I’m sure you’ve heard many of the accusations levied against Batman. Everything from him being responsible for crime in Gotham to his fight against that crime being totalitarian and itself evil. In fact, these sorts of perspectives have gone beyond simply being hot takes one might hear from fans. Even the comics themselves have acknowledged and sometime gone so far as to promote them. So how much validity is there to these ideas? Would Gotham be better off without Batman at all?
In this “Batman on trial” series, we’ll break down some of the biggest criticisms against Batman and examine their validity. So far we've discussed whether Batman is responsible for the supervillains of Gotham, or if his war on crime makes him a fascistic authoritarian. While those claims might not hold up to close scrutiny, there is still the question of whether someone in Bruce Wayne's position could be better spending his resources. After all, he is a billionaire, and all that money spent on Batmobiles and jets could be fixing the poverty problem that leads to crime in the first place, right?
Let's start with the easiest and most straight-forward point to address: "why doesn't Bruce Wayne donate his money to charity?" The answer is that he does, and always has. Despite some stories like the endings of Zdarsky's run on Batman suggesting that charity is some novel idea Bruce has just discovered, it's been a thing since day one. To varying degrees, the comics have repeatedly gone out of their way to show Bruce making a point to try and "fix" crime through philanthropy in addition to his role as Batman. Whether it's the reccurring Wayne Foundation or personally working to reintegrate reformed criminals into society, Bruce's crusade against crime is driven by compassion and takes on many forms. My personal favorite example of this is Batman: Gotham Knights #32 "24/7".
Perhaps, then, the problem is that his charity isn't structural enough. After all, the question isn't whether he can give scholarships to impoverished teens, but rather completely eradicate poverty in Gotham to the point where it stops being filled with the sort of crime that necessitates a Batman. Aside from personally financing major infrastructure like schools and housing projects (which he has done many times), what form exactly would that take? Is it simply funneling as much money as possible into Gotham's notoriously corrupt government? Should he take a note from the ending of Batman: White Knight and just give all his resources to the equally corrupt (save for one infallible sometimes-commissioner) GCPD?
I'm aware that it sounds like I'm saying that billionaires like Bruce Wayne are doing all they can and can't be blamed for societal problems. To be perfectly clear, I'm not. In real life, there are countless problems that derive from the fact that people who need money don't have it while the wealthy do. Even if they couldn't personally fund the entire welfare state, billionaires' vast resources could make a significant impact on its challenges. Instead, that money is given to that which will yield the highest return on investment, not what will produce the most human good. The key difference here is that while all money is somewhat fake, it's especially fake in comics.
It doesn't matter how many millions or even billions Bruce Wayne gives to those less fortunate; there will always be enough to drive the fantastical crime that permeates Gotham. It's part of what makes it Gotham. Never mind the fact that that many of Batman's villains are not poor and would still be around if poverty were eliminated. Similarly, even if you believe that so long as Bruce maintains any of his ancestral and corporate wealth then he hasn't done enough, there is no amount he could donate to put a dent in that fortune. He will still have enough money to continue being Batman. His wealth and the city's crime are effectively equally outside of his control and at the whims of what the story demands.
Bruce Wayne is ultimately rich not because he inherited it from his parents, but because he inherited it from established genre heroes like The Shadow, Zorro, and The Scarlet Pimpernel. It's a core part of the archetype. All of those characters are independently wealthy so that they can spend their free time fighting crime instead of working a job. It also creates a compelling contrast between the pampered playboy and the hardened vigilante of their secret lives. The same is true for Batman, with the added element of affording the array of gadgets he uses. His wealth isn't really about what he can and cannot afford. No one is keeping a till of how much is left in his checking account or the cumulative effect of what he's donated. It's all just a vague narrative device that provides an aesthetic and justification for what he does.
If we wanted to apply "real world logic" to Batman, then yes, he would be far better served using all his resources funding social programs instead of a militarized one-man war on crime. Doing that would actually have a noticeable effect lowering crime and improving the lives of those in Gotham. But he doesn't live in the real world. He lives in Gotham, where crime is driven by a mix of megalomaniacs in themed outfits and because it's just cursed like that. Gotham will always need a Batman because that's why Gotham exists.
There's an excellent SMBC comic about how Superman would do more good if he just used his powers to plant crops and turn a giant power generator. It's an absurd example for the sake of a joke, but it really gets at the same idea of Batman donating all his money away. There will always be a realistically more utilitarian use of the powers and resources superheroes have because they're a fundamentally unrealistic thing. It's an escapist power fantasy where one person can fix societal problems because of how smart and/or strong they are.
That's really what a lot of the critiques in this series have boiled down to: people applying real world logic where it has never been applicable. Why do so many more villains show up after Batman does? Because villains are created in order to give the hero someone to fight. How does someone like Batman hold unchecked power without ever abusing it or targeting the innocent? Because he's written to always be morally good. Why can't Bruce Wayne fix crime by giving his money to charity? Because crime needs to exist for Batman comics to continue to exist. If you're wondering why the world of superheroes doesn't behave like ours, to quote Harrison Ford: kid, it ain't that kind of movie.
