed RIP instead of diverging into Final Crisis + Return.  Let's put it another way, until we know exactly what the plan is, his goals, etc. we can't really say what was or wasn't necessary to get him there... but if the only point of it was to discard paranoia and loner issues, then we didn't need a five-year detour to get there.  The fact is, with writer fiat you can accomplish anything in probably six issues.  However, right now it's wait and see.
Posted by Zabka

Sounds good to me.  The whole point of Return of Bruce Wayne was showing that he's never been a lone wolf.    A big focus of GM's Batman run (and ASS) has been about the legacy of a superhero, and it's good to see a character actually embrace it.
 
As for revealing he funds Batman I don't think it's a big issue.  All of the dangerous villains know his secret identity anyway. 

Posted by Jekylhyde14
@Mainline said:
" @Jekylhyde14 said:

" Also, so far, Bruce only confirmed that he funded the Batman, his equipment, and technology. For all the DEO, the public, or anyone else knows Batman could still be metahuman, demonic, magical, or whatever. Though, again, if someone had an actual photo (and remember with today's technology we can prove whether photos are real or fake) they could probably tell that he's more or less human. Bruce also has not confirmed that he is the Batman. People may make the connection that he is in fact the vigilante, but they still have no solid proof. Confirmation of involvement is not confirmation of identity.  . . . . I'll admit that this could make his secret identity easier to guess                                         "

Additionally, he confirmed that: 1) Batman is a man; 2) There is only one Batman; 3) That Bruce has ties to him.  Most DCU meta-humans look human so a photo doesn't support the mystery, but Bruce's announcement makes it clear Batman is dependent on technology, material, money, and secrecy, which makes him far more mortal than most DCU meta-humans.  It wouldn't make sense for Superman, GL, WW, or The Flash to have a secret sponsor suddenly appear because they don't need sponsors.  So, Bruce is essentially confirming that Batman isn't as scary as your worst fears... that without Wayne's money or "your support" Batman would be compromised.  Further, I never said it revealed his identity, I merely said it compromised it, which it did... Gordon calls Wayne Batman's boss, now Batman is mortal, etc.  The question is: What did Bruce think he got in exchange for that?  Answer: We don't know, we can only guess. 
1) Yes, he confirmed Batman is a man, but, then again, it's in the name: BatMAN. All you've just said is that Bruce confirmed his gender. 2) Prove what he said confirms this. Yes, he used singular pronouns when referring to Batman, but for all anyone really knows it could be (and really IS) a couple of guys or more. 3) Yes, he confirmed this which is what he set out to do with his speech. Also, there ARE meta humans with sponsors that use technology. Metamorpho had his wealthy boss Stagg, Iron Man has Stark Enterprises, Booster was a complete sell-out for a while, Spider-Man had his spider-mobile (thank you main page), the Justice League had Max Lord and government support (as did the Avengers), etc., etc., etc. Having money and technology does not necessarily mean you don't have powers or magic. Dracula was loaded, right? And I wouldn't worry about Batman being less scary because of all these things. You meet a 200+ lbs. man in a dark alley then he's scary even if he isn't dressed as a Bat and using cutting edge technology (which, luckily for Batman, he is). 
 
@Mainline said:

@Jekylhyde14 said:

"1) he could funnel more Wayne funds into his Batman, Inc. project. It was incredible that he could get away with funding his personal mission without the board of directors noticing, but if he's going to have an army of vigilantes with robot suits then he's going to need more of the company's money and support. Making his funding of Batman public and making the idea an enterprise opens that option up for him. 2) To present the idea of Batman to the public as an ideology. Batman said in the Return that he wants to fight the idea of crime with the idea of Batman. . . . This would be much easier to take from a public figure like Bruce Wayne than a mysterious vigilante like Batman. Bruce's announcement makes sense to me. He needed the money and wanted to get the word out there without having to force Batman to talk with the media which could, in a very real way, expose his secret identity. Knowing Batman exists is different from hearing him talk or watching him on 60 Minutes.  "

1) Batman built Composite Superman/Batman Mecha, Brother Eye, the Watchtower, and dozens of Bat-Bunkers, there's no way his current plan costs more than that at his current recruitment rate of... -1 (Mr. Unknown getting crossed off).  There are no "armies" in play.  Everything is in prototype phase, which begs the question, why not make private invitations first and THEN make the announcement?  Batman still believes in free-will doesn't he?  What if he makes this big announcement and no one joins?  Then how did his announcement make any sense?  Finally, Wayne Enterprises had always been privately held meaning the board is meaningless, if Wayne was accountable to the board and needed to "come out" to escape scrutiny, they'd have him on criminal, civil, and contractual charges in seconds after the announcement... admission after-the-fact doesn't suddenly make your embezzlement retroactively OK... the only way the announcement works is if Wayne always had unfettered use of the funds. 
 
2) Again, you haven't addressed why BRUCE had to make the announcement in-story instead of BATMAN.  Everything you're saying works for BATMAN's rationale, not Bruce's.  Batman could accomplish all your speculated goals by making the announcement.  If the whole point is that Batman's ideas should go public, how does it make sense that someone other than Batman should spread those ideals- I thought you said Batman wasn't "mysterious"?  Making Bruce does it compromises Bruce's "secret identity"... for years he's cultivated the public perception of a lazy and irresponsible playboy... trying to pretend a grim crime-fighting message coming from him would be more credible is like saying Ashton Kutcher would be the go-to man for speaking about global trade policy (even if Bruce manages to convince people, then he simultaneously proves he's been a liar, skilled actor, and secret holder all this time).  There's no "either Bruce announces it or there's no announcement"... Batman is creative, there's at least a dozen other ways to get the message out authoritatively without compromising Bruce or Bat.  Batman has Oracle at his beck and call, what does he need the media for?   
1) Building these gadgets one at a time is different than staffing and maintaining an entire army with cutting-edge equipment. Also, building things like the Justice League Watchtower has civic and tax incentives if Wayne Enterprises built that openly.  Even if they didn't they had the powers of Superman and the rest to expedite the process and make it cheaper and was probably backed by funds from guys like Ted Kord. Batman also already has some members lined up who wouldn't dream of saying no like Knight and Squire or some of the rest of the International Batmen from the Black Glove story. Plus, if Batman asked you to join his club would you really turn him down (if you were a serious vigilante)? If anything, Wayne Enterprises announcing their support makes people MORE likely to say yes because now they know for sure Batman has the money to fund something like this.  
 
2) I maintain that Bruce can deliver the message without compromising his identity. Are you saying that someone can't be a womanizer and also have an eye towards changing the world for the better? What about JFK or Howard Hughes? Bruce mentioned his parent's murder during his announcement and that would be enough for many to prove he's serious about Batman's mission and philosophy. And, again, I said that people knew Batman EXISTED. This does not necessarily make him any less mysterious or scary. Listening to him give press conferences or interviews could change this, however, and it would give people video evidence with audio to prove he and Bruce are the same man. Not a great idea.  
 
@Mainline said:

@Jekylhyde14 said:

"I'm still not convinced that the employees of Wayne Enterprises are any more in danger than before. Most of them already work in the most dangerous city on the planet and have survived plagues, earthquakes, No Man's Land, and multiple Joker schemes.Wayne Enterprises is already a major target for crime being Gotham's most successful business. Also, would you really want to take a company head on if it has robot armor and vigilantes (he does have multiple already if you count his sidekicks AND they have Justice League connections) that go toe-to-toe with metahumans? Not unless you're already a major player who wouldn't shy away from preying on Wayne Industries anyway. It MIGHT make them more of a target, but Stark Industries has always seemed to deal with it in Marvel and they had Iron Man on the books from the beginning (long before Tony Stark even thought of revealing his identity)."

"WayneCorp continues to achieve excellence across a wide range of industry sectors and markets, employing some 170,000 people in 170 countries." 
 
Most of them do not live in Gotham, the only way to be as wealthy as Wayne is to be global.  Bruce confirmed it: One man, who's looking to franchise (as in has not franchised yet)... so you've got 170,000 targets in 170 different countries with almost nil risk of immediate wrath plus a predisposition towards risk anyways (that is, not particularly worried about wrath at all)... heck, now that you know Batman's "public" you know Batman isn't going to kill you and risk unraveling his global franchise.  Worst case, you take a beating and get sent to revolving door detention but now you've a way to strike at the Bat who was always hidden and unassailable before.  Wayne has established that the Bat depends on Wayne, so you get to do all the mayhem you'd do anyways but now know you're hurting the Bat in the process. 
 
Further, did Bruce Wayne announce robot armor?  Did Wayne say they had numbers, armies, and sidekicks?  Did the announcement say anything about League endorsement or protection?  No!  So why would a villain take any of that into account (even presuming they're sane to begin with)?  All Wayne did was present a juicy target, he didn't share any of the barbs or barriers to ward or deter a crazy from taking a knock at it. 
 
And again, it still doesn't account for how the employees feel themselves.  Half of the Justice League- Batman's own colleagues- have issues with his approach to crime fighting... and these are people who know him, work with him, and have seen his results... how can you guarantee the average citizen who has nothing but a womanizing playboy's word on what Batman represents is going to support that, stick with the company, etc.  Additionally, what about corporate espionage or bribes or other non-confrontational ways of attacking Wayne Enterprises?  Superheroes and robot armies are really good at punching things, but they're terrible at stopping white-collar crime (whether induced by the lure of money or the threat of a family held hostage). 
 
With respect to Iron Man, Bruce doesn't know he's a fictional character and has never read Marvel Comics... whatever happened there doesn't affect his rationale for his own actions.  Stark Industries failed to deal with it, incidentally, if you've been reading Iron Man he had four fifths of his global head quarters leveled by a longtime rival trying to get at him.  The casualties were kept to a minimum and everyone- apparently- stayed to work at Stark, but only by writer fiat not out of rational plotting (which, again, I've allowed for... Morrison may not care about providing rationales so long as he hits his meta-goals of sexy international Bats + involved Bruce even if it doesn't make sense; but right now it's too early to tell). 
 
Well, you got me on the fact that it's an International Company with multiple locations, and, you're right, that Batman can't be everywhere at once to protect them. But this is Batman and this is MORRISON'S Batman who always has a plan. I doubt he's left his companies and employees undefended. If I were working for Wayne and I just heard they were funding Batman, I'd admit to be a little worried. However, if I took into account that they at least had Batman who is a known member of the Justice League then I'd figure I'd be protected somehow. It doesn't really matter that he hasn't announced his robot armor or sidekicks. You'd know he has things like that (since they confirmed Batman has technology) which would be used to safeguard your protection. People also sign up for potentially dangerous jobs all the time otherwise we wouldn't have people in the military or working as Alaskan King Crab fishermen. Some jobs come with risks. If people can't take it, I'm sure they'll quit Wayne Enterprises like they'd quit any other job that makes them uncomfortable. I'm sure a lot would stick it out regardless. Morrison may get to this in time and you have no way of knowing. And, unfortunately, you don't have to be in full agreement with your company to need to hold onto the job. Luckily, they do have a benevolent and noble employer who WILL try his best to protect them.  
 
I brought up Iron Man to prove that this sort of thing can and has been done. The unfortunate consequence to these people being employed by superheroes in a comic book world is that they are in danger of becoming an explosive plot point.  
 
@Mainline said:

@Jekylhyde14 said:
"You may think it's irresponsible of Bruce to possibly put his employees in more danger, but if you believe in what you're doing than sometimes you have to take risks."
Except this is exactly the rationale you've claimed we've left behind, particularly since it's not him that's taking the risk... he's making them take the risk without giving them a say in the matter before thrusting it upon them.   
No, I admitted it MIGHT put them at more risk. I didn't say it would for sure and we don't KNOW it will. And, yes, he is making the decision for his company and employees, but it is HIS company. My employers have never run their long-term goals past me. It would be strange for Bruce to do so in any instance. Thankfully, in the Capitalist system these people can choose whether they want to continue working there or not which is still THEIR choice. Sorry if Bruce disappoints you in this regard but it makes him no different than any other CEO.  
 
@Mainline said: 
The whole thing with Babel, Brother Eye, War Games, etc. is this rationale.  That something is immoral and dangerous and risky, but Batman believes in it so he keeps it around until it blows up.  Suddenly drafting a hundred thousand employees into a war on crime is not responsible risk taking. 
   
Which sounds like good characterization to me. Bruce is TRYING to be a new man with new plans, but he's still subject to some of his old character flaws like any other human being. This is why he also took the attitude of Dr. Sivana's mysterious device being safer in his hands. Bruce may be up for working with others and in the open now, but that doesn't mean that he's stopped believing that he knows best. I'm sure that tragic flaw will follow him to his actual grave. Remember that being Batman in the first place isn't responsible risk taking. 
 
@Mainline said:

 
@Jekylhyde14 said:
"You're right that the groundwork for this was set up with 52 and OYL, but it was set-up BY Grant, and it was only the beginning of the journey to Bruce's change of heart. He needed to be taken to his lowest point, to his death even to finish it. I believe he had to be reborn to come back a more or less new man. If you're not convinced now then I hope you will be as the story goes on. Give it a chance like you say you are and I don't think you'll be disappointed by the result. I don't think I will be.  "
It sounds nice but it didn't really play out like that, he wasn't really put through a crucible in "death", if anything he was glorified... he had the ultimate hero's death slaying a dark god to save the universe and then a series of wacky time-travel adventures.  If it was about breaking the Bat, IC did it better, or it could have immediately followed RIP instead of diverging into Final Crisis + Return.  Let's put it another way, until we know exactly what the plan is, his goals, etc. we can't really say what was or wasn't necessary to get him there... but if the only point of it was to discard paranoia and loner issues, then we didn't need a five-year detour to get there.  The fact is, with writer fiat you can accomplish anything in probably six issues.  However, right now it's wait and see. "
I feel completely different about the RIP, Final Crisis, Return of Bruce Wayne saga. Maybe I'll tell you more about why later, but I've already spent enough time on this post (and my theories about those series would take a LOOOOOONNNNG time). Honestly, you claim to be giving this story a chance but you seem to be looking for any excuse to poke holes in it. I don't think Grant's plot has any more holes or inconsistencies than any other comic I've read in the modern age. Why spend so much time analyzing his unless you feel threatened by the changes he's bringing? If you really don't like it you know you don't have to read it. All I'm saying is have a little faith. 
Posted by Mainline
@Jekylhyde14 said:
"1) Yes, he confirmed Batman is a man, but, then again, it's in the name: BatMAN. All you've just said is that Bruce confirmed his gender. 2) Prove what he said confirms this. Yes, he used singular pronouns when referring to Batman, but for all anyone really knows it could be (and really IS) a couple of guys or more. 3) Yes, he confirmed this which is what he set out to do with his speech. Also, there ARE meta humans with sponsors that use technology. Metamorpho had his wealthy boss Stagg, Iron Man has Stark Enterprises, Booster was a complete sell-out for a while, Spider-Man had his spider-mobile (thank you main page), the Justice League had Max Lord and government support (as did the Avengers), etc., etc., etc. Having money and technology does not necessarily mean you don't have powers or magic. Dracula was loaded, right? 4) And I wouldn't worry about Batman being less scary because of all these things. You meet a 200+ lbs. man in a dark alley then he's scary even if he isn't dressed as a Bat and using cutting edge technology (which, luckily for Batman, he is). "
1. Man is mortal, he didn't Batman an idea, a spirit, a force, or anything greater than that.  2) Singular pronouns, otherwise a lot of dancing by you.  3) For which we have no logical reason for it.  And C-list hero sponsors aren't terribly inspiring, he's proving Batman is finite; 4) You should worry about fear as that's Batman's primary identifying characteristic even from his genesis and the very explanation for the Bat at all. 
 
@Jekylhyde14 said:
" 1) Building these gadgets one at a time is different than staffing and maintaining an entire army with cutting-edge equipment. Also, building things like the Justice League Watchtower has civic and tax incentives if Wayne Enterprises built that openly.  Even if they didn't they had the powers of Superman and the rest to expedite the process and make it cheaper and was probably backed by funds from guys like Ted Kord. Batman also already has some members lined up who wouldn't dream of saying no like Knight and Squire or some of the rest of the International Batmen from the Black Glove story. Plus, if Batman asked you to join his club would you really turn him down (if you were a serious vigilante)? If anything, Wayne Enterprises announcing their support makes people MORE likely to say yes because now they know for sure Batman has the money to fund something like this.  
 
2) I maintain that Bruce can deliver the message without compromising his identity. Are you saying that someone can't be a womanizer and also have an eye towards changing the world for the better? What about JFK or Howard Hughes? Bruce mentioned his parent's murder during his announcement and that would be enough for many to prove he's serious about Batman's mission and philosophy. And, again, I said that people knew Batman EXISTED. This does not necessarily make him any less mysterious or scary. Listening to him give press conferences or interviews could change this, however, and it would give people video evidence with audio to prove he and Bruce are the same man. Not a great idea. "
1. There is no army.  There's negative one recruit (everyone one else having already been enlisted).  You can't use a non-existent expense as justification when your recruitment falls well below even Wayne's own pocket change.  The rest is dancing.  If "Batman asked"... are you kidding?  Nightwing left, Red Hood left, Spoiler left, Cassandra Cain left, Jean-Paul left... the people in his own damn family have struggled to stand the guy, his own JLA colleagues have betrayed him / voted him out / disagreed with him, pretending a Batman team-up is a lock would be supremely unrealistic for "planner" Batman.  And, again, there's no need for Wayne to establish Batman has money, Batman could establish he has money just fine. 
 
2. Except you're wrong because Bruce has already compromised the identity.  We know Batman has monetary ties, and Gordon knows Wayne pulls the strings, and Dick even shares Bruce's international location.  Those are breaches compared to complete secrecy.  Your JFK and Hughes examples aren't credible considering just a few posts ago you were talking about twitter, youtube, camera phones and what not... JFK was entitled to a full on affair, by contrast Bill Clinton's semen is discussed in open court on national television.  Finally, you're not Batman, Batman is far more creative and imaginative than to stand up and give a press conference, nonetheless, the exact same information could be authoritatively provided via Oracle without risk to either identity... and if you aren't willing to suspend or disbelief for a Batman press conference, then it's hypocrisy to say Bruce suddenly makes sense... the metrics are just as bad, especially since you hold the position he's captured on film, proven as existing, etc. 
 
@Jekylhyde14 said:
"1) But this is Batman and this is MORRISON'S Batman who always has a plan. I doubt he's left his companies and employees undefended.  
 2) If I were working for Wayne and I just heard they were funding Batman, I'd admit to be a little worried. However, if I took into account that they at least had Batman who is a known member of the Justice League then I'd figure I'd be protected somehow.   
 3) It doesn't really matter that he hasn't announced his robot armor or sidekicks. You'd know he has things like that (since they confirmed Batman has technology) which would be used to safeguard your protection.  
 4)  People also sign up for potentially dangerous jobs all the time otherwise we wouldn't have people in the military or working as Alaskan King Crab fishermen. Some jobs come with risks.  
 5)  If people can't take it, I'm sure they'll quit Wayne Enterprises like they'd quit any other job that makes them uncomfortable. I'm sure a lot would stick it out regardless. Morrison may get to this in time and you have no way of knowing. And, unfortunately, you don't have to be in full agreement with your company to need to hold onto the job. Luckily, they do have a benevolent and noble employer who WILL try his best to protect them.  
 
I brought up Iron Man to prove that this sort of thing can and has been done. The unfortunate consequence to these people being employed by superheroes in a comic book world is that they are in danger of becoming an explosive plot point. "
1) That's meta-reasoning, Bruce doesn't know he's fictional.  Additionally, we do know his employees are undefended.  If they were it would be a huge invasion of privacy (robots stalking them to their homes, surveillance, etc) and Batman would already be global, but his announcement was about taking it global, as in- he had not done it yet
 
2) That's terrible reasoning considering Gotham is Batman's city and it regularly sees its share of victims.  Just because something "belongs" to Batman is far from a guarantee of protection.  Worse still, if you know Batman a little better, you know he chases meta-human heroes out of his city on a regular basis... or if all you did was follow the League you'd know his attendance of late is spotty at best and complete absence as more realistic. 
 
3) No, no you wouldn't know that because both Batman is mysterious and you don't know all that stuff and this is a new direction (your whole funding argument), it's not historically what Batman has done so there's no reason to expect it. 
 
4) They sign up knowing the job is dangerous, you realize how that's different from signing up to be a doorman or receptionist and then told you're a front for a vigilante war on crime that is likely to visit your doorstep?  They're hardly comparable nor is their hazard pay or compensation for the sudden added risk. 
 
5) Except that he didn't.  Bruce's first personally involved action was to recruit minus one person to Batman, Inc.  He didn't make his vision clear to the troops (none of them are recruiting), he didn't further or elaborate on his public message, he didn't secure the home front... he's having sexy time with Catwoman and tentacles. 
 
6) None of which applies to the internal logic of the situation.  Stark had, essentially, no choice in revealing his identity, it was untenable for him to maintain it, so the fallout is what happened after he was exposed.  Bruce is willingly making Wayne Enterprises a target without explaining to anyone what he gets in exchange for doing that. 
 
@Jekylhyde14 said:
" No, I admitted it MIGHT put them at more risk. I didn't say it would for sure and we don't KNOW it will. And, yes, he is making the decision for his company and employees, but it is HIS company. My employers have never run their long-term goals past me. It would be strange for Bruce to do so in any instance. Thankfully, in the Capitalist system these people can choose whether they want to continue working there or not which is still THEIR choice. Sorry if Bruce disappoints you in this regard but it makes him no different than any other CEO.  "
Uh, an announcement is not a long term goal.  In all honesty, the employees that have a problem could care less what Wayne's goals were so long as he kept them to himself.  The announcement is what threatens them and if they do get harmed they could bury him with a civil suit.  It doesn't matter if Bruce has the autonomy to do it, the question is does he have a logical rationale for doing it?
 
@Jekylhyde14 said:
" Which sounds like good characterization to me. Bruce is TRYING to be a new man with new plans, but he's still subject to some of his old character flaws like any other human being. This is why he also took the attitude of Dr. Sivana's mysterious device being safer in his hands. Bruce may be up for working with others and in the open now, but that doesn't mean that he's stopped believing that he knows best. I'm sure that tragic flaw will follow him to his actual grave. Remember that being Batman in the first place isn't responsible risk taking."
Trying and doing are different things.  And, before RIP he didn't have that attitude, moreover I don't think you're right considering how he's deferred to Dick on Damien... it sounds more like aggressive apologetics rather than consistent characterization.  I certainly haven't forgotten that being Batman is crazy, that's exactly what I said in my first post in this thread... Batman isn't rational (and knows it which is why he's contained it until now) which makes the shift towards rationalized goals challenging, if not flat out contradictory. 
 
@Jekylhyde14 said:
"I feel completely different about the RIP, Final Crisis, Return of Bruce Wayne saga. Maybe I'll tell you more about why later, but I've already spent enough time on this post (and my theories about those series would take a LOOOOOONNNNG time). Honestly, you claim to be giving this story a chance but you seem to be looking for any excuse to poke holes in it. I don't think Grant's plot has any more holes or inconsistencies than any other comic I've read in the modern age. Why spend so much time analyzing his unless you feel threatened by the changes he's bringing? If you really don't like it you know you don't have to read it. All I'm saying is have a little faith.  "
1. The holes are presented by the story itself.  Morrison decided to have Bruce make the announcement instead of Batman, so it is only reasonable to ask WHY?  Morrison decided to use the business word "franchise" and the legal term "incorporated" and elected to put Bruce on a plane to Japan with a romantic interest in a catsuit rather than explain anything... so again we're allowed to ask WHY?  I've shown how Morrison could have executed the exact same things without the announcement or the employee risk or the legal or business quandaries, so again, until it's either explained or the story goes past it, it's worth it to look at exactly what Grant has given us... which is a whole lot of vague framework but very little reasoning, characterization, or explanation... instead, defenders regularly default to meta-explanation found in interviews rather than the pages of the comic.  If a comic isn't internally consistent it isn't the end of the world, but if it can't even stand up to the scrutiny it asks us to explore then that's troublesome. 
 
2. I spend time analyze it more because of the odd psychological response of the defenders positing theories for what is essentially empty space.  It is, quite simply, the Emperor's Clothes.  I don't know how the direction could be "genius", "great", or "good" when most can't even articulate exactly what the direction is or it's rationale or explanation in story... all I get are truisms about Morrison, which fine, he's allowed to be as brilliant as you want him to be, but it doesn't change the fact there's nothing on the page that explains what the hell Batman, Inc means to any of the characters.  Given the complete vacuum, yet the need to defend, that is what I'm analyzing... what in your head is spilling out to fill the void and create the elaborate Emperor's Clothes that Grant didn't write yet.  You've taken it a step further to say I'm threatened but not particularly... if I've been reading Batman for decades, including Grant's epic (or his New X-Men run) what exactly would it "threaten" (and, incidentally, I rarely buy Bat books in my reading pool, that's all my girlfriend's brother, so I'm not monetarily invested)?  Instead, I see it as a clear projection of insecurity in Grant's vision in which there is great investment, high hopes, and faith... but few fruits yet. 
 
Again, if Grant completely skips rationality and just goes on to sexy adventure time from now on, that's where my analysis will fall because that's would be what he's given us, but right now we got over half-a-dozen post-return books with literally hundreds of pages of story and yet no clear explanation of what Batman, Inc is, it's goals, it's terms, it's form, it's function, etc.  How can a non-concept be great?
Posted by Mainline
@zabka said:
" Sounds good to me.  The whole point of Return of Bruce Wayne was showing that he's never been a lone wolf.    A big focus of GM's Batman run (and ASS) has been about the legacy of a superhero, and it's good to see a character actually embrace it. As for revealing he funds Batman I don't think it's a big issue.  All of the dangerous villains know his secret identity anyway.  "
The lone wolf stuff was resolved after OYL.  By embracing Robin back into his regular routine the story had already embraced its legacy.  The dangerous villain knowledge doesn't really hold up.  That's like saying, "Eh, all my roommates know my ATM PIN and they never abuse it... I might as well post it to Facebook!"
Posted by Jekylhyde14
@Mainline said:
" @Jekylhyde14 said:
"1) Yes, he confirmed Batman is a man, but, then again, it's in the name: BatMAN. All you've just said is that Bruce confirmed his gender. 2) Prove what he said confirms this. Yes, he used singular pronouns when referring to Batman, but for all anyone really knows it could be (and really IS) a couple of guys or more. 3) Yes, he confirmed this which is what he set out to do with his speech. Also, there ARE meta humans with sponsors that use technology. Metamorpho had his wealthy boss Stagg, Iron Man has Stark Enterprises, Booster was a complete sell-out for a while, Spider-Man had his spider-mobile (thank you main page), the Justice League had Max Lord and government support (as did the Avengers), etc., etc., etc. Having money and technology does not necessarily mean you don't have powers or magic. Dracula was loaded, right? 4) And I wouldn't worry about Batman being less scary because of all these things. You meet a 200+ lbs. man in a dark alley then he's scary even if he isn't dressed as a Bat and using cutting edge technology (which, luckily for Batman, he is). "
1. Man is mortal, he didn't Batman an idea, a spirit, a force, or anything greater than that.  2) Singular pronouns, otherwise a lot of dancing by you.  3) For which we have no logical reason for it.  And C-list hero sponsors aren't terribly inspiring, he's proving Batman is finite; 4) You should worry about fear as that's Batman's primary identifying characteristic even from his genesis and the very explanation for the Bat at all.   
1) Huh? 2) There are two Batmen at the moment, correct? So honestly, Bruce wasn't revealing everything about Batman's identity was he? You're probably going to call that "dancing," but count the Batmen, brother. The use of "he" again could only confirm, once again, that Batman is male. Remember, Bruce isn't telling the full truth to the reporters here. Why would he? 3) Oh well, if I haven't convinced you yet, I probably never will. Once again, it was to get his company behind it and the philosophy public. 4) Again, I don't see how Grant's made Batman any less scary. Remember how he wrecked Dr. Hurt? I think he comes off as plenty intimidating. And what do you mean about the bat? Grant didn't undue anything from Frank Miller's bat scene and he added a great zoological piece to it focusing on the wounded bat. I think he still takes the lesson of fear to heart, but now he wants to make a world of criminals afraid of Batman.  
 
@Mainline said: 
1. There is no army.  There's negative one recruit (everyone one else having already been enlisted).  You can't use a non-existent expense as justification when your recruitment falls well below even Wayne's own pocket change.  The rest is dancing.  If "Batman asked"... are you kidding?  Nightwing left, Red Hood left, Spoiler left, Cassandra Cain left, Jean-Paul left... the people in his own damn family have struggled to stand the guy, his own JLA colleagues have betrayed him / voted him out / disagreed with him, pretending a Batman team-up is a lock would be supremely unrealistic for "planner" Batman.  And, again, there's no need for Wayne to establish Batman has money, Batman could establish he has money just fine.    
 2. Except you're wrong because Bruce has already compromised the identity.  We know Batman has monetary ties, and Gordon knows Wayne pulls the strings, and Dick even shares Bruce's international location.  Those are breaches compared to complete secrecy.  Your JFK and Hughes examples aren't credible considering just a few posts ago you were talking about twitter, youtube, camera phones and what not... JFK was entitled to a full on affair, by contrast Bill Clinton's semen is discussed in open court on national television.  Finally, you're not Batman, Batman is far more creative and imaginative than to stand up and give a press conference, nonetheless, the exact same information could be authoritatively provided via Oracle without risk to either identity... and if you aren't willing to suspend or disbelief for a Batman press conference, then it's hypocrisy to say Bruce suddenly makes sense... the metrics are just as bad, especially since you hold the position he's captured on film, proven as existing, etc.      
1) Negative one recruit? How much you want to bet Mr. Unknown's body double becomes the new Mr. Unknown AND joins up with Batman, Inc. You're going to cry, speculation, but I'm feeling pretty good about it. Just as certain as I am about Knight and Squire and, hell, AT LEAST one of the Batmen of All Nations joining Batman, Inc. Batman already has Dick, Damian, Tim, Stephanie, Selina, Alfred, and Barbara on his team. That sounds like a good start to Batman, Inc. in two issues. It also kind of sounds like you hate Batman in this section. You don't think he can inspire people? He always seemed like a leader in the Justice League and he lead the Outsiders. They've had their differences but they keep bringing him back and giving him responsibility. Pretty good for a guy that nasty, huh? And, yeah, Bruce Wayne is Rich. It takes the wealth of a small nation to run a global peace-keeping force, though. That's where the company comes in.  
 
2) Look, man, if we were talking in realistic terms, everyone would already know Batman's secret identity. He's never really had complete secrecy in the modern age. Ra's Al Ghul found out, Tim figured it out (When he was a tween), Bane figured it out, Tim told his dad, a good deal of the Justice League knows, Catwoman knows, Gordon and the Joker have practically known for years, and, let's face it, any good spy or investigator worth a damn could probably figure it out (it's kind of a running joke that way).  If you're suggesting that you can't suspend YOUR belief to think that Bruce Wayne could hide his secret identity from the public despite these transgressions then you're the hypocrite. I think Bruce wanted to give the press conference. I've given you my reasons. 
 
And, honestly, I think your arguments are a big vacuum. I've backed up my points with EVIDENCE from years of reading and REASON. All you've done is repeat yourself, whine, and offer made-up technicalities like "dancing" and "meta-reasoning" to try and nullify my arguments. You're doing all this vicious whining after TWO ISSUES and you say you're open to it. Gimme a break...  I'm telling you I understand what Grant's going for and I'm there with him. I've liked everything he's done with Batman so far. If you don't like it, you have five or six other Bat books to choose from. Like I said, if you don't get it now, you probably never will.... 
Edited by entropy_aegis

I honestly dont understand what the whole fuss is all about,people are actually worrying about wayne industries employees? gimme a break if you want to go by that logic then i have one question,when was the last time the batmobile was stuck in the traffic?afterall gotham is a populous city.complaining about secret identity is not going to cut it ,this is the same universe where superman tricks a building full of top notch reporters with a bunch of glasses.too many batman enemies know bruces identity ,even if we do not count dr hurt and the other villians under morrison we still have hugo strange,ra's al ghul,talia'al ghul,bane,riddler,hush catwoman,jason todd,one of the clayfaces also knew then we count the assasins which include lady shiva,david cain,merlyn,deathstroke the entire league of shadows .then we come to the one time villians mr whisper,deacon blackfire etc,then people who arent batman villians despero,darkseid,alex luthor,white martains and MANY more this is before i start mentioning all the allies.two-face and poison ivy actually knew at one point as well.so basically the only villians who can pose a threat to batman without knowing his identity are deadshot(who doesnt want to kill him) and ivy(who is not a villian now) leaving guys like pengiun,calendar man ,freeze who would all get one shotted anyway.
Posted by Mainline
@Jekylhyde14 said:
" 1) Huh? 2) There are two Batmen at the moment, correct? So honestly, Bruce wasn't revealing everything about Batman's identity was he? . . . Remember, Bruce isn't telling the full truth to the reporters here. Why would he? 3) ... Once again, it was to get his company behind it and the philosophy public. 4) Again, I don't see how Grant's made Batman any less scary. Remember how he wrecked Dr. Hurt? I think he comes off as plenty intimidating. And what do you mean about the bat? Grant didn't undue anything from Frank Miller's bat scene and he added a great zoological piece to it focusing on the wounded bat. I think he still takes the lesson of fear to heart, but now he wants to make a world of criminals afraid of Batman.  "
2) Context.  It wouldn't matter if there was five Batmen.  According to you, the announcement would create a deterrent effect and would not compromise (not reveal) the identity.  Wayne has made it clear to the world- and the villains- there has only been one Batman and franchising is only to begin.  That's not a deterrent and that doesn't create a great pool of ambiguous Batmen (like the DEO once suspected), instead narrows it compromising the identity. Your rhetorical question is terrible since the very challenge is WHY IS BRUCE TELLING THE REPORTERS ANYTHING at all?  Telling me that Wayne is withholding as an argument makes no sense when the argument is that Wayne shouldn't be disclosing anything... how is that logical, how is that reason? 
 
3) This was already addressed.  Wayne didn't need his company behind it.  A) He's used vast sums before without public accountability; B) If he was accountable, admitting embezzlement now doesn't suddenly make it retroactively permissible, only if he was always allowed to use the funds could he make the announcement, meaning he was never accountable.  And again, you've failed to show why Bruce had to make the announcement and not Batman even if the goal was to make the philosophy public which by the way wasn't in the announcement (how is that evidence?)... so you're completely weaving invisible robes... how do you spread a message if: A) You don't say it; B) You immediately take off for Japan rather than saying it?  Think real hard on A) because I imagine whatever answer lies there would have been a satisfactory alternative to an announcement. 
 
4)  The villains don't know who Grant Morrison is.  The villains, mostly, have no idea about Hurt.  None of this has bearing on their rationales and behaviors.  Meanwhile, "Criminals are a superstitious . . . lot."  Wayne has debunked a good portion of the superstition surrounding Batman with his announcement. 
 
@Jekylhyde14 said:
" 1) Negative one recruit? How much you want to bet Mr. Unknown's body double becomes the new Mr. Unknown AND joins up with Batman, Inc. You're going to cry, speculation, but I'm feeling pretty good about it. Just as certain as I am about Knight and Squire and, hell, AT LEAST one of the Batmen of All Nations joining Batman, Inc. Batman already has Dick, Damian, Tim, Stephanie, Selina, Alfred, and Barbara on his team. That sounds like a good start to Batman, Inc. in two issues. 2) It also kind of sounds like you hate Batman in this section. You don't think he can inspire people? He always seemed like a leader in the Justice League and he lead the Outsiders. They've had their differences but they keep bringing him back and giving him responsibility. Pretty good for a guy that nasty, huh? 3) And, yeah, Bruce Wayne is Rich. It takes the wealth of a small nation to run a global peace-keeping force, though. That's where the company comes in."
1) Again, is it on the page?  Comics are periodicals I'm debating the state now.  Do I think the numbers won't eventually swell?  Of course not, but you're missing the forest for the trees.  If after a week-long adventure Batman recruits one guy... how does that justify Wayne making the announcement?  The scope of franchising / going global / being incorporated (that is, so large that the founding member needs to be insulated from liability with respect to the actions of the larger body- the very point of incorporation) is magnitudes beyond one guy in a few days.  Everyone else you mention was already on board with... whatever Batman Inc is.  Again, this doesn't justify the announcement, it doesn't act as a deterrent, it doesn't require more funding than previously illustrated at Batman's disposal.  That's the core argument that you've lost track of. 
 
2) It doesn't matter whether I like Batman, the point is that in-story Batman knows people don't like him and have trouble working with him.  Does he think an announcement from Wayne would suddenly endear him to strangers when he's struggled to work with his closest family and colleagues for years?  If so, why... that's exactly the point... there's no explanation for how the announcement connects to recruitment or why recruitment couldn't have been accomplished without the announcement at all or via Oracle / Batman (or, say Superman if indeed he has League support, wants to be in the light, yadda, yadda).  The fact that you're defending Batman's character shows you've missed the point.  This isn't about him in terms of quality this is about him in terms of rationality... how does any of his actions make sense in his own head
 
3) Uh, you've missed the point.  No villain, no hero to be recruited, the public doesn't care whether Wayne is rich... the only relevant fact is that Batman is (through the announcement he is by proxy of Wayne).  So the question is, if you needed everyone to know that Batman has resources then why did the source of those resources have to be revealed?  They didn't.  People prove, show, and demonstrate their wealth all the time without holding press conferences... but even if a press conference was the vehicle, there's no reason Batman declaring and demonstrating unlimited wealth / resources would not have exactly the same desired utilitarian goals without compromising Wayne.  Even if the goal is to show cooperation and support, there's no reason Batman can't say he has wealthy backers, secret donors, and open support by the League (presuming the latter which on the page doesn't exist). 
 
@Jekylhyde14 said:
" 2) Look, man, if we were talking in realistic terms, everyone would already know Batman's secret identity. He's never really had complete secrecy in the modern age. Ra's Al Ghul found out, Tim figured it out (When he was a tween), Bane figured it out, Tim told his dad, a good deal of the Justice League knows, Catwoman knows, Gordon and the Joker have practically known for years, and, let's face it, any good spy or investigator worth a damn could probably figure it out (it's kind of a running joke that way).  
 3) If you're suggesting that you can't suspend YOUR belief to think that Bruce Wayne could hide his secret identity from the public despite these transgressions then you're the hypocrite. I think Bruce wanted to give the press conference. I've given you my reasons.  
4) And, honestly, I think your arguments are a big vacuum. I've backed up my points with EVIDENCE from years of reading and REASON.  
 5) You're doing all this vicious whining after TWO ISSUES and you say you're open to it. Gimme a break...  I'm telling you I understand what Grant's going for and I'm there with him. I've liked everything he's done with Batman so far. If you don't like it, you have five or six other Bat books to choose from. Like I said, if you don't get it now, you probably never will....  "
2) Again, this is not logic.  It's one thing to have a broken front door lock, it's another to decide then to broadcast that fact just because your home security is weakened (even if they have to take the step to perform a home invasion, how does the broadcasting make sense?).  This is terrible reasoning with respect to explaining Bruce's inclinations one way or another. 
3) Hardly, I've stated, repeatedly that Morrison can elect to ignore and move past it by writer fiat rather than worry about the rationality of it.  Even if that's his REAL WORLD choice it doesn't explain Bruce's IN-STORY choice.  The reasons given are not on the page.  Emperor's Clothing. 
4) Well, I've pointed above where your reasoning and evidence holes are... you can't use "meta-reasoning" to explain in-character/in-story rationales; you can't use small sample sets to declare behavior for a whole (because the ID is secure with some, it's secure with everyone; because some might be deterred, everyone will be; because some employees might feel safe, enough will to justify Bruce's actions, etc.); you can't say what his expenditure or what his recruitment rate is or will be since it's not on the page and you're only speculating; you can't say he needed it for company accountability otherwise he'd be in trouble for his past embezzlement; and so far every in story motive [guessed at] has been accomplished just as well by other non-compromising means.  You've not addressed any of these using evidence because there is none... at best you've presented guesses which is hardly hard evidence. 
5) And there's that defensiveness I was talking about.  The work should speak for itself... what I'm fascinated with is how it doesn't yet you insist on certain gap-fillers despite a lack of on-page facts.  Again, we don't know Bruce's motives, his execution, or his reasoning... all you've done is give me Grant's.
Posted by Mainline
@entropy_aegis said:
" I honestly dont understand what the whole fuss is all about,people are actually worrying about wayne industries employees? gimme a break if you want to go by that logic then i have one question,when was the last time the batmobile was stuck in the traffic?afterall gotham is a populous city"
There's no question tropes that require the suspension of disbelief exist, the question is what do we get in exchange and do the tropes make sense to the characters?  Incidentally, the Batmobile has been stuck in traffic which is why Batman & Robin adopted the flying Batmobile and Bruce used the Bat-Wing before it.  However, in either case, the trope arose out of necessity.  Batman needs to get around, he needs transport... so the most logical means is a vehicle, thus the Batmobile with or without traffic.  Superman needs a dual identity so we get the glasses as a matter of tradition but no one doing a modern retelling of the idea just leaves it there and says, "Accept it!" everyone tries to rationalize the glasses even though it's a ridiculous trope.
 
The issue here is that we don't know why Bruce needs to make an announcement... so it's not a Necessity and we get no Explanation.  All of Batman's speculated goals could have been accomplished without Bruce making the announcement... not a necessity.  Batman's actual goals remain largely unsaid!  That is the issue. 
 
As for the villain logic, I've addressed it repeatedly... a breach in security does not provide an adequate rationale for broadcasting that breach.  Just because an opposing nation's intelligence agency discovers a hole in your firewall doesn't mean you need to put it on WikiLeaks and tell everyone- "Hey, there's a hole!"  Sure, the public still might have to do work to exploit that hole, but that doesn't provide an explanation or rationale for why you felt compelled to broadcast the vulnerability.  This argument is bad reasoning and logic.
Posted by entropy_aegis
@Mainline:
except we dont even know what the plan even is,but bruce does know it, his experience from vanishing point has given knowledge of  these events
also morrison has been kinda mocking those people who take comics too seriously this was shown throughout his run.  i respect your opinion and admittedly all points you brought up are legit,the most we can do is agree to disagree  till this run ends.                            
Edited by Jekylhyde14
@Mainline said:

" @Jekylhyde14 said:

" 1) Huh? 2) There are two Batmen at the moment, correct? So honestly, Bruce wasn't revealing everything about Batman's identity was he? . . . Remember, Bruce isn't telling the full truth to the reporters here. Why would he? 3) ... Once again, it was to get his company behind it and the philosophy public. 4) Again, I don't see how Grant's made Batman any less scary. Remember how he wrecked Dr. Hurt? I think he comes off as plenty intimidating. And what do you mean about the bat? Grant didn't undue anything from Frank Miller's bat scene and he added a great zoological piece to it focusing on the wounded bat. I think he still takes the lesson of fear to heart, but now he wants to make a world of criminals afraid of Batman.  "

2) Context.  It wouldn't matter if there was five Batmen.  According to you, the announcement would create a deterrent effect and would not compromise (not reveal) the identity.  Wayne has made it clear to the world- and the villains- there has only been one Batman and franchising is only to begin.  That's not a deterrent and that doesn't create a great pool of ambiguous Batmen (like the DEO once suspected), instead narrows it compromising the identity. Your rhetorical question is terrible since the very challenge is WHY IS BRUCE TELLING THE REPORTERS ANYTHING at all?  Telling me that Wayne is withholding as an argument makes no sense when the argument is that Wayne shouldn't be disclosing anything... how is that logical, how is that reason? 
 
3) This was already addressed.  Wayne didn't need his company behind it.  A) He's used vast sums before without public accountability; B) If he was accountable, admitting embezzlement now doesn't suddenly make it retroactively permissible, only if he was always allowed to use the funds could he make the announcement, meaning he was never accountable.  And again, you've failed to show why Bruce had to make the announcement and not Batman even if the goal was to make the philosophy public which by the way wasn't in the announcement (how is that evidence?)... so you're completely weaving invisible robes... how do you spread a message if: A) You don't say it; B) You immediately take off for Japan rather than saying it?  Think real hard on A) because I imagine whatever answer lies there would have been a satisfactory alternative to an announcement. 
 
4)  The villains don't know who Grant Morrison is.  The villains, mostly, have no idea about Hurt.  None of this has bearing on their rationales and behaviors.  Meanwhile, "Criminals are a superstitious . . . lot."  Wayne has debunked a good portion of the superstition surrounding Batman with his announcement. 
 

@Jekylhyde14

said:

" 1) Negative one recruit? How much you want to bet Mr. Unknown's body double becomes the new Mr. Unknown AND joins up with Batman, Inc. You're going to cry, speculation, but I'm feeling pretty good about it. Just as certain as I am about Knight and Squire and, hell, AT LEAST one of the Batmen of All Nations joining Batman, Inc. Batman already has Dick, Damian, Tim, Stephanie, Selina, Alfred, and Barbara on his team. That sounds like a good start to Batman, Inc. in two issues. 2) It also kind of sounds like you hate Batman in this section. You don't think he can inspire people? He always seemed like a leader in the Justice League and he lead the Outsiders. They've had their differences but they keep bringing him back and giving him responsibility. Pretty good for a guy that nasty, huh? 3) And, yeah, Bruce Wayne is Rich. It takes the wealth of a small nation to run a global peace-keeping force, though. That's where the company comes in."

1) Again, is it on the page?  Comics are periodicals I'm debating the state now.  Do I think the numbers won't eventually swell?  Of course not, but you're missing the forest for the trees.  If after a week-long adventure Batman recruits one guy... how does that justify Wayne making the announcement?  The scope of franchising / going global / being incorporated (that is, so large that the founding member needs to be insulated from liability with respect to the actions of the larger body- the very point of incorporation) is magnitudes beyond one guy in a few days.  Everyone else you mention was already on board with... whatever Batman Inc is.  Again, this doesn't justify the announcement, it doesn't act as a deterrent, it doesn't require more funding than previously illustrated at Batman's disposal.  That's the core argument that you've lost track of. 
 
2) It doesn't matter whether I like Batman, the point is that in-story Batman knows people don't like him and have trouble working with him.  Does he think an announcement from Wayne would suddenly endear him to strangers when he's struggled to work with his closest family and colleagues for years?  If so, why... that's exactly the point... there's no explanation for how the announcement connects to recruitment or why recruitment couldn't have been accomplished without the announcement at all or via Oracle / Batman (or, say Superman if indeed he has League support, wants to be in the light, yadda, yadda).  The fact that you're defending Batman's character shows you've missed the point.  This isn't about him in terms of quality this is about him in terms of rationality... how does any of his actions make sense in his own head
 
3) Uh, you've missed the point.  No villain, no hero to be recruited, the public doesn't care whether Wayne is rich... the only relevant fact is that Batman is (through the announcement he is by proxy of Wayne).  So the question is, if you needed everyone to know that Batman has resources then why did the source of those resources have to be revealed?  They didn't.  People prove, show, and demonstrate their wealth all the time without holding press conferences... but even if a press conference was the vehicle, there's no reason Batman declaring and demonstrating unlimited wealth / resources would not have exactly the same desired utilitarian goals without compromising Wayne.  Even if the goal is to show cooperation and support, there's no reason Batman can't say he has wealthy backers, secret donors, and open support by the League (presuming the latter which on the page doesn't exist). 
 

@Jekylhyde14

said:

" 2) Look, man, if we were talking in realistic terms, everyone would already know Batman's secret identity. He's never really had complete secrecy in the modern age. Ra's Al Ghul found out, Tim figured it out (When he was a tween), Bane figured it out, Tim told his dad, a good deal of the Justice League knows, Catwoman knows, Gordon and the Joker have practically known for years, and, let's face it, any good spy or investigator worth a damn could probably figure it out (it's kind of a running joke that way).  

 3) If you're suggesting that you can't suspend YOUR belief to think that Bruce Wayne could hide his secret identity from the public despite these transgressions then you're the hypocrite. I think Bruce wanted to give the press conference. I've given you my reasons.  

4) And, honestly, I think your arguments are a big vacuum. I've backed up my points with EVIDENCE from years of reading and REASON.  

 5) You're doing all this vicious whining after TWO ISSUES and you say you're open to it. Gimme a break...  I'm telling you I understand what Grant's going for and I'm there with him. I've liked everything he's done with Batman so far. If you don't like it, you have five or six other Bat books to choose from. Like I said, if you don't get it now, you probably never will....  "

2) Again, this is not logic.  It's one thing to have a broken front door lock, it's another to decide then to broadcast that fact just because your home security is weakened (even if they have to take the step to perform a home invasion, how does the broadcasting make sense?).  This is terrible reasoning with respect to explaining Bruce's inclinations one way or another. 
3) Hardly, I've stated, repeatedly that Morrison can elect to ignore and move past it by writer fiat rather than worry about the rationality of it.  Even if that's his REAL WORLD choice it doesn't explain Bruce's IN-STORY choice.  The reasons given are not on the page.  Emperor's Clothing. 
4) Well, I've pointed above where your reasoning and evidence holes are... you can't use "meta-reasoning" to explain in-character/in-story rationales; you can't use small sample sets to declare behavior for a whole (because the ID is secure with some, it's secure with everyone; because some might be deterred, everyone will be; because some employees might feel safe, enough will to justify Bruce's actions, etc.); you can't say what his expenditure or what his recruitment rate is or will be since it's not on the page and you're only speculating; you can't say he needed it for company accountability otherwise he'd be in trouble for his past embezzlement; and so far every in story motive [guessed at] has been accomplished just as well by other non-compromising means.  You've not addressed any of these using evidence because there is none... at best you've presented guesses which is hardly hard evidence. 
5) And there's that defensiveness I was talking about.  The work should speak for itself... what I'm fascinated with is how it doesn't yet you insist on certain gap-fillers despite a lack of on-page facts.  Again, we don't know Bruce's motives, his execution, or his reasoning... all you've done is give me Grant's. "
Look how long you've spent trying to break down these two issues like they're the worst thing that's ever happened. If you read my reasoning over again, like an adult, you'd see that I've given you things from within the Batman, Inc. story. Batman says he wants to use the idea of Batman to fight crime so he has Bruce go public and tries to bring the idea of Batman around the world. That was in the comic, right? He gets his company to bankroll the idea and since its Batman I trust that he's come up with plans to cover any danger. We were GIVEN the scene where he's shopping for new toys within his company with Lucius Fox, right? WOW, that sounds like in-story evidence to me. And, I've said it before and I'll say it again: Grant, HASN'T gotten to a lot of this stuff yet. Yet, by your own admission, you can't KNOW what's going to happen in the future. As YOU said, comics are periodicals and we've only had TWO chapters to this story. Already you're condemning it. How do you know he isn't going to address ANY of this? He went back and explained the missing pieces from Final Crisis and RIP, didn't he? And I'm sorry if you don't accept my "Meta-Reasoning" but comics is a genre that takes A LOT of leaps in believability and reasoning. ALL of them do this. In fact, to a point, all of fiction does this since you just can't tell a story and have it be entirely "realistic" (whatever that means). I'm just trying to explain the one's Grant's using. You either believe he can make this announcement and retain his secret identity or you don't. Just like you could've choosen to believe in the whole urban legend thing or not. Grant's trying to move Batman in a new direction just like Frank Miller was back in the late-80's. And, just as Miller did, he is doing some things differently than they had been done in the immediate past, and his story contains no more plot holes than any of those from the late-80's.  He has not ignored ANY continuity, and I'm beginning to just think YOU are afraid of the change. This story makes sense to me and obviously quite a few other people feel the same way. If it moves too fast for you then move on. Right now you're trying so hard to be right you're just showing off the depths of your own hypocrisy. 
Posted by entropy_aegis
@Jekylhyde14:
no need to insult anyone for diagreeing with you.
Posted by Jekylhyde14
@entropy_aegis said:
" @Jekylhyde14: no need to insult anyone for diagreeing with you. "
You're right. My first post was harsh. I edited. It's frustrating, though, because he's obviously not listening. 
Posted by Mainline
@Jekylhyde14: Ah, the defensiveness again.  Since you claimed "logic" it was only reasonable to fairly show the lack of it.  The funny thing is that I expressly stated, " If a comic isn't internally consistent it isn't the end of the world" but you've taken it personally because of the elaborate non-existent illusion you've weaved for yourself as opposed to what's on page.  An "adult" (as you've resulted to petty insults) looks at what is, not what is merely imagined.
 
@Jekylhyde14 said:
"1. Batman says he wants to use the idea of Batman to fight crime so he has Bruce go public and tries to bring the idea of Batman around the world. That was in the comic, right?  
 2. He gets his company to bankroll the idea and since its Batman I trust that he's come up with plans to cover any danger.  
 3. We were GIVE the scene where he's shopping for new toys within his company with Lucius Fox, right? WOW, that sounds like in-story evidence to me.  
4. How do you know he isn't going to address ANY of this?  
 5. In fact, to a point, all of fiction does this since you just can't tell a story and have it be entirely "realistic"  
 6. You either believe he can make this announcement and retain his secret identity or you don't.  
 7. He has not ignored ANY continuity, and I'm beginning to just think YOU are afraid of the change."
1. Which misses the point.  No one has debated the actions only the reasoning.  Even if this is one way to go global it doesn't particularly make sense which calls into question the character's rationales and motives.  All the speculated goals can be accomplished by other means.  To disarm this criticism you'd need: a) A motive which requires Bruce make the announcement; b) That Grant actually adopt that motive when the time comes.  You've not succeeded here. 
 
2. His company has always bankrolled any idea Batman has had, that doesn't provide a justification for the announcement.  Your trust has nothing to do with whether Bruce thought the announcement made sense... moreover it's not on the page
 
3. We also have, historically, Batman funneling tons of funds into the Outsiders, JLA, Brother Eye, Babel, etc. there's nothing in that scene that requires the announcement.  And, as shown repeatedly before, announcing embezzlement doesn't make it OK, so he always could do what he wanted with his money, the announcement still doesn't make sense based on that justification alone. 
 
4. I don't, I've stated that.  I'm saying your attempts at addressing it have been logically unsound and it is difficult to imagine one that is.  If you have one, go ahead and provide it. 
 
5. Which I've also stated already.  I've said it again and again that Morrison is free to leave rationality behind, what is fascinating is your insistence that does make rational sense despite having too few on-page facts to establish that. 
 
6. Uh, that has nothing to do with the argument.  It's not our belief, it's Bruce's... rational, planner, etc. Bruce doing things for a purpose and for a reason.  If it is so difficult to conceive of a rational and sensible reason then that is a hole irrespective of whether it gets addressed or not. 
 
7. If you continue to insist that the announcement was necessary to free-up funds then that is ignoring continuity (and common sense; re: embezzlement), I don't think there's enough proof on-page either way.  That you think it's personal again is proof of your insecurity.  The work speaks for itself (and here, has little to say in its defense), rather than accepting that and waiting you're at arms to defend what isn't even there yet.  Emperor's Clothes.
Edited by Jekylhyde14
@Mainline:  
*Rolls Eyes*  
 
Someone takes their comics a little too literally...  
Posted by Mainline
@Jekylhyde14: You're the one who decided to stand for the proposition that the yet unknown direction makes sense on the page.  I've repeatedly stated that my fascination isn't with the story but you trying to hold that unsupportable position. 
 
If you read my first post I've stated that rationality can get left behind (this falls on your deaf ears despite being restated thrice in the last three posts) and that the most pressing question with respect to rationality is why the announcement makes sense but that "why" was not a prerequisite for the story to continue.  As you've needed to turn this into a personal jab despite clearly stating that position from the beginning and repeatedly shows your defensiveness, not anything about the story or my interpretation of it.
Posted by Jekylhyde14
@Mainline said:
" @Jekylhyde14: You're the one who decided to stand for the proposition that the yet unknown direction makes sense on the page.  I've repeatedly stated that my fascination isn't with the story but you trying to hold that unsupportable position. 
 
If you read my first post I've stated that rationality can get left behind (this falls on your deaf ears despite being restated thrice in the last three posts) and that the most pressing question with respect to rationality is why the announcement makes sense but that "why" was not a prerequisite for the story to continue.  As you've needed to turn this into a personal jab despite clearly stating that position from the beginning and repeatedly shows your defensiveness, not anything about the story or my interpretation of it. "
 
So let me get this straight, you did all this to prove that I was trying to hold an unsupportable position and now you're on my case for taking that personally? LOL!
Posted by entropy_aegis
@Jekylhyde14:
isnt that the point of threads like this,to convince someone without insulting them ,chill man MAINLINE is decent he isnt one of those stupid morrison haters.
Posted by Jekylhyde14
@entropy_aegis said:
" @Jekylhyde14: isnt that the point of threads like this,to convince someone without insulting them ,chill man MAINLINE is decent he isnt one of those stupid morrison haters. "
That's never seemed like the point of Internet threads to me. I apologize for any nasty insults I hurled. Yet, I don't know Mainline from Adam. My experiences so far haven't been decent. 
Posted by entropy_aegis
@Jekylhyde14:
understandable but whos adam?
Posted by Jekylhyde14
@entropy_aegis said:
" @Jekylhyde14: understandable but whos adam? "
LOL, oh just that first guy wearing the fig leaf in the garden....
Posted by Jnr6Lil

You guys take this comics thing too seriously.
Edited by squidracerX

I don't like it, i hope it will blow over. I typed this before i listened to the whoel segment, but they bring up every problem I have with this idea: Batman is only human, and Bruce coming out telling everyone this makes him too much of a target. And his whole staff is in danger of psychos now. And as Babs said, I like the spooky urban myth thing, the "Bat Family" is too 1960s happy for me. (even if they do it dark and in the shadows). I don't like Batman hanging out with people, he can do that with the league if he needed too. But he doesn't even totally trust the league (it was point of fact he keeps tabs o nall of them and made the OMAC project). And also i agree it makes it way to obvious of who Batman is. 
 
Also 2 Batmans is STUPID. Ones gotta go! Who will go to JLA meetings?
 
EDIT: Also, waaay to many Batman books; Batman, Batman Streets of Gotham, Detctive, Batman and Robin, Bat Woman, Red robin, Gotham Sirens, Batman Inc, Batgirl, any team books like JLA or Outsiders he might be in, then all the mini series like Knight and Squire and Batman Widening Gyre... too many Batman books, you guys at DC are getting as bad as Marvel and Wolverine.

Posted by teewillis1981

I actually like the Batman Inc. idea. Batman as a character needs to evolve and Morrison is exactly the man to make the leap. For far too long Bruce has the been the lone ranger, he doesn't want help, doesn't want to be a full member of the Justice League, he kind of shuns working as a team. After The Return it would be crazy to think that he would not have emerged a different man, I mean the guy had a serious brush with death! Morrison has melded Bruce's business sense into Batman's persona, and if you ask me it's clever marketing, both in and outside the DCU. Bruce as a man is RICH, highly successful and a market oriented mogul, why wouldn't he eventually take these attributes and apply them to his other half? I think we should all give Morrison some credit, I mean it's Grant Freaking Morrison! He'll deliver and if not, hey at least he tried to take Batman in a different direction. Let's not be afraid of change guys.

Edited by entropy_aegis
@squidracerX said:

"I don't like it, i hope it will blow over. I typed this before i listened to the whoel segment, but they bring up every problem I have with this idea: Batman is only human, and Bruce coming out telling everyone this makes him too much of a target. And his whole staff is in danger of psychos now. And as Babs said, I like the spooky urban myth thing, the "Bat Family" is too 1960s happy for me. (even if they do it dark and in the shadows). I don't like Batman hanging out with people, he can do that with the league if he needed too. But he doesn't even totally trust the league (it was point of fact he keeps tabs o nall of them and made the OMAC project). And also i agree it makes it way to obvious of who Batman is. 
 
Also 2 Batmans is STUPID. Ones gotta go! Who will go to JLA meetings?
 
EDIT: Also, waaay to many Batman books; Batman, Batman Streets of Gotham, Detctive, Batman and Robin, Bat Woman, Red robin, Gotham Sirens, Batman Inc, Batgirl, any team books like JLA or Outsiders he might be in, then all the mini series like Knight and Squire and Batman Widening Gyre... too many Batman books, you guys at DC are getting as bad as Marvel and Wolverine. "


@squidracerX:
batman is not human,deal with it,you must not  read batman because he hasnt been a spooky urban legend ever since bane stomped him on live television back in knightfall,knight and squire,red robin(converted form robin which if you add the minis lasted 200 issues) ,batgirl(being published since 2000),gotham sirens(a catwoman book and selina previously held her own ongoings which together are probably greater than 200 issues) batwoman hasnt even started and these  arent batman books.widening gyre was a miniseries, he isnt in outsiders either and barely features in JLA . and batman and detective are being published for decades,batman and robin replaced nightwing,gotham city sirens is an additional title which batman has had for 2 decades(legends of the dark knight ,gotham knights,shadow of the bat)confidential is the only useless title do your research please.  
If youre worried about his staff then i dont even know what to say,might as well start worrying about his finances as well.
Posted by ShirEPanjshir
@entropy_aegis said:
"batman is not human,deal with it "
Since when has Batman turned into a mutant / mutate / alien / ... and is not a human anymore? Last time I checked, Bruce Wayne was a human being. At human peak, yes, but still human.
Edited by Mainline
@teewillis1981 said:

"Batman as a character needs to evolve and Morrison is exactly the man to make the leap. For far too long Bruce has the been the lone ranger, he doesn't want help, doesn't want to be a full member of the Justice League, he kind of shuns working as a team."  

I've mentioned it earlier, but I don't see how Return keeps getting credited with the personality change... 
 
In the below image are the first three issues of Grant Morrison's "Batman R.I.P." two years after OYL... in these issues, Grant acknowledges the status quo was of a dramatically changed / reborn Batman who smiles, works with happy Robin, is in an open relationship, is cracking jokes, is having sexy adventures with Catwoman, and is so changed that Robin wonders if he's crazy.  We had two years of Batman not being alone before R.I.P. where he was happy, purged of inner demons, globe trekking, etc. 
 
The global aspect of Batman, Inc; the public announcement part; those are new directions, but the loner v. teamwork / grim v. smiling thing was already done only to be undone by R.I.P. and on.  Grant was clearly aware of this because he puts it in his first issue of R.I.P. so not even Grant would consider the anti-loner thing a product of Return since he's the one that changed that status quo.

Breaking down the specific images: 

1. Batman taking it easy, smiling, and cracking a wry joke about the technological level of the CD changer. 
2. Working with Robin, who's smiling and happy. 
3. Smiling Batman. 
4. "There's a couple hundred"... another joke and Batman smiling. 
5. Bruce in a romantic relationship with his mask off. 
6. Tim marveling at the change / openness of the relationship. 
7. Batman and Catwoman adventures. 
8. Batman cracking a joke with Catwoman. 
9. "Wealth.  Adventure.  Dangerous women.  You live the life, don't you, Bruce?", says an onlooker at Batman and Catwoman, again reinforcing the status quo was of a high adventure life with dangerous women. 
10. Bruce Wayne on his knees with joy having purged his demons. 
11. "Death and rebirth", "purging his inner demons", "Bruce said he needed to die and become reborn." 
12. Robin recognizes the change, Spoiler laughs... the tone of the Bat Family being different. 
 
And this is just at the start of RIP, not looking at the two years of story between OYL and RIP.  Again, the public announcement and the global aspects are new, but the personality stuff was status quo for quite some time.