In most modern versions, yes. He’s just survivor’s guilt held together by a ceaseless run of violent distractions and related obsessions. Not the one to call on your union busting boss.
No. Unequivocally no. This might make sense on its face but it misunderstands Batman at a fundamental level- Batman is a hero who cannot make sense. He is severely mentally ill and craves change physically and instantly wrought by his own two hands.
If a CEO were doing something outlandishly and visibly evil then they might find themselves on Batman’s radar, but exacerbating wealth inequality is just not something Batman usually cares about. Would it make sense for Batman to do something about it? Yes. Absolutely. Would the crazy 100 kg gymnast dressed like a giant bat, who has made a nightly ritual of shattering the spines of impoverished criminal dockworkers do that? No.
Now daredevil, daredevil might find himself beating the ass off a shady Manhattan CEO. But daredevil is sane, reasonable, and goal oriented and Batman is just not.
I want you to imagine an indestructible box filled with all the world’s comforts. How do you craft it? How do you procure the materials to craft it? How do you search for the means to find the materials to craft it? Hard questions without a simple solution.
Now I want you to picture a decently sturdy box filled with some neat stuff. And now I want you to picture yourself bashing it to pieces. Pretty doable, right?
It’s easy to break something of value, it’s near impossible to craft the invincible. Especially when half of your team is actively bashing.
300 million dollars of debt accrued per year. How are they losing so much money? Isn’t the point of Redbox that it has nearly 0 overhead? I’m imagining a field in Nebraska with kiosks arranged in identically spaced rows of length indescribable, warping along with the light whose freedom they’ve stolen. The crimson horde stand in opposition to the very nature of space, a concatenation in both part and whole, clawing at the space where sanity ends and reason begins.
And even then, their overhead would only be like $53 per month.
Your blasphemy accelerates us towards the inevitable. As you and the society you poison drown in denim, let my warnings echo across the vacuous chasm of your morality.
Baggy has always looked goofy. A stylish pair of pants should, ideally, make someone glance at your bits and bobs. Taut enough to accentuate but loose enough to tickle their curiosity. Baggy pants have always offered either too much or too little information. There’s no reveal when your groin is in plain view and there’s too much mystery when your pants offer no outline. If the realm of questions includes “what’s that smell” or “did they hide a whole rotisserie chicken?” then something has gone awry. Don't allow this to become acceptable again.
Shoot, I was just referencing the modern interpretations of fae, but that’s absolutely fascinating! As recompense for unintentionally misleading you, here are a few of my favorite fairy artworks by Arthur Rackham
That’s fascinating, it sounds like the cost for Google to store, categorize, and disseminate this information is higher than the profit. Morals are unlikely to be relevant, after all. Or are they simply using devices as their storage medium?