system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
[DC/Batman Begins/Batman] In the film, Gordon brings up the idea of "escalation", that Batman's existence merely causes the bad guys to become more dangerous to match him. Is that really true?

You know that scene in the end, 

 BATMAN: Gotham will return to normal. 

GORDON: Will it? What about escalation? 

BATMAN: Escalation? 

GORDON: We start carrying semiautomatics, they buy automatics... we start wearing kevlar, they buy armorpiercing rounds...

BATMAN:  And? 

&#x200B;

Obviously within the events of the film, Joker and Bane followed, so yeah, things DID escalate heavily. But within the general Batman lore how much truth is there in Gordon's concern? Basically, by becoming Batman, does he create his own enemies and gangs within Gotham? Had Bruce not become Batman would the city have all of Batman's rogue galleries anyways? 

Was Gotham better off in the end without the Bat?
gpt
>Was Gotham better off in the end without the Bat?

Definitely not. It would have been destroyed along with the rest of the planet and the mutiverse if not for Batman. In the main continuity at least.

The TAS episode Trial explains why the idea that it's Batman's fault that these villains all act up is silly quite nicely.