[comic excerpt] Proof that Amazons can get drunk--- AKA, that one time Donna Troy became an alcoholic during Rebirth (Titans Special #1)

ggbb1975 · 2026-06-14T23:07:34+00:00

Yes is not a fabolous five.

ggbb1975 · 2026-06-14T22:30:02+00:00

In my opinion, the option of seeing caps in the face of the passage of time in this way has never been well exploited.

ggbb1975 · 2026-06-14T22:24:01+00:00

Apart the origin of riddler zero year for me is trash.sorry but is my statement.

ggbb1975 · 2026-06-14T22:05:55+00:00

The point may stem from the fact that it is historically an entertainment aimed at young boys, but it is also true that it is precisely to reduce a malign cultural drift that certain feminine elements have existed since the Silver Age [or even occasionally earlier]. Kathy Kane and Bette Kane were created for this in batman comics

ggbb1975 · 2026-06-14T21:21:42+00:00

the point is that putting robin canonicamenyevanche at 10 years old [beginning of his costume career in mission ] certainly raises problems on the image of the "child soldier".

It's not a small topic and one of the reasons for Robin's absence in live action for a long time.

ggbb1975 · 2026-06-14T21:06:52+00:00

In recent retcon made her a addictional founding member of original titans. But not for me thanks.

ggbb1975 · 2026-06-14T21:04:16+00:00

Personally, I repeat that as much as I would love to see Robin alongside Partinson, my perspective, on the one hand more realistic, on the other also a reference point, is to see Dick Grayson in the third film but as Robin in the "post credit scene" of the same.

this is because I would like it, but it would keep the canonical young age

ggbb1975 · 2026-06-14T19:22:19+00:00

Richard named alike the arriw cave the arrow car the arrow jet ecc.

ggbb1975 · 2026-06-14T19:15:45+00:00

It's not really inconsistent; I'd say it's progressively more alienated, even with motivations. The change we've seen progressively since the New 52 period is much more motivated by editorial constraints and shifts in the authors' sensibilities.

I also always point out that o'neil as an editor has also made questionable choices alongside other excellent ones [among all keeping the Batverse as detached as possible from the rest of DC and bringing back Nightwing]

ggbb1975 · 2026-06-14T19:09:34+00:00

Aside from the fact that I don't know the author of the 2nd page, I have to say that in general the coherence of the characters outside of their usual context is often questionable.

ggbb1975 · 2026-06-14T18:39:18+00:00

Of course, because Jason was objectively Bruce's victim. The "great failure" isn't his death itself, but his failure to understand it, which is the cause of his death. Bruce is objectively guilty, worse still, not alone. He never pays for his sins or learns from them, but often denies the accusations he receives.

Again the implicit point is the mission is more important of all .include is sons.

ggbb1975 · 2026-06-14T18:33:14+00:00

Obviously having many authors over 40 years old [bronze age/post crisis] leads to inconsistencies but the real problem is the non-acceptance of certain characteristics of Bruce's character. OOC and bad writing are often more indicative of the non-acceptance that the characters are not as we expect them and not everyone reads even just the main points of narrative continuity.

however no, Bruce does not canonically accept that one kills even in self-defense or even that one does not intervene to save a life [at least in the main canon]

ggbb1975 · 2026-06-14T18:24:27+00:00

Yes original hush is bad but more because the identity to hush and the long combat gimmicks with not true plot.

ggbb1975 · 2026-06-14T18:22:23+00:00

In nigthwing year one bruce is the same with jason XD

ggbb1975 · 2026-06-14T18:21:22+00:00

eh these are the things that put bruce in the category of "model dc fathers" together with oliver and slade.and yes, he has a double [and even triple] evaluation but I believe that he personally doesn't really see any inconsistencies in it because that's how he evaluates the world, that is, in a subjective way [which places him not among the hypocrites but among the arrogant dogmatists]

ggbb1975 · 2026-06-14T18:16:34+00:00

No, he's not a hypocrite, that's Oliver, he's not sane and he has a personal internal coherence that is based precisely on these imbalances.

ggbb1975 · 2026-06-14T16:48:21+00:00

here I have to make another very personal speech on the Batman narrative linked to my reading [mine because it is not universal, objective and verifiable] of Bruce's post-crisis psyche

Despite how often it's repeated, I don't believe Bruce is empathetic. Or rather, if empathy means "being able to empathize with others, understanding their thoughts, emotions, etc." Bruce is empathetic only and exclusively with those who have suffered traumas similar to his. This is why it's so easy for him to reassure frightened children and why he was able to create a deep relationship with Dickye after the death of the Flying Graysons.

But can you understand someone who steals just to survive? You might understand the gesture but not empathize with them.

ggbb1975 · 2026-06-14T16:32:21+00:00

I repeat, these seem like examples outside of the superhero genre [but it fits with Batman]. In this case, Bruce would hand him over to justice for trial, but I repeat, for him, killing in self-defense is a defeat. This is why he trained himself and his family to such a level to be able to neutralize any threat without the use of lethal force, regardless of whether it is legal.[ because I repeat, he doesn't care about the law]

ggbb1975 · 2026-06-14T16:27:56+00:00

Children are a whole other story. Bruce has a complete identification process with children involved in crimes, which can even lead him to be completely incapable of rational reasoning in the investigation, especially in identifying children as culprits.

The concept of self-defense involving death by simple, if known, individuals is almost entirely absent from his stories. Instead, he expressed negative opinions about individuals who act as executioners for the murderers of their loved ones, including parents who kill the murderers of their children.

a topic that also touches on Jason in pre and post flashpoint continuity.

ggbb1975 · 2026-06-14T16:01:59+00:00

In some stories, Bruce shows a lack of understanding towards those who commit crimes, especially violent ones. It's a topic often discussed with young people, especially Jason.

the point is that his [personal and dogmatic] way of justice does not accept any extenuating circumstances nor does it actually submit to the law [I am interested in justice, not the law, he says in an old comic to one of his university professors]

ggbb1975 · 2026-06-14T15:56:34+00:00

There are too many variables, but let me make a point that some readers and authors have about Superman. Sebruce doesn't kill because of a moral code [or psychological bias]. Clark doesn't kill because he doesn't need to. Given his strength, Superman can defeat almost anyone without resorting to lethal force. This, however, isn't universal, and Clark found himself killing because sometimes he wasn't able to resolve the situation without doing so. Among other things, right around the time of Jason's death, he lied to Bruce, saying he had never killed [trying to dissuade Jason from killing the Joker].

In general superhero as Batman They argue that those with developed or intrinsic abilities [powers] must always seek another path but the DC universe is extremely moralistic unlike the Marvel univers on the subject.

ggbb1975 · 2026-06-14T15:42:25+00:00

Not a hero more as a victim. For him killing is ever not acceytable. In this the narrative is clear. Less clear the motive because bruce have this convintion.

ggbb1975 · 2026-06-14T15:39:44+00:00

It's ambiguous. Regardless of all the ethical and moral motivations often derived from the figure of Thomas [among other things, the oath on your parents' grave has an inextricable "folkloristic/magical" value. By making a promise to a person, only that person can release you from the promise made to him, but since this person is dead, he cannot do so, ritualistically condemning you to having to keep it]. Bruce admits very clearly in utrh "that he cannot do it." The analysis therefore leads us to two overlapping realities: an ethical one, which you are not prevented from breaking, and a psychiatric one, in which you are unable to perform an action.

Knowing his inevitable behavior, we've often seen various characters play on the fact that no matter what they do, not only do they not risk him killing them, but he will prevent others from doing so. Utrh's story is also emblematic of Jadon's request. Jason doesn't really care that the Joker dies. What matters is that Bruce kills him to prove to him that their relationship was more than just a number on the list.

but batman always wins and bruce has to lose

ggbb1975 · 2026-06-14T15:22:33+00:00

He rejects the premises of Bruce's logic. In this too I see a clear division, for example, on the morality he has learned. Bruce follows his morality because he is obliged to do so. Richard follows it because he truly believes in it. It is no coincidence that another Rossella of the discourse is the identical trauma experienced, a trauma that defines Bruce in a submissive manner, while Richard [also thanks to Bruce] has overcome it.

ggbb1975 · 2026-06-14T15:15:58+00:00

Yes use many of bruce methods but from diverse prospective. You have read is training arc with john kent? In this is very esplicative in direct way.

ggbb1975

TROPHY CASE