Why do Badass Normals get more leeway than Superheroes?

Ehhhhh not really. It would take a pretty exceptional man to have Batman's expertise and his unending funds. batman knows pretty much everything ever, he puts any man from the renaissance to shame.

edited 2nd Jan '15 11:05:09 PM by wehrmacht

Batman is a wish fulfillment fantasy himself. He can do virtually anything, he is a great detective, a skilled martial artist and his overall amazing at everything he does. Can badass normals be an example of wish fulfillment?

Is it a wish fulfillment fantasy if that person is unhappy all the time?

I suppose not but then again rich individual who uses his wits and resources to fight crime is the appeal of the Batman.

Which is why I said they seemed more plausible to the average fan, but maybe I should have just used a sarcasm tag there instead.

Yeah. A lot of the stuff Batman does is impossible, but it is possible to train yourself to be a good fighter, and become filthy stinking rich is well within the ability of a lot of people.

Becoming Superman is just impossible though. That's why people like Bad Ass Normal type characters more.

Tell that to the bllions of people who aren't filthy stinking rich, and will likely never be able to get even close to being so. (Like me.)

edited 7th Jan '15 5:44:41 PM by kkhohoho

A lot of people doesn't have to equal billions of people.

It's still far easier than developing the superpowers to fly, see through people's clothes, blow ice and shoot eyebeams.

Doesn't make it easy. For many people, it's nearly as impossible as being able to shoot lasers out of your eyes. It may seem within the realm of possibility, but it really isn't. Not for the 99%, anyway. (Which I assume includes everyone in this thread.)

He just said a lot of people. Let's assume there are a few millions of people around the world who could have a chance to conceivably someday get as rich as Bruce Wayne at any given point (and the Wayne fortune wasn't always as massively huge as it is in Modern Age comics, either), whether through good investments or patenting inventions or shady dubious means, whatever. That's a cypher long under billions, but still well within lots of as a valid term. So, his point still stands.

Bruce didn't become rich, he was in every single last fucking universe, Old Money. Sure you can become rich, but it's by the very definition impossible to become rich the way Bruce Wayne is rich.

edited 7th Jan '15 7:18:01 PM by SilentlyHonest

The family fortune did grow a lot under Bruce (and Lucius), however.

edited 7th Jan '15 7:18:11 PM by NapoleonDeCheese

That's not the point of the statement, the point is anyone can become rich, but you can't become old Money, which entails history, status beyond earnings, and pedigree.

No, the point of the statement was a lot people can become Bruce-rich, not Bruce-rich the same way as Bruce did.

Even so, I'm sure all the heirs to fortunes in the sum of all countries around the world still count as a lot of people.

@Napoleon De Cheese:

If instead of 'few million', it was instead 'a couple dozen', then I wouldn't have a problem with that.

You literally just attributed your own definition onto my statement and declared it your point? Sure dude we can do that now. Your statement really meant "I have no idea what's going on anymore and I'm just blowing smoke up everyones butt."

I was talking about the statement that started it all. You know, the one we've been discussing over the last few posts. Handsome Rob's.

I think you understimate the value of human effort. With enough drive and luck, I can see a rather high amount of people across the world being able to strike it rich one way or another (not all of them at once, of course, but again, that's beside the point). Only a few dozens? Sorry, I don't buy that. Hell, every country has at least a few hundred-to-a-few-thousands of wealthy people. Add them all together, and the numbers of rich people across the world is rather high. They only look like small numbers when compared to poor people, but not objectively.

edited 7th Jan '15 7:29:28 PM by NapoleonDeCheese

Then you missed the point of the, you know my initial statement, two times now. Because that's not the one I was talking about and not the one you were replying to.

But this discussion did start with Handsome Rob's statement, not your own. If you're derailing the discussion of his point to make it about your own (related, but even so) point, it's you who were deviating from the original point in the first place. You can't blame me if I return to that one.

1. It's not a derail if it's related to the topic.

2. When you assign blame instead of just correcting yourself it hurts your credibility.

But I don't think I have anything to correct there. Why should I do it then, just because I'm told to?

You first go and say Rob's comparison isn't feasible because no one can get rich the same way Bruce did (a fallacy on itself, since there are heirs to fortunes all over the world). Then all I did was saying that wasn't what the original statement was about.

edited 7th Jan '15 7:40:05 PM by NapoleonDeCheese

You should, because it benefits your argument, far more than just conceding or holding on to a moot point would. It's a counterproductive action to take during debate.

edited 7th Jan '15 7:39:02 PM by SilentlyHonest

By correcting oneself, one is still conceding there was something wrong in one's statement to begin with. How can one thing be any different from the other then?

And if one thinks one is right, it's still wrong to correct oneself anyway, regardless of how 'better looking for the debate' would it look or not.

edited 7th Jan '15 7:47:47 PM by NapoleonDeCheese

@Napolean De Cheese: Look. My point is, hardly anyone can become wealthy, (and to clarify, I mean freaking Bruce Wayne levels of wealthy,) at least if you compare the number total number of wealthy people in the world to the 7+ billion that aren't. And it's not that people don't have the drive. It's that the way in which the world works prevents most people from being able to reach that level of wealthiness. There are reasons why the 1% and 99% exist. If anyone could just become filthy stinking rich, then there would be a lot more filthy stinking rich people in the world than there are.

And that's what I'm going to stick with; most people in the world aren't filthy stinking rich, so most people cannot become so. Or otherwise, they could, but choose not to, which I don't agree with at all. I imagine most people would want to be filthy stinking rich, but the sad fact is that most people simply cannot, and not for lack of trying.

edited 7th Jan '15 7:49:26 PM by kkhohoho

Dude, even 1% of the whole world's population is still a lot of people, which is all Rob ever said in the first place.

If anyone could just become filthy stinking rich, then there would be a lot more filthy stinking rich people in the world than there are

No, because the capacity to achieve something and the actual achievement are two completely different things, for a hugely wide variety of reasons.

but the sad fact is that most people simply cannot

But, once again, the original post you're trying to refute only said a lot of people. A lot of people doesn't have to be most people in the world.

edited 7th Jan '15 7:52:38 PM by NapoleonDeCheese