Category: Iron Man
Last article published: 9 June 2020
This is the 48th post under this label
Batman is still a member of the Top 1% and it's entirely possible to read his stories with that lens. And there's so much material there, I'm sure we can find plenty of Batman tales that read like the Iron Man ones cited above (and vice-versa). But in CONCEPT, which writers will always return to whatever transformations occur in any give arc, Iron Man is more the kind of billionaire douche we hear from in the media all the time, and who are ruining the world with their quest for money they can never spend.
So his popularity thanks to the Marvel Cinematic Universe is sadly problematic, as it normalizes the view that billionaires can be heroes, which in the real world, they are NOT. They just have too much blood and suffering on their hands.
Last article published: 9 June 2020
This is the 48th post under this label
Iron Man isn't the only billionaire superhero. After all, it's really helpful to have money and not have to go to a job every day if you're going to be a superhero. In today's climate, where it's clear the rich are completely out-of-touch parasites on society, their philanthropy cynical in comparison to their net worth (which some would have confused with their worth as PEOPLE), we have a natural tendency to ask pointed questions about these wealthy superheroes.
Iron Man is certainly one of the most high profile ones, and Batman is the other, and I will contrast them in due course. Is Tony Stark really the best poster child for the Top Financial Percentile, and if so, how problematic does that make him? As we know, he started out life as an industrialist making weapons for the U.S. military. So right away, we know he must have had lobbyists working in Washington, and made his money on war and destruction. That's not great. In the movies, they have him stop making those particular products in favor of clean energy, but as in the comics, he's still outfitting SHIELD, which yes, is seemingly on the side of right, but he's still running after governmental contracts.
I started buying Iron Man just before the Armor Wars storyline, in which Tony essentially went after everyone - friend or foe - who used his proprietary technology. Obviously, it's couched in the idea that supervillains can get (or already have gotten) their hands on his tech and either made people suffer, or could. But you wouldn't see Spider-Man go after patent infringement with such zeal. This is definitely a Top 1% problem. Only HE can profit from his tech, and even friendly "armoreds" have to give their chips up to Mr. Stark. In the comics, as "Tony Stark's bodyguard", Iron Man is often just protecting the company, and thus, his self-interest.
But what about Batman? Isn't he the original gazillionaire superhero? That may be, but no matter how much plate armor contemporary artists and movie makers want to put on him, or that joke in the Justice League movie, Batman's origin changes everything. Yes, he comes from money, and didn't work to get it. Very Top 1%. But being the child of tragedy has all that rather irrelevant to him. If he were poor, he'd still wage his war on crime, and as he's rich, he sinks as much of it as he can into that crusade. He let's someone else run the company. He's only faking when he takes the role of the billionaire playboy. While Batman's adventures have been international in scope at times, a lot of them are on the street, where he has to keep contacts, helps the downtrodden, etc. He's not out of touch with that reality. Indeed, he may be more out of touch with the social circles he was born into and seems desperate to ignore.
Tony Stark, on the other hand, really does live the life of a celebrity playboy. His power level is among the top percentile of the Marvel heroes who hold their own titles, and that disconnects him from the common man in a way that doesn't happen to Spider-Man or Daredevil. Which is not to say he doesn't use his money for philanthropy, but I have more memories of the Wayne Foundation doing things for Gotham than I do of Stark Enterprises doing the same. That Iron Man cover where he's up against student protesters comes more readily to mind...
Iron Man is certainly one of the most high profile ones, and Batman is the other, and I will contrast them in due course. Is Tony Stark really the best poster child for the Top Financial Percentile, and if so, how problematic does that make him? As we know, he started out life as an industrialist making weapons for the U.S. military. So right away, we know he must have had lobbyists working in Washington, and made his money on war and destruction. That's not great. In the movies, they have him stop making those particular products in favor of clean energy, but as in the comics, he's still outfitting SHIELD, which yes, is seemingly on the side of right, but he's still running after governmental contracts.
I started buying Iron Man just before the Armor Wars storyline, in which Tony essentially went after everyone - friend or foe - who used his proprietary technology. Obviously, it's couched in the idea that supervillains can get (or already have gotten) their hands on his tech and either made people suffer, or could. But you wouldn't see Spider-Man go after patent infringement with such zeal. This is definitely a Top 1% problem. Only HE can profit from his tech, and even friendly "armoreds" have to give their chips up to Mr. Stark. In the comics, as "Tony Stark's bodyguard", Iron Man is often just protecting the company, and thus, his self-interest.
But what about Batman? Isn't he the original gazillionaire superhero? That may be, but no matter how much plate armor contemporary artists and movie makers want to put on him, or that joke in the Justice League movie, Batman's origin changes everything. Yes, he comes from money, and didn't work to get it. Very Top 1%. But being the child of tragedy has all that rather irrelevant to him. If he were poor, he'd still wage his war on crime, and as he's rich, he sinks as much of it as he can into that crusade. He let's someone else run the company. He's only faking when he takes the role of the billionaire playboy. While Batman's adventures have been international in scope at times, a lot of them are on the street, where he has to keep contacts, helps the downtrodden, etc. He's not out of touch with that reality. Indeed, he may be more out of touch with the social circles he was born into and seems desperate to ignore.
Tony Stark, on the other hand, really does live the life of a celebrity playboy. His power level is among the top percentile of the Marvel heroes who hold their own titles, and that disconnects him from the common man in a way that doesn't happen to Spider-Man or Daredevil. Which is not to say he doesn't use his money for philanthropy, but I have more memories of the Wayne Foundation doing things for Gotham than I do of Stark Enterprises doing the same. That Iron Man cover where he's up against student protesters comes more readily to mind...
So his popularity thanks to the Marvel Cinematic Universe is sadly problematic, as it normalizes the view that billionaires can be heroes, which in the real world, they are NOT. They just have too much blood and suffering on their hands.
Comments