• DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
      293·
      4 days ago

      It should be noted that Batman’s no killing rule is a later addition to the character, so early comics are cheating a bit.

      I think it says a lot about the original character concept and his position as a millionaire/billionaire regardless.

      • doctortran@lemm.eeEnglish
        103·
        3 days ago

        I see you’re just going to deliberately leave out the context.

        That wasn’t a homeless person, it was a patient at the asylum. Hugo Strange had injected him and 4 others with grown hormone that turned them into mindless, rage filled monsters, and there was no cure. It’s needlessly violent and careless but that is in no way “Batman lynching a homeless man”

        I don’t know what it is with people on Lemmy trying to dishonesty reframe the legacy of that character just because he’s wealthy. It’s so petty and pointless.

        • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
          85·
          3 days ago

          1: Guess where 40’s asylums got a lot of their patients. Guess what happened to most of them if they did get released.

          2: There was a cure, Batman himself made it in the comic.

          3: Do you think being a victim of a medical experiment makes it better?

          Nice “real context,” simp.

      • Plastic_Ramses@lemmy.world
        8·
        4 days ago

        Huh, that is very interesting

        Also fwiw, by the end of year of writing, the batman writers settled on his “no killing” rule.