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.
If Wonder Woman doing over-the-top BDSM qualifies, then there are some even more prime examples on /r/outofcontextcomics I see that I think I’ll submit.
I mean, going to the original run of WW is almost cheating. Those were written with the explicit intent of depicting bondage, and more importantly, Wonder Woman breaking the bonds. Marston knew exactly what he was doing and how it would look.
Under the original run by Marston, yes. And it wasn’t a “fantasy”, so much as it was an attempt at depicting a strong female character by routinely depicting her bond and then breaking those bonds.
I don’t think it’s too out-of-context. WW is just an extended bondage fantasy.
I feel like that is a comic nerd specific context.
Or maybe we’ve just agreed, as a society, not to bring it up, like that time Batman lynched a homeless guy and laughed.
When did that happen?
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.
Huh, that is very interesting
Also fwiw, by the end of year of writing, the batman writers settled on his “no killing” rule.
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.
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.
Holy fuck
Oh, it’s even worse in full context.
Bullshit. The full context makes it significantly better because it reveals that isn’t just some random homeless man.
Removed by mod
Here’s the full context if anyone wants it:
https://archive.org/details/batman150/Batman 001/page/n25/mode/1up
Jesus christ, it’s a comic book from the 40s.
If Wonder Woman doing over-the-top BDSM qualifies, then there are some even more prime examples on /r/outofcontextcomics I see that I think I’ll submit.
I mean, going to the original run of WW is almost cheating. Those were written with the explicit intent of depicting bondage, and more importantly, Wonder Woman breaking the bonds. Marston knew exactly what he was doing and how it would look.
deleted by creator
Under the original run by Marston, yes. And it wasn’t a “fantasy”, so much as it was an attempt at depicting a strong female character by routinely depicting her bond and then breaking those bonds.
Well, it was also a fantasy. Marston was into BDSM femdom (he wrote erotic novels before WW) and was in a polycule with two women.