The Dark Knight vs. The Man of Steel

Since the creation of the iconic characters, Batman and Superman, there has always been a war surrounding the question, "Who is better? and Who would win?. Even after reading this post this question will never be solved. So, just consider all theories and you make the judgements because thats the entertainment comics are made for. Now my previous post and my username may make me seem biased, but I will be fair lol. I personally believe Batman will win. None can kill the other, but they can inflict almost fatal repercussions. 
Superman is considered to be one of the most powerful heroes in the DC Universe. His vast array of powers really do make him almost impossible to kill. However having these powers does not mean he can beat everyone. His weakness to magic, kryptonite and red suns are existent, but what people overlook is his personality. No matter what, Superman wont kill. The only time Superman has ever really killed someone was Doomsday, which resulted in his own death as well. His good nature is so strong that even when he is in rogue mode, he wont ever cross that line. When people often say "he can just flatten Batman in less than  2 seconds", they are wrong. When this argument is used its no longer a Batman vs. Superman battle. Superman's inability to kill is considered one of his weaknesses. Without counting that, Superman is no longer Superman. 

The next argument is Batman's prep time. People always believe that without it, Batman has no chance. Although, within the pages of Hush, Batman required none as he already kept them in his belt without completely being aware if Superman may or may not arrive. The other argument people make are the writers. When Batman is shown defeating Superman, everyone's immediate reaction is to blame the writers. I dont understand how this comment can be taken seriously. The writers are the ones who create the characters, so that means if the writers are wrong then the character in general is wrong and therefore no point in them even existing. 

Another aspect, which is actually a defining point in Batman and Superman's relationship is their trust. Superman is the one who entrusted Batman with the kryptonite ring as a means to defeat him if necessary. He could have picked anyone else; Diana or Hal Jordan, but it was Batman because he knows he has the capabilities to do it. Also, Batman acts somewhat like a robot, he is constantly learning and analyzing every move Superman makes. Yes, Superman's power can defeat Batman, but Batman has perfected in evading and controlling him during a fight. But, Superman is no idiot, he does have super intelligence but in a completely different aspect than Batman. Superman can remember almost everything and can identify and understand and create technology. But Batman's unpredictable mind knows how to use it in ways Superman has not analysed or thought of because Batman knows exactly how his brain works. This is the main reason Superman knows if anybody, its him who can defeat him. As quoted by the Man of Steel himself "Batman is the most dangerous man on Earth".     

56 Comments
56 Comments
  • 56 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by Primmaster64

Depends really.

Posted by lantern2814

Actually, blaming the writers is a valid point. Obviously the fight cannot occur unless one person is right and the other is wrong and the only time these two beasts lock horns is when supes goes rogue, rendering batman the clear winner...its just moral and common sense. Furthermore, Batman is just as incapable of taking a life as superman, but hes more willing cuz of his aggressive nature. Just because Superman cant kill batman does not mean he wont render his body completely useless if he needs to..if they had never been  friends and superman didnt see eye to eye with him while batman was going crazy, supes would break all his bones, just not kill him...which is exactly what batman would do too for the reason stated above. Something else you have overlooked is that Superman KILLED doomsday. that means if push comes to shove, batman and him are battling for the fate of the universe, superman would no doubt tear him limb from limb. Batman knows that and acknowledges it. Additionally, Batmans preperation time will help him, but only will delay the inevitable, cuz come on..luthor uses kryptonite and red son all the time. and how has that been working out for him for 75 years? And if you have anything to say to all of the above then this is my final argument to you. Superman PRIME ONE MILLION!!! or just all star superman..either one would be fine :P

Posted by lantern2814

plus "TheNameIsWayne", by looking over to my username you should prolyl be able to tell who this is :P

Posted by DEGRAAF

I cant find the image and it might be else worlds but either way the point still stands... It goes somthing like this

 

(setting) A cold dark and stormy night, a woman thrown from a building, screaming

 

Batman swings in to catch her but before he can evn react a blur flies past him saving the woman. Batman lands by the blur (now shown to be Superman)

 

Batman - What do you think you are doing?

 

Superman - Your job...

 

.

.

. (lol sorry dont remember this part something about hating one another)

.

.

 

Batman goes to punch Superman in the face

 

Superman moves instantly

 

Superman - Try it again, i promise i wont move this time... I promise you will break every bone in you hand too...

 


 


 


 

 



 

 



 



 



 

 





 

 


 

 

 

 

The just of this section. If Superman ever truely didnt want to be stopped he wouldnt be

Posted by Kallarkz
Will forever be a debate and DC will keep this as an unanswerable question.

The only thing that i do not agree with in this topic is that to defeat Superman, Batman would need some prep time. Most def
Posted by azza04

Superman, Heat Vision = Win. He wouldn't even have to kill bats, just burn into the nerves of his leg or arm, which would render the limb useless.

Posted by Primmaster64
@DEGRAAF: hmmm




This?
Posted by azza04
Posted by batmanary
@Primmaster64 said:
" @DEGRAAF: hmmm




This? "
I generally loved this story arc, but I never felt that this is truly Superman. It feels more like Sentry, or even Batman with superpowers, when he speaks. The general characterization of Supes in general somewhat turned me off.
Posted by azza04
@batmanary: what was the title of the story arc?
Posted by Primmaster64
@batmanary: I did not understand ''For Tommorow''
Posted by batmanary
@azza04: For Tomorrow

@Primmaster64:
It was basically trying to show a look at politics and stuff from Superman's view. The problem with it, is that the way Azzarello writes the character, makes him seem like he was raised on Krypton, which is a major flaw. Superman was raised on Earth, in Kansas, of all places. Showing him as someone who keeps brooding, and then again restating Superman over Clark Kent as the actual person just totally ruins it.
Posted by Primmaster64
@batmanary: Yeah, But wasen't SA Supes the real person and Clark as the disguise?
Posted by batmanary
@Primmaster64: A lot of the SA Supes' personality was transposed into Clark Kent in Byrne's run. Azzarello just makes him downright intimidating.
Posted by Primmaster64
@batmanary: So he wrote Supes as a ''Dark'' character?
Posted by batmanary
@Primmaster64: Not so much dark as condescending and distant, which isn't Supes. Lois and millions of people disappeared, and Superman actually states that his grief is more than other men or women who have lost their spouses in the disappearances.
Posted by Kallarkz
even though Superman is Kryptonian he was raised and has lived the majority of his life as a human.. so it's possible for him to go through a deep depression period and not act like himself like we all do.
Posted by batmanary
@Kallarkz: Certainly, but Superman does not sound like Superman at all. He sounds like an outsider, not even someone trying to fit in. He's condescending in the book. Plus how did this turn into a discussion about For Tomorrow?
Posted by Primmaster64
@batmanary: Lol I think with me asking question of For Tommorow.
Posted by ssejllenrad

Posted by entropy_aegis

Morals on Batman can win.
Posted by Demas
@TheNameIsWayne said:

" my username may make me seem biased, but I will be fair lol. I personally believe Batman will win.   "

Except you're not fair.  You apply double standards repeatedly.  Let's boil down your points:
    
@TheNameIsWayne said:

"

1. His weakness to magic, kryptonite and red suns
2. No matter what, Superman wont kill.
3. The next argument is Batman's prep time.
4. Although, within the pages of Hush.
5. The other argument people make are the writers. When Batman is shown defeating Superman, everyone's immediate reaction is to blame the writers. I dont understand how this comment can be taken seriously. The writers are the ones who create the characters, so that means if the writers are wrong then the character in general is wrong and therefore no point in them even existing.
6. [The ring is given to] Batman because he knows he has the capabilities to do it.
7. Also, Batman acts somewhat like a robot... but Batman's unpredictable mind"

1. Why list Superman's weaknesses and not Batman's?  Batman is MORTAL.  He's weak to trauma, age, illness, poison, bullets, bombs, lasers, tasers, gas, heat, cold, blades, etc.  How does Superman having a few weaknesses and Batman having every mortal weakness (including "vulnerability"- not allergy, mind you- to magic) play in Batman's favor at all as an assessment that "Batman will win."?

2. Why is a prohibition on killing a Superman weakness when Batman shares it?  Batman #614- since you're fond of citing Hush- illustrates the point explicitly.  Batman doesn't kill.  But why is this at all relevant in a situation where Batman and Superman are fighting?  Superman has killed Doomsday and the Phantom Zone criminals.  Batman has "killed" Darkseid.  Using this as a hard and fast rule in a situation as abnormal as the two at each others' throats doesn't fly.  Certainly in Superman #219 (Sacrifice part 1) prohibition on killing didn't play into their fight at all.  Moreover why is killing at all relevant?  If the only goal is to restrain the other, incapacitate them, or otherwise stop them apart from killing them, there's no question that Superman has more options at his disposal.  Again, Batman is mortal, he's subject to every form of immobilization that a human is and can be restrained before the synapses in his mind ever fire without Superman breaking a sweat with respect to his non-killing code... by contrast, Batman bumps up against the limitations of Superman's weaknesses needing to escalate to practically lethal force to even have an effect.  If either hero was to the stymied by concerns over the other's life, it is likely to be Batman.  Even in their classic Man of Steel #3 meeting, despite Batman's threat of lethal force, he couldn't follow through with it himself.

3. Why does Batman GET prep time?  If we're talking about a fair, unbiased approach without double standards then both would come to the battle prepared.  Nonetheless the scenario nearly always runs like this for the Batman biased: Superman has his hands tied by morality, is oblivious to any impending attack, refuses to use super-speed / super-reactions / super-senses / super-intellect, while asymmetrically attacked by a Batman full of uncharacteristic murderous intentions and months of plotting and preparation.  How is that not biased?  Superman with prep is absurdly frightening.  He has an alien dimension at his disposal, a war suit, crystals for growing war ships, the capacity to build androids nearly his equal in ability which once took over the world (King of the World story arc) and killed a Wonder Woman class heroine, a time-traveling capable ring with a whole Legion of awestruck teens ready to assist him, not to mention the depths and breath of his family and allies (which, if The Dark Knight Returns is to be used as valid fight fodder- where Robin and Ollie help Bruce) which include several Kryptonian class heroes if not the cream of the crop of the JLA / JSA / etc.  I mean, if the stuff hit the fan, who would most heroes side with or trust... Truth & Justice Superman or a shadowy Batman?  Of course, your argument is that Batman doesn't even NEED prep time... which is patently untrue.  See points 4 and 5.

4. Citing Hush doesn't get you very far.  You cite it as: a) An example of Batman not needing prep; b) A victory.  This is entirely wrong.  a) Batman himself says, "You don't come to Metropolis and not be prepared for him." while brandishing the ring then says, "I don't believe in luck."  Batman WAS prepped in Hush.  b) It's hardly a relevant victory to a hypothetical unbiased fight.  Not only did Batman have the assistance of Catwoman, but he had Lois as a hostage... how long, exactly, would Batman last if Superman had Supergirl at his side and Alfred hostage?  Additionally, the outcome was Batman with a broken fist, Superman smashing effortlessly through the street, and holding a multi-ton street sweeper in one hand effortlessly all while Clark was holding back according to Batman... that's hardly a usable victory in a hypothetical fight.

5. I don't understand how you don't understand the argument.  The point is that stories are different from hypotheticals.  When people posit the fight they imagine fair or realistic parameters that are typically divorced from the requirements of plot, illustrated by Superman / Batman #77 "Of course, I mean, they wouldn't fight over a chick... maybe we can skip the reason?"  That said, when has Batman "defeated" Superman?  The classic examples are generally out of continuity, highly situational, or mirrored by the contravening feat by Superman.  Additionally, the quality of the writing and reasoning matter.  If a writer simply wills it, doesn't mean it is convincing or successful or realistic.  After all, isn't that why you're positing an argument and not just blindly stating a preference?  Your goal is to persuade.  The same with writers... to get you to buy a story and its tenants and its conclusions.  A poor job at it means- rightfully- that it doesn't get accepted... EVEN if a writer wrote it... whether that's a bladder spasm for Batman or an illegitimate child for Superman.

6. Doubtful.  The ring is simply a symbol of trust not proof of competency.  The ring itself is clearly insufficient to stop Superman (tons of examples of Superman getting hit by the ring if not using it himself, Hush is just one example, he also used it to fight Supergirl, Preus, etc).  And if it was a question of efficacy, in the hands of Flash, WW, GL, or J'onn it would undoubtedly be more effective than wielded by Batman... moreover those guys arguably don't even need the ring to affect a rogue Superman... heck, in Superman / Batman, Superman's been shot by Kryptonite slugs and still operating at levels well and truly dangerous to a mortal like Batman.  So given that the ring is not the most effective paired with Batman and not even particularly effective at all... why the ring?  Simply as a gesture.  A sign of vulnerability and trust extended, not confidence the wielder is uniquely capable.  Put another way... if you have GL, WW, Flash, and J'onn on deck and Superman goes rogue, do you ignore all of them and make your first call to Batman and tell him to bring the ring?  Of course not.

7. Aren't you contradicting yourself here?  His thought patterns are mechanical- like a robot- but then unpredictable?  Your argument is essentially that Superman doesn't know and can't predict Batman, but Superman / Batman shows that to be explicitly untrue.  They know each others' patterns and tactics very well.  They may differ in approach, attitude, and expression but that doesn't mean they don't know how the other thinks or behaves.  The shtick of Superman / Batman was that they often- unknowingly- completed or mirrored each others' thoughts in their dialog boxes.  In any case, you're applying a double standard by making Batman uniquely insightful.  By the same token, you could argue that Superman's facade and traditionally straight forward approach makes anything in the true heat of conflict completely unknowable to Batman... if the two are actually at each others' throats, that's a situation where Superman is unpredictable whereas Batman will behave exactly as we'd expect.  In other words, you can't use an argument like this because it rests too arbitrarily on the specific situation of the fight.  In Luthor: Man of Steel, the situation dictated that Superman knew EXACTLY what Batman would do which is why he was able to disarm him from blocks away and send Batman home with a twisted arm, busted nose, and bruised ribs.

All that said, I encourage you to read Superman / Batman #77 which addresses this very sort of discussion, the necessity for ground rules, and the absurdity of Batman winning (by the end of the issue, Batman hypothetically needed to resort to space suit armor, a giant composite robot, and blacking out the Sun... Superman, by contrast, just had to be himself), it's a fun issue.
Posted by entropy_aegis
@Demas:
HOLY CRAP.Such a long post for something so obvious.
Posted by ssejllenrad
@Demas said:
" @TheNameIsWayne said:

" my username may make me seem biased, but I will be fair lol. I personally believe Batman will win.   "

Except you're not fair.  You apply double standards repeatedly.  Let's boil down your points:
    
@TheNameIsWayne said:

"

1. His weakness to magic, kryptonite and red suns
2. No matter what, Superman wont kill.
3. The next argument is Batman's prep time.
4. Although, within the pages of Hush.
5. The other argument people make are the writers. When Batman is shown defeating Superman, everyone's immediate reaction is to blame the writers. I dont understand how this comment can be taken seriously. The writers are the ones who create the characters, so that means if the writers are wrong then the character in general is wrong and therefore no point in them even existing.
6. [The ring is given to] Batman because he knows he has the capabilities to do it.
7. Also, Batman acts somewhat like a robot... but Batman's unpredictable mind"

1. Why list Superman's weaknesses and not Batman's?  Batman is MORTAL.  He's weak to trauma, age, illness, poison, bullets, bombs, lasers, tasers, gas, heat, cold, blades, etc.  How does Superman having a few weaknesses and Batman having every mortal weakness (including "vulnerability"- not allergy, mind you- to magic) play in Batman's favor at all as an assessment that "Batman will win."?2. Why is a prohibition on killing a Superman weakness when Batman shares it?  Batman #614- since you're fond of citing Hush- illustrates the point explicitly.  Batman doesn't kill.  But why is this at all relevant in a situation where Batman and Superman are fighting?  Superman has killed Doomsday and the Phantom Zone criminals.  Batman has "killed" Darkseid.  Using this as a hard and fast rule in a situation as abnormal as the two at each others' throats doesn't fly.  Certainly in Superman #219 (Sacrifice part 1) prohibition on killing didn't play into their fight at all.  Moreover why is killing at all relevant?  If the only goal is to restrain the other, incapacitate them, or otherwise stop them apart from killing them, there's no question that Superman has more options at his disposal.  Again, Batman is mortal, he's subject to every form of immobilization that a human is and can be restrained before the synapses in his mind ever fire without Superman breaking a sweat with respect to his non-killing code... by contrast, Batman bumps up against the limitations of Superman's weaknesses needing to escalate to practically lethal force to even have an effect.  If either hero was to the stymied by concerns over the other's life, it is likely to be Batman.  Even in their classic Man of Steel #3 meeting, despite Batman's threat of lethal force, he couldn't follow through with it himself.3. Why does Batman GET prep time?  If we're talking about a fair, unbiased approach without double standards then both would come to the battle prepared.  Nonetheless the scenario nearly always runs like this for the Batman biased: Superman has his hands tied by morality, is oblivious to any impending attack, refuses to use super-speed / super-reactions / super-senses / super-intellect, while asymmetrically attacked by a Batman full of uncharacteristic murderous intentions and months of plotting and preparation.  How is that not biased?  Superman with prep is absurdly frightening.  He has an alien dimension at his disposal, a war suit, crystals for growing war ships, the capacity to build androids nearly his equal in ability which once took over the world (King of the World story arc) and killed a Wonder Woman class heroine, a time-traveling capable ring with a whole Legion of awestruck teens ready to assist him, not to mention the depths and breath of his family and allies (which, if The Dark Knight Returns is to be used as valid fight fodder- where Robin and Ollie help Bruce) which include several Kryptonian class heroes if not the cream of the crop of the JLA / JSA / etc.  I mean, if the stuff hit the fan, who would most heroes side with or trust... Truth & Justice Superman or a shadowy Batman?  Of course, your argument is that Batman doesn't even NEED prep time... which is patently untrue.  See points 4 and 5.4. Citing Hush doesn't get you very far.  You cite it as: a) An example of Batman not needing prep; b) A victory.  This is entirely wrong.  a) Batman himself says, "You don't come to Metropolis and not be prepared for him." while brandishing the ring then says, "I don't believe in luck."  Batman WAS prepped in Hush.  b) It's hardly a relevant victory to a hypothetical unbiased fight.  Not only did Batman have the assistance of Catwoman, but he had Lois as a hostage... how long, exactly, would Batman last if Superman had Supergirl at his side and Alfred hostage?  Additionally, the outcome was Batman with a broken fist, Superman smashing effortlessly through the street, and holding a multi-ton street sweeper in one hand effortlessly all while Clark was holding back according to Batman... that's hardly a usable victory in a hypothetical fight.5. I don't understand how you don't understand the argument.  The point is that stories are different from hypotheticals.  When people posit the fight they imagine fair or realistic parameters that are typically divorced from the requirements of plot, illustrated by Superman / Batman #77 "Of course, I mean, they wouldn't fight over a chick... maybe we can skip the reason?"  That said, when has Batman "defeated" Superman?  The classic examples are generally out of continuity, highly situational, or mirrored by the contravening feat by Superman.  Additionally, the quality of the writing and reasoning matter.  If a writer simply wills it, doesn't mean it is convincing or successful or realistic.  After all, isn't that why you're positing an argument and not just blindly stating a preference?  Your goal is to persuade.  The same with writers... to get you to buy a story and its tenants and its conclusions.  A poor job at it means- rightfully- that it doesn't get accepted... EVEN if a writer wrote it... whether that's a bladder spasm for Batman or an illegitimate child for Superman.6. Doubtful.  The ring is simply a symbol of trust not proof of competency.  The ring itself is clearly insufficient to stop Superman (tons of examples of Superman getting hit by the ring if not using it himself, Hush is just one example, he also used it to fight Supergirl, Preus, etc).  And if it was a question of efficacy, in the hands of Flash, WW, GL, or J'onn it would undoubtedly be more effective than wielded by Batman... moreover those guys arguably don't even need the ring to affect a rogue Superman... heck, in Superman / Batman, Superman's been shot by Kryptonite slugs and still operating at levels well and truly dangerous to a mortal like Batman.  So given that the ring is not the most effective paired with Batman and not even particularly effective at all... why the ring?  Simply as a gesture.  A sign of vulnerability and trust extended, not confidence the wielder is uniquely capable.  Put another way... if you have GL, WW, Flash, and J'onn on deck and Superman goes rogue, do you ignore all of them and make your first call to Batman and tell him to bring the ring?  Of course not.7. Aren't you contradicting yourself here?  His thought patterns are mechanical- like a robot- but then unpredictable?  Your argument is essentially that Superman doesn't know and can't predict Batman, but Superman / Batman shows that to be explicitly untrue.  They know each others' patterns and tactics very well.  They may differ in approach, attitude, and expression but that doesn't mean they don't know how the other thinks or behaves.  The shtick of Superman / Batman was that they often- unknowingly- completed or mirrored each others' thoughts in their dialog boxes.  In any case, you're applying a double standard by making Batman uniquely insightful.  By the same token, you could argue that Superman's facade and traditionally straight forward approach makes anything in the true heat of conflict completely unknowable to Batman... if the two are actually at each others' throats, that's a situation where Superman is unpredictable whereas Batman will behave exactly as we'd expect.  In other words, you can't use an argument like this because it rests too arbitrarily on the specific situation of the fight.  In Luthor: Man of Steel, the situation dictated that Superman knew EXACTLY what Batman would do which is why he was able to disarm him from blocks away and send Batman home with a twisted arm, busted nose, and bruised ribs.All that said, I encourage you to read Superman / Batman #77 which addresses this very sort of discussion, the necessity for ground rules, and the absurdity of Batman winning (by the end of the issue, Batman hypothetically needed to resort to space suit armor, a giant composite robot, and blacking out the Sun... Superman, by contrast, just had to be himself), it's a fun issue. "
Tiring to read but this is a WIN!
Posted by DEGRAAF

@Primmaster64:
YES and all i got to say is THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!

 

I've been looking for this ever since i first read it. This is one of the most memorable moments to me between the two of them

Posted by DEGRAAF
@Demas said:
"

 

Not only did Batman have the assistance of Catwoman, but he had Lois as a hostage...

 

 "



This happened in the Hush arc?
Posted by Demas
@DEGRAAF said:
" @Demas said:
"

 

Not only did Batman have the assistance of Catwoman, but he had Lois as a hostage...

 

 "

This happened in the Hush arc? "
Yes.
  Batman #612
Posted by Billy Batson

guess I'll have to use my gif:

   
Posted by Primmaster64
@Demas: NICE!!!!

@DEGRAAF:
No probl dude.

@Billy Batson:
Awesome.
Posted by buttersdaman000
@Demas:
This man speaks the truth.

@entropy_aegis said:
" Morals on Batman can win. "

along with CIS, PIS, and of course comic book logic/rules
Posted by Primmaster64

...Why is this on the battle forums?

Posted by TheBatman586

I think the general consensus is:


Random encounter: Superman wins.

Prep time: Batman wins.

Posted by EpitomeofCool

its riduculos....there is no debate superman moves lightspeed batman dies....its the fans that keep it going....unfortuetly...

Posted by Sydpart2

Ok, here's how I think of it. Bats can think of everything you will possibly do in a fight, if you think oh i'll hit him in the head to start out, then he will know that's what you're going to do and come up with three things to do once you try to hit him. This is ten fold for every possible move you can make...how do you fight that? Even with Superman's powers how do you really win that fight? I'll give ya the Superman breaks the sound barrier and murders bats in cold blood before anyone knows what's going on, but is that really a fight? If so if I commit vehicular manslaughter on the heavy weight champion of the world do I get to say I won a fight against him? Or wait, let's make that, if I use a sniper rifle on Kimbo Slice from 30 football fields away and get a perfect head shot instantly killing him, did I just win a fight against Kimbo?

Posted by entropy_aegis
@buttersdaman000 said:
" @Demas:
This man speaks the truth.

@entropy_aegis said:
" Morals on Batman can win. "
along with CIS, PIS, and of course comic book logic/rules "

Which are kinda covered when you mention morals.But i'm honestly not sure why the people here think Superman is so mighty.It's not like Lex Luthor did not kill about 80,000 Kryptonians for fun and a few  in the last son storyline.If it were'nt for the very same CIS/PIS Supes too would have been killed by a mortal.
Posted by PowerHerc


Batman keeping this match close and competitive has always required a whole mess of plot devices and contrivances. 

Superman should always win a man to man, no kryptonite fight.  Anything else is B.S.

Edited by Deadpool666

How about we just agree on this so everyone will shut their faceholes. We all know if Bats isn't prepared, Supes will run over him. But with prep, Batman would have some elaborate sh*t to take Supes down prepared. The key is preparation.

Without prep: Superman wins.
With prep: Batman wins.

Okay? Now everyone shut up so this finally be put to rest and we can all move on.

Posted by Rudyftw

I thought they fought and Batman won?

Posted by entropy_aegis
@Rudyftw said:
"I thought they fought and Batman won? "

No.
Posted by comicdude23

Batman.

Posted by EpitomeofCool
@Billy Batson said:
"

guess I'll have to use my gif:

    "
....lmfao!
Posted by PrinceKalEl

Supes all day everyday!!!

Posted by slick23
@Primmaster64@batmanary said:
@Primmaster64 said:
" @DEGRAAF: hmmm




This? "
I generally loved this story arc, but I never felt that this is truly Superman. It feels more like Sentry, or even Batman with superpowers, when he speaks. The general characterization of Supes in general somewhat turned me off.
I've read that arc, that was awesome man. Batman got a taste of his own emdicine.
Posted by slick23
@Sydpart2: So you want supes to duke it out?be my guest
Posted by The Stegman

i just love the fact that they are polar opposites of each other in every way, yet still somehow are best friends 
 
1. Batman is a dark brooding vigilante, most of the public fear or hate him, they consider him an urban legend that punishes all who do bad, while Superman is an icon, the citizens love him, he represents truth, justice, and the American way, Batman instills fear while Superman Inspires hope. 
 
2. Superman is literally powered by the sun, by daytime, he thrives in the light of day, while Batman gains his power from the night, from the shadows. 
 
3 Superman is a god among men, he has every power you can think of and uses them to better mankind, Batman has no powers, he is the pinnnicle of mankind, everything a human COULD be if they work hard enough

Posted by Sydpart2
@slick23 said:
@Sydpart2: So you want supes to duke it out?be my guest
I'm saying that if Superman's gonna fight him on let's say your typical comic book terms where both parties know they're fighting then Batman's figured out how to beat the guy ten times over
Posted by Primmaster64
@slick23: It was about time too.
 
 
What's funny is that Batman himself admitted that Superman to crash his head into the walk....IN HUSH...WITH THE KRYPTONITE RING ON.
 
@The Stegman
O_O
Posted by DEGRAAF
@Primmaster64 said:
@DEGRAAF: hmmm




This?
YEA!!! This is my favorite conversation between them bar none
Posted by difficlus
@slick23 said:
@Primmaster64@batmanary said:
@Primmaster64 said:
" @DEGRAAF: hmmm




This? "
I generally loved this story arc, but I never felt that this is truly Superman. It feels more like Sentry, or even Batman with superpowers, when he speaks. The general characterization of Supes in general somewhat turned me off.
I've read that arc, that was awesome man. Batman got a taste of his own emdicine.
um not meaning to look dumb but what arc is this excatly?
Posted by Saren
@difficlus: For Tomorrow. Azarrello's writing was terrible. Jim Lee's artwork was the only saving grace.
Moderator
  • 56 results
  • 1
  • 2