#the batgirls

[nefarious-616-necromancer]

[evasive-anon]

All of Artgerm's art of Cass and Steph live in my head rent free and I'm glad to have them there.

[remy45]

"YOU TWO LOOK LIKE A COUPLE"ft. The batgirls

Sunmary: A friend says that character and y/n look like a couple.

Characters: Barbara Gordon, Cassandra Cain and Stephanie Brown.

Tags: Kisses in hands, misunderstandings, flushing, fluff, crack, each reader for each batgirl has a diferent personality.

A/N: First fic in this account woohoo!!, I know this is short but I hope you enjoy.

Words: 433

BARBARA GORDON

"You know, you two look like a couple sometimes"

“Why do you mean?”

"You know, you are always together, you hold hands, and don't deny it to me, Barbara wants to kiss you so bad"

Barbara moved and nudged Dick a little annoyed, then adjusted her glasses.

"Dick, stop being a dick for a moment, can't you see you're making y/n uncomfortable?"

She said this while pointing both hands at you.

"Who says I'm uncomfortable, if people think we're a couple I'm more than flattered my dear babs-ouch!

"I see that you and Dick are equally annoying."

Barbara said, but this time laughing fondly, and maybe, maybe, a little blushing.

Seeing his blush, you blushed too.

"get a room please" Dick said jokingly

That only caused more blushes and complaints with laughter from both of them.

CASSANDRA CAIN

Cassandra doesn't know what to say. Literally.

Was Y/n and her really a couple, she didn't know, what exactly was it like to be a couple in the first place?

If being a couple was just loving someone then yes, but something told him that they weren't. not yet.

Cassandra gave Y/N a curious look, while waiting for her to answer her friend's question, "are you two a couple or something like that"?

Seeing Cassandra's look in response, you took her hand, and they left the place without saying anything else.

You took her to the next alley, took her face in your hands, and kissed her.

The kiss was short and tender, you wanted to be relaxed, you didn't want her to be scared.

She smiled a little, and gave you a soft kiss on the cheek.

I guess they were a couple now.

STEPHANIE BROWN

When Steph heard the insinuation that you were more than friends, she smiled mischievously, took your hand, pulled you close to her and said this (unfortunately for you)

-Steph,what?

She ignored you and continued talking, causing more blushes from you. Why did she have to be so flirtatious?

He took your hand and gave it a kiss. Too much pda for today.

-Wow, I didn't know that, but congratulations girls.

Before he could blurt out, to specify that they were not in a relationship as such, stephanie interrupted you.

-Thank you very much, y/n and I have to go now.

She took your hand and walked away.

-What was that steph?

-What?Can I not give affection to my lovely girlfriend?

You laughed, giving her a kiss on the hand in return for the one she had given you.

This time she was the one who blushed.

[asongofstarkandtargaryen]

Cass and Steph have such a little sister energy towards Babs. Making her deal with their problem

And older sis Barbara just has to help them.

I miss all three Batgirls interacting

[punkeropercyjackson]

Reblog this one too or you hate women☝🏼💜🖤💙

[daughterofnyks2003]

Conner and Tim totally have a YT channel called "Rob & Con" where they literally just rob and con their friends and families. It took Jason two weeks to find his duffle bag. Jon is still convienced that Krypto can talk. The only people who know about a channel are the Young Justice (they help sometimes) and the Batgirls (because you can't hide anything from Babs, Steph loves the chaos and Cass is impossible to lie to)

[batgirlsbitch]

I CANT GET OVER IT! WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY BEEN SERVED 🥹

[comicsart3]

The Batgirls, were named not after the winged creatures of the night, but because they began as an all-female baseball team in wartime Gotham City, who branched out into vigilante crime fighting. The Girls are just some of a vast cast of heroines and villainessss aiding and abetting the Nazis who are busy securing both advanced technological and supernatural help to aid them in winning the war, featured in the 2015-2017 series DC Comics Bombshells. Apart from their athleticism and fighting prowess, with nods to their later 1960s namesake, the Batgirls also literally use their baseball bats as weapons when taking down street criminals, crooked politicians and, in this case, the owners of an orphanage who are using it as a front to develop Nazi weapons and to supply the Fatherland with child slave labour.

These panels are from DC Comics Bombshells #21 (2015). The series was inspired by a set of collectible statuettes depicting various DC Comics heroines designed by Ant Lucia. Marguerite Bennett wrote the series, supported by a number of different artists and, like Lucia’s original designs, gave the title a retro 1940s look. The Batgirls are perhaps something of a curiosity, but what’s not to love about an anti-Nazi baseball playing girl gang?

Source: ReadComicsOnline

[eftersmak]

Is there no overlap between the hill that the batgirls were in and the hill that red hood is in now? Is it a different universe or what?

[dceased-dynamic-duo-4ever]

ALYSIA YEOH HAS BEEN A BATGIRL BEFORE

Yep, you read that correctly. Alysia Yeoh is a genuine Batgirl. Alysia Yeoh was one of the many characters of DC Bombshells to join The Batgirls.

She is trans in DC Bombshells as well. And people, before you rush off to go pirate the series, I beg you, please don’t. DC Bombshells is literally the gayest comic series to ever be published. Please buy the series, either digitally or physically, support Marguerite Bennett, Marguerite Sauvage, and all the amazing people who worked on that series. They deserve the credit for their hard work. We also need to thank Gail Simone for being the person who made Alysia Yeoh a trans character. Originally Alysia Yeoh was Barbara’s roommate, who was by all accounts just another cisgender female character in comics, but because of trans comic fans mentioning the lack of trans characters in comics during conversations with Gail Simone at comic conventions. Gail Simone reacted to that by deciding that she was going to change that. She was ready to fight to make Alysia Yeoh trans. Surprisingly she didn’t have to fight because I can’t believe I actually am going to say this, but it’s actually true. Gail Simone has said so many times when she went to Dan Didio and told him that she was going to make Alysia trans, he immediately agreed. Thus Alysia Yeoh was Barbara Gordon’s trans roommate, paving the way for Alysia Yeoh to be a trans Batgirl in DC Bombshells.

[nefarious-616-necromancer]

[phoenixlionme]

Who Would Win? Battle 69

Note: Neither image belongs to me. Both found on Google.

The Batboys

vs

The Batgirls

[evasive-anon]

Just really love how bright and colorful all of Robbi Rodriguez's variant covers are for Batgirls.

[bianc0re]

arcade night 🕹️🦇

[mostlysignssomeportents]

“If buying isn’t owning, piracy isn’t stealing”

20 years ago, I got in a (friendly) public spat with Chris Anderson, who was then the editor in chief of Wired. I'd publicly noted my disappointment with glowing Wired reviews of DRM-encumbered digital devices, prompting Anderson to call me unrealistic for expecting the magazine to condemn gadgets for their DRM:

https://longtail.typepad.com/the_long_tail/2004/12/is_drm_evil.html

I replied in public, telling him that he'd misunderstood. This wasn't an issue of ideological purity – it was about good reviewing practice. Wired was telling readers to buy a product because it had features x, y and z, but at any time in the future, without warning, without recourse, the vendor could switch off any of those features:

https://memex.craphound.com/2004/12/29/cory-responds-to-wired-editor-on-drm/

I proposed that all Wired endorsements for DRM-encumbered products should come with this disclaimer:

WARNING: THIS DEVICE’S FEATURES ARE SUBJECT TO REVOCATION WITHOUT NOTICE, ACCORDING TO TERMS SET OUT IN SECRET NEGOTIATIONS. YOUR INVESTMENT IS CONTINGENT ON THE GOODWILL OF THE WORLD’S MOST PARANOID, TECHNOPHOBIC ENTERTAINMENT EXECS. THIS DEVICE AND DEVICES LIKE IT ARE TYPICALLY USED TO CHARGE YOU FOR THINGS YOU USED TO GET FOR FREE — BE SURE TO FACTOR IN THE PRICE OF BUYING ALL YOUR MEDIA OVER AND OVER AGAIN. AT NO TIME IN HISTORY HAS ANY ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY GOTTEN A SWEET DEAL LIKE THIS FROM THE ELECTRONICS PEOPLE, BUT THIS TIME THEY’RE GETTING A TOTAL WALK. HERE, PUT THIS IN YOUR MOUTH, IT’LL MUFFLE YOUR WHIMPERS.

Wired didn't take me up on this suggestion.

But I was right. The ability to change features, prices, and availability of things you've already paid for is a powerful temptation to corporations. Inkjet printers were always a sleazy business, but once these printers got directly connected to the internet, companies like HP started pushing out "security updates" that modified your printer to make it reject the third-party ink you'd paid for:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/11/ink-stained-wretches-battle-soul-digital-freedom-taking-place-inside-your-printer

Now, this scam wouldn't work if you could just put things back the way they were before the "update," which is where the DRM comes in. A thicket of IP laws make reverse-engineering DRM-encumbered products into a felony. Combine always-on network access with indiscriminate criminalization of user modification, and the enshittification will follow, as surely as night follows day.

This is the root of all the right to repair shenanigans. Sure, companies withhold access to diagnostic codes and parts, but codes can be extracted and parts can be cloned. The real teeth in blocking repair comes from the law, not the tech. The company that makes McDonald's wildly unreliable McFlurry machines makes a fortune charging franchisees to fix these eternally broken appliances. When a third party threatened this racket by reverse-engineering the DRM that blocked independent repair, they got buried in legal threats:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/04/20/euthanize-rentier-enablers/#cold-war

Everybody loves this racket. In Poland, a team of security researchers at the OhMyHack conference just presented their teardown of the anti-repair features in NEWAG Impuls locomotives. NEWAG boobytrapped their trains to try and detect if they've been independently serviced, and to respond to any unauthorized repairs by bricking themselves:

https://mamot.fr/@q3k@hackerspace.pl/111528162905209453

Poland is part of the EU, meaning that they are required to uphold the provisions of the 2001 EU Copyright Directive, including Article 6, which bans this kind of reverse-engineering. The researchers are planning to present their work again at the Chaos Communications Congress in Hamburg this month – Germany is also a party to the EUCD. The threat to researchers from presenting this work is real – but so is the threat to conferences that host them:

https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/researchers-face-legal-threats-over-sdmi-hack/

20 years ago, Chris Anderson told me that it was unrealistic to expect tech companies to refuse demands for DRM from the entertainment companies whose media they hoped to play. My argument – then and now – was that any tech company that sells you a gadget that can have its features revoked is defrauding you. You're paying for x, y and z – and if they are contractually required to remove x and y on demand, they are selling you something that you can't rely on, without making that clear to you.

But it's worse than that. When a tech company designs a device for remote, irreversible, nonconsensual downgrades, they invite both external and internal parties to demand those downgrades. Like Pavel Chekov says, a phaser on the bridge in Act I is going to go off by Act III. Selling a product that can be remotely, irreversibly, nonconsensually downgraded inevitably results in the worst person at the product-planning meeting proposing to do so. The fact that there are no penalties for doing so makes it impossible for the better people in that meeting to win the ensuing argument, leading to the moral injury of seeing a product you care about reduced to a pile of shit:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/25/moral-injury/#enshittification

But even if everyone at that table is a swell egg who wouldn't dream of enshittifying the product, the existence of a remote, irreversible, nonconsensual downgrade feature makes the product vulnerable to external actors who will demand that it be used. Back in 2022, Adobe informed its customers that it had lost its deal to include Pantone colors in Photoshop, Illustrator and other "software as a service" packages. As a result, users would now have to start paying a monthly fee to see their own, completed images. Fail to pay the fee and all the Pantone-coded pixels in your artwork would just show up as black:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/28/fade-to-black/#trust-the-process

Adobe blamed this on Pantone, and there was lots of speculation about what had happened. Had Pantone jacked up its price to Adobe, so Adobe passed the price on to its users in the hopes of embarrassing Pantone? Who knows? Who can know? That's the point: you invested in Photoshop, you spent money and time creating images with it, but you have no way to know whether or how you'll be able to access those images in the future. Those terms can change at any time, and if you don't like it, you can go fuck yourself.

These companies are all run by CEOs who got their MBAs at Darth Vader University, where the first lesson is "I have altered the deal, pray I don't alter it further." Adobe chose to design its software so it would be vulnerable to this kind of demand, and then its customers paid for that choice. Sure, Pantone are dicks, but this is Adobe's fault. They stuck a KICK ME sign to your back, and Pantone obliged.

This keeps happening and it's gonna keep happening. Last week, Playstation owners who'd bought (or "bought") Warner TV shows got messages telling them that Warner had walked away from its deal to sell videos through the Playstation store, and so all the videos they'd paid for were going to be deleted forever. They wouldn't even get refunds (to be clear, refunds would also be bullshit – when I was a bookseller, I didn't get to break into your house and steal the books I'd sold you, not even if I left some cash on your kitchen table).

Sure, Warner is an unbelievably shitty company run by the single most guillotineable executive in all of Southern California, the loathsome David Zaslav, who oversaw the merger of Warner with Discovery. Zaslav is the creep who figured out that he could make more money cancelling completed movies and TV shows and taking a tax writeoff than he stood to make by releasing them:

https://aftermath.site/there-is-no-piracy-without-ownership

Imagine putting years of your life into making a program – showing up on set at 5AM and leaving your kids to get their own breakfast, performing stunts that could maim or kill you, working 16-hour days during the acute phase of the covid pandemic and driving home in the night, only to have this absolute turd of a man delete the program before anyone could see it, forever, to get a minor tax advantage. Talk about moral injury!

But without Sony's complicity in designing a remote, irreversible, nonconsensual downgrade feature into the Playstation, Zaslav's war on art and creative workers would be limited to material that hadn't been released yet. Thanks to Sony's awful choices, David Zaslav can break into your house, steal your movies – and he doesn't even have to leave a twenty on your kitchen table.

The point here – the point I made 20 years ago to Chris Anderson – is that this is the foreseeable, inevitable result of designing devices for remote, irreversible, nonconsensual downgrades. Anyone who was paying attention should have figured that out in the GW Bush administration. Anyone who does this today? Absolute flaming garbage.

Sure, Zaslav deserves to be staked out over an anthill and slathered in high-fructose corn syrup. But save the next anthill for the Sony exec who shipped a product that would let Zaslav come into your home and rob you. That piece of shit knew what they were doing and they did it anyway. Fuck them. Sideways. With a brick.

Meanwhile, the studios keep making the case for stealing movies rather than paying for them. As Tyler James Hill wrote: "If buying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing":

https://bsky.app/profile/tylerjameshill.bsky.social/post/3kflw2lvam42n

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/12/08/playstationed/#tyler-james-hill

Image: Alan Levine (modified) https://pxhere.com/en/photo/218986

CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

[dianna-knst]

ROBIN3／ROBIN4