Batman Vs. Superman Who Would Win

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Well Lex planned taking Superman out with Kryptonite. Those plans were stolen by Batman and then carried out by Batman but they were still Lex Luthor's plans.


This is your reasoning. Not mine. So it is in fact your logic that doesn't make sense.

Again Your logic is staggering.

Batman did not take Lex's plans.

Fact is Supermans weakness to Kryptonite is public knowledge in the DC universe so any school kid could come up with a BS plan to use Kryptonite on Superman.

So Batman has no needs for Lex's plans.

What your suggesting now is that by any one trying to win a fight useing a known weakness is stealing his plan from an other person.

And thats just stupid.

The plan isint in useing the Kryptonite but in how and when your going to use it.

Your anoligies keep failing buddy.t:

This thread amuses me greatly. haha!

Its doing the same for me.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Again Your logic is staggering.

Batman did not take Lex's plans.

Fact is Supermans weakness to Kryptonite is public knowledge in the DC universe so any school kid could come up with a BS plan to use Kryptonite on Superman.

So Batman has no needs for Lex's plans.

What your suggesting now is that by any one trying to win a fight useing a known weakness is stealing his plan from an other person.

And thats just stupid.

The plan isint in useing the Kryptonite but in how and when your going to use it.

Your anoligies keep failing buddy.t:



Its doing the same for me.

The flaw with any random person using Kryptonite to beat Superman is flawed on account that the only people who posses Kryptonite are Batman, Superman, and Lex Luthor. The rest of it has been destroyed.

And the Dark Knight Returns doesn't count because it's not canon and Frank Miller wrote it who has absolutely no concept on how to write Superman. Miller writes Superman as a ******, far weaker than how Superman truly is, and out of character.

And your logic makes no sense.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

The flaw with any random person using Kryptonite to beat Superman is flawed on account that the only people who posses Kryptonite are Batman, Superman, and Lex Luthor. The rest of it has been destroyed.

And there appears to be a "flaw" in your reading.

I didnt say any random person could use kryptonite to beat Superman, I said any random person could "plan" to use Kryptonite to beat Superman.

And the fact is since his weakness to Kryptonite is public knowledge, any Tom,Dick and Harry could think up a plan evolving the use of Kryptronite.

And the Dark Knight Returns doesn't count because it's not canon

I guess you dont know the true definition of the word "canon" and how it shoyuld be used in the comic world.

The Dark Knight is "Canon" because it is an offically produced product of the characters owner or copyright holder.

Canon= official sanctioned material.

Canon, in terms of a fictional universe, is any material that is considered to be "genuine", or can be directly referenced as material produced by the original author or creator or publisher of a series.

So the Dark Knight Returns is always canon.

What it wasint is part of the mainstream continuity.

So if I was counting The Dark Knight Returns as proof of Batman beating Superman then I might be in error.

But here's the catch.

I've been siteing TDKR only as a point of refrance in saying "this is how he could do it".And the fact is his actions and capabilities in TDKR are very much in character with his abilities in the mainstream continuity.

So The Dark Knight Returns counts in showing the capabilities of Batmans character and how far he's willing to go.

Ohhh and BTW....since the rebirth of the DC multiverse and the nameing of earth 31 as the earth of The Dark Knight returns.......that universe is more "canon" then ever before.

and Frank Miller wrote it who has absolutely no concept on how to write Superman.

In your opinion.

And I'm not saying I disagree but his characterazation of Superman in The Dark Knight returns isint that far off the mark.

Miller writes Superman as a ******, far weaker than how Superman truly is, and out of character.

Superman wasnt much weaker then his mainstream counterpart in The Dark Knight returns.

And your logic makes no sense.

Really???

Tell me how?????

Because so far you havent.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Really???

Tell me how?????

Because so far you havent.

Your double standards on Batman and Superman. Batman snapping Superman from Poison Ivy's trance counts as him winning and defeating Superman, yet a mind controlled Superman pummeling Batman to near death doesn't

And using an utterly flawed and horrible interpretation of Superman that isn't in mainstream continuity (Frank Miller's) as well.

Batman is physical and mental human perfection. However, he's still human and has all the limits of a human being. He's frail. He can tire out. He can die. He can make mistakes.

Superman on the other hand is a Kyrptonian living in a yellow sun environment. He can't get hurt by any human means. Batman isn't a magician, and Batman isn't going to use enough kryptonite to kill Superman. He is also incredibly intelligent as well and isn't just going to rush into a fight with Batman. He knows that Batman is going to be prepared for him.

Any writer who has Batman beating Superman is using poor writing to make Batman look like a badass unnecessarily and it's downright absurd when you consider who they are, a human and a Kryptonian.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Your double standards on Batman and Superman. Batman snapping Superman from Poison Ivy's trance counts as him winning and defeating Superman, yet a mind controlled Superman pummeling Batman to near death doesn't

What double standard???

Dont you see the difference???

Here let me break it down for you since you appear to need the help.

Batman snapping Superman from Poison Ivy's trance was Batman's plan, its what he set out to do.He set up the situation,lured Superman to the planet,He sent Catwoman there ahead and distracted Superman in the sewers.

It was all part of his plan,it was his strategy and he succeeded.It was very much within his capabilities and known behaviors.And its something he would do again if he needed to.

Very Logical

Superman under the mind control of Max Lord, pummeling Batman to near death was not Supermans plan, it is not something he would normally do, the tactic he used on what he thought was Brainiac he would "NEVER" use on a non powered human.

Superman was not acting of his own volition, he employed tactic he would never use on a non powered human and non of his actions were his own.Superman was under the complete control of Max Lord.Superman didnt know what he was seeing,he didnt know what he was doing,he didnt know what he was smelling,he didnt know where he was going.

Superman was no different then a Nascar race car with a different driver at the wheel.

In a car race the guy driving is the winner not the car.Max deserves the win in "Sacifice" since he was pretty much in total control of Superman.

Sorry but I'm not employing any double standard I'm judging the fights for what they were.

Very Logical

And using an utterly flawed and horrible interpretation of Superman that isn't in mainstream continuity (Frank Miller's) as well.

Again useing it to show the capabilities of Batmans character.

Can you say that Batman hasent proven in other books to be capable of doing the things he did in The Dark Knight Returns???

I highly doubt it.

Batman has proven he's capable of beating Superman in other books besides Millers.

Very Logical

Batman is physical and mental human perfection. However, he's still human and has all the limits of a human being.

True

He's frail.

Batman is hardly frail.

You can say he's frail compaired to Superman but you cant say Batman himself is frail.

He can tire out. He can die. He can make mistakes.

Funny....Superman can tire out. He can die. He can make mistakes....and Superman has a number of weaknesses that Batman can and would exploite to win.

Superman on the other hand is a Kyrptonian living in a yellow sun environment. He can't get hurt by any human means.

Nonsence.

Superman can be hurt by object endowed by magic and by electricty....both can be used as "human means".

Batman isn't a magician,

How much do you know about Batman???

Batman studdies under the greatest magicians in the DC universe.

He understands enough about Magic to be able to use it if needed.

Not to mention that he's no above employing others to use the Magic for him.

and Batman isn't going to use enough kryptonite to kill Superman.

Hell yes he would if he felt there was a need.

Why eles gather the largest amount known???

Batman, in future stories, has used enough Kryptonite to kill Superman before....and I know future stories arent in continuity but again they prove the leanghts that Batman is willing to go to if needed.

He is also incredibly intelligent as well and isn't just going to rush into a fight with Batman. He knows that Batman is going to be prepared for him.

Which proves nothing.

Any writer who has Batman beating Superman is using poor writing to make Batman look like a badass unnecessarily and it's downright absurd when you consider who they are, a human and a Kryptonian.

And any person that thinks that powers alone should determin this fight has a poor imagination and a poor understanding of the characters.

I've said this way to many time....

All the powers of a God are worth nothing if he's not willing to use all those powers to their fullest extent.

And BTW, you showed my you disagree with me but you havent brought my logic into question yet.

 

[scatterax]

guys, in all the time I've spent on this thread, I've learned 1 very important thing. sto_vo_kor_2000 and every other batman supporter is completely biased and/or has a warped sense of reality. why else would they over estimate batman's strategy, and mind and underestimate, well, pretty much everything about superman?? I guess it's just a fixed fight in this guys head and nothing more.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

guys, in all the time I've spent on this thread, I've learned 1 very important thing. sto_vo_kor_2000 and every other batman supporter is completely biased and/or has a warped sense of reality. why else would they over estimate batman's strategy, and mind and underestimate, well, pretty much everything about superman?? I guess it's just a fixed fight in this guys head and nothing more.

Then you havent learned the right things.......about me at least.

If you follow all my post you would see how many time I said that I personally dont agree with how DC has made Batman un-beatable.If I had my way he would be more prone to mistakes in judgment and strategy.

DC has basicly done to Batman the last 20 years what they did to Superman before the first Crisis....making him un-beatable and almost un-relaitable.

And I dont agree with how they have made Superman a bit of a push over, making him to nice and to willing to turn the other cheek.They have not only weakened Superman in the sence of powers but also in character.

The made Superman afraid of Batman, they made him concerned about the lengths Batman is willing to go.

If I had my way these characters would be returned to the characterizations they had in the Golden Age and the early to mid Silver age.

The Golden Age Superman had "Balls" The Golden Age and Silver age Batman had limits and could be beat.

But DC has desided to depower and de-ball Superman and have desided to make Batman an un-beatable force of nature.

I'm not biased, I'm calling it how its been written.

And again if you dont like it take it up with DC.

Not one of you have put forth a logical argument that counters that little fact.

This is how DC has written the characters for close to 20 years now.

 

[scatterax]

bad/inaccurate/inconsistent. writing does NOT equal an accurate source of information.

you'll just have to go by what you know the characters can and cannot do. so if different eras have different victors. for instance, do you think silver age batman can beat silver age superman?

you've admitted how ridiculous they're making batman and his ability to win in recent comics. so why even bother to use recent comics? I say just go by the characters strengths in their over all history, instead of picking 1 specific time where 1 character has more advantage than the other.

and I'm not sure where you've gotten the idea that batmans been written unbeatable for the last 20 years either. it probably doesn't go that far back. I just recently read batman year 1, batman the long holloween, batman dark victory. and in those stories he's alot more down to human levels. like, in year 1 he has trouble fighting a group of teens, and he gets kicked repeatedly in the face. and in dark victory and the long halloween it takes him like a year to solve the cases. i know those stories were erly in his career, but it just proves that batmans mind, and fighting ability haven't always been perceived by the writers as superhuman.

so it's probably been more like the last 10 years that batman has been written strangely unstoppable.

but if you pay attention, you can see that he's treated almost completely different in his own comics than in crossovers. like he's less of a genious when he's solving crimes in his own city than when he's fighting other heroe's it seems. and he has more trouble w/ guys like the riddler in his comics than superhumans in crossover stories like the justice league. at least, that's how it seems to me.

so idk about the rest of you, but i think batman vs his own rouges gallery is better/more accurate sourse material than batman with the justice league.

and to enforce what i suggested in an earlier post. when you ignore the fact that batman has trouble w/ guys like the joker, and the normal humans in metropolis aren't even a challenge for superman, but acknowledge every single time batman has gotten the upper hand in a situation, than yes, I do think you have a bias.

 

[scatterax]

well, I'm tired, it's like 3 in the morning here, and i had like 6 different points i was trying to get across in my last post. so if you have a hard time following it, than sorry, my bad.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

bad/inaccurate/inconsistent. writing does NOT equal an accurate source of information.

So what your saying is that 20+ years or story telling, 20+ years or character development, 20+ years or reading about these characters ,their personalities, capabilities and methods doesnt count it trying to determine the out come of a fight between these 2 characters?????

Thats a crock of **** and you know it.

When trying to determine the outcome of any conflict between two people, their history,methods,character and personalities of the up most importance.

Again this is a fight between the character of Batman as he's been written and the character of Superman as he's been written.

Not a fight between some joe with Batmans gadgets and some joe with Supermans powers.

you'll just have to go by what you know the characters can and cannot do.

Pwers aloon dont answer this question buddy.

Its not "what they can do" but "what they are willing to do".

so if different eras have different victors. for instance, do you think silver age batman can beat silver age superman?

Like I said the Silver age is a bit Fragmented but over all I would say Batman has a chance is Superman makes a few stupid mistakes, which s possible.

But for the most part the Silver age Superman had a bit more of a "go get em" attidude and I believe that he would beat Batman 8 out of 10 times.

you've admitted how ridiculous they're making batman and his ability to win in recent comics.

Yes

so why even bother to use recent comics?

I didnt start or set the critria for this debate.

I just went with the flow.

Everyone was going with the moderen Bats so I posted my replys accordingly.

I say just go by the characters strengths

Which would be a stupid tactic in and fight or contest....no insult intended.

in their over all history, instead of picking 1 specific time where 1 character has more advantage than the other.

Which would be hard to do since they keep changing the "status qou" with each era.

And if DC keeps writting Batman they way they are now, their over all history will be that of an un-beeatable Batman.

and I'm not sure where you've gotten the idea that batmans been written unbeatable for the last 20 years either. it probably doesn't go that far back. I just recently read batman year 1, batman the long holloween, batman dark victory. and in those stories he's alot more down to human levels. like, in year 1 he has trouble fighting a group of teens, and he gets kicked repeatedly in the face. and in dark victory and the long halloween it takes him like a year to solve the cases. i know those stories were erly in his career, but it just proves that batmans mind, and fighting ability haven't always been perceived by the writers as superhuman.

Those stories are written as part of Batmans past.Even when they were released they were not in the same time frame as the regular montly books.

So they were all written to take place durring batmans early years.

And when I say he's "un-beatable" its really a figure of speach and not to be taken litarly.

Its kind of like calling him "the Bat God" which has gotten popular these days.

Its just a bit of commentary on how DC keeps pitting him againest fighters he shouldnt be able to beat and yet he still does.

so it's probably been more like the last 10 years that batman has been written strangely unstoppable.

No they been building twards it since Frank Millers "The Dark Knight Returns".That came out in 86 so its been developing for 22 years now.

It wasnt alway consistant but comic book hardly ever are.

but if you pay attention, you can see that he's treated almost completely different in his own comics than in crossovers. like he's less of a genious when he's solving crimes in his own city than when he's fighting other heroe's it seems. and he has more trouble w/ guys like the riddler in his comics than superhumans in crossover stories like the justice league. at least, that's how it seems to me.

Not so much his own comics but the mini serries.

The main comics tend to have a lot of "guess stars" so they tend to keep the same tone as many of the cross overs.

But the mini serries or one shots do tend to write a more believeable version of Batman.

so idk about the rest of you, but i think batman vs his own rouges gallery is better/more accurate sourse material than batman with the justice league.

I agree its more believeable and entertaining.

But you cant really call it more accurate.

Simple fact is that the other stories, weather we like them or not, are as accurate and any other.They are offical stories coming out of DC comics and are in continuity.

We can not discount their accuracy...only DC can.

and to enforce what i suggested in an earlier post. when you ignore the fact that batman has trouble w/ guys like the joker, and the normal humans in metropolis aren't even a challenge for superman, but acknowledge every single time batman has gotten the upper hand in a situation, than yes, I do think you have a bias.

Even the Joker has given troubles to Superman so trying to use that as a point in your debate isint logical.

And one of the most normal humans in Metroplis has been the "GREATEST" challenge to Superman for all of his years.....Lex Luther.

So your last statement really doent make any sence.

Lex has almost beatened Superman more times then I can count......can you imaging what he could do if he wasnt doing it out of greed????

Batman and Lex are very simular but for one fact....Lex does what he does out of hate and greed.

Batman does what he does out of a sence of justice.

If Lex can come close to beating Superman, then Batman can get the job done.

There's just no bias in that.

well, I'm tired, it's like 3 in the morning here, and i had like 6 different points i was trying to get across in my last post. so if you have a hard time following it, than sorry, my bad.

I hope you sleep well.

 

[dnno1]

...But DC has desided to depower and de-ball Superman and have desided to make Batman an un-beatable force of nature.

I'm not biased, I'm calling it how its been written.

And again if you dont like it take it up with DC.

Not one of you have put forth a logical argument that counters that little fact.

This is how DC has written the characters for close to 20 years now.

Supeman Catches a Space Plane
(From "Superman, the Man of Steel" #1)

From what I have read, Superman was pretty powerful even when he was de-powered (reference John Byrne's so called "Weak Superman"). I wouldn't call someone who could catch a space plane a slouch. If you were to base the weigh of that vehicle on that of some of the proposed space planes (namely the x-30) it should have weighed about 70 tons (fueled).

(Weak) Superman's Feats
(From "Superman, the Man of Steel" #1)

In addition, it was kind of subtle, but that version of superman was able to change the course of mighty rivers, raise ships out of the ocean (the Titanic displaced approximately 52,310 tons, which he supposedly raised in the news clip above). I don't think that version was any weaker than the original Golden Age Superman. If he didn't have a heart, Byrne's Superman could have knocked Batman's block off without even a thought.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Supeman Catches a Space Plane
(From "Superman, the Man of Steel" #1)

From what I have read, Superman was pretty powerful even when he was de-powered (reference John Byrne's so called "Weak Superman"). I wouldn't call someone who could catch a space plane a slouch. If you were to base the weigh of that vehicle on that of some of the proposed space planes (namely the x-30) it should have weighed about 70 tons (fueled).

I wasnt speaking literally about a marked decrease in strength when I said they de-powered Superman.

I was speaking metaphorically about the change in his character.

But since you brought it up I do recall Byrne's Superman [and the stories that followed] struggling a bit in many cases [not to sure about that plain scene anymore] and he was struggling doing thing that his silverage counterpart had no problems doing.

The Silver age Superman was capable of juggling planets.

(Weak) Superman's Feats
(From "Superman, the Man of Steel" #1)

In addition, it was kind of subtle, but that version of superman was able to change the course of mighty rivers, raise ships out of the ocean (the Titanic displaced approximately 52,310 tons, which he supposedly raised in the news clip above). I don't think that version was any weaker than the original Golden Age Superman.

Again I wasnt really talking about power levels but the power of his character in the golden age.

I should have been clearer.

But regardless the Silver age Superman was far more powerful then both Byrnes Superman and the Golden age Superman.

If he didn't have a heart, Byrne's Superman could have knocked Batman's block off without even a thought.

With that I agree.

But that "Heart" as you called it has been a part of the character for almost 20 years now and its why he loses to Batman

 

[terry78]

^So basically having compassion in fights is a weakness. Superman gets punished for actually having compassion.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

^So basically having compassion in fights is a weakness. Superman gets punished for actually having compassion.

Does that really surprise you?????

If it allows your opponent to get the upper hand then its a weakness.

Can you imagine how many fights Mike Tyson would have lost if he showed the least bit of compassion in his fights.

And lets face it....giving Batman any advantage in a fight is a big mistake.

 

[scatterax]

Does that really surprise you?????

If it allows your opponent to get the upper hand then its a weakness.

Can you imagine how many fights Mike Tyson would have lost if he showed the least bit of compassion in his fights.

And lets face it....giving Batman any advantage in a fight is a big mistake.

i can see what you mean, but i still say superman being as powerful as he is gives him the advantage that trumps all of batman's advantages.

when it comes down to it, the person who wins the fight is usually the person who can hit the hardest and take the most hits. and, in this case that person is superman. strategy helps allot, but not as much as strength and stamina in a fight.

that's still my stance.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

i can see what you mean, but i still say superman being as powerful as he is gives him the advantage that trumps all of batman's advantages.

when it comes down to it, the person who wins the fight is usually the person who can hit the hardest and take the most hits. and, in this case that person is superman. strategy helps allot, but not as much as strength and stamina in a fight.

that's still my stance.

And I understand you....but as I pointed out it would be Batmans strategy [at least the modern interpretation of Batman] to reduce just how much "Power" ,strength and stamina Superman has.

And Batman has quite a few ways he can go about that.

 

[dnno1]

I wasnt speaking literally about a marked decrease in strength when I said they de-powered Superman.

I was speaking metaphorically about the change in his character.

When most people speak of a de-powered Superman they mean his strenght and limits to his abilities. This is the general connotation when using that phrase. You will have to be more specific when you say change in his character. He has always pretty much been a boyscout type person since the late 1940's early 1950's or so.

But since you brought it up I do recall Byrne's Superman [and the stories that followed] struggling a bit in many cases [not to sure about that plain scene anymore] and he was struggling doing thing that his silverage counterpart had no problems doing.

This is the one that disturbed me. That was when we was embarrassed by Big Barda, who should be much weaker.

The Silver age Superman was capable of juggling planets.

Yep. He can at least move a planet today.

But that "Heart" as you called it has been a part of the character for almost 20 years now and its why he loses to Batman

That so called heart has been with him for much longer than that.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

When most people speak of a de-powered Superman they mean his strenght and limits to his abilities. This is the general connotation when using that phrase. You will have to be more specific when you say change in his character. He has always pretty much been a boyscout type person since the late 1940's early 1950's or so.

I agree I could have been clear but regardless Byrns Superman was quite a bit weaker then the one that came before.

This is the one that disturbed me. That was when we was embarrassed by Big Barda, who should be much weaker. .

I forgot about this one myself but in Supermans defence this really isint an example of being weaker but of not being ready.

Even Batman has done similar moves on Superman, in one medium or an other.

Yep. He can at least move a planet today..

Today yes but I thought you were talking about Byrnes Superman????

That so called heart has been with him for much longer than that.

And the character has change in the last 20.

And that change hasnt all be positive for the character.

 

[Hellrider]

given the right or wrong circumstances either can win or lose.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

given the right or wrong circumstances either can win or lose.

Very true.

 

[MAN O STEEL]

Here's the thing though, if superman & batman were facing each other ready to fight, could superman not just run so fast that bats wouldn't even have time to flinch & just use his own index finger to flick batman into outerspace?. Game Over????. I don't see how any hero would be a match for superman, he's just to damn powerfull. then again I ain't a comic book reader so I don't really understand the whole pre & post crisis superman powers, so i may be inaccurate in my assumption somwhere along the line.




Steve

 

[TwilightPro101]

Voted Supes.

 

[Superark]

I find this thread funny as heck! The fact that the poll numbers are as close as they are is unbelievably amusing and scary...

Superman wins.

 

[Hellrider]

I find this thread funny as heck! The fact that the poll numbers are as close as they are is unbelievably amusing and scary...

Superman wins.

Why does it seem ridiculous to you... batman has defeated him before.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Here's the thing though, if superman & batman were facing each other ready to fight, could superman not just run so fast that bats wouldn't even have time to flinch & just use his own index finger to flick batman into outerspace?. Game Over????. I don't see how any hero would be a match for superman, he's just to damn powerfull. then again I ain't a comic book reader so I don't really understand the whole pre & post crisis superman powers, so i may be inaccurate in my assumption somwhere along the line.




Steve

Its not really an issue of weather Superman "COULD" do as you suggested but weather he "WOULD" do as you suggested.

Yes Superman has the powers to do such but its not in his character to use an attack like that on a non powered human.