the Starkification of Bruce Wayne

[the G-man]

Sue Bruce Wayne for funding him and assisting in a violation of said criminal's civil rights, under the doctrine of "respondeat superior."

Actually, respondiat superior doesn't apply to independent contractors. As long as Bruce Wayne doesn't order Batman to do anything, he isn't liable. But, you're right, it leaves him vulnerable to discovery and all that stuff.

The problem is that Bruce is going to have a hard time convincing people Batman is an independent contractor (assuming he even is one: if your employer provides you a workspace, sets your hours and pays your salary, you're an employee, not an independent contractor).

Yeah, maybe, after several years of pretrial proceedings, Bruce will convince a judge that Batman is not actually an employee of his. But as you note the discovery will have to occur first.

Also, just because someone's an "independent contractor" doesn't mean there aren't legal ramifications.

The IRS is going to want to know why Bruce hasn't been filing 1099 forms for all those independent contractors.

And speaking of the IRS:

My adult self will assume that the company was compensated from Bruce's private accounts for any and all material developed by Wayne Tech/Industries/Enterprises.

So, Bruce's tax returns--and the Wayne tax returns--show that?

And Bruce's returns also show all the "unofficial" compensation he received over the years while stealing the tech?

Sh'yeah. Right.

Basically, like Al Capone, the feds now have Batman on tax fraud.

Not to mention securities fraud. Because even if Bruce repaid the company after getting caught, he still committed fraud before that.

Lex Luthor? Bruce is more like the DCU version of Gordon Gekko at this point.

 

[Nerys Myk]

My adult self will assume that the company was compensated from Bruce's private accounts for any and all material developed by Wayne Tech/Industries/Enterprises.

So, Bruce's tax returns--and the Wayne tax returns--show that?

And Bruce's returns also show all the "unofficial" compensation he received over the years while stealing the tech?

Sh'yeah. Right.

.

I'm gonna go with yes. But I'm no lawyer like you. So if he buys something from Wayne Enterprises its fraud? Again I'm not a lawyer, so explain it to me like I was 10.

 

[the G-man]

He didn't buy it. He stole it. Stealing is wrong. Getting caught, saying your're sorry and paying people back might be a good apology but the stealing was wrong in the first place.

You knew that at 10, right?

More to the point. Morrison and DC can't have it both ways.

If they want to do a lighthearted, Westian, kid friendly Batman that glosses over stuff like this, fine. Bring back the camp. Write comic books for kids again. I'd approve.

But if they're going to keep going on about how "mature" comic books are, they can't hide behind the inner ten year old in each of us, any more than, say, John Grisham can.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Morrison has promised that will be consequences for what Bruce has done by going public with Batman, Inc. Exactly what they are hasn't been revealed yet and probably won't be until after we're knee deep into the arc. Bruce in "Batman Begins" used dummy corporations to funnel funds to purchase the materials he needed for the bat suit.

 

[the G-man]

So, in other words, Morrison will fuck the character up and leave him ruined for years. Great.

 

[Admiral_Young]

^ If that's your interpretation of what's been doing with the character, stop reading. Morrison is going to be on the book for at least the next two years.

 

[Snaploud]

Yeah, we really don't know if he was violating any laws. Bruce specifically says that he has been funding Batman (not Wayne Industries). He obviously used Wayne Tech designs, but we have no evidence that he used such tech without adequate payment. As for government concerns: we also have no evidence that Batman has withheld tech from the government/military. Point of fact, Wayne Tech often sells tech to the military, and much of the more "secret" tech may simply have been projects the military decided not to buy. Some of the tech may have been sold directly to a Bruce--perhaps indirectly--and never offered to the government (which isn't illegal--as long as the payment was adequate, though they may use national security to get certain pieces of tech now that they know how to reach Batman).

[Edit: I read a recent non-main-continuity story in which it was indicated that Bruce was committing fraud against Wayne Tech. My guess is that Morrison is ignoring that story.]

Regarding regular assets: He could have paid taxes on his income and funneled that money through foreign countries to pay for Wayne Tech. You don't have to declare personal expenses to the IRS. You only have to declare income (for the purposes of paying taxes), so Bruce may not have violated any tax laws. [Batman's endeavors have never produced income, so the only concern would be if "Batman" were receiving a salary from Bruce (not being reported to the IRS). Of course, that would only be a problem for "Batman" and not Bruce (as "Batman" is the one not reporting his salary), and Bruce never said anything about giving Batman a salary.]

 

[Nerys Myk]

He didn't buy it. He stole it. Stealing is wrong. Getting caught, saying your're sorry and paying people back might be a good apology but the stealing was wrong in the first place.

You knew that at 10, right?

More to the point. Morrison and DC can't have it both ways.

If they want to do a lighthearted, Westian, kid friendly Batman that glosses over stuff like this, fine. Bring back the camp. Write comic books for kids again. I'd approve.

But if they're going to keep going on about how "mature" comic books are, they can't hide behind the inner ten year old in each of us, any more than, say, John Grisham can.

Whos to say he didnt buy it? Thats all I'm saying. Being the forward thinking guy that he is Bruce has all his ducks in a row. All transactions between Bruce Wayne, "Batman" and Wayne Enterprises were conducted in a legal, well documented manner. All the proper paperwork was filed, including taxes.

Superhero Comics aren't mature. They might have more "adult" content these days, but they aren't mature and they aren't John Grisham. Nor will they ever be able to address the legal issues of being Superhero at the same level as a legal thriller and most cetainly not at the level the real world would. Superheroes probably violate countless laws on a daily basis. But I've little interest in seeing those violations become plot points or god forbid arcs.

 

[Admiral_Young]

I'm really surprised that we haven't had a heart to heart conversation between Lucius and Bruce yet since he's been back. Far as I know the only scene between them was when Bruce and Damian were testing out new Batman flying apparatus's in I think "Bruce Wayne: The Road Home".

 

[Mr Light]

There was one scene that hints towards the next big storyline; all of the Bat-enemies joining up in one gang and coming after him, and he's preparing for the moment by building his little army of Bat-allies.

 

[Nerys Myk]

There was one scene that hints towards the next big storyline; all of the Bat-enemies joining up in one gang and coming after him, and he's preparing for the moment by building his little army of Bat-allies.

Isn't that the plot of the 1960s Batman film?

 

[Admiral_Young]

^ That is what I was referring to on the first page. Bruce has seen something in the future that he knows is coming and Batman, Inc. is him preparing for it. It's not so much HIS enemies though. We don't know what it is that he has seen.

 

[the G-man]

There was one scene that hints towards the next big storyline; all of the Bat-enemies joining up in one gang and coming after him, and he's preparing for the moment by building his little army of Bat-allies.

Isn't that the plot of the 1960s Batman film?

...and at least a couple anniversary issues...and multi-issue crossovers...and I think one version of the Justice League and...

 

[Jack Bauer]

So, in other words, Morrison will fuck the character up and leave him ruined for years. Great.

The next Batman writer will retcon it anyways...

 

[Admiral_Young]

^ Not if it's Geoff Johns J/k

 

[Allyn Gibson]

The next Batman writer will retcon it anyways...

I don't know. What Morrison has done to Batman is so big that I'm not sure how it can be put back into the box. I can't see Damian being brushed away. I can't see Dick going back to his Nightwing persona. I can't see the world suddenly forgetting that Bruce Wayne is bankrolling Batman.

But then, I said the same thing five years ago when Marvel unmasked Spider-Man. That was such a massive change to the status quo that I didn't think it would be undone.

If DC decides to put Morrison's shake-up of the character back into a box, I would hope they have a better way of handling it than Bruce making a deal with Lord Satanus.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Yeah it's going to be difficult to simply wash everything Morrison has done away when a new writer comes in two or three years. Marvel kind of managed to slowly negate the changes he made to the X-Men over the years but kept the stuff they liked. Damian is going to be near impossible to push away, he's become pretty popular now and starting to be incorporated and interact with the DCU proper. Morrison has also established that he is a future Batman. Detractors of Morrison simply think that someone will do away with all of this but I dunno. It's gonna be a difficult thing.

 

[byron lomax]

I really hate the excessive retconning that plagued the Batman comics a few years back. Under the direction of Denny O'Neil and other editors, up to a point the continuity was consistant enough - obviously retcons did happen, but not to the point where it rendered character development pointless.

But when HUSH came along, it pushed some characters in very unlikely directions, in order to serve the story's latest shocking plot twist. Harvey became normal and the Riddler discovered Batman's true identity (that's all I can remember - I'm sure there are more), developments that were reversed within a matter of months. And for some years afterwards, the Batbooks seemed to meander all over the place, making changes and then reversing them immediately afterwards.

I doubt strongly that everything Morrison has given to the Batman Universe will stay, but it would be foolish to negate the entire run. OK, so some don't like what he's done with the characters, but it opens up interesting possibilities - Scott Snyder's current Detective run is off to a really strong start, which gives a pretty promising sign of what post-Morrison Batman comics will (or might) be like.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Scott Synder's Detective Comics has been delightfully good. He's been able to get inside of Dick's head and give us a sense of how he thinks and analyzes any given situation. The back up story has been very interesting as well. The thing is if you don't like what Morrison has been doing on the main Bat book, there are other books that are just as good right now that are worth looking at.

 

[byron lomax]

Scott Synder's Detective Comics has been delightfully good. He's been able to get inside of Dick's head and give us a sense of how he thinks and analyzes any given situation. The back up story has been very interesting as well. The thing is if you don't like what Morrison has been doing on the main Bat book, there are other books that are just as good right now that are worth looking at.

Exactly! If anything, there are too many Batbooks around at the moment, but the variety of what's available really shows how diverse a place Gotham has become.

Dick Grayson as Batman is probably the thing I reacted to worst when it happened originally, but it's grown into my favourite aspect of Morrison's Bat-saga and I'm happy it's set to continue for some time. In the first Batman and Robin arc they managed to pull off the dynamic duo synergy perfectly, perhaps better than any story with the original Batman and any of his Robins.