Does Batman have super powers?

[Solauren]

No, Batman does not have a superpower.

He's just a physically adept and gifted, highly intelligent individual, who happens to be so stubborn, and mentally damaged, it appears to be a superpower.

[Simon_Jester]

Honestly all the main heroes would be great with a ring- Wonder Woman, Superman, Batman, etc..

Maybe, but if I had to bet, I'd bet on Superman or Wonder Woman being at best mediocre as Green Lanterns, by Green Lantern Corps standards. Neither of them is a weak-willed individual, but their willpower is not their specific, unique strength.

Batman? Oh yes is willpower his strength.

Though I gather one of the big arguments for him not having it is he's already effective without a ring, and there's only so many rings (the ring duplication trick is supposed to be a limited-time thing, I think there's rules on it). Batman is effective sans ring. Batman plus KyleGL or HalGL is more effective than BatmanGL plus non-GL Kyle or Hal.

That and Bruce is always worried about becoming lazy and being too reliant on powers once he has them, and has criticized Hal for overusing his ring's power rather than his brain. Heck, one of the first fights with Amazo went down because Amazo neglected the non-ring powers it had.

All this is true, but kind of orthogonal to my point.

I'm trying to use Green Lantern ring use as a proxy for willpower, regardless of whether the character in question would desire a ring for regular use.

[NeoGoomba]

In Season Two of Daredevil they present Frank Castle as being so mentally damaged that he is locked in a permanent, unstoppable fight or flight mode, albeit one that doesn't hamper his critical thinking skills. That mental drive pushed him past normal human limits of pain tolerance and dedication, which seems to be something similar to Batman. And since Batman has had access to far more training methods than Castle, he is a far more impressive specimen as a "flatscan" human.

[The Romulan Republic]

No, Batman does not have a superpower.

He's just a physically adept and gifted, highly intelligent individual, who happens to be so stubborn, and mentally damaged, it appears to be a superpower.

Even if it makes a certain amount of sense, I'm not really a fan of the "Batman is mentally ill" interpretation. I feel that it can lead to cheapening the character by just dismissing his motivations as "he's crazy", rather than asking "what could lead a rational man to CHOOSE to be Batman".

[Zixinus]

To be fair, it is difficult to take "decided to rid Gotham of crime by wondering around it, one punch at the time, alone and dressed as a bat-knight" as the sane reaction. It is very difficult not to read "that's crazy" in there, in at least conception. And since Batman can't change and Gotham can't change with him due to status quo, it's also difficult to argue whether it is something that is actually working.

Which brings me to something that I feel is often neglected: that Bruce choose to be Batman because his efforts to stop crime as Bruce Wayne, billionaire heir from a politically well-connected family, seem futile and frustrating. Because then it makes some modicum of sense that when you have exhausted options money and political connections can give you to then you say "fuck it" and go out there to do it yourself. In some versions, Bruce does publicly fund and support people that are trying to make Gotham better between his supervillain-showdowns.

[Q99]

Most versions. And really, his Bruce Wayne work probably stops a lot more individual crimes than his Batman work- his Batman work just is what stops, like, high body count crimes, endless bank robberies and the city being infected with a super virus.

[The Romulan Republic]

To be fair, it is difficult to take "decided to rid Gotham of crime by wondering around it, one punch at the time, alone and dressed as a bat-knight" as the sane reaction. It is very difficult not to read "that's crazy" in there, in at least conception. And since Batman can't change and Gotham can't change with him due to status quo, it's also difficult to argue whether it is something that is actually working.

Well, in some versions at least, Batman started out by going after the Mob, because the cops and politicians were largely too corrupt or scared to do it. That makes more sense than trying to stop crime one punch-out at a time, since he can focus his efforts on specific powerful people and expose them.

The costumed lunatic brigade only became such a big thing later. And that's something that probably wouldn't be such a huge problem if comic book law enforcement wasn't laughably useless, as a rule.

The status quo thing is a problem, yes, and its part of why I favour regular reboots, so that a given continuity can actually be allowed to have major development and a resolution without destroying the franchise. But its hardly a problem unique to Batman.

Besides, you could argue much the same in the real world- that we're never likely to completely eliminate poverty or inequality or violence, so its pointless to try to address those things. But that would be a pretty callous attitude, and I suspect most of the individuals who's lives are saved by Batman would dispute the futility of his crusade.

Batman can't save everyone. But he can save some people.

I also don't think Batman has any illusions about the impossibility of winning some sort of final victory- in fact, I recall a passage in the No Man's Land novelization where he basically acknowledges to himself that its an unwinnable struggle. But that doesn't make it pointless. Not to me as a reader, and not to Batman. And not to the lives that he saves.

Plus, if you look beyond the street-level crime fighting in Gotham and bring in the larger DC universe... how many times has Batman saved the world?

In any case, as Q99 noted, Batman also does a lot in terms of philanthropy and so forth as Bruce Wayne. Though its a fair criticism that he could probably do more as Bruce Wayne if he weren't going out in the Bat Suit nearly every night. That point was sort of made, quite humorously, in Batman v Superman, when Bruce has to get into Lex's house, and Alfred points out that he can simply go as a guest as Bruce Wayne, rather than needing to break in as Batman.

Which brings me to something that I feel is often neglected: that Bruce choose to be Batman because his efforts to stop crime as Bruce Wayne, billionaire heir from a politically well-connected family, seem futile and frustrating. Because then it makes some modicum of sense that when you have exhausted options money and political connections can give you to then you say "fuck it" and go out there to do it yourself. In some versions, Bruce does publicly fund and support people that are trying to make Gotham better between his supervillain-showdowns.

That's a fair point.

But then, its pretty much always been established that Gotham is seriously corrupt. Batman absolutely wouldn't make sense, otherwise. Vigilantes generally don't, where there's a functioning legal system.

[Q99]

The costumed lunatic brigade only became such a big thing later. And that's something that probably wouldn't be such a huge problem if comic book law enforcement wasn't laughably useless, as a rule.

It's not bad against *normal

That said, Gotham's legal system is... the worst. "Joker killed 20 people *again*. And he knows the difference between right and wrong. Let's send him to Arkham again!".

The status quo thing is a problem, yes, and its part of why I favour regular reboots, so that a given continuity can actually be allowed to have major development and a resolution without destroying the franchise. But its hardly a problem unique to Batman.

Personally, I disagree.

Stories ending entirely is something that is, itself, an artificial state, real life doesn't end, it just keeps going.

Yea, some stuff always remains and there's some dumb bits as a result (IMO why villains generally shouldn't be so kill-happy, someone who doesn't leave massive bodycounts on a regular basis is much more believable as a reoccurring threat), but long-running continuities gain a certain sense of history which is really hard for even very good other stories to replicate.

Like take a look at the nu52 reboot. Did it gain anything from having less history? Not really! Ultimates did, but then... it gained a history and in an attempt to keep things 'simple' they kept blowing it up until it ended.

There's a place for shorter run stories but long-run shared continuities are IMO undervalued, they do have unique assets.

[The Romulan Republic]

Its not even that the stories don't end. Its that major lasting changes of any kind basically can't happen within a recurring continuity. Batman can never succeed, or really fail (except in the Nolan films, because they are a distinct continuity that actually has an end point). Nobody who's a major character can ever really stay dead. And the implications of this can never really be explored, because that would force them to acknowledge that the comics world they've created is fundamentally alien, not "modern Earth but with super powers". So even death just becomes a cheap gimmick a lot of the time.

This is a problem that is absolutely endemic to the major superhero comic book franchises.

[Q99]

Its not even that the stories don't end. Its that major lasting changes of any kind basically can't happen within a recurring continuity.

That's really not the case, reports of story stasis are greatly exaggerated.

Yea, characters eventually come back... but someone who comes back 15 years after they die is not exactly who they were when they died, and is in vastly different circumstances. Characters grow and change, dynamics between them change long-term, the zeitgeist of storytelling changes, new characters arrive and become major fixtures, etc..

Compare now to 10 years ago in comics and, yea, some particular points don't really change. As a whole, though? Major, lasting change happens in spades, and even seemingly 'undone' ones leave lasting marks.


The thing to remember about resurrections is they happen because writers have more stories they want to tell- the mistake is not bringing them back, it's in killing them off in the first place. I think most deaths should be replaced with more openly temporary shuffling off stage in most cases.

Batman can never succeed, or really fail (except in the Nolan films, because they are a distinct continuity that actually has an end point).

Sure, but Batman's not about success or failure. 'Fighting crime' doesn't have an endpoint. Life doesn't. That's one of my points, the end is the artificial point, not the continuation.

Nobody who's a major character can ever really stay dead. And the implications of this can never really be explored, because that would force them to acknowledge that the comics world they've created is fundamentally alien, not "modern Earth but with super powers". So even death just becomes a cheap gimmick a lot of the time.

This is a problem that is absolutely endemic to the major superhero comic book franchises.

You'd be surprised how much the death and return of characters gets explored. Superhero comic books is one of the more self-examining genres out there, the authors love cross-examining and naval gazing in it. Remember, for a number of these deaths (not the 'gone for a year or two then back one, I'm totally meh on those'), we have over a decade of stories examining the effects, seeing how it affects people, how some deny it or accept it, how the character's images of characters change after they're gone, and so on and so forth. The different thing is, once that well has been mined, they themselves can be returned to this new context.

[Solauren]

No, Batman does not have a superpower.

He's just a physically adept and gifted, highly intelligent individual, who happens to be so stubborn, and mentally damaged, it appears to be a superpower.

Even if it makes a certain amount of sense, I'm not really a fan of the "Batman is mentally ill" interpretation. I feel that it can lead to cheapening the character by just dismissing his motivations as "he's crazy", rather than asking "what could lead a rational man to CHOOSE to be Batman".

I never said he's crazy. But, he's obviously been thought a deep emotional and mental trama. Clearly, it's not hindering him in his performance AS the Batman.
The damage from the trama appears to be to his benefit in this case.

[The Romulan Republic]

Fair enough, except that "benefit" is highly debatable. He may function well enough as Batman, but he's also obsessive and has nothing resembling a normal life in a lot of incarnations.

Personally, I'd say it varies depending on incarnation, but "emotionally stunted/immature" is the designation I'd probably use, along with "obsessive".

[Q99]

How stable Batman is does vary over time- often identifiable by the presence of the Batfamily or their lack. In the 00s he got pretty bad at points. Nowadays I think he's healthier than that- partially because of having to be the sane one with Damian around.

Btw, to point to lasting change in comics, Robins are a prime example. Dick Grayson was the original Robin. He's not going to go back in that role, obviously, being firmly established as Nightwing. Jason Todd was in the role for just a few years, spent decades dead, then came back in an utterly different role, so he's obviously not going back to the role. Tim Drake was then Robin for about 20 years. He's not going back either, because now Damian Wayne has been firmly established as Batman's son and Robin.

Other changes, at Marvel, Carol Danvers has become an in-universe big deal mover & shaker after a long time of being B-list. Loki has gone from being a straightforward villain to a hero-to-antihero who now has Doctor Who Esque regenerations between different versions, starting with Kid Loki, Teen Loki, and right now the young-adult God of Stories version. He's not going to go back to the 2d god of evil, even if he became a villain again he'd be something else.

Not that it's always easy to predict what'll stick or not, sometimes unexpected things do and other things don't, but those are a couple major ones that are going to stick.