<div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=311679.msg15123944#msg15123944">Quote from: Roman100 on 18-10-2019, 14:14:28</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">More a subversion of an anti-hero, I guess.  He's got all the trappings of an anti-hero but I wouldn't say he's any worse, currently, than Batman.  Ironically, he would consider Batman to be less moral than him because he's still rich and uses that money to dress up as a bat and, mostly, punch poor people who didn't have much choice except to work with supervillains.  <br/><br/>You could make the argument he's a anti-hero but he's not geared towards violence being the answer to everything but he's very much a believer in the idea that laws are made to protect rich people, not everyone, so it would drive him outside the law if push came to shove.<br/></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br/>to me an anti-hero does the right thing but is often at odds with the rules of society. (The old spaghetti westerns with Clint Eastwood, Dirty Harry, Wolverine)<br/><br/>My real concern is that he seems more of a supervillain than a anti-hero. To decide that to save the world you must steal from the Rich is kind of supervillainy.   Isn't it?