So here's a crazy idea: Why not do an actual "Batman goes Rogue" story

So everyone is always writing stories where Superman or other powered heroes go evil, and there's the now loathed meme about how Batman could beat anyone if he had enough time to prepare and that bullshit.

So why not have Batman go evil and actually commit to taking down the entire Justice League?

Some of you are groaning, but I'd almost be curious to see it done, just to see if people would really enjoy a villainous Bad Ass Normal taking down powered heroes by capitalizing on their weaknesses (like setting traps that bank on them being willing to protect civilians first and all that).

I can't think of any solid details, but I think the only way it would work in any comic is if it was reveal that he spent years planning, at every spare opportunity, working in the shadows gathering resources, plotting things out. I can picture him spending the first few years just planning out how to do it in his head without Clark heat visioning him from orbit.

Hell, before that, I can picture him spending the years before that making sure J'onn doesn't read him mind and find out what he's doing right off the bat.

He'd also have to make sure the league was separated at the time, or that he could at least isolate them (the reason the plans failed in Tower of Babel and Doom is that they were all able to help each-other). He'd have to account for outside interference such as Cyborg in Doom, or just something not considered.

And in the end he'd have to do something like use Red Sun Radiation to take Supe's powers away, so that they could fight hand to hand, and Clark again reminds us that he's more than just his powers.

......This is crazy. It probably wouldn't work, but I almost wish they'd try. Full on evil Batman against the league. The hardest part would be figuring out how he doesn't die in seconds though (both in and out of universe). I'd like to see it just because it could be different from the thousand of Superman turns evil stories that everyone is obsessed with.

edited 28th Jul '15 7:59:58 PM by HandsomeRob

But...how would Batman go Rogue? He would have to dye a strip of his hair white and then adopt a Southern accent! And then he'd be all, "I am the night, suggah!"

.........

.................

Gonna take me a while to come up with a response to that.

I actually had an idea for a story once where Batman took over the world and turned it into a police state, with bat-mechs like in Kingdom Come and a horde of Sons-of-Batman-esque Robin-youth (y'know, like Hitler Youth). He would have struck a bargain with the Amazons to maintain order and would have captured other super-powered heroes or exiled them off planet. If Bat's goes bad, I figure he'd do it in the name of protecting people, so he'd becomes super-controlling and super-invasive.

i think it makes way more sense for batman to go rogue than superman.

superman is typically a very well-adjusted person, at peace with himself and his place in the world. that doesn't mean that he's perfect or doesn't have insecurities but he's pretty healthy from a mental standpoint.

batman on the other hand is consistently portrayed as mentally ill in some fashion and unstable to some degree. if someone was going to snap and try to take over the world for its own safety it'd almost certainly be him, not supes.

Although, an evil Batman bent on ruling the world could come across as simply a Bat-themed Lex Luthor.

Maybe not quite - Luthor's schemes are bombastic and showboating in their execution, even if they rarely leave a paper trail leading to him. Batman would be much more subtle, the most likely scenario being quietly kidnapping and restraining anyone capable of opposing him. Benefiting from his coLeagues' initial trust, and without a dedicated villain ball to hinder him, he'd be a far more dangerous opponent than just about every Earth-based supervillain.

Oh yeah.

That's what I'm saying. That's one of the reasons why it could work too. He'd need years just to get the plan off the ground, but he's a good guy. He'd have it in the beginning. Plus, he's seen plenty of schemes before, and they all know he's making plans to take them out.....well, in some continuities.

If he played his cards right, it could be years before he noticed them. It could really be a big twist on the whole scenario, especially if it was Superman who was the last to confront him.

Why would the Amazons go along with this?

And it shall be called Batman Kills the DC Universe.

You know, with how often superheroes fake going rogue, or are falsely accused, even if Batman's scheme does come to light the rest of the League would probably just assume it was part of some elaborate scheme. This could work in his favour.

Superman gets a call from Commissioner Gordon.

"Superman, you have to help us! Batman's gone rogue! He's already taken out Nightwing and Batgirl, and I think he's coming for the Justice League!"

"OK Commissioner, I'll sort this out."

"Thank you Superman, and Godspeed."

Superman, being one of Batman's oldest and closest friends, tracks Batman to one of his lesser-known hideouts.

"Clark?!"

"Bruce, I'm your friend. Whatever's going on, whyever you're pretending to go criminal, I'm here to help."

"Oh... good. Thank heavens, I don't know who to trust right now. Come here, I need to show you something. This is huge. Could mean the end of us all."

"Wow, sounds serious. What could... is that kryptonite?"

Wasn't that basically the Justice Lords universe?

1. the Amazons go along with it because it establishes order in the chaotic "man's world." And I'm sure he offers them some concessions. They were content to ignore the rest of the world for a long time, remember; I don't see it as a stretch for them to have no problem employing dictatorial rule. 2. It is a bit like the Justice Lords universe, except Batman is more or less in charge on his own, or perhaps in a tetrarch with the Amazons and (maybe) Atlantis. I actually came up with the idea before the Justice League animated series, but there you go.

The thing would be that Batman would not so much be "going rogue" as carrying his mission to it's logical extreme.

I don't agree that Batman is consistently portrayed as being somewhat mentally ill or unstable. Psychiatric professionals have even chimed in on this subject. He's broody and tends to overthink things, but he doesn't have any signs of mental illness or personality disorders. Fans like to SAY that he's a little crazy because he dresses like a bat and fights crime, but for the world he lives in that's not an unreasonable thing to do. For the world he lives in, his actions make perfect sense.

the guy is more or less ruled by his parents' deaths (as opposed to his protegé dick grayson who is usually seen dealing with it in a much more healthy way), has alienated people over control issues in at least one continuity (DCAU), is obsessive and paranoid to the point where he created backup plans to disarm his allies without telling them, etc. Bruce himself tells Diana that he has "issues" in JLU.

furthermore, there's the frequently presented idea that if batman were to kill even one person it would break him forever and send him spiraling down a path he wouldn't be able to go back from. if that's not a sign of instability i don't know what is.

it's true that most people aren't psychologists but you don't really need a degree in psychology to tell when someone might have mental hangups, even if they don't necessarily conform to the standards of a specific personality disorder (though if you have a source for a number of psychologists providing evaluations of his personality i'd be interested in seeing it). not every version of batman is the same or has the exact same issues in the exact same way but it does pop up pretty often.

my point was moreso that it's much more likely for batman to go rogue than supes because of his personality and personal issues.

edited 29th Jul '15 5:55:21 PM by wehrmacht

if anything, i've always thought Batman suffered from symptoms of PTSD

Does ASBAR count?

Oh, I'll agree that it depends on the writer, and which Batman you're getting. I'm probably subconsciously discounting versions I dislike; most interpretations of him that make him appear unbalanced do so through poor writing or lack of imagination (in my opinion, anyway). And you have to admit, on balance, he has more often been depicted as stable than as unstable, and only "unstable" at all in the last 30 years of a 76 year existence. In general though, I'd say he's driven and intense, though not disturbed. I actually don't have a link, but I know there is a book out on the psychology of Batman; my earlier statement was sourced from one of the extras on one of the DCU animated movie dvds. Unfortunately, I can't remember which one.

I'd say he's more apt to go rogue than Superman just based on his personality, rather than out of an instability. Superman is motivated by a desire to help others, and at least a bit from the belief that his abilities require him to do so ("from those to whom much is given, much is asked"). Batman is also motivated by a desire to help others, but at its most basic level, for him, that's couched specifically in the terms of preventing tragedy or, barring that, capturing wrongdoers. Batman has a much greater desire for control than Superman does, and that could easily get out of control. He doesn't have to be insane to do that; in fact, it would make a better story if he wasn't. He'd be doing it all for what he imagined would be the greatest good, for the greatest number of people.

edited 29th Jul '15 9:53:23 PM by Robbery

@Robbery that the Amazons were content to ignore Patriarch's World for a long time is why I don't see them going along with it. These women were once victims of the brand of tyranny Bruce would be imposing.

Batman does have the most likely chance of going rogue compare to Superman.

If the argument in 8-Bit Theater is anything to go by, Batman is pretty much similar to Dr. Doom. They both are genius individuals, who travel across the world to gain all the skills they need and have a goal that is basically to be the savior of the city (in Doom's case country and later the world). The only difference has to be how they are developed where Batman actually have people around him to show him he is not alone in his cause and thus making him (a little) more trusting of people. Doom, well, you know how it went.

If such a story was made (and I think everybody may have stated this), Batman will most likely be a well intention extremist who manage to solve the crime problem in the city through the use of Bat Robots (like in Kingdom Come). Similar to Doom when he conquered Latveria and made it to a better place then it previously was, Batman will get ambitious and make Gotham into a sovereign nation of its own (like in No Man's Land) as his first step to keeping Gotham truly safe from criminal scum. After watching the news of the chaos the world has, Batman realize in order to protect Gotham he must make all the other countries just like his Gotham; so he sets out to take over the world starting with the USA.

Superman will obviously be his arch nemesis, much like how Mr. Fantastic is for Doom (so expect Bruce yelling out KENT! everytime he is defeated).

That would be good. Having him go rogue while still trying tot help the world would be interesting.

I maintain that if he was still a member of the league in the continuity that such a story would take place in, he'd do it secretively. Like I said, the first few years would probably be spent trying to figure out how to do it without be taken down by the league before hand (remember that Bruce admits that if he went bad, the league would stop him, so he knows he stands no chance against all of them, let alone one of the more powerful members).

He'd already have a head start with his plans to stop them if they went rogue, he'd just need to find a way to up the effectiveness, while probably not still killing them (whether he'd still kill depends on how far gone he is).

Oh. Maybe he could orchestrate scenarios where he could legitimately use the plans for what they were made for in the first place: he makes them go rogue in order to have a reason to take them down, and then starts his plans under the guise of helping them. It would work perfectly.

I think the Amazon's would go along with it because Batman's rule would be, while crushingly oppressive to individual liberty and terribly controlling and invasive, equitable for all involved. Racism or sexism would not be tolerated. It would likely cut down significantly on violence against women, and on violent crime in general. Admittedly, I haven't followed Wonder Woman for a long time, but I don't know that the Amazon's have ever been particular advocates of individual liberty; they've been about peace and love, joy through submission to strong women, and kind of a very-benevolent fascism. I don't think if Bruce Wayne went to them and said "The governments of the world are a lost cause. If you'll unite your resources with mine, we can shape the world into the kind of egalitarian, peaceful paradise we all want" that they'd be all that hard to convince. That's just me, though.

Anyone remember that Avengers graphic novel where Doom actually managed to conquer the world, and the world ended up being the better for it?

but Doom realized ruling the world took a lot more hard work, so he left back to being "bad guy" again

wouldnt an evil batman just be the punisher or judge dredd on steroids powered up over level 9,000?

edited 30th Jul '15 5:22:10 PM by xbimpy

not really. the punisher is about retribution, it's in his name. big brother batman is about control and prevention. i haven't read any judge dredd but i think that comparison is probably a bit more apt.

edited 30th Jul '15 5:18:20 PM by wehrmacht

Batman is defined by his obsession with altruism as a coping mechanism. He needs to help other people in order to help himself. The prefect example of hero syndrome. Yes he wants to prevent as many casualties as possible and in the case of enemies he tries his best to not kill them though there are exceptions:

Killed Qayin at the end of Son of the Demon by kicking him into electric cables. Locked the KG Beast underground to starve (later retconned). Blew people up in The Cult. Sent a car careening into some terrorists in DC 590. Blew up a bunch of crooks in Legends of the Dark Knight 31. - 80s Batman.

Before then there were times he even intentionally killed bystanders to reach his goal. However, I do not think those stories dealt with the burned they had on him.

Anyway... to me an evil Batman would just be a Batman who crossed his own line. And that is use lethal everything with no regard to the general public or anyone else's safety, which is why I choose the Punisher. Yes the Punisher doesn't let kids get hurt, but I think an evil Batman wouldn't care about fallout. He deferentially does not want crime to end because he needs it in order to function. I can see him challenging all criminals in Gotham, while putting down anyone who gets in his way because his methods are too dangerous, just to make them call out more criminals around Earth that he can punch to death. He loves it, he wants it, he needs it. Rather than regulate crime he wants it to run rampant so he can take it down up close and personal just for it to rise again. No one else matters except anyone hurting the innocent. I guess how he judges the innocent is now more cynical than ever. A Batman willing to blow up Gotham so its scum are gone, hoping for new scum to replace them.

That's my evil Batman. I was thinking from a not so larger than life preservative. The "rule earth for greater good" thing is irrelevant to this Batman. He wants to kill chaos and will breed more chaos to do so

edited 30th Jul '15 5:52:12 PM by xbimpy

@Robbery that's the Golden Age version. Modern versions don't get involved unless Diana pleads with them to and even then that's mostly stuff like fighting off alien invasions or providing asylum to women on the run.

Truth is the Amazons are for th most part indifferent to Patriarch's World.

And you'll find as many interpretations of Batman (probably more) where he is NOT pathological at all, and just a driven man using his vast resources to fight crime (in a super-hero-ey, adventure story kind of way). This is the inherent problem (or not, as you like it) with characters that SO very many people have written; there frequently end up being so many interpretations of them. Actually, it's not the number of interpretations that are a problem, it's fans and writers who insist that their interpretation is the only correct one (and no, that last is not a slam on anyone here; it's just meant as a general observation of the world at large).