Wolverine wins. Bats would survive the fight, but not win it.
ElReginaldo's forum posts
Batman would win, but only by subterfuge. Cap doesn't fight dirty enough. Bats has so many gizmos and gadgets that Cap couldn't counter for. If Bats can take down Superman more than once, he could certainly handle Captain America. Now if there were no utility belt in the picture, it would be a different story...
I won't deny the awesomeness of Cap as president. The closest thing we've had in the real world was probably Theodore Roosevelt. Is it a good idea? Probably not. But it does make for some very interesting story-telling opportunities.
If writers treat the inter-company cross-overs like organic stories, and not just big, sprawling events, then they can be a lot of fun. They work better when they are self-contained. That Spider-man vs. Superman comic from the 70's was actually very good. So was the X-Men/Titans comic. Marvel Vs. DC from the mid 90's was kind of hit or miss, though. As for big-event stories within companies, it seems like they have just become the Summer block-buster of the comics medium. Wouldn't it be nice if the big two just gave us a break from those for a few years so that when they inevitably do it again, it might actually be exciting, and not just same-old same-old?
Short, cynical answer: Characters will die when it helps sales and get resurrected when it helps sales. Doesn't matter how long. Lenghty, geeky answer: In superhero universes where genetic mutation, advanced science, and sorcery are the norm, you can't expect fallen heroes to stay that way for very long. Sometimes a writer will plan things that way from the very beginning, which I have no problem with if it's a part of a coherent story. Other times, writers want everything old to be new again, and that's when they'll resurrect a character that bit the dust decades ago. But ultimately, if we can suspend our disbelief long enough to accept characters who can fly, travel through time, or read minds, then I suppose we ought to accept them coming back from the dead as well.
For me, it's all about who's writing and drawing the stories. For example, Wolverine is theoretically a great character, but an inept creative team will only imitate what superior writers and artists did with him in the past. I certainly would not read a prose novel if it weren't written by a writer I liked, nor would I look at a painting full of interesting subject matter if the painter had no talent. It's the same for comics.
Regarding DC's strategy to keep these characters young by cramming their entire careers into only half a decade: it's interesting when you compare it to Marvel. Wolverine has been around since the 19th century, Captain America fought in WWII, and Thor is an ancient Norse god. These are all very old characters who readers follow devotedly nonetheless. If both Batman and Superman are pushing 40, then why is that such a problem? There are plenty of younger heroes for younger readers to relate to. Robin was introduced to appeal to kids in the first place! It makes a lot more sense for Batman to have been operating for 15 years instead of just 5, with all of the characters and events that the publisher wants to keep as canon. The only way to really make DC characters seem fresh would have been to just start the whole DC universe over again from scratch. Yes, a consequence would be that a lot of material written by Alan Moore or Frank Miller would no longer have "happened" to these characters, but in this new era of comics, there is plenty of new talent that deserves to shine.
DC editorial will never let Superman change in any permanent or significant way. He isn't so much a character as he is a mascot for the company. Writers do know how to make him interesting, it's just that DC wants him to be the way he is forever. That's why all of the best Superman stories are either out- of- continuity or involve Superman analogues.