The Economies of Villany

• Rajeev
• October 10, 2008
• blog
• 3 comments

In these trying times, with the various markets going up and down faster than a yo-yo in zero gravity, I think of comforting issues. This impetus usually leads me in only one, predictable, direction: comics. Don't ask me why, but the proverbial black-and-white of comic books makes for a lovely change of pace. In this regard, video games come second, but a close second. Yet, in this advancing age of comics, one finds the harsh realities of the real world thrust into tranquil, in so far as one ignores the many buildings destroyed, realms of comic books. How did this come up? I have been following Grant Morrison's run on Batman R.I.P. (don't ask how disappointing it is) and as with any major event in D.C. (or for that matter Marvel) comics, it spills over into accompanying issues. In that vein Nightwing has been having his own battle, as he tries to save a prosecutor, charged to do this by none other than Harvey Dent. I won't be spoiling much, since you can probably figure it out, but it is indeed Harvey (or should I say Two-Face) who eventually kills her. At this point you must be thing, "Why, this is normal comic book fare! What does this have to do with our trying economic times?" To that I must reply, "Because Harvey got himself some high profile henchmen!"

It has never been a surprise how the villains of any comic universe make money. The whole point to their deeds is usually towards making money! Heroes on the other hand have a harder time making ends meet. After all not everyone is Bruce Wayne and even dear old Ollie Queen had to deal with going broke and then figuring out how to fund his trick arrows. Superman may be invulnerable, but Ma was essentially a sweatshop worker, as she sewed him new costumes. I assume with their marriage that Lois took over this responsibility. So heroes are just economically inviable. Let us just say that and put it out of the way.... However, villains have surprisingly always been marginally viable. Henchmen cost money, they are paid through the heist itself. If it goes wrong, they all go to jail and no one has to pay them anything. What about their motivations? Much like those playing tic-tac-toe with our market, the motivation is solely money. Sure some find their inner turmoil manifesting in wanton acts of violence, but they are not above conducting a few heists for money to help their other pursuits. You would never see a hero do that! So what is the point of all of this? Well, the major villain or super-villain and his henchmen conducting heists or plotting is straight forward in the comic book world, but what about when a number of villains work together towards a common purpose? Particularly, how do the economics work when they work under one villain for a particular goal? That is what I hope to take a small look at.

The most obvious form of super-villainy co-operation is in the form of the barter/one-goal system. I suppose in the Batman universe (you thought I was going to talk about someone else in comics?) this is best typified by the introduction story of Hush by Jeph Loeb. In a large two-part cross-over series Hush systematically works to deconstruct Batman and Bruce Wayne, intending to cause the latter harm. This, for the astute readers, is much the opposite of what Bane attempted to do to Batman in the mid-1990s. However, where Bane's pawns were left to their devices to wreak destruction and cause Batman a considerable amount of consternation, Hush co-ordinates all of Batman's most famous and powerful villains to bring about one eventual end. How does Hush manage to co-ordinate the megalomaniacal and psychotic? In many cases, Hush barters his way through using his chief skills as a surgeon. The two cases for this are for the previously mentioned Mr. Dent and Killer Croc. To both Hush offers to remove or lessen their deformities in exchange for contributing to his grand plan. In the case of Harvey it backfires, what plan with Harvey does not, and causes Hush to eventually be foiled. In other cases, like with the Joker, he garners co-operation through mutual hate. Surprisingly through the entirety of Hush money is never once mentioned. Granted, the book does not spend much time going over Hush's machinations, but what is revealed shows a very prominent system of barter and similar motives. The latter is the predominant motivation in most comics and cartoons for say a "Society of Villains" and what Loeb brought to the proceedings was an intricate system of barter through specialized skills. Far from a free market economy, it was the start of an explanation for how super-villains work with and for each other.

The recent issue of Nightwing substantially changes this system however, at least in my perception. The barter system may not be gone, but here was a free market economy with not just people, but their skills up for sale. To drug Nightwing, Two-Face had to shoot him with bullets coated with Dr. Crane's (Scarecrow's) fear toxin. How did Two-Face come upon this? He did not steal it from Crane nor did he concoct one of his own. He simply went out and bought himself some, though not too much because the price was apparently too high. That is absolutely astounding. Of course we have seen killers for hire in the comic universe, Deadshot being the most popular. However, super-villains were rarely willing to give up their tools of the trade or loan them to another. You never saw Mr. Freeze loan his gun to the Joker for a night out on the town. Yet, here was Harvey Dent using his up-front money for the kill to buy some fear toxin. Moreover, Dr. Crane readily sold it to him. Best of all one can see the free market economy work itself here! Crane has a monopoly on the fear toxin and thus can charge whatever he wants for it. Dent proceeds to buy some from him, while still keeping his profit margin. Of course, Crane takes a place in the ambush of Nightwing, along with a host of other Batman villains. How did Two-Face get them all there? Simply, he paid them all to conduct a war of attrition on Nightwing, riddled with fear toxin, and wear him down so as not to stop Two-Face from killing the prosecutor.

What about Two-Face? His attack on the prosecutor was not one against Nightwing, the prosecutor was no pawn. Nor was it for an ideological/psychological goal, the prosecutor did not have say two heads. No, Two-Face's actions were nothing more than as a gun for hire. He got paid by Blackhole to take care of a problem, rather plain and simple. This move is largely unprecedented among the A-list of villains. One never sees Lex Luthor or Brainiac taking money to commit a crime, such "petty" things are above them. Yet, here is Two-Face engaging a rather banal crime and he made a number of Batman's chief villains hired help in committing his atrocities. The economic times of Gotham villains must indeed be gruesome.

It can be said that a fundamental shift has occurred in the D.C. universe's villains. In such harsh economic times D.C. villains must make a living and you can't rob a bank when it has no collateral. This latest issue of Nightwing (#149) reveals a dimension to the economic dealings of these villians that is rarely seen and even more rarely written about. However, I think that this is not a mutually exclusive deal. After all, who better to work as hired help than those who have regularly hired it. Yet, they don't have to forego their old ways. Who says you can't have your cake and eat it too?