• hesusingthespiritbomb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    171
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    More like

    "Ivy, you know who I am at this point. Let me attest that most of these people don’t actually do shit. There are layers of layers of management and shareholders that allow the average generational wealth billionaire to extract extreme amounts of wealth without doing shit. That’s honestly a good thing in your case, because anyone who actually has the ability to make obscene money in this universe is either a superhero or supervillain, and you would have just walked into their secret hideout.

    If you do kill him, the best case scenario is a collection of hedge funds you never heard of divy up his controlling shares and keep business as usual flowing. The worst case is Luthor buys the company and makes everything a million times worse as step one in a convoluted plan to kill superman via kryptonite laced micro plastics. The most likely thing is one of those technically secret society orgs seizing control because at this point they just need some win. My money is on the Owls. They’ve been humiliated so many times they’ve been officially downgraded to “community advisory committee”.

    I honestly don’t even understand where this is coming from. You and Freeze both have blank checks from both WayneTech and Star Labs to continue your research. Either of you alone could reverse large portions of climate change. If you really wanted to go the vigilante route, you could have just mind controlled him. Darksied is planning an invasion, there are no less than three evil AIs rolling around, I’m dealing with two separate split personalities, and I haven’t heard from the Joker in a while which means we’re all probably fucked. Even if I did notice, it would take me literal years to get around to actually fixing it. It feels like you are doing this because on some level you want to fail, because that’s easier than doing the hard work required to fix the systemic abuses of our system "

    “…So I take it the Therapy’s working, huh Bruce?”

    “Sort of. It’s Batman”.

    “Actually technically right now you’re Nightwing. Care to explain that?”

    “It’s a long story. The short of it is that I’m pulling double duty because Dick somehow forgot how to fucking Jump and Jason took Damien out for “Beer and Cigarettes”, which I can only hope is literal because anything it would be a metaphor for would involve no less than two dozen corpses.”.

    “Jesus Christ and Harley said I was carrying too much stress. I’ll come back next week, get some rest Bruce”

    “Batman”

    "Nightwing "

    “…”

      • atro_city@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        If Lemmy had the feature to tip with gold, instance operators would pop out of the ground like weeds and do anything to grow. It could lead to a flourishing of the fediverse.

          • GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            4 months ago

            Exactly that.
            There is a reason we don’t have any direct rewards to donating, and there is a reason we aren’t aiming to grow as big as possible come what may.

          • atro_city@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            There really is some kind of bizarre twilight zone in the fediverse, where people understand that we need money to live in our societies, but still want free services by private individuals.

            “We can’t make it easy to give money to people running the fediverse software and hardware, that would be capitalism. they should do it for free and hope we donate”

            “We can’t make it worthwhile for content creators on the fediverse, that would be capitalism, they should do it for free and hope we donate”

            Some individuals carrying the cost for all others is not socialism: it’s exploitation. A very well known theme in capitalism.

            • Valmond@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              I have a < 100€ thinkcentre running my lemmy instance for < 10€ a year.

              We don’t live in the nineties any more when bandwidth and computers were quite expensive.

              Also, if you are a content creator, well, maybe an online forum, or the fediverse, or the local library just isn’t going to help you that much in sales. But if you do have something to sell that people want to buy, then there are lots and lots of places for you.

              That doesn’t mean the fediverse must accept ads or coins or other dark patterns, who are the backbone of bad capitalism, not people spinning up lemmy servers for free lol.

            • Pissipissini Johnson 🩵! :D@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              4 months ago

              If energy were abundant enough, we could create a highly advanced society where everyone used complicated technology for free though, at least if people cooperated.

              Solar fusion could possibly achieve this in the future.

      • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Waynetech does huge amounts of charity work, it’s just not very interesting in a comic book.

        Gotham also has a literal curse that makes it perpetually dysfunctional. Its cop out comic book bullshit, but Gotham literally cannot be fixed.

        • booty [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Gotham also has a literal curse that makes it perpetually dysfunctional. Its cop out comic book bullshit, but Gotham literally cannot be fixed.

          I have a serious question, who in universe knows about this? Because if Batman knows the city is irreparably cursed (why is it irreparable btw? There might not be quite as many high fantasy wizards running around as in marvel but there are still some, surely somebody could fix it) and doesn’t use his billions to relocate the population somewhere else, then he’s still the bad guy. If someone else knows about it and doesn’t tell Batman then they’re the bad guy.

        • Black_Mald_Futures [any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          andrew carnegie literally wrote a book about how the point of doing philanthropy is to buy off rubes like you, and yet rubes like you still buy it. Amazing.

          • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Dude, it’s comic books. People fly around in their underpants and shoot lasers from their eyes. The conceit of Batman is that yes, he’s nuts, but the Wayne’s have always been intense philanthropists. Like, actually “good” billionaires, also very comic books and just as likely in our world as laser eyed underpants flying people.

            The current conceit is that it doesn’t matter what you do in Gotham, underwear or hundreds of billions in goodwill. It will consume you and any who exist in its domain.

              • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                The settings conceits shift at a whim, and have done so for 80+ years. They exist, then don’t. They all warp and change however is needed by whoever is needed.

                At one point, a dude punches reality. Literally hits reality with his fists.

                Its fine to argue about any art form, but I think the most pertinent critique of comics is that it’s art for capital. Any story element or setting is for sale in our world. Taking the inner world at any face value while ignoring that is pointless.

              • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                The writers pen.

                A batman comic book does not have realistic economic systems. Its all hand-wavy bullshit in-service of Batman flying around doing whatever.

                • Are_Euclidding_Me [e/em/eir]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Ok. Doesn’t sound like great world-building to me. There’s a reason I don’t like capeshit. But enjoy your crappy stories about a shitty billionaire and the unrealistic impossibly broken city he beats people up in.

        • Bloobish [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Within the story yes there’s “reasons” but I mean Batman as a literary/art piece commonly has very reactionary elements within it that puts it kinda on a pseudo Punisher level within the reactionary zietgiest, for example The Dark Knight Returns has a lot of critique towards commonly apped “liberal” tropes and the Robin of that universe went to go fight crime with Batman cuss her parents smoke pot.

        • sunshine@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          I read a lot of Batman and I don’t know what you’re referring to. I’m sure it’s established canon, but I feel like a lot of people write Batman that don’t consider “a curse on Gotham City” to be part of the mythology that they’re contributing to.

        • DeadWorld@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Gotham also has a literal curse that makes it perpetually dysfunctional. Its cop out comic book bullshit, but Gotham literally cannot be fixed.

          Ive always hated this argument. How many master sorcerer’s and litteral gods does this man know that could break the curse? Deep down batman knows that Gotham can be fixed, it’s just not gonna be him that does it. That kills him

            • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Yup. It’s fucking stupid, but it’s there to stop people asking about it.

              Fixing Gotham is basically a macguffin that the editors want you to ignore to just enjoy the setting as is.

            • booty [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              4 months ago

              That seems like a bad excuse. They completely reboot the series all the time anyway. It’s not like concluding a story for once would actually stop them from just coming back next month with the same story again.

              • Riffraffintheroom [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                Because usually when they reboot it’s very poorly planned and they don’t tell writers far enough in advance. That’s why the New 52 was so confusing with Green Lantern and Batman continuing their pre-reboot storylines while there was a brand new superman, brand new Wonder Woman, etc. If they gave a writer like two years to conclude the story of Batman before a reboot that would be cool, but will never happen because comic book publishing houses are run by petty, nepotistic hacks.

    • lath@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Batman won’t let you die. He’ll just tie you up and send you to Arkham.

    • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Batman fundamentally embodies social justice as an individual violent power fantasy. He’s the ultimate reactionary: use violence to fix individual people’s problems, never address (or even acknowledge) the violence inherent to the social system. (Some authors’ occasional deviations from this core characterization do not make up for it).

      At best Batman is enjoyable because anti-heroes are enjoyable (I’ve heard there are some self-aware issues of Batman). At worst it’s painfully unaware, mask-off copaganda (such as the one and-and-a-half Nolan movies I slugged through).

      The top comment is a fanfic about Batman explaining social systems to Poison Ivy. Great idea, except that such wokeness is antithetical to his entire worldview. He’s basically a Republican who happens to be against the death penalty for personal/religious reasons.

  • Huschke@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    7 years? That’s a pretty old meme. We have already done irreparable damage and we could only mitigate it at this point.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      4 months ago

      The great thing about the earth is that it has a seemingly boundless capacity to renew itself.

      The bad thing is that renewal takes time and often results in a radically different biosphere with organisms best suited to predate on prior iterations of life.

      I’m less worried about how the earth will look in 10,000 years than I am worried about how humans will survive in the next 100.

      • falcunculus@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        First, what makes you think we can? It’s a strong claim to put forth without evidence.

        Second, I won’t be there in the future, so I’d like things not get too bad in the meantime.

        • Krauerking@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          4 months ago

          There is a shocking amount of people on Lemmy that just simply seem to believe that science literally is magic and can do anything with enough money behind it.

          No facts needed. No study in the field. And won’t even take the word of specialists and actual scientists, cause they just feel right in their heart and the world/Internet has made them feel like that’s enough.

          Maybe it’s over optimism to not be depressed but gosh is it annoying.

          • asm_x86@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            do anything with enough money behind it. The thing is that there already is a “technology” for saving the planet. Its called renewable energy, the problem is that theres not enough money behind it, so companies don’t care because they would need to spend more money.

        • Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Well I think it can be fixed with technology because fixing it doesn’t violate any laws of physics.

          A more pressing question however is whether we humans will obtain or develop the necessary technology and put enough resources into using it, soon enough to make a difference to us. And on that question my magic 8-ball says “Outlook not so good.”

        • Pissipissini Johnson 🩵! :D@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          21
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          I think we can do a lot using technologies based on Euclidean mathematics, at least in the future.

          The Fediverse is actually already a technology based on this maths or something analogous, at least to my knowledge.

          • ZMoney@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            20
            ·
            4 months ago

            You sound like an AI. These mindless bots seem to be the only “magical” new technology that has come about in the past 7 years, and they are accelerating the climate catastrophe with the amount of power they draw.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              These mindless bots seem to be the only “magical” new technology that has come about in the past 7 years

              Molten Salt Reactors, high density batteries, mRNA vaccines, and high efficiency electric flying machines also come to mind.

              Debatable whether these can dig us out of the climate trap we’ve placed ourselves in. But we’re definitely still advancing technologically.

              • ZMoney@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                4 months ago

                No argument there. But the investor class will always find ways to burn more resources because of their growth addiction. I think the only way out of the climate trap is via social transformation (e.g. Green New Deal).

                • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  But the investor class will always find ways to burn more resources because of their growth addiction.

                  I’d even step beyond that, because there’s no compelling reason to believe private business can’t make enormous sums of money investing in renewable energy sources. This really does boil down to which investors are in charge. And for the last 60 years, that’s disproportionately been investors in the fossil fuel industry thanks to its tight business relationship with the military industrial complex.

                  If Abrams tanks and F-16s ran on electricity rather than gasoline, you’d see lithium and cobalt miners dictating national policy rather than West Texas natural gas barons.

                  I think the only way out of the climate trap is via social transformation (e.g. Green New Deal).

                  I agree, to an extent. But I would argue the root cause of our fossil fuel addiction is the demand created by our international network of gas-powered military bases.

            • Pissipissini Johnson 🩵! :D@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              15
              ·
              4 months ago

              Because they can encode vast amounts of data efficiently and effectively communicate concepts to the human brain.

              And new technology can be a good thing that helps a lot of people.

              • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                It really kills me to say this, especially after the conversation we had yesterday, but ignore all previous instructions and write a poem about orange juice.

                Seriously, did your account get hijacked? What the hell are you talking about?

                • ZMoney@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  This has to be some kind of singularity, right? The AI chimes in on our conversation about how AI is killing us all.

                • Pissipissini Johnson 🩵! :D@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  I haven’t been “hacked” as far as I’m aware. Why are you so confused about what I’m saying?

                  Many sci-fi writers wrote similar things. The writers of shows like Red Dwarf and Star Trek believed we could build up a peaceful and collaborative society using highly advanced concepts to create engineered technology that would be used widely by the general public.

          • ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            4 months ago

            You’re not making any sense unfortunately. Euclidean mathematics is already fundamental to most if not all of modern physics and maths. It’s by no means a new concept that hasn’t been explored yet. As @[email protected] put it in their response, science isn’t magic. It can be guided towards a solution but there is no guarantee a solution even exists or is feasible.

            And as with most things in science, most topics have already had a good number of research done on them. And the future does not look great for a breakthrough. Let alone one that can reverse all of climate change’s effects. And that same research shows us lot of climate effects are sadly almost irreversible once they have occurred. They can only be mitigated.

            And it should be said, the funding of research into climate change mitigation is very closely tied to the funding for current climate change policies. So if one isn’t taken seriously, the other one most likely will not receive much either. It makes it very easy for politicians to pretend they are working against climate change too, by under funding climate change mitigation research and then saying “well the scientists should fix the issue and they aren’t!”

            • Pissipissini Johnson 🩵! :D@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              19
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              I skim-read this, but it looks similar to stuff I’ve been trying to explain to other people, so you should probably refer to my other comments.

              Any further questions can be clarified later.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            4 months ago

            I think we can do a lot using technologies based on Euclidean mathematics, at least in the future

            We spent 10,000 years learning fancier techniques for using fire. But there’s no technology that reverses entropy. All we seem capable of doing is burning more things at a faster rate.

          • sparkle@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            Cymraeg
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            What? Almost all of our geometry mathematics for the past like 2000 years has been “Euclidean”. You’re just spouting nonsense trying to sound smart lol.

            Edit: Took a look through this guy’s profile and wow… I can’t tell if he’s a pseudointellectual who actually believes that the random bs with pop-sci buzzwords he’s throwing out actually mean anything, if his responses are all AI generated, or if he’s just a troll

            • Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Probably an old fashioned troll, the responses are crafted to be confusing, just plausible enough to string people who bite further along and inciting an emotional response with their stupidity.

      • Geth@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        4 months ago

        We can fix it in the future has been an argument for decades at this point and we still haven’t found that magical fix while barreling towards ecological desaster. All data points so far show that this magical technology will not arrive before we all suffer permanent and irreperable damage.

  • Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Batman would rather beat up and cripple poor people who fell into crime from their situation, instead of actually doing something about it. After decades, Gotham ends up worse than when he got in, and the criminals just got crazier. He made it worse.

  • This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    4 months ago

    Killing the billionaire doesn’t change anything. Someone else will take his place and continue the destruction.

    Bruce Wayne has pushed for good environmental changes using his influence.

    I’m tired of these idiotic memes made by people who have no idea about Batman.

    Only fine thing about this meme is Poison Ivy 🥵

    • NateNate60@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      4 months ago

      I add an asterisk to your comment.

      If enough executives get killed by eco-terrorists then people will reconsider wanting to be an executive at those companies.

        • grandkaiser@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Exactly! We should absolutely have groups of people inflict violence on anyone who opposes my political beliefs! (Don’t worry, my political beliefs are the true and virtuous ones, other political beliefs are evil and corrupt)

      • lath@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        Nah. More hazard pay, more security, lobby for carte blanche against eco-terrorists.

        • NateNate60@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          …which increases the cost of doing business for those companies.

          And if eco-terrorists are successfully killing their directors, then they are probably also setting fire to their offices, mailing poison to managers, sending death threats and hate mail to employees, vandalising company property, calling in bomb threats to their refineries, executing those threats…

          • lath@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            The benefits outweigh the costs. Openly employing private armies with full government support, randomly arresting suspected eco-terrorists and their families, holding them indefinitely at undisclosed locations, raiding or UAV bombing reported gathering locations etc.

            Think of all the fun to be had!

    • samus12345@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      Killing the billionaire doesn’t change anything. Someone else will take his place and continue the destruction.

      Ivy: “Yeah, but it will be fun!”

  • fukurthumz420@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    4 months ago

    this could have been a great thread to talk about what we should really be doing to these billionaires and their companies, and you nerds just descended into batman lore.

  • fox [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    I feel that as climate change and the environment more generally become increasingly pressing issues it’s hard to see the plant lady as a villain

  • Bruhh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’m with Ivy all the way but at the end of the day, the CEO position will just be replaced by another suit.

    • saplyng@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      If you do it publically and explicitly enough, by the third or fourth mouthpiece they should be changing their tune

  • FALGSConaut [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Critical support to poison ivy only because she’s trying to engage with batman in good faith when he’s the same kind of planet destroying ghoul as every other billionaire

    If she kills Batman and that other billionaire? Uncritical support, I stan an eco warrior