Would Batman perform better than Superman does in protecting Metropolis?

batman dies when doomsday appears.

Read the OP clearly.

Its comparing between Batman and Superman - If Batman were to replace Superman in protecting the city of Metropolis, how would Batman perform compared to Superman's usual role.

@kyrees: Nah, he gets the Hellbat and calls Wonder Woman.

hellbat was created long after doomsday appeared, not that it matters given a morals off superman only managed to stalemate him to death.

Not as Batman, no. He can produce tech to fight Superman's enemies, but for the most part this takes huge amounts of resources and months, if not years, of prep for Batman. He wouldn't be able to keep up with fighting threats like that every month or so while simultaneously dealing with Lex Luthor on a weekly basis.

Also keep in mind, if he had to keep repairing his power armor suit every few weeks after a massive fist fight with Cyborg Superman or whatever, Wayne Enterprises would go broke very, very quickly. I also just don't see Batman winning in the inevitable technological arms race with Lex Luthor.

He might have better success as Bruce Wayne. Compete with Lex on a business level for control of Metropolis. But he can't really do that while simultaneously funding a one man battle against the random skyscraper-crushing Kaijuu that wander into Metropolis on occasion. Or the full scale invasion of saurians from the Earth's core. A lot of weird stuff happens in Metropolis.

No. Batman let's 99% of his villains off the hook or let's them imprisomed in an area they can escape. He tries that with Mongul, Lobo, Parasite, Bizzaro, Atomic Skull, Metallo or others he's gonna be killing a lot more than saving. He'd be a mental match for Luthor, I'd actually see them working together more so than Supes. Could go a lot better since Lex respects Bruce more than any other leaguer. They'd be enemies, than rivals, than mutual and respectful allies. Metropolis has the potential to be safer, but with greater risks.

@kyrees: More like Batman recognizes the pressure point Superman hit by luck to kill Doomsday, and ends him with a single kick.

@slayz: this is comic lore, not the batkick meme

@kyrees: Batkick meme?

I'm just spelling out how Batman would beat Doomsday.

be realistic in comic sense and not in PIS kind of way, the whole justice league at that time was devastated by doomsday and yet batman with a pressure point kick can kill him ?

yeah, the batgod doesn't exist in that point of logic.

@kyrees: Thanks for seeing it my way

at this point, you do not throw the batgod stupidity to me when i had a personal vendetta to it in this forum.

do not joke to me of the batgod stupidity ever.

Possibly from Metallo or Lex, but from Doomsday? Braniac? Nah, I'm not seeing it.

However, Supes would perform better in protecting Gotham than Bat for sure

@kyrees: Batman and Superman are already established. OP said after Superman disappeared so this means that he already existed in Metropolis and has his enemies established. With that in mind, if Doomsday appears again, Batman grabs the Hellbat and Wondy and kicks his paly, spiky butt.

@kyrees: batkick! batgod! Nah-nah-nah-nah-boo-boo!

the timeline of doomsday pretty much puts his appearance before hellbat appears and it's also the time that batman and superman are still established.

what has the hellbat actually done to be put on a level against doomsday when it didn't hurt darkseid minus the part where the chaos shard that batman took with him to apokalips is the only thing that absorbed darkseid's OB ?

@slayz god, you're a knucklehead.

@kyrees: Hasn't Doomsday come back before anyway? Fights Superman, dies, returns again. Anyway, it's never stated when Batman takes the mantle of Metropolis's protector so I'm going to assume it's after Superman has gone through various threats. If that's the case, the Hellbat can exist and with its few but qualitative feats, it can hold off Doomsday and with Wonderwoman's help, they can beat him after a long fight.

what is wrong with Batgod? Its been proven that given enough prep-time, Batman can beat anyone. DC writers have mostly supported that notion.

I don`t think it would matter considering Metropolis` problems are more suited for Superman. Batman`s way of crime-fighting and thinking wouldn`t change that.

No, Batman would never kill someone which could bring big trouble. Superman does at least kill when he knows he has to.

Well Doomsday was created in-universe to just battle Superman right?

@donatellorawks:

batgod meme is stupid and it shouldn't be used as a measuring stick for batman. his stories are far better without the writers putting too much PIS on him.

doomsday is technically a villain of metropolis because that's where he started his rampage on earth. OP means everything that superman has faced on his life as the protector of metropolis since OP doesn't state on what point of superman's run does batman replace him.

doomsday rampage through the justice league which includes wonder woman and at the end, only morals off superman was able to kill him at the cost of his own life. what's the comparison of a lethal batsuit that can be equalled to superman when even superman died to him ? the two can hold him off ?! lol, the whole justice league didn't even succeed in that department.

if the story happened, its a feat. Just because you don't like the feat of Batman beating some high-tier character doesn't mean it is not legitimate (What you termed as PIS).

if that story happen, it can be treated as PIS if the context is questionable. just because you want batman to defeat high tier character does it mean that you leave your common comic sense out the window. suddenly, batman kicking spectre was so legit with your logic.

Of course context matters. You are using out of context examples such as kicking Spectre.

lol and what common comic sense? the comics I read are fiction, they are not real life and they do not conform rigidly to any science, and they certainly do not need to conform to real life logic.

Batman did defeat high tier characters with his prep, it is what had happened and the conditions for a legit fight and a legit win are there. End of story.

with your logic earlier, everything that appears in comics is a feat regardless of their context.

common comic sense means the average showings of heroes, not the real world standards you keep inserting here. i suppose you dwell too much with real world logic that you instantly attach the latter to common comic sense

there's no "end of story" argument when you ignore context and it hasn't happened at all. you are contradicting your first paragraph. so tell me, when did batman defeat anti monitor, galactus or divine spawn then ?

Oh when did I say that Batman with prep can beat Divine Spawn and the likes of him? Nope.

I only said that Batman with prep can beat high tier, and according to your logic of using "common comic sense", Batman has defeated many different high-tiers over the years. So yes, Batman's average showings is being able to exploit weaknesses of high tier characters.

except your original logic pretty much wants you to desire that he can defeat any high tier by exploiting their weakness. i suppose this statement of yours is invalid then ?

if the story happened, its a feat. Just because you don't like the feat of Batman beating some high-tier character doesn't mean it is not legitimate (What you termed as PIS).

in common comic sense, batman's victories are not clean cut as you want them to be because his enemies are not even in their full potentials. i suppose you can argue that it is still a victory but in battle forum terms, that's not even something you can convince anyone who knows the context of those fights easily.

Well most of the Op villains come to Metropolis because Superman is in it, If He wasn't there it wouldn't be as dangerous but this might draw some of the Batman villains to Metropolis for the same reasons.

It is to Batman's credit that at many times he is able to take advantage of the opponent's weakness and exploit it at the right time.

He has done it so consistently that it is no longer PIS that Batman beats a high-tier. The definition of PIS includes inconsistency, and for that reason, Batman isn't necessarily having PIS feats when he beats a high-tier.

Batman cant even save his city, his sidekicks are dead, doesnt have the balls to kill Joker.

We are really expecting that a guy who fight Doomsday, Luthor, Brainiac, Zod is on equals terms with someone who has his hands full against a non powered clown with zero fighting skills?

BAtman wouldn't be accepted by the police of civilians of metropollis so doubtful to me he'd be a good protector.

except it also relies on the fact that his high tier enemeies are not even at their full potential. you want to deny that ? i suppose an author statement of jokerized justice league being weaker or superman holding back a lot or darkseid not even paying that much attention is such a thing to ignore nowadays.

that consistency also factors in what i said above so whether you like it or not, batman's victories can be attributed to PIS to some point.

The fact that his high tier opponents are not at their full potential doesn't change much.

It simply proves that it is not PIS for Batman to beat weakened high tier opponents, only that its more ambiguous when Batman is facing high tier opponents at their regular strength.

Therefore, Batman's feats can only be considered PIS if its a feat that did not happen often.

Yes. Batkick for the win. In all seriousness though, Batman could actually do a pretty good job. The reason why Lex is one of Superman's greatest foes is because the whole brain over brawn thing. Dont get me wrong though. Superman himself is a genius and could very well be smarter than Batman. But the thing is and this is probably gonna sound off but he doesnt choose to be smarter than him. As far powerful brutes like Bizarro and Zod and and Doomsday but and correct me if I am wrong here but these guys are pretty dumb (I could be wrong though). The one villain whos probably gonna give him the hardest time is Brainiac. Thats legitimately the only one I can not come with a case for. Thats the major villains taken care of and for the most part whats left is street crime which is kinda light for Bats. But if Im being complotely honest here Supes should do a better job than him. Its the reason Batmans home turf is Gotham. And same thing with Supes.

except it changes things. story telling wise, you present a selling point with it. battle forum wise, it's a relevant matter that one character had to be weaken to be a match to begin with and that's batman convenience in a lot of his battles.

it doesn't work that way especially when characters simply forget to use their powers or not take their enemies seriously. i supposes the darkseid dealing with him twice without using the full force of his omega effect is ignorable then.

The Joker is a strategic genius.

The definition of PIS varies a lot among people here. The most appropriate and most universally commonly accepted would be that PIS refers to feats inconsistent with regular showings. For this simple definition's purposes, Batman taking down weakened high-tier opponents isn't considered PIS.

You might interject and say that PIS involves plot. But like it or not, plot is what ALL feats occurred.

except it very much is. the concept of weakened enemies for the heroes to stomp is all related as to how sell that story and writers would make such scenarios. that's why it's called PIS; it's plot induced stupidity. the plot takes supposedly strong character to a level batman can take down when in normal cases, it shouldn't happen.

I mentioned in the last part of the post: Plot is what ALL feats occurred.

Plot is too generic a word to be used as a universal definition for PIS.

It is because of plot that Batman has peak human strength.

It is because of plot that Batman is very intelligent.

It is because of plot that Batman had to fight the Joker.

It is because of plot that Batman had to leave Gotham to go to Central City to meet up with the Flash.

It is because of plot that Batman can beat a certain opponent.

Do you see how useless is throwing the word "plot" around?

lmao. I cant stop laughing at this.

Nah but in all seriousness i would say no absolutely not. A guy dressed in bat costume with a very particular set of skills is going to jack shiz against superman level meta humans and threats. I dont even think Batman could take over for Spider-man if he left new York(Though the premise would be quite interesting), but he would certainly fare better there then Supermans Metropolis.

that's why you attach the other half of stupidity to the term "PIS". what's the point of summing everything up to plot term and not include the stupid things that occurred to it ?

do you also see how you summarized everything to "plot" including the questionable stuff that writers do to sell their stories ?

"Stupidity" of the feat is a very subjective thing compared to the depiction of a character's capabilities in writing.

It is up to the reader to accept whether a particular event is a stupid out-of-character, beyond-normal-capabilities event. Some readers think its all right, some readers think it detracts away from the good writing in the story, others don't care and just enjoy it.

What I am saying is that calling a particular event stupid for reasons that it is not good writing is neither an objective nor relevant way of measuring a fictional character's capabilities.

What is universally agreed to be a good test for PIS is simply just examining the character's regular feats and see if the feat that was in dispute was consistent with the regular feats.

calling a particular event legit for reasons that it was good writing is an objective/relevant way to gauge a character's capabilities then ? that's flawed as well because you might as well use your own subjective judgment for that matter.

the fact that the term PIS exists in comic jargon whether battle forum wise or not is quite telling on how much consistency matters here and on that matter, batman is quite questionable to a lot of matters.

How are Green Lantern's villians more dangerous than the others?

Reminds me of the relationship between Professor X and Magneto, or Great Britain and France.