Busting Chops

DI: I was hoping to bring you into a discussion on what’s happen in Wisconsin, or Madison’s Cairo moment, to paraphrase Paul Ryan. Oh, and to reward anyone who sits through this whole potentially stale policy conversation, I’m going to have you tell a story about punching people.

B: Well, I think to get the complete picture of my feelings you’d have to go back to my dad, and his strategy with the unions, because that’s informed a lot of how I approach them.

My dad was a strange guy. When most men in his class were out trying to undermine the unions working in their industries, he was participating in his. He actually funded the union up front- he paid his worker’s union dues for the first five years. He told his workers and the union, “I’m cutting a check right now, for the full five years- and it covers not just the employees we have now, but our expected growth. Because this is our company. I founded it, and I may steer it, but you are the engines that move it forward. And I want you all to have a say in where we go.”

He actually ended up cutting another check after only two years- because the company started growing at such a pace that they’d already burned through all five years of dues he paid. And we’ve continued that tradition forward.

DI: But doesn’t having a company-funded union undercut the union’s credibility? Don’t you become the hand that feeds it?

B: Not really; it isn’t a company union. We simply pay our employees’ union dues, as an additional perk. If you’d rather think about it this way, it’s about $35 that the employee would receive in addition to their base pay every month, that instead goes to pay for something for them. It’s no different really than the money we put towards our employees’ insurance, or the withholding for taxes. The actual costs of employees are a good deal higher than their wages alone.

DI: But overall, your father’s precedent of passive cooperation aside, how do you feel about unions?

B: Unions get a lousy rap. There are corrupt unions. There are lazy unions. But unions are basically the leadership of workers. You can look at it as an analog for our Congress, if you like. And for all intents and purposes, a business’s management are a foreign country. But they’re partners, too, just like England is an economic partner of ours. Management can’t function without the employees, and the employees require the infrastructure fostered by management. Having a union allows employees representation, a voice in the process they wouldn’t otherwise have.

And the reason unions get busted on so much is that they’re bad for business- but let me qualify that. A company’s goal, when you strip back all pretensions, is making money. Paying their workers more, providing benefits, creating a safe work environment- all of those things cost money, which cuts into a company’s bottom line. Some of those things can yield dividends, too; by offering higher wages and better benefits, we often get better quality employees, which can lead to higher and more efficient production, which can lead to a net gain.

But unions are representatives. They’ll fight bad change, but in my experience good unions are willing to take a hit for the team. Look at the UAW, which accepted pretty substantial cuts when the auto industry was failing. At the end of the day it was worth more to them to keep their members’ jobs than to keep hard-won benefits that might have cost those jobs or destroyed the industry. But having representation meant that the auto workers had a say in that process, and got to negotiate for the best position they could stake out.

DI: So what do you think about unions spending their members’ dues on political campaigning.

B: I don’t like the idea of anyone buying elections. So I’m against every kind of spending, even personal. I could buy myself a seat in the senate, maybe a governorship, because I have enough money to absolutely bury just about anyone I might run against. And I say that as someone who’s fairly liberal, who’s come out of the closet, and who spent years of his life breaking the law as a vigilante. I could probably beat Barack Obama in the democratic primary in 2012- not because I’m a better speaker, a better leader, or a better politician, or even a better man or better qualified, but simply because I could spend 100 times more money than he could ever raise. And that isn’t right.

But having said all that, I think a union’s function is acting as a check and a balance on business, for the workers. So with that caveat, I’d rather have unions spending to counter corporate spending, than have a world where business contribute to elections but unions can’t.

I’ll take a particularly loathsome example. Lex Luthor has spent millions of dollars lobbying Congress specifically against OSHA standards. He wants to be able to make his workers less safe. His accountants and lawyers have crunched the numbers and discovered that even the small chance that he can get Congress to pass unsafe regulations, which would save him an order of magnitude more money, and that, to him, makes it worth spending millions of dollars.

Some of his workers are unionized, and I know that union spent a few hundred thousand dollars lobbying the opposite side of that issue. It’s a bad system, and I won’t defend it, but unions unilaterally disarming would be even more irresponsible. Because it would leave workers even more vulnerable to exploitation. And our laws shouldn’t be up for bid, they should be written in such a way to maximize the benefit to society.

DI: I’m a fan of hyperbole, so I’ll take that idea to its extreme: are you saying that you’re comfortable with re-legalizing slavery?

B: Slavery actually was a very maximizing system; parts of society were exploited so everyone else could prosper. But slavery also had the numbers wrong. The number of slaves in the south was greater than the number of slave owners- so what you actually had was more people suffering for the enrichment of the few.

We have, at least in principle, a similar system today. Wage growth has remained stagnant for a decade for most people, but the rich have only gotten richer, while the very rich have gotten richer even still. We’re getting to a point where most of society is being exploited, to at least some extent, to enrich the wealthy.

DI: Okay, but the real reason we brought this up is pretty simple: you have an interesting example.

B: That’s right. I don’t want to name names, because the prosecution is ongoing. But basically, several corporations in the city began hiring organized crime to undermine the unions in their companies. Everything from intimidation, subversion, to kidnapping, and murder.

DI: Of course, Gotham’s organized crime is a little more… colorful than say, New York’s.

B: Right. The most powerful crime figures in the city are Penguin, Two Face and Black Mask. A reporter put together a story detailing how all of the union agitation, and the subsequent intrigue, had happened at these three specific corporations that had various business ties to one another.

To hide that telling coincidence, they stirred up a rumor at some of my plants that we were planning on going back on agreements with the union, to slash benefits. There was a protest, and I insinuated myself into the midst of it. I caught out a man who was about to throw a brick at Lucius Fox, who, if you’ve ever met the man, is one of the least brickable people on the planet. Before that, he’d been shouting lots of very strange and inflammatory things, really riling up the crowd.

Well I carried him out of the crowd, and he’s quacking the whole way through. We’ve talked about my recall, and I didn’t recognize the man. There were a few policemen there, so I handed him over, explained that he’d attempted to assault someone, then went back to the protest. I told them who I was, and that I wasn’t afraid to stand amongst them and talk, because none of what they’d heard was true.

Meanwhile, the police checked the man’s fingerprints. He was one of the Penguin’s lackies, which explained the quacking. The larger scheme, which eventually unraveled, was about muscling out the unions to cut benefits and wages and increase profit margins. Penguin’s game in that was he planned on eventually pushing out the owners after he had gotten rid of the unions; he’s got a particular distate for unions, for reasons that have to do with a story I’ll tell in a minute.

DI: But Wisconsin’s a bit different. Because this isn’t shady businessmen dealing with shady criminals to break the law. This is about the governor of a state trying to pass a law.

B: That’s true. Wisconsin, like a lot of the states, isn’t bringing in enough money because of the weak economy. Reasonable people agree that this means everyone has to face potential cuts. But the Governor, Scott Walker, isn’t asking for concessions, which the union has voiced support for, he’s trying to cut the union off at the knees. There are two important issues here. One, is that state employees may, as part of a general belt-tightening, have to accept less compensation. And, while painful, I think they’re willing to do that. The second, and what this law is really trying to do, is end unionization.

The law doesn’t touch balancing the budget- which Walker, who just passed even greater tax cuts despite the state’s deficit, isn’t serious about anyway. It’s about forbidding unions from bargaining for benefits. Worse, it’s about keeping unions from bargaining for wages above the consumer price index- basically the union would have to fight for wages to stay even with inflation, and since that’s the maximum, it’s likely wages would stay below inflation. It is, de facto, ending the ability of unions to function, period. If this were a private company doing this, and not a state government, I have no doubt it would be illegal.

This kind of legislation, and even a lot of complaints about unions, is about putting political pressure on unions. The fact that people want to destroy unions shows how valuable they are. If unions were ineffective, if they didn’t win concessions for their employees, they wouldn’t exist. Because if they weren’t effective unionized workers would kick them out. But it should be the worker’s option to unionize or not. The absolute last thing we want is for government to take away our right to organize. And what we’re seeing is very much a step in that direction.

DI: Now that we’ve put a bowtie on that, your punching story.

B: Since we brought up the Penguin’s union busting, we’ll talk about him. He’s always had a flair for the dramatic that’s unmatched really in Gotham’s underworld. Two Face has his obsession with duality, and the Joker with… gaggery, but Penguin took it to an art form. Or maybe, he’s just had more opportunities with bird and fish related businesses and imagery in the city.

This was several years ago, before the earthquake. The Penguin made a power play for the city docks. Operating out of there are a lot of lucrative shipping and fishing businesses, but specifically there was a company called Silverfish Shipping and Cannery. The Antarctic silverfish make up the bulk of the Emperor Penguin’s diet, so of course he couldn’t keep his flippers off.

But Silverfish was an employee-owned cooperative. Years before, during a period of economic distress, several of the companies on the dock were having trouble paying the bills. The employees worked out a trade, whereby they were given a controlling interest in a new umbrella company if they agreed to work for decreased pay.

The Penguin’s been involved in organized crime most of his life, so shaking down the owner/operator’s was right up his alley. He bought their share for a song- no pun intended. But he didn’t have a controlling interest- to be able to do anything he needed the approval of the voting employees. He tried to get there by intimidating the dockworkers, but if you’ve ever tried to intimidate a longshoreman you know it isn’t an easy task- particularly for an overweight, five foot man in a top hat with a compulsive quacking tic.

DI: Sorry to interrupt, but you called it a quacking “tic.” Are you saying Penguin has Tourette’s?

B: Not Tourette’s specifically, because that involves motor as well as phonic tics, but a tic disorder, a chronic one.

But by buying out the owner operators he had the opposite of what he actually wanted: he had all the responsibility of running the businesses, but none of the decision-making authority, and because of the profit-sharing scheme, a minority of the profits, as well. So he devised a scheme to scare them, or at first, to terrorize those who were dependent upon the fishing trades; I can only assume he had a phase 2 to handle the shipping side of things.

I talked to several ornithologists who he consulted in the area, only to be told that no breed of Penguin could survive in Gotham long-term. So his plan B was to import several top predators, including different species of shark and barracuda, to decimate the local fish populations. I’m not entirely sure what his plan actually was, because it would have killed the fishing trade out of Gotham Harbor and maybe further up and down the coast, maybe permanently. I suspect it was largely a plan grown out of a tantrum. Oswald Cobblepot doesn’t appreciate being laughed at, which does make you wonder why he’d go by “Penguin” in the first place.

But I tracked him, and his collection of invasive species, to the cannery owned by Silverfish. He had most of the predators in separate tanks, lest they feast on one another. He had a couple of his goons he was goading into feeding the barracuda, whose tank was open. I kicked them into the open tank and closed the lid, which left breathing room, behind them.

DI: Wasn’t that dangerous?

B: Well… barracudas don’t really kill people. There’s a death attributed to them once a decade, maybe, but they don’t even predate upon humans. When they do attack, it’s usually because there’s a watch, or a ring, that catches a glint of light and makes the fish think they’re attacking prey. And even when they do it’s usually a few lacerations. If I recall correctly they might have needed some stitches afterwards- but that’s hardly a first for me.

But that left the Penguin. He made a waddling run for it, but it was half-hearted. I think the entire operation hadn’t gone to plan, and he was a little relieved to have an out, honestly. But for anyone who hasn’t seen it, he has a supremely punchable face. You want to hit him. And what’s more, it’s the perfect face to hit. A little bit of padding from the fat, but it’s almost perfectly contoured to a fist. I hit him, once, and he was out. I’d planned on dangling him over the shark tank, but I heard sirens approaching, and he was unconscious anyway so there didn’t seem to be much point.

But his face swelled up really good. I suspect I broke his jaw, but never had any proof of it. He turned bright purple, and bloated up like a puffer fish- quite a feat, since he’s naturally so round already.

He had violated all kinds of laws bringing the various predators into the state, not to mention running afoul some exotic animal cruelty regulations. And in the ensuing investigation, all of the Penguin’s illegal activities and intimidation came to light, and he was forced to surrender his portion of the company.

DI: (snickering) Afowl?

B: Really? Just as I was starting to like you.

DI: Really?

B: No. Not really.

Birthright

DI: I understand you’ve got your panties in a bunch- presumably the ones you always used to wear on the outside of your tights.

B: Funny. A just released Public Policy Polling survey gives the chilling impression that 51% of likely Republican primary voters believe Obama is not a citizen. There’s a lot of qualifiers, there, but basically it means the party faithful, who are more likely to vote in a primary, believe in a bare majority that he is not legally President.

And that’s astonishing. I have trouble wrapping my head around the concept, frankly. His birth certificate is on record in Hawaii. The short-form version, which is a legal document, has been released, and the long-form has been seen by the relevant officials in the state. There are two contemporary birth announcements in Hawaiian papers. As a legal matter, Obama is a citizen. The case couldn’t be clearer.

I mean, if you want to believe that Obama was secretly born in Kenya, or in a KGB test tube, that’s up to the individual, but I don’t really understand what kind of a purpose it might serve.

I want to be careful how I put this, because I’m not playing the race card, here, I’m saying that believing that someone with different ideas than you must not be a true American, that they must be the metaphorical “other,” dances very close upon the brink of racism. The same fundamental ideas are at play, there. And it’s dangerous. I worry for my country, and my countrymen.

Because there aren’t facts in dispute; I welcome facts. But these are shadowy, whispered, McCarthyesque aspersions cast casually, as if treason should become a part of one’s daily vocabulary. It’s depressing enough when people misuse and abuse words like fascism and Nazism, and even socialism, but this takes it to another level.

And I think, I believe, that this is a case where the sane elements, in the party and the country, aren’t doing enough. It’s that old adage, that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. And it concerns me that this rancor, this distrust, of our fellow citizens has become so prevalent. And it’s up to all of us to stand up to ignorance, and fear, where we find it. I think in part we’re seeing a failure of the Republican party to do that, and while ideologically they may not be my brethren, at the end of debate, we’re all still Americans. We share this country. It is not us or them. It’s we the people.

DI: Are you sufficiently unbunched?

B: I feel a little better.

DI: Since you brought up the subject of birth, I’d like to talk to you about yours.

B: It was messy.

DI: Succinct. I like it. We can call it a day. I think we might still make happy hour at Scores…. kidding. No, I want to talk about how your birth placed you in society.

B: It’s funny you should use the word “society,” because that’s where my birth put me. My parents were frequently in the society pages of the paper. They bumped elbows at society parties and functions. It’s a different world.

I’ve fostered some children who came up in poorer circumstances since then, and the contrast is really night and day. My servants had more education than their parents. And that’s no knock to anyone at all, just insight into that discrepancy.

Not that I remember much of it. I remember flashes, like my mom putting me into a miniature tuxedo, and her leaning over me to tie my bowtie. I remember being bored, and kicking around a dance floor holding her hand, waiting while dad pressed flesh, trying to get more donors for whatever charity he was organizing for. I think we arrived by carriage, once.

And eventually, Alfred retaught me the things I’d been too young to learn about that life. He trained me to be a man in my father’s mold. For better or worse, my birthright came with that responsibility, one my parents shepherded well during their lives.

DI: But what about Batman? Was he a part of your birthright?

B: I think I was lucky in other regards. My parents gave me an exceptional genetic baseline, and with all humility I was born with physical prowess and mental acuity a lot of people aren’t privy to. And that, along with my fortune, did open doors, some of which led to Batman. But there was years of training and focus that I wouldn’t have had, at least not in that direction, had circumstance not intervened- in the death of my parents. So I wouldn’t call it a birthright.

Clark had a birthright, one I think he exceeded. Diana was born a princess, but I think her actions since have made her who she is, and more than who she started as. My birthright was an empire. And I’ve used that to do a lot of what I hope was good. Employed a lot of people. Impacted quite a few lives. I still have a very old world view of corporations, that they’re a trust, between the private sector and the public, to do right and do good by them. At least, that’s how I run my companies.

DI: I did notice one thing, which interested me, about the PPP polling. Those who think Obama is or at least might be a citizen prefer Romney for President. But like most high-profile members of his party, he’s sort of infamously tip-toed around the whole birtherism concept. And I saw a wonderfully demented question in TNR about that: “is a sane person who feigns madness because he wants to live in an asylum crazy or is he sane?”

B: I think that’s more a logic puzzle, than anything. I think, for Romney, just acknowledging the reality as outlined by that poll, he’s stuck in the madhouse. And in that case your options are to act like a guard and try to restore order, or to act like a crazy person and rule in hell, so to speak. And while I’m not sure it’s a fair comparison, between Arkham and the Republican party, but a lot of guards have fallen trying to restore order in Arkham; self-preservation might be the sane choice, after all.

Made Up

DI: Okay. I’m going to let a genie out of the bottle, here. You and I had spoken before. We were planning, after I’d made arrangements for a year’s worth of interviews with Bruce, for a year with you, too. Then there was a lot of shuffling, financial crises and, actually, I’m not entirely sure what all has contributed to our slowdowns. But rather than starting in January of this year, you’re waiting patiently. I’ve heard a lot about you, from two men who I feel it’s safe to say are great admirers of yours.

But you’ve been in the news a lot, lately. There’s the David E. Kelley script floating around [note: that has apparently been picked up for production]. And then there’s a new MAC make-up set. I know there’s been a sort of a mini controversy about the products, along a lot of familiar lines. People accusing you of selling out, of hocking products and an image that aren’t appropriate for young girls, who are some of your biggest fans.

I’m not sure how to introduce you, exactly, I guess if we’d had more time before deciding to do this while Bruce is out of the country, that’s one of the things we’d have talked about. But I’m speaking with Wonder Woman, Diana, Ambassador and Princess of Themiscyra.

WW: You bring up a lot of points, so I’ll parse it out and speak to them, one at a time. First off, I’m not “selling out.” In the context of a live person, I’m not sure how you do that, how that accusation even makes sense, but no. My portion of proceeds, from any of these endeavors, will be going to charity. Second, there’s a very good reason why I’ve agreed to these projects, and why now.

With Clark gone, there’s been a vacuum in the world. And, quite frankly, I want to take advantage of that. Clark was always very conscious of not wanting to have a message when he was alive. But I have a message. A very clear message, I think, distilling the wisdom of my people, a lot of which will be news to a great many people.

But before I can, I have to brand myself a little more clearly. A lot of people looked to the similar color schemes in my armor and Clark’s over the years and just assumed we were married, and that, as is traditional, that I was weaker and subordinated to him.

Even when I explained to people that my armor is traditional, going back thousands of years, most people roll their eyes. Because people look at Greek and Roman sculpture and think it was a very muted culture, all classy but bland white and dark colors. But the Parthenon was as gaudy as Vegas in its day, painted in vivid and evocative colors. My armor is very much a part of that tradition.

Unfortunately, the colors inherent in that tradition were the same as Clark inherited from his family. So I had the choice of honoring my heritage and being called Clark in a swimsuit, or turning my back on my culture just to make a few people who didn’t know better think better of me. So I have what they call a branding problem. And all of this is to explain, more clearly, to the public who and what I am and represent.

DI: By selling make up with your face on it?

WW: It seemed a little silly to me, too. But that’s marketing. In the sphere of marketing, Lady Gaga reigns supreme. Don’t expect me to go to those lengths, but that’s the world I’m trying to reach, the same one where Lady Gaga is probably the most popular musician alive.

But to your point about make up, and whether it’s harmful to girls, it’s a complicated issue. The idea that women need to represent some point of physical and aesthetic perfection is inherently wrong. Expecting women to spend more time on their appearances, the objectification of women, these are still very much a part of the culture. And I think it can be easy to fall into that trap, where you become part of the population de facto requiring women to hold themselves to these standards.

DI: Let me interrupt you for a second to ask: how much make up are you wearing, right now?

WW: Very little, actually.

DI: Please tell me you’re lying.

WW: I have a little bit of rouge on my cheek, and a nude pink lipstick.

DI: No foundation, no, uh, concealer?

WW: You’re out of your depth, aren’t you?

DI: Drowning. But is the make up cruelty free?

WW: Yes, actually.

But to me, feminism is about choice. Forcing women to conform to an unrealistic standard of beauty is immoral.

DI: But by popularizing yourself, aren’t you, in fact, holding yourself up as an ideal candidate for that unrealistic beauty standard?

WW: I think your point would be a fair one if I underwent plastic surgery. Or allowed Photoshopping on any photos of me. But I don’t; I don’t sign a release for photos without a guarantee that I will not altered in any way. I’ve been criticized before in the past for all of these things, and the Photoshop rule is a reaction to that, but I’ve never had any kind of work done. I’m not augmented. I don’t think I should hide or apologize for the way I look.

And I think that’s the heart of the issue. I’m fortunate, in that I’m coming from the positive end of that spectrum, but it isn’t fair to penalize women for the way they look. Instead, women should be free, or at least as free as men, to be comfortable with their appearance. In this day and age, a man can grow his hair or his beard long or shave it all off without much stigma. But women are scrutinized.

What it comes down, to, or should, is that women should have the same options as men. And I’d argue, there are options that should be opened to men, as well. If a man wants to wear foundation, or eyeliner, or paint his nails, there should be no problem. People should be free to make decisions about their own bodies. It’s somewhat analogous to the African American community retaking the word “nigger.”

DI: Wow. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a white woman say that word with such force, and, help me out here, confidence, without it sounding, well, racist. I guess, technically, your skin’s maybe a little olive, so “white” might be inaccurate, but you know what I mean.

WW: I do. But that’s my point. Anything that gives other people power over us is wrong.

DI: I want to be careful how I say this, because it’s a sensitive issue. But some people complain that in particular with that word, it then becomes “their” word and only okay for them to say. In a way, you’re excluding white people to make sure they can’t exclude black people. There’s certainly some tension in that idea.

WW: I think there’s a transition, there, where an outgroup can’t use something the ingroup does without being seen as an oppressor. But the goal, eventually, is for the old meaning to die entirely, become extinct. So that no one can use it for oppression. Once you’ve passed that threshold, the word opens back up for everyone. I think gay has mostly made that transition; fag and queer are lagging only slightly behind it.

DI: You’re less intimidating than I thought you’d be. I kind of worried I was going to get punched out a window, with some of the questions I wanted to ask. I’m not sure how closely you’re involved with David E. Kelley’s show featuring you.

WW: I’ve purposely distanced myself from it. I don’t want to stand over his shoulder and dictate a biographical and accurate portrayal of my life. That would be boring, and at the same time invasive. So I’ve stayed as far away from it as I can.

DI: But Bruce specifically questioned the Sex in the Cityness of the script. I don’t think he meant to imply that you don’t girl-talk, just that it didn’t feel right for you.

WW: I think I’m dishier than Bruce might know. He’s never really been privy to the girl-talk.

DI: You sure about that? He is a sneaky guy.

WW: That’s… creepy. But no. I think he could have spied on us. But he wouldn’t. For all of the seedier aspects of his life, at least from an outward appearance-

DI: The “bachelor” who constantly has a revolving door of children staying in his home a la Michael Jackson, the brooding billionaire in fetish gear, his reputation for general dickishness-

WW: Yes, all that, he really is a perfect gentleman. Respectful. Honest. Surprisingly caring.

DI: Surprising that he cares?

WW: Surprising by its depth.

DI: Okay, I think that’s probably a good place to end it. But I’m really glad that we’ve got more conversations coming up, because I think I have more questions than answers written down, now.

WW: I look forward to it.

Wondering

DI: I’ve heard David E. Kelley, whose work I’m a general fan of, is working on a Wonder Woman project. I’ve heard there are some issues with his script, and I’d like to talk about the idea of a series based off of Diana.

B: First off, I haven’t read the script, so I’m not passing judgment, so much as reacting to some of the things I’ve read that are in it. And let me say first that Diana’s tough to nail down. Because she’s a very nuanced human being.

DI: But is she even human?

B: Technically, maybe not, but neither was Clark. And if you set me, a genuine human being, beside the two of them, I’m the one who looks inhuman.

DI: But you’re one of the world’s most prominent philanthropists; even setting aside your costumed work, you’ve done a lot of good in the world. Aren’t you being a little overly critical of yourself?

B: No, but I’m not down on myself. I think I have a reasonable perspective on my humanity. And some of that, I think, is me compensating for being a cold bastard- and some because it’s what my parents would have wanted. On balance I’m not saying I’m a bad person- just that there’s no comparison.

I get frustrated. I get angry. If you surveyed the League I’m sure you’d find I can be pretty damn mean. And Clark, and Diana, they can be frustrated, and angry, but they’ve always been decent. Not just to me, but to everyone, probably everyone they ever met. Clark and Diana represent what the rest of us should want to be.

DI: But aren’t you a fairly impressive specimen of our species? And aren’t the things you describe, don’t those make them not more human, but superhuman?

B: Maybe. I think it would probably be unfair to hold anybody to that yardstick, and when found wanting declare that they’d failed, but I think that’s the goal we should set, the bar we should reach for.

And that’s the part of the script that rings hollow for me. Clark Kent was Superman, but really all Superman was was Clark with a spit-curl, no glasses and a stoic expression. Diana doesn’t have a Clark Kent. Diana is Diana. Wonder Woman is like the suit and tie I wear to the office. I’m the same man in the suit as I am at home in my bathrobe, I just look more authoritative, more professional.

And I know you’ve made jokes about her uniform, before, but there are strong customs and traditions behind it, going back centuries. But Wonder Woman is just an artifice; Diana is always Diana.

DI: But isn’t it true that for a while she did have an alter ego similar to the Kent persona.

B: When she first arrived in “the patriarch’s world” she did adopt the name “Diana Prince.” But she did so as part of a fact-finding portion to her mission. She’s always been an ambassador, but she was also her nation’s first contact with the outside world. So before she opened her home to the world, she wanted to know what kind of world she was opening up to.

And I think, for a while, having that small, quiet, meek person to retreat into helped her. It’s easy to forget that Diana was still very young when she left Themiscyra. She needed a place, emotionally, to call her own. But it’s been a very long time since she’s made peace with the fact that she is both a representative of her people and a very strong personality in her own right.

DI: Okay, but what about the Sex in the Cityness of the script? Presumably she has female friends, but…

B: Diana has female friends; it’s hard for anyone who meets her not to be friendly with her. And I know she’s spent a good deal of time with female League members. I think she’s very conscious of the fact that the League, at least under normal circumstances, can be a bit of a boy’s club. It’s not really anyone’s fault, there; there’s just a gender bias in the costumed community. It’s been a while since I had Oracle do a head count, but last I checked we had the same ratio of women in the League as there are on the streets. But my point was I know she’s organized ladies nights. On Huntress’s first night on the Watchtower they had a sleepover.

DI: You don’t smile often, but for the record, that was a smile, there.

B: I smile when I feel like it. I’m just not that emotive a person.

DI: Fair enough. But ladies nights, sleepovers- how is that not Sex in the City?

B: Well, the thrust of that is that Diana’s a woman. Sometimes she does talk about men- and more often she listens while other women talk about men. But she also talks about other things. She’s a fan of talking shop, fighting styles, tactics. She’s also very cognizant of things like human rights, current events like the protests in Egypt or the Southern Sudan independence referendum.

DI: So she’s very political, then.

B: Right. I would have thought her work through the UN would have made that common knowledge.

DI: Yeah, but so did Ginger Spice, so that’s hardly a barometer.

B: Touché, though I don’t think that’s particularly fair to Geri.

DI: Geri? No way. You’re not going to confirm or deny that, are you, just leaving it hanging there. I hate you.

B: I know, and I treasure that. But Diana’s worked very extendedly with the UN, particularly on women’s and children’s initiatives. I think it concerns her greatly that outside of the Western world women and children don’t have the same status as men.

I hope Kelley can stay on the project. I think, once some of these early trajectory issues are solved, he could really find her voice. He’s very good at getting to the heart of difficult political issues, asking hard questions without imposing moral truisms. I think he could capture her complexity well.

DI: Let me see, here, there’s also been mention that Kelley’s Wonder Woman will be a CEO, and I think you took issue with that.

B: Diana herself doesn’t run any companies. Not because she couldn’t, but because the entire concept of capitalism is repugnant to her. She comes from a fairly close-knit society, where resources are pooled, a fairly egalitarian structure to it. So the idea of elevating herself in any way over “subordinates” is revolting. And that’s largely what capitalism is- it’s saying that certain people are better at utilizing resources, and so for the benefit of society we should give them greater resources to maximize our collective potential.

Philosophically she disagrees with that model. It’s an argument I’ve had with her before; capitalism, when it’s used properly, can ensure that the world gets better for everyone. But she takes a very harsh approach to the subject, and usually draws the line at the point where in practice capitalism often uses people as an exhaustible resource, as if they were a lump of coal. I’ve went round and round with her on the subject, because the best way to pull people up out of poverty is capitalism- albeit capitalism that has certain restraints. Regulations that make sure we treat the working class fairly, that make sure we don’t put strains on the environment that ultimately have the greatest impact on the poorest people.

And I don’t want to sound like I’m splitting hairs because she does operate nonprofit organizations under her Wonderment Foundation.

DI: Which you helped fund in its infancy.

B: I provided seed money, and I donate, occasionally. It was a tough sell to the Amazons.

But the idea of Diana running a company in the way that I do is silly; she directs the broad strokes of what the various NGOs she oversees are doing at any moment. But she also concedes that the day to day operations of charity, relief and advocacy organizations are beyond her purview. She doesn’t have the experience or expertise to do those things- which is no sleight against her. I think it takes a certain strength of character to admit skills you don’t have, and to recognize that finding people who have those skills to supplement you is the best course of action.

DI: And I think, just from a few pulled quotes we’ve read, that it sounds like Kelley hasn’t quite “got” Diana yet. How so?

B: She’s strong, unbelievably so, and I don’t merely mean physically. She may be the most emotionally resilient person I know. But there’s a tenderness to her, a femininity that neither betrays nor contradicts her strength.

DI: She’s soft?

B: To the touch, to the soul. She has a calming influence, a peaceful aura. I’ve spent cumulatively months of my life meditating with some of the world’s deepest thinkers, but none of that can rival a moment in her presence. It’s almost magical- and I’ve dealt with enough actually magical things that I wonder if there’s something in her, another gift from the gods, as it were, that gives her that effect on people.

But she’s passionate, too. Intense. We’ve nearly come to blows several times.

I think we agree more than we disagree, but there are some areas, economics, martial law, where we differ. And I think sometimes it’s just a matter of perspective, our divergent origins and how those shape our worldviews. I mean, I’m rich. I’m male. I’m white. I’m getting older. I’m a fairly easy stand-in for the class that controls a lot of the political and economic fate of the world at this moment. I think, and I would say she would mostly agree, that I use that position of power for good as much as I can. But I think it’s fair to say she doesn’t like that I, or anyone, is in a position of so much power. And from her perspective, my power comes at the expense of the powers of others.

DI: So she has a bit of that old feminist rage, then?

B: I don’t think rage is the right word, though. She’s passionate. Because her ideas, and her ideals, are things she believes strongly about. But despite her upbringing, which I would be tempted to describe in impolite terms, I think she’s worked hard not to be a zealot. I think she takes new ideas and information in, and she has been known to reevaluate her position.

We just don’t always agree. And sometimes things can get a little heated.

DI: Back up just a little there: come to blows? So you’re admitting to hitting a woman?

B: First, that’s a fairly sexist idea you’re implying, that it’s acceptable to strike a man and not a woman. Second, violence is never something to undertake lightly, but I’ve hit many women in my lifetime. Hopefully always in a context where the benefits, usually stopping them from committing some larger harm, justified it. But no, domestically I’ve never thrown the first punch.

DI: But you’ve hit back.

B: I have defended myself against attacks before. Proportionally.

DI: Against Diana?

B: Hitting Diana is a bit like punching a tree. I wouldn’t advise it, so no. I find with her jujitsu, or other martial arts designed to counter strength and reroute momentum are best. But I don’t think we’ve ever actually thrown punches at each other outside sparring. There’ve just been a few discussions I think I was lucky to walk away from with my head still on my shoulders.

DI: And on a final note, I’d like to mention that Kelley is married to Michelle Pfeiffer, who portrayed Catwoman in that Burton Batman.

B: Michelle is a lovely, intelligent woman. But she’s no Selina Kyle- though in fairness to her, there’s only one of those.

DI: Unless you count Anne Hathaway. Me-ow.