Batman Vs. Superman Who Would Win

[Captain Marvel]

On the issue of this battle, I think a lot of people base it on who they want to win, not necessarily who would win in a real fight.

Agreed.

That's why there're people who actually think Batman would win in a real fight, as opposed to a fight in which the writers purposely dumbed Superman down in order to give Batman a fighting chance of winning.

 

[Godzilla2014]

Agreed.

That's why there're people who actually think Batman would win in a real fight, as opposed to a fight in which the writers purposely dumbed Superman down in order to give Batman a fighting chance of winning.

Unfortunately, this is the kind of stuff that will keep happening as long as writers insist on this battle. Why do they need to fight?
A Superman can still kick even Batman or Lex Luthor's asses regardless of his planning, tactics, and Kryptonite is overpowered to me. It renders any and all weaknesses completely pointless. Quite frankly, I don't see any need for Superman to be able to fly FTL (faster than light).

That said, Batman can still win:

 

[Captain Marvel]

That's... an interesting picture you posted there.

...especially given that that's Superman.

 

[Godzilla2014]

That's... an interesting picture you posted there.

...especially given that that's Superman.

You never said which Batman.t:
Seeing as to how this is Kal-El as Batman, he had yet to become Superman in this panel, I don't think you can count it as Superman. Speaking of Superman: Speeding Bullets, as well as many of the other "hero(ine) adopts different identity from the one we know him/her as" stories, I have to say that the title is kind of awkward and misleading. Wouldn't Batman: Speeding Bullets be more appropriate, since there is no Superman in this story, and the premise is that Kal-El becomes Batman instead of Superman?

 

[Captain Marvel]

Heh. Is that a new meme, now?

"Batman only wins when Superman fights himself."

 

[Captain Marvel]

Incidentally, it's called that because he becomes Superman at the end of the story.

 

[Godzilla2014]

Heh. Is that a new meme, now?

"Batman only wins when Superman fights himself."

Maybe. There is also blue Kryptonite, red sun machines, armor, something that can use against Superman and put the boy scout in his place. If any mere mortal could beat Superman, it would certainly be Batman.

Incidentally, it's called that because he becomes Superman at the end of the story.

True. Still, the point of the book is that Kal-El becomes Batman instead of Superman.

 

[Venomfan]

If any mere mortal could beat Superman, it would certainly be Batman.

i think Lex would me a much more likely candidate.

and the argument against Supes saying he "if he has a problem with Luthor than Batman can beat him too." correct me if i'm wrong, but isnt the reason Luthor is such a thorn is because nothing can be pinned on him? like Supes doesnt actually fight him, Luthor keeps his hands clean, except when he uses the armor, which is more than anything batman has, and then he loses anyway.

 

[Godzilla2014]

i think Lex would me a much more likely candidate.

and the argument against Supes saying he "if he has a problem with Luthor than Batman can beat him too." correct me if i'm wrong, but isnt the reason Luthor is such a thorn is because nothing can be pinned on him? like Supes doesnt actually fight him, Luthor keeps his hands clean, except when he uses the armor, which is more than anything batman has, and then he loses anyway.

Batman has greater intelligence, so he could do it better than Lex Luthor ever could.

 

[Drz]

That said, Batman can still win:

You keep saying that, but you don't provide a single argument to prove you're right.

 

[Captain Marvel]

Maybe. There is also blue Kryptonite, red sun machines, armor, something that can use against Superman and put the boy scout in his place. If any mere mortal could beat Superman, it would certainly be Batman.

All of that stuff has been done before, and better, by Lex Luthor. And it's certainly debateable that Batman is smarter than Luthor. He's certainly never produced the quantities of high technology which Lex has. And Lex wrote the book on Anti-Kryptonian tech, and he still loses to Superman.

True. Still, the point of the book is that Kal-El becomes Batman instead of Superman.

And then he becomes Superman. That's how it ends.

 

[Raiden]

Batman has greater intelligence, so he could do it better than Lex Luthor ever could.

It doesn't matter that Batman is more intelligent than Lex Luthor. Kyptonite is the only real weakness of Superman, and Luthor had explored all the relevant technology based on kryptonite, with the sole purpose of defeating Superman, and he still failed. Unless Batman can come up with a new, creative way to utilize kryptonite that is more effective than what Luthor and the Kryptonite Man have done, I don't see how Batman will win. But writers at DC are always more interested to make Batman even more powerful than he really is, so I think if they were fighting in the comic books, Batman will likely win.

 

[Drz]

Not to mention Superman is smarter than batman.

 

[Godzilla2014]

All of that stuff has been done before, and better, by Lex Luthor. And it's certainly debateable that Batman is smarter than Luthor. He's certainly never produced the quantities of high technology which Lex has. And Lex wrote the book on Anti-Kryptonian tech, and he still loses to Superman.

Has the comparison of Bruce Wayne and Lex Luthor's intelligence ever been made in the comics?

And then he becomes Superman. That's how it ends.

True, but isn't he Batman for most of the book?

It doesn't matter that Batman is more intelligent than Lex Luthor. Kyptonite is the only real weakness of Superman, and Luthor had explored all the relevant technology based on kryptonite, with the sole purpose of defeating Superman, and he still failed. Unless Batman can come up with a new, creative way to utilize kryptonite that is more effective than what Luthor and the Kryptonite Man have done, I don't see how Batman will win. But writers at DC are always more interested to make Batman even more powerful than he really is, so I think if they were fighting in the comic books, Batman will likely win.

Doesn't Superman have a bunch of other weaknesses as well?

I have to say that I find the fact that this battle keeps coming up to be interesting. I don't think I've seen a battle so popular with a power disparity so great. Have you ever seen an assload of threads about "Captain America vs Thor Who Would Win"?

 

[Captain Marvel]

Has the comparison of Bruce Wayne and Lex Luthor's intelligence ever been made in the comics?

No clue, but Lex Luthor is one of the smartest men on the planet. And he has created more impressive technology than Batman.

True, but isn't he Batman for most of the book?

And what does it matter? This is Superman Vs Batman, not Superman Vs Alt-Verse Superman. Clearly the Speeding Bullets Batman doesn't count for the discussion as it's actually Kal-El. And frankly, if you're trying to pit Kal-El against himself, then you may as well be conceeding that the real Batman can't win.

Doesn't Superman have a bunch of other weaknesses as well?

Each and every one of which has been exploited by his rogues gallery, and they all failed. Besides, the other weaknesses are red sunlight and magic. Batman's not a magician, so magic's no good for him, and Luthor's tried exploiting red sunlight plenty of times.

I have to say that I find the fact that this battle keeps coming up to be interesting. I don't think I've seen a battle so popular with a power disparity so great. Have you ever seen an assload of threads about "Captain America vs Thor Who Would Win"?

Because there're legions of Batman fanboys who're convinced that Batman could take down the Celestials with enough prep time. In that regard Captain America fans are probably less rabid and more logical.

 

[Drz]

Yep, blame the Batman fans for not accepting comic loyalty.

 

[Venomfan]

kryptonite (or magic/red sun) is always brought up as a huge weakness in this battle but isn't it actually a strength? i mean 3 weaknesses is pretty good compared to the 100's of things batman is weak against

 

[Drz]

Kryptonite or Batman using magic won't save him from the man whos faster than the speed of thought and light.

 

[KneelBeforeZod]

Batman would win simply because of the nature of the characters.

Superman could clearly pulverize Batman -- he has a clear physical edge, regardless of Batman's training, endurance, armor, gadgets, etc. One blast from the eyes, one superspeed punch, one mile-high bodyslam into the pavement ... and Bruce is toast. If Clark went "Bane" on Bruce's ass, Bruce would take much longer to heal.

But, Clark is, at heart, good. He isn't Bane -- even though he's stronger than Bane. He would pull his punches. He would fight to stalemate, not to obliterate. That is the fundamental nature of the character. The problem is that Bruce knows this.

Batman is, at heart, a Machiavellian. He wouldn't hold back. He wouldn't pull his punches. He would fight dirty. The ends justify the means. He is likely slightly smarter than Clark, and can use Clark's goodness to his advantage. It really isn't a matter of who I'd want to win ... I just think Bruce has the edge because he is suspicious of Clark, he knows Clark's weakness, and he knows Clark would hold back. He knows he won't get his back broken over Clark's knee, he won't get bodyslammed, he won't get immolated by heat vision. He'll get a fistfight with a good guy -- and, in that, Bruce has a good chance of emerging on top.

JB

 

[Captain Marvel]

But, Clark is, at heart, good. He would pull his punches. He would fight to stalemate, not to obliterate. That is the fundamental nature of the character. The problem is that Bruce knows this.

Why in the world would Superman fight to a statelmate instead of fighting to win? He fights to win every other time, so why would it be different with Batman? He'd pull his punches to make sure that he doesn't completely annihilate Batman, sure, but even pulling his punches he can still thrash Batman pretty badly.

It's no different than if a three-year-old came at me with a teddy bear. Sure, I'm going to restrain myself heavily in order to make sure I don't hurt the child, but at the same time, that doesn't mean that that restraint will result in that child clubbing me to death with his teddy bear. It just means that getting him under control will take me a few more seconds than it'd take in comparison to taking a shotgun and shooting him in the face. Either way, though, whatever miniscule threat he represents will be reduced to a non-existent threat in no time.

Whether Batman holds back or not, it doesn't matter, because Batman at his absolute most lethal still falls far short of Superman at his most restrained. And knowing his weaknesses doesn't make a whole lot of difference, either, as someone who's probably even smarter wtih more lethal technology also knows all Superman's weaknesses and has been actively trying to kill him for years, and failed every single time.

And of course Batman will hold back. He won't even kill the Joker. Why would he kill Superman, a guy who's almost like a brother to him?

He'll get a fistfight with a good guy -- and, in that, Bruce has a good chance of emerging on top.

When you're talking about a guy who can walk on the surface of the sun without getting so much as a tan and who can crack the planet in half with a single punch, getting into a fist fight with someone like that is still generally a pretty bad idea.

 

[Drz]

Batman is, at heart, a Machiavellian. He wouldn't hold back. He wouldn't pull his punches. He would fight dirty. The ends justify the means. He is likely slightly smarter than Clark, and can use Clark's goodness to his advantage. It really isn't a matter of who I'd want to win ... I just think Bruce has the edge because he is suspicious of Clark, he knows Clark's weakness, and he knows Clark would hold back. He knows he won't get his back broken over Clark's knee, he won't get bodyslammed, he won't get immolated by heat vision. He'll get a fistfight with a good guy -- and, in that, Bruce has a good chance of emerging on top.
JB

EDIT: Gah my message was so poorly spelled and even in accurate, here i go again:

Batman at his heart does hold back, he's not willing to murder but he is willing to use a gun if it helps crippling the god of evil and saving the human he's using as a host. Superman however has been showing murdering people such as Zod, Darkseid, Doomsday and putting criminals into the Phantom Zone where they cannot escape, and yeah guys don't even think Superman would let Batman be put into the zone with any gadgets, he'll take them out of him.

Clark wouldn't hold back if he had no choice, he is a fighter not a martyr saint like in Superman Returns, thats just Bryan Singer making Superman into a wuss. TDKR is a good example of Superman holding back, he even lets Batman escape his death because of respect and friendship, in TDKSA he meant serious business, but Batman wans't alone anymore, he was ready to defeat anyone with his Justice League that Superman ultimately even helps.

 

[Godzilla2014]

No clue, but Lex Luthor is one of the smartest men on the planet. And he has created more impressive technology than Batman.

Keep in mind that, last time I checked, Batman hasn't had the need to create much anti-Kryptonian technology.

And what does it matter? This is Superman Vs Batman, not Superman Vs Alt-Verse Superman. Clearly the Speeding Bullets Batman doesn't count for the discussion as it's actually Kal-El. And frankly, if you're trying to pit Kal-El against himself, then you may as well be conceeding that the real Batman can't win.

True.

Each and every one of which has been exploited by his rogues gallery, and they all failed. Besides, the other weaknesses are red sunlight and magic. Batman's not a magician, so magic's no good for him, and Luthor's tried exploiting red sunlight plenty of times.

Batman also has human limitations, but his villains' attempts to use that against him have failed, so I guess that Superman couldn't use that either? What's the point of those weaknesses if they couldn't possibly work?

Because there're legions of Batman fanboys who're convinced that Batman could take down the Celestials with enough prep time. In that regard Captain America fans are probably less rabid and more logical.

I wasn't talking about why Batman always beats Superman, I was talking about why the battle itself is popular, regardless of the outcome is or should be. I don't think that it's that Captain America fans are any more logical, but it's not like he's shown beating Thor very often, whereas Batman defeats Superman each time they battle. Why? Because, so long as Batman remains human with no true superpowers, he is inherently the underdog, while Superman is the alien overlord.
Furthermore, these days, with contemporary America's distrust in our government in the fallout of the Watergate scandal, Superman is easily seen as embodying "might makes right" not "right makes might" as he was in his prime of popularity, and Batman plays by rules that he believes in. This is the symbolic context of the Batman vs Superman battle in Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns.

Yep, blame the Batman fans for not accepting comic loyalty.

Batman vs Superman is a battle that I think is appealing because the heroes themselves are so different. They have completely different philosophies and completely different methods of accomplishing a similar goal. That part is interesting, but I am not so interested in the fact Superman's power level vs Batman's power level kind of makes it more about power, not those ideas. This is why prefer it with Superman's powers neutralized to some degree, such as when he's under the effects from Blue Kryptonite or red sunlight, so the ideas come to the fore.

Kryptonite or Batman using magic won't save him from the man whos faster than the speed of thought and light.

This kind of stuff is exactly the kind of problem I have with Superman as he is today. Even outside of the context of this battle, his archenemy is Lex Luthor, a human even weaker than Batman. What's the point of either Batman or Lex using weaknesses like Kryptonite when Superman's power should make it a non-factor?
I certainly think that, in terms of this battle, Batman should be allowed the same type of tools and methods Lex Luthor uses against Superman to great effect.

Batman would win simply because of the nature of the characters.

Superman could clearly pulverize Batman -- he has a clear physical edge, regardless of Batman's training, endurance, armor, gadgets, etc. One blast from the eyes, one superspeed punch, one mile-high bodyslam into the pavement ... and Bruce is toast. If Clark went "Bane" on Bruce's ass, Bruce would take much longer to heal.

But, Clark is, at heart, good. He isn't Bane -- even though he's stronger than Bane. He would pull his punches. He would fight to stalemate, not to obliterate. That is the fundamental nature of the character. The problem is that Bruce knows this.

Batman is, at heart, a Machiavellian. He wouldn't hold back. He wouldn't pull his punches. He would fight dirty. The ends justify the means. He is likely slightly smarter than Clark, and can use Clark's goodness to his advantage. It really isn't a matter of who I'd want to win ... I just think Bruce has the edge because he is suspicious of Clark, he knows Clark's weakness, and he knows Clark would hold back. He knows he won't get his back broken over Clark's knee, he won't get bodyslammed, he won't get immolated by heat vision. He'll get a fistfight with a good guy -- and, in that, Bruce has a good chance of emerging on top.

JB

Pretty much. While Batman should not win against Superman from the powers standpoint, he does because he has better tactics and skills. It is brains over brawn, even if Superman is *technically* smarter than Batman, Batman must use his brain to fight smarter.
That said, a more realistic alternative would be for Batman to lead of much more powerful people to help him defeat Superman, or develop an armor to do so.

 

[Drz]

Keep in mind that, last time I checked, Batman hasn't had the need to create much anti-Kryptonian technology.

And even if he has what good is it going to provide? Also since we're talking lovely crazy science fiction, lets remember Superman can see into the future, so yeah i'm gonna pull the "Superman knows the technology so he builds anti-anti-kryptonian technology to laugh at Batman". Yeah i'm going there.

Batman also has human limitations, but his villains' attempts to use that against him have failed, so I guess that Superman couldn't use that either? What's the point of those weaknesses if they couldn't possibly work?

Tension, Drama, Excitment.

I wasn't talking about why Batman always beats Superman

He doesn't.

I was talking about why the battle itself is popular

Because Batman fans are stubborn.

egardless of the outcome is or should be. I don't think that it's that Captain America fans are any more logical

This is coming from the Batman fan whos willing to root for Batman againts Superman and Captain America when he doesn't know much about either opponent.

Furthermore, these days, with contemporary America's distrust in our government in the fallout of the Watergate scandal, Superman is easily seen as embodying "might makes right" not "right makes might" as he was in his prime of popularity, and Batman plays by rules that he believes in. This is the symbolic context of the Batman vs Superman battle in Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns.

Again you're just talking Miller's Superman in the context of the story which even Miller has said he did it for the story, this isn't what Miller's Superman would ever be, and even the TDKR Superman turns againts the government, because it's the right thing to do. Stop ignoring context.

They have completely different philosophies and completely different methods of accomplishing a similar goal.

Both are about helping the world and expanding their greatness/heroism and inspiring the people to do the right thing. Both are againts murder or the government control, both utilize their brains and skills and technological advantages. They're the world's finest.

That part is interesting, but I am not so interested in the fact Superman's power level vs Batman's power level kind of makes it more about power, not those ideas. This is why prefer it with Superman's powers neutralized to some degree, such as when he's under the effects from Blue Kryptonite or red sunlight, so the ideas come to the fore.

So you prefer having Superman as the underdog, Batman as the brilliant tactiian and thus the brilliant overlord wins, wait didn't you just say Batman was suppose to be the underdog here? I mean when you keep making Superman so dumb that he doesn't use his powers, he isn't smarter than a normal crook whos scared, it's really Superman whos the underdog and it should be Superman you're rooting for.

This kind of stuff is exactly the kind of problem I have with Superman as he is today. Even outside of the context of this battle, his archenemy is Lex Luthor, a human even weaker than Batman.

Thats because the beaty of Superman and Lex Luthor isn't a brawl, it's the different ideals and flaws of the villain just like with Joker and Batman, thats also what makes Joker and Luthor such a great duo of villains, they're so different yet they see themselves as criminal geniuses:

Maybe just maybe you should start reading Superman comics to actual get some acknowledgement of the character you constantly keep debating againts.

What's the point of either Batman or Lex using weaknesses like Kryptonite when Superman's power should make it a non-factor?
I certainly think that, in terms of this battle, Batman should be allowed the same type of tools and methods Lex Luthor uses against Superman to great effect.

And if we use Superman at his full potential and not as the underdog, he'd win the day faster than thought.

That said, a more realistic alternative would be for Batman to lead of much more powerful people to help him defeat Superman, or develop an armor to do so.

Thats where it fails, you need to make an armor to *survive* a Superman, not defeat.

 

[Captain Marvel]

Batman also has human limitations, but his villains' attempts to use that against him have failed, so I guess that Superman couldn't use that either? What's the point of those weaknesses if they couldn't possibly work?

Because they're all equally as human as he? This is an incredibly asinine comment. Because a bunch of villains with normal human strength can't beat Batman, you think a guy who punches out gods can't likewise overcome him?

I wasn't talking about why Batman always beats Superman

He doesn't.

I was talking about why the battle itself is popular, regardless of the outcome is or should be. I don't think that it's that Captain America fans are any more logical, but it's not like he's shown beating Thor very often, whereas Batman defeats Superman each time they battle. Why? Because, so long as Batman remains human with no true superpowers, he is inherently the underdog, while Superman is the alien overlord.

Once again, look upthread. Scans were put up where Superman beat Batman like a rented mule.

This kind of stuff is exactly the kind of problem I have with Superman as he is today. Even outside of the context of this battle, his archenemy is Lex Luthor, a human even weaker than Batman.

You have it backwards, chief. Batman doesn't compare at all to Lex Luthor. This is what we're talking about, after all.

The argument that Luthor is weaker than Batman is as silly as saying that Tony Stark is weaker than Daredevil. Sure, in a barehanded fist fight Tony Stark would be at a disadvantage, but Tony Stark doesn't go into fights in a business suit. He goes into them wearing his Iron Man armor. Likewise, when Luthor goes into a fight, he wears his battlesuit. And when he wears his battlesuit he's far beyond anything Batman can do.

I certainly think that, in terms of this battle, Batman should be allowed the same type of tools and methods Lex Luthor uses against Superman to great effect.

Um, no. Why? Because they're not the same character. One's Batman, the other's Lex Luthor. Why should Batman be using the same resources as Lex? Moreover, Batman isn't the power armor type. After decades as a superhero, he's remained primarily a martial artist and gadget guy.

That said, a more realistic alternative would be for Batman to lead of much more powerful people to help him defeat Superman, or develop an armor to do so.

So you concede that Batman can't take Superman. I accept your concession.

 

[Godzilla2014]

And even if he has what good is it going to provide? Also since we're talking lovely crazy science fiction, lets remember Superman can see into the future, so yeah i'm gonna pull the "Superman knows the technology so he builds anti-anti-kryptonian technology to laugh at Batman". Yeah i'm going there.

What? Is this a common power?

Tension, Drama, Excitment.

Which doesn't mean anything if, quite frankly, his power should invalidate it.

He doesn't.

In the comics he does.

Because Batman fans are stubborn.

And writers keep bringing it up.

This is coming from the Batman fan whos willing to root for Batman againts Superman and Captain America when he doesn't know much about either opponent.

Fine, I haven't read every issue of every character. Sue me.

Again you're just talking Miller's Superman in the context of the story which even Miller has said he did it for the story, this isn't what Miller's Superman would ever be, and even the TDKR Superman turns againts the government, because it's the right thing to do. Stop ignoring context.

Yes I was, I even said so.

Both are about helping the world and expanding their greatness/heroism and inspiring the people to do the right thing. Both are againts murder or the government control, both utilize their brains and skills and technological advantages. They're the world's finest.

Yes, both believe in similar things, but they are very different characters. Batman is a dark, grim character, but Superman is a light, cheery character. Superman is a very powerful character, but Batman is only human. Ironically, they have similar costumes:

So you prefer having Superman as the underdog, Batman as the brilliant tactiian and thus the brilliant overlord wins, wait didn't you just say Batman was suppose to be the underdog here? I mean when you keep making Superman so dumb that he doesn't use his powers, he isn't smarter than a normal crook whos scared, it's really Superman whos the underdog and it should be Superman you're rooting for.

No. Batman is the underdog because he has to fight tooth and nail to do what Superman could do without even paying attention. Superman flattens things that give Batman trouble. Batman fights smarter because he has to.

Thats because the beaty of Superman and Lex Luthor isn't a brawl, it's the different ideals and flaws of the villain just like with Joker and Batman, thats also what makes Joker and Luthor such a great duo of villains, they're so different yet they see themselves as criminal geniuses:

Maybe just maybe you should start reading Superman comics to actual get some acknowledgement of the character you constantly keep debating againts.

Could you point me in the direction of some great examples of the rivalry between Superman and Lex Luthor, preferably that I could find in a TPB?

Thats where it fails, you need to make an armor to *survive* a Superman, not defeat.

I remember Batman once made an armor to fight Bizarro alongside Superman and Wonder Woman in a Trinity comic? Granted, the throat armor was dented in and Batman nearly choked, but I know he's done it.