Bruce Wayne vs. Healing: H'ood Win?

I understand that stories require conflict, including interpersonal conflict. Superman and Batman (much like McCoy and Spock) are often used to represent different points of view: Superman, trusting and hopeful; Batman, suspicious and pessimistic. Sometimes, however, this simple (sometimes simplistic) scheme gets twisted, and supposedly smart characters wind up saying absurd, out of character things.

In JLA #2 (2105), the Kryptonian god Rao, newly arrived on Earth, sends his prophets into hospitals across the country (America first?), where they fully cure thousands of people, including those who were considered terminal. Most people see this as a good thing.

Bruce Wayne does not. Now, I would expect him to say: We don’t even know what Rao is, much less his motives. Are there side effects or hidden costs to these cures? Will there be an expectation of payment later on? 

Or even, maybe: What if there were suddenly no illness in the world? Could the world handle the overpopulation, the increased use of resources? 

And I’d credit a general distaste for anyone arrogant to call himself a god. Although Bruce’s friend Diana seems to get away with it.

But Bruce goes a different way.When Alfred says, “They seem to be healing everybody, no matter how sick or injured,” Bruce complains: “Yes. Everybody, Alfred. Good and Bad. Thieves. Criminals. Rapists. Worse. The world would be better if they died as they were supposed to. What kind of church gives that kind of evil a second chance?”

Really, Bruce? That’s where you’re going to draw your line in the sand? Because by the same reasoning (and I use the word with some doubt), he should be opposed to all doctors everywhere. After all, doctors also try their best to save people, usually without considering whether those people are “supposed” to die (whatever that means), or even whether they are good people or bad people. Ordinary doctors may have a worse win/loss record than prophets of Rao, but certainly Bruce Wayne (whose father was a doctor) does not believe that - through luck, fate, or karma - only the good people are saved, and the bad ones thankfully die.

Further, Bruce should be opposed to himself as Batman. Metaphorically, Batman is a kind of doctor - he saves people who would otherwise die. Does he investigate their morals first? When Batman prevents the Joker from killing another 10,000 people, or helps the JLA stop an alien menace from destroying a city, some of the people he saves might very well be: “Thieves. Criminals. Rapists. Worse. The world would be better if they died as they were supposed to.” What kind of superhero gives that kind of evil a second chance? But I don’t actually remember Batman actually taking this question into account. It’s a standard by which he will judge Rao and his followers, but not himself or his do-gooder friends.

When Alfred talks about the Biblical concept of a kindly and forgiving god, Bruce goes further: “Who was God being kind to when my parents were murdered? If Joe Chill was [sic] dying, I’d fight every single one of those prophets to stop them from saving him.”

This is utterly out of character. As a rule, Batman doesn’t even let his worst enemies die if he can prevent it - even if it means risking his own life. We have seen him reach out a hand to stop the Joker from falling to his death. If a doctor were treating Joe Chill for life-threatening injuries, would Batman actually stop the doctor? 

Doctors are supposed to treat everyone in need, regardless of their moral or legal status, and then let the legal system take its course. Even convicts on death row get medical care. Bruce Wayne has never tried to put a stop to any of this. Why would he treat the prophets of Rao any differently - lacking any proof that Rao has evil, ulterior motives?

As for “Who was God being kind to when my parents were murdered?”, I can’t provide an answer for the Abrahamic God; Bruce will just have to devote more time to the study of theodicy for that. But as for Rao, Bruce knows the answer. Rao makes no claims to being omniscient or omnipotent, and he has been traveling the universe. He wasn’t around when the Waynes were murdered - any more than Superman or the Flash was - through no fault of his own. So it’s not really a fair basis to judge him on. 

On the other hand, if Rao is really what he says he is, then perhaps he can help people create a world in which another young child is less likely to lose his parents to the next Joe Chill. Or his prophets can come along and save the parents as they lie dying in the street. Bruce might want to consider this possibility, when he’s done feeling sorry for himself.

Look, I understand Batman looking a gift horse in the mouth; it’s his nature. And, comics being what they are, I’m sure there’s something hinky about Rao’s seeming generosity, and ultimately the JLA will have to take him on, after fighting amongst themselves for a while.

But to condemn Rao for saving people simply because some of those people may be bad guys, when Batman and his friends save people en masse for a living? To say that he would stop someone from saving Joe Chill from dying, when we’ve seen Batman save his most evil and murderous enemies from certain doom? To dismiss the possibility that Rao is genuinely kind, because where was he when Bruce’s parents were killed, huh??!?

That’s crazy talk. It’s self-contradictory, irrational, unfair, and petty. And therefore - I would hope - out of character.

But then, I don’t know which Batman I’m reading about. Now that DC has adopted the policy of “story over continuity” (whatever that means), maybe this Batman has never saved an enemy. Maybe this Batman follows up on all his rescues to make sure they’re fine, upstanding citizens, and acts accordingly. Maybe this Batman is irrational and petty. Who can know?

Will he be the same way for the next JLA story arc? Or even next issue? What are you, a continuity freak?