# Superman < Batman < Iron Man



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 7, 2015)

Err... kind of. 
It seems Neil DeGrasse Tyson believes Batman would beat Superman in a battle of... public opinion. In a cage fight? Not so much. He'd rather see Batman VS Iron Man, and Iron Man would win that one.

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/How-...rman-According-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson-86857.html

I'd agree with that. Iron Man has nicer toys.


----------



## Tonguez (Oct 7, 2015)

Batman hits Ironman with a Whiskey bomb, Tony Stark can't resist and Jarvis gets shut down.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 8, 2015)

I like the idea of Batman being at the top of the superhero food chain. Not sure why. Maybe it seems deserved. Not because of his parents, but because he as the discipline to get there. Or maybe its the black tights.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 8, 2015)

Bah.  They all get beat by Squirrel Girl.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 8, 2015)

Maybe Amalgame Comics could make a Batsquirrel comic. Or Mangirl...


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 8, 2015)

I've got Batman's back on this one. Stark has an ego problem and Batman is as Machiavellian as they come. You can have all the best toys and still fail, because you're over confident.


----------



## megamania (Oct 8, 2015)

Wayne Instrudies "special projects" division would wip up some nanites and Tony in his underpants would face off against Batman.


----------



## megamania (Oct 8, 2015)

These hero vs hero ideas always get me going.  It always comes down to writer and company.   Anyone can beat anyone under the correct conditions-  "Any given Sunday".


----------



## Umbran (Oct 8, 2015)

megamania said:


> Wayne Instrudies "special projects" division would wip up some nanites and Tony in his underpants would face off against Batman.




That, of course, is not an apples-to-apples comparison - it assumes that Wayne knows the conflict is coming, and has time to apply his corporate resources, and Stark does not.  This reduces the situation to, "If I give the advantage to one side, that side wins," which is kind of trivial, no?


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 8, 2015)

megamania said:


> These hero vs hero ideas always get me going.  It always comes down to writer and company.   Anyone can beat anyone under the correct conditions-  "Any given Sunday".




Machinima Prime occasionally does good stuff along these lines:

[video=youtube;nj23dwWHukY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj23dwWHukY&list=PLrFaRFw9s4G6aWh6U0dEsac9DMnl_UPts[/video]


----------



## delericho (Oct 9, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> It seems Neil DeGrasse Tyson believes Batman would beat Superman in a battle of... public opinion.




Doubtful. Superman represents hope, while Batman's whole approach is to engender fear. And people tend to vote for hope.



> He'd rather see Batman VS Iron Man, and Iron Man would win that one.




That's an interesting match-up. But not a realistic one, I think - both Bruce and Tony know very well the benefits of preparation, of picking the battleground, and of out-thinking as well as out-fighting your opponent. So I doubt either would go willingly into that cage.

Instead, I suspect they'd find themselves fighting a long and dirty turf war, across both their business and super-hero lives. And, eventually, I think Tony would probably (just) come out on top - simply because Bruce has some lines he simply will not cross, while Tony appears to be just that bit more cynical when it comes to it.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 9, 2015)

delericho said:


> Doubtful. Superman represents hope, while Batman's whole approach is to engender fear. And people tend to vote for hope.



That's true.



> That's an interesting match-up. But not a realistic one, I think - both Bruce and Tony know very well the benefits of preparation, of picking the battleground, and of out-thinking as well as out-fighting your opponent. So I doubt either would go willingly into that cage.
> 
> Instead, I suspect they'd find themselves fighting a long and dirty turf war, across both their business and super-hero lives. And, eventually, I think Tony would probably (just) come out on top - simply because Bruce has some lines he simply will not cross, while Tony appears to be just that bit more cynical when it comes to it.



I don't know about Tony (just) come out on top. I think he'd finish the Bat rather quickly. Most of Iron Man's tech is more advanced than Batman's. Also, as you mentioned, Tony is more cynical and willing to go further.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 9, 2015)

Superman also represents, today, the imposition of one person's morality on others. That's why Lex Luthor is really the saviour of humanity


----------



## megamania (Oct 9, 2015)

Umbran said:


> That, of course, is not an apples-to-apples comparison - it assumes that Wayne knows the conflict is coming, and has time to apply his corporate resources, and Stark does not.  This reduces the situation to, "If I give the advantage to one side, that side wins," which is kind of trivial, no?




If Batman has taken the time and resources to plan how to defeat every member of the JL then he would the Marvel people also.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 9, 2015)

megamania said:


> If Batman has taken the time and resources to plan how to defeat every member of the JL then he would the Marvel people also.




He already beat the Hulk in a comic book crossover.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 9, 2015)

I don't see that Stark's tech is better than Wayne's.  Both are billionaire tech giants.  Bruce has a more visceral, physical preference, sure, but he's suited up in hi-tech gear when needed, punched out Superman, built the Justice League Watchtower (either as a space station or a moonbase depending on the version). If he wants an Iron Man suit, he can build one. I'm sure he has a Bat-equivalent.

I can't see Stark has anything Wayne can't have.  He's just Bruce Wayne, but without the training.  Other than that, they have pretty much identical resources and capabilities.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 9, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I don't see that Stark's tech is better than Wayne's.  Both are billionaire tech giants.  Bruce has a more visceral, physical preference, sure, but he's suited up in hi-tech gear when needed, punched out Superman, built the Justice League Watchtower (either as a space station or a moonbase depending on the version). If he wants an Iron Man suit, he can build one. I'm sure he has a Bat-equivalent.
> 
> I can't see Stark has anything Wayne can't have.  He's just Bruce Wayne, but without the training.  Other than that, they have pretty much identical resources and capabilities.




Isn't that essentially what he built (along with Kryptonite) to lay the beat-down on Superman?


----------



## Morrus (Oct 10, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Isn't that essentially what he built (along with Kryptonite) to lay the beat-down on Superman?




Nah. It was tough (not tough enough, but tough) but it didn't fly, have repulsor beams, or integrated weaponry.

None of those things are beyond him, of course. He built a moonbase! His taste just tends towards the awesome planes and cars and stuff. Mine does, too.  Stark prefers a suit. Batman likes stealth and infiltration; Iron Man enjoys grandstanding. I'm sure Stark can build a Batmobile, and Wayne can build a suit. Just not their styles. 

The difference is Wayne can fight.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 10, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Nah. It was tough (not tough enough, but tough) but it didn't fly, have repulsor beams, or integrated weaponry.
> 
> None of those things are beyond him, of course. He built a moonbase! His taste just tends towards the awesome planes and cars and stuff. Mine does, too.  Stark prefers a suit. Batman likes stealth and infiltration; Iron Man enjoys grandstanding. I'm sure Stark can build a Batmobile, and Wayne can build a suit. Just not their styles.
> 
> The difference is Wayne can fight.




Didn't Stark get fight training from Captain America? He may not have the same level of fighting proficiency as Wayne, but he can hold his own. Also, I don't think he would be fighting Batman without his suit, so the fighting ability wouldn't much matter.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 10, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Nah. It was tough (not tough enough, but tough) but it didn't fly, have repulsor beams, or integrated weaponry.
> 
> None of those things are beyond him, of course. He built a moonbase! His taste just tends towards the awesome planes and cars and stuff. Mine does, too.  Stark prefers a suit. Batman likes stealth and infiltration; Iron Man enjoys grandstanding. I'm sure Stark can build a Batmobile, and Wayne can build a suit. Just not their styles.
> 
> The difference is Wayne can fight.




Obviously not with flight and repulsor ray tech, but I thought that it was at least a powered suit.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 10, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I can't see Stark has anything Wayne can't have.  He's just Bruce Wayne, but without the training.




Stark is somewhat more than that.  Bruce Wayne is bright, but Tony Stark is one of the top minds on the planet - second to Reed Richards, but perhaps nobody else.

To quote wikipedia:

_"Tony Stark is an inventive genius whose expertise in the fields of mathematics, physics, chemistry, and computer science rivals that of Reed Richards, Hank Pym, and Bruce Banner, and his expertise in electrical engineering and mechanical engineering surpasses even theirs. He is regarded as one of the most intelligent characters in the Marvel Universe. 
...
His expertise extends to his ingenuity in dealing with difficult situations, such as difficult foes and deathtraps, in which he is capable of using available tools, including his suit, in unorthodox but effective ways. He is well respected in the business world, able to command people's attention when he speaks on economic matters, having over the years built up several multi-million dollar companies from virtually nothing. "_

So, yes, Wayne has Stark on the combat training front.  But Wayne can't rig up a gizmo to open a portal to another dimension, while Stark probably can.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 10, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Stark is somewhat more than that.  Bruce Wayne is bright, but Tony Stark is one of the top minds on the planet - second to Reed Richards, but perhaps nobody else.
> 
> To quote wikipedia:
> 
> ...




So, based on the Wikipedia entry for Batman, pretty close to the same skillset plus perfect physical condition and martial arts expertise.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 10, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Stark is somewhat more than that.  Bruce Wayne is bright, but Tony Stark is one of the top minds on the planet - second to Reed Richards, but perhaps nobody else.
> 
> To quote wikipedia:
> 
> ...




Pretty sure he has done. He's certainly used Motherbox tech and been to Apocalips and such. Wayne is no slouch - moon base, remember?  He's one of the great minds of the DC Universe and the world's greatest detective. He's beaten tech advanced foes like Stark. He worked out to take out the entire Justice League with ease. 

But that "yeah but..." exchange can continue forever, and it's ultimately nonsense. Whoever  one wants to win wins. There's no logic or continuity or consistence to apply here!


----------



## megamania (Oct 10, 2015)

Wayne didn't built the bases and the such.  He paid for them.  Stark is a builder.   That was clearly stated in the irksome Ironman III.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 10, 2015)

megamania said:


> Wayne didn't built the bases and the such.  He paid for them.  Stark is a builder.   That was clearly stated in the irksome Ironman III.




I don't imagine Stark physically built the Avengers Tower himself, either. Both of them have better things to do than measure doorframes and plumbing.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 10, 2015)

Morrus said:


> He's one of the great minds of the DC Universe



That he is, but is he on the level of Tony Stark? I don't know. It's debatable. He is probably close, though.


> and the world's greatest detective.



 In the middle of a fight that's like being the world's greatest 
I mean, what's he going to do, determine it's Iron Man's foot that left the print on his face? If we were talking about who would solve  case faster, Batman would probably have a leg up in that competition. I mean, Iron Man could have probably used him to figure out who Red Hulk was, and we would have been spared a bunch of terrible comics.


> He's beaten tech advanced foes like Stark.



Eh... that's debatable. I mean, Stark has that Extremis virus stuff going on now, right? He has a bunch of new nifty abilities with it.


> He worked out to take out the entire Justice League with ease.



Don't get me wrong, I like Batman, but sometimes it seems writers go a bit overboard. If Batman is able to defeat the Justice League with ease, why can't all the others do it? Batman can't be the only one in the DC universe that can figure it out, right?

Now, given that both Batman and Iron Man are highly intelligent and plan things out, if you give them time to prepare for one another, they would probably never fight. They'd be stuck in their respective bases trying to ensure that when they meet, they'd be able to one-up each other with their tech and tactics.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 10, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Pretty sure he has done. He's certainly used Motherbox tech and been to Apocalips and such




Used yes.  But not *built*.   Lots of folks have used a Mother Box (including Stark!).  Heck, a Mother Box is sentient - using it often amounts to asking it nicely and having it agree with your desired ends!



> He worked out to take out the entire Justice League with ease.




As noted before, yes, if you give one character a particular advantage (like, state in backstory that he worked all this out before the encounter begins) then of course your favored side will will the encounter.  

Interestingly, Batman is smart enough to work out ways to defeat the entire JLA, but *not* smart enough to keep the information out of Ra's al Ghul's hands.  Real genius, there!


----------



## megamania (Oct 11, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel;6726964Now said:
			
		

> Tony would become impatient and start with parent jokes.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 11, 2015)

megamania said:


> Tony would become impatient and start with parent jokes.




Bruce is also a lot more tactical than Tony.  He'd be able to anticipate Tony fairly easily and prepare ways to defeat him.  Batman wins this match up.


----------



## Alzrius (Oct 12, 2015)

I doubt it makes much difference, but for what it's worth Tony also has more money than Bruce.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 12, 2015)

Alzrius said:


> I doubt it makes much difference, but for what it's worth Tony also has more money than Bruce.




It doesn't make any difference whatsoever.  Neither one drives themselves anywhere near broke with their creations.  It's like saying that Tony's swimming pool has 10,000 gallons more water than Bruce's.  You don't use all of the water in the pool when swimming.  The rest of the water just sits there.


----------



## delericho (Oct 12, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> It doesn't make any difference whatsoever.  Neither one drives themselves anywhere near broke with their creations.




I'm not so sure. Per "Dark Knight Rises", Bruce's money supply is vulnerable, and Tony has both the expertise and the willingness to exploit something like that. Cut off the money supply, and you quickly cut off his supply of cool toys.

Bane's only real mistake in DKR was that he should have left someone watching Bruce - to make sure he was indeed watching that TV Bane left for him. Said goon would then have been conveniently well-placed to deal with Bruce's magical healing ability when they manifested.

But in terms of Tony vs Bruce, I do think it would pretty quickly shift away from the physical arena and into a more business-oriented arena. Because both those guys are pretty dependent on their gear, and thus on the money that provides that gear.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 12, 2015)

megamania said:


> Tony would become impatient and start with parent jokes.



I can see Tony easily winning the insult battle.


----------



## Tonguez (Oct 12, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> It doesn't make any difference whatsoever.  Neither one drives themselves anywhere near broke with their creations.  It's like saying that Tony's swimming pool has 10,000 gallons more water than Bruce's.  You don't use all of the water in the pool when swimming.  The rest of the water just sits there.




I always liked the line when Bruce offers to organise a fundraiser for Harvey Dent
Bruce: Well, I'm sold. Dent, I'm going to throw you a fundraiser.
Harvey: That's very nice of you Bruce, but I'm not up for election for another three years. [Bruce interrupts]
Bruce: No, no, no, you don't understand. _One party with my pals, and you'll never have to worry about another cent_.​


Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I can see Tony easily winning the insult battle.




Batman doesn't do insults, he does intimidation. Batman would find and exploit Starks fears and weaknesses and then apply them tactically.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 12, 2015)

Tonguez said:


> Batman doesn't do insults, he does intimidation.




Stark's ego makes him largely immune to intimidation.  He faces off with gods, *without his armor* without blinking.  



> Batman would find and exploit Starks fears and weaknesses and then apply them tactically.




Looking back, I find one of Stark's fortes is, "having one more thing up my sleeve you don't know about".  He doesn't stick with one set of armor for long, and he is always changing, improving, and swapping bits out, so knowing his exact capabilities, strengths, and weaknesses is difficult.

As for his fears - the guy is a (usually) recovered alcoholic.  He's already been to the bottom.  It is kind of hard to find something new to scare him with.

We can play this game for *weeks*


----------



## Umbran (Oct 12, 2015)

delericho said:


> But in terms of Tony vs Bruce, I do think it would pretty quickly shift away from the physical arena and into a more business-oriented arena. Because both those guys are pretty dependent on their gear, and thus on the money that provides that gear.




Both Bruce and Tony have, at various points in their careers, been without their financial backing.  So, yes, both are vulnerable there.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 12, 2015)

Tonguez said:


> Batman doesn't do insults, he does intimidation. Batman would find and exploit Starks fears and weaknesses and then apply them tactically.



Yeah, I'm not sure how good Batman really is at scaring and intimidating people. He dresses up as a bat, so criminals can "share his fear." That would be great in a non-super-powered universe with beings that look far scarier than Batman. Batman wouldn't be able to figure out Iron Man's fears, not because he isn't smart enough, but because when it comes to fear, Batman is lazy and just figures he can make people afraid of what he is afraid. Also, Iron Man probably isn't afraid of much. At least nothing hat Batman can actually use. If you really think about it, Iron Man has faced some pretty scary enemies. I mean, Fin Fang Foom is a freaking giant dragon monster thing, and Stark didn't seem afraid. What is Batman going to do to try and scare him?


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 13, 2015)

delericho said:


> I'm not so sure. Per "Dark Knight Rises", Bruce's money supply is vulnerable, and Tony has both the expertise and the willingness to exploit something like that. Cut off the money supply, and you quickly cut off his supply of cool toys.
> 
> Bane's only real mistake in DKR was that he should have left someone watching Bruce - to make sure he was indeed watching that TV Bane left for him. Said goon would then have been conveniently well-placed to deal with Bruce's magical healing ability when they manifested.
> 
> But in terms of Tony vs Bruce, I do think it would pretty quickly shift away from the physical arena and into a more business-oriented arena. Because both those guys are pretty dependent on their gear, and thus on the money that provides that gear.




Outside of Dark Knight Rises I haven't known Bruce to be vulnerable like that.  Movies take liberties and I wouldn't place too much stock in that aspect.  Bruce is far, far more ruthless than Tony every will be, in every arena.  However, if you want to pull movies into it, Stark lost control of his business to Stane, so it's a wash 

I just googled and in the New Avengers as of just a few months ago, Tony is broke.  No idea why or for how long.

And Umbran is right.  We can do this for days.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 13, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> I just googled and in the New Avengers as of just a few months ago, Tony is broke.  No idea why or for how long.




The real reason why is that you get better stories when you shake up what is assumed to be a 'given' for a character.  Since, 'rich' is a given for both, over the course of their history, each has had to make do without their moneybags.

And, of course, each has come back from that same state.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 13, 2015)

Umbran said:


> The real reason why is that you get better stories when you shake up what is assumed to be a 'given' for a character.  Since, 'rich' is a given for both, over the course of their history, each has had to make do without their moneybags.
> 
> And, of course, each has come back from that same state.




Yeah, I knew why the writers went about making him broke.  I don't know specifically why it happened in the comic.


----------



## delericho (Oct 13, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Outside of Dark Knight Rises I haven't known Bruce to be vulnerable like that.  Movies take liberties and I wouldn't place too much stock in that aspect. ... However, if you want to pull movies into it, Stark lost control of his business to Stane, so it's a wash




Yeah, my point was not "Tony wins, because money", but rather "money matters".



> Bruce is far, far more ruthless than Tony every will be, in every arena.




Well, except that Bruce _won't_ kill and _won't_ use guns; Tony has no problem with either.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 13, 2015)

delericho said:


> Yeah, my point was not "Tony wins, because money", but rather "money matters".
> 
> Well, except that Bruce _won't_ kill and _won't_ use guns; Tony has no problem with either.




Money matters and they both have enough money to use, so it's still a wash.  Since it's a wash, it then goes to planning and Bruce blows Tony out of the water with both planning and ruthlessness.  As for guns, the Batmobile had guns in one of the movies, since you like to use the movies, and Batman has used guns many times in the comics, so yes Bruce will use guns.  He just doesn't use them unless they are necessary to win.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 13, 2015)

And just as an FYI, some of Batman's "Iron Man" type suits of the years have had blasters/lasers, so he's not against using them if he needs to.

https://numberonebatfan.wordpress.com/2014/11/08/top-5-coolest-batman-exo-suits/


----------



## delericho (Oct 13, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Money matters and they both have enough money to use, so it's still a wash.  Since it's a wash, it then goes to planning and Bruce blows Tony out of the water with both planning and ruthlessness.




If you're going to discount money because they've both got plenty, then I'm going to discount planning and ruthlessness too, since again, they've both got plenty. So it's a wash all around.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 13, 2015)

delericho said:


> If you're going to discount money because they've both got plenty, then I'm going to discount planning and ruthlessness too, since again, they've both got plenty. So it's a wash all around.




Except they both really do have so much money that it just doesn't matter.  If they are only every going to use 10% or less of their wealth on the endeavor, it's irrelevant how much they have.  Now, if this was a contest on who could beat the other 20 times first, THEN money would play a part.  Planning and ruthlessness on the other hand, does matter.  Unlike money, the vastly greater amount of planning and ruthlessness possessed by Bruce leaves Tony with no chance.  The two things are not equal, so they can't be discounted equally.


----------



## delericho (Oct 13, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Planning and ruthlessness on the other hand, does matter.  Unlike money, the vastly greater amount of planning and ruthlessness possessed by Bruce leaves Tony with no chance.




Nope. Because Bruce's alleged ruthlessness fails when it _really_ matters. He _won't_ kill. Which means Tony gets to come back, and when he does he won't make the same mistake.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 13, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Planning and ruthlessness on the other hand, does matter.  Unlike money, the vastly greater amount of planning and ruthlessness possessed by Bruce leaves Tony with no chance.




Did you, by chance, read Civil War?  Because I don't think there's much call to say that somehow Batman is notably more ruthless - Batman may have planned to take down his fellow Justice League members.  But Stark actually did go after his friends and allies, using deadly force, psychological manipulation, the whole banana.


----------



## megamania (Oct 13, 2015)

Tony is a real....... can't say it here.   

Changing the subject some but it seems Tony as changed over time as our thoughts of big industry change.    In the 60's he was a force of good.   In the 80's it was "drunk" on its rising power.    Now-  too powerful.......


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 13, 2015)

Maybe they'll try to seduce the other guy's girl(s), to hurt the other's feelings.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 13, 2015)

megamania said:


> Tony is a real....... can't say it here.




Yep.  No argument here.  I think the movies are doing a better job of making him be a real ..... seem at least understandable than the comics do.  Robert Downey Jr actually has some experience of being the jerk at the bottom of a bottle, and he does an excellent job of depicting the complexity.



> Changing the subject some but it seems Tony as changed over time as our thoughts of big industry change.




Yes.  I think that's one of the cool things about the character, actually.  He's so useful in that sense.  He can even be used to show how industry is a good and a bad thing in the same darned issue of a comic!


----------



## Tonguez (Oct 13, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I like the idea of Batman being at the top of the superhero food chain. Not sure why. Maybe it seems deserved. Not because of his parents, but because he as the discipline to get there. Or maybe its the black tights.




I agree to some degree and actually think that this is why Batman wins every time. Batman knows he is physically weaker than his super opponents and in this case that includes a suited-up Ironman. Batman has great physical health and skills but in the end he doesn't rely on them. What he does rely on is his tactical mind, his willpower and ruthlessness. 

I even think that covers his not using guns - everyone else has a crutch, be it a gun, ironmans suit or Supermans powers, but every one of those things is a slight distraction that can be exploited and that its where Batman succeeds. He has learnt to exploit the distractions 

Batman represents the common mans fight against the gods, we all know that Bruce Wayne is just a disguise

but I have to agree with Umbran, Ironman following the zeitgeist of the industrial economy is the coolest apsect of his character


----------



## Umbran (Oct 13, 2015)

Tonguez said:


> Batman represents the common mans fight against the gods, we all know that Bruce Wayne is just a disguise




Except there is nothing "common" about Bruce Wayne.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 14, 2015)

delericho said:


> Nope. Because Bruce's alleged ruthlessness fails when it _really_ matters. He _won't_ kill. Which means Tony gets to come back, and when he does he won't make the same mistake.




We aren't discussing killing though, only who would beat who.  Thank you for finally admitting that Tony "gets to come back" after Bruce whoops his rear


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 14, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Did you, by chance, read Civil War?  Because I don't think there's much call to say that somehow Batman is notably more ruthless - Batman may have planned to take down his fellow Justice League members.  But Stark actually did go after his friends and allies, using deadly force, psychological manipulation, the whole banana.




Batman successfully faced down Darkseid with a bomb because he was willing to do what was necessary and Darkseid knew it.  To answer your question, though, no I didn't read that.  Tony probably became more ruthless than I remember.


----------



## Tonguez (Oct 14, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Except there is nothing "common" about Bruce Wayne.




yep and thats what makes it such a brilliant disguise


----------



## Umbran (Oct 14, 2015)

Tonguez said:


> yep and thats what makes it such a brilliant disguise




But makes him a lousy stand in for the "common man".


----------



## delericho (Oct 14, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> We aren't discussing killing though, only who would beat who.  Thank you for finally admitting that Tony "gets to come back" after Bruce whoops his rear




*If* Bruce whoops his rear. I don't acknowledge that that's a sure thing in the first place.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 14, 2015)

delericho said:


> *If* Bruce whoops his rear. I don't acknowledge that that's a sure thing in the first place.




You didn't say if, you said "And *when* Tony gets back..."  However, if you want to back pedal, that's fine.  Taking back what has already happened is very comic book like.


----------



## Staffan (Oct 15, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Yep.  No argument here.  I think the movies are doing a better job of making him be a real ..... seem at least understandable than the comics do.  Robert Downey Jr actually has some experience of being the jerk at the bottom of a bottle, and he does an excellent job of depicting the complexity.



Yeah, my thought when I heard Robert Downey Jr had been cast as Tony Stark was "Well, if someone knows how to play an arrogant playboy with a substance abuse problem..."


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 16, 2015)

Turns out that Bruce Wayne would get beaten like a redheaded step-child by Tony Stark. 

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2015/10/th...e-to-bruce-wayne-and-hello-to-the-new-batman/


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 16, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Turns out that Bruce Wayne would get beaten like a redheaded step-child by Tony Stark.
> 
> http://www.kotaku.com.au/2015/10/th...e-to-bruce-wayne-and-hello-to-the-new-batman/




Not Batman though. I could see Batman hacking Stark's proven porous armour security and making it tent-stake him like Wile-E-Coyote with a sledgehammer.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 16, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Not Batman though. I could see Batman hacking Stark's proven porous armour security and making it tent-stake him like Wile-E-Coyote with a sledgehammer.



Ummm... you do know Bruce Wayne is Batman, right?


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 16, 2015)

Damn it, Squirrel! Spoilers! Spoilers!


----------



## Tonguez (Oct 16, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Ummm... you do know Bruce Wayne is Batman, right?




well and Damian Wayne, Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, Kirk Langstrom, Terry McGinnis,Tim Drake and apparently Jim Gordon


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 16, 2015)

You forgot the Joker.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 16, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Ummm... you do know Bruce Wayne is Batman, right?




There is no Bruce Wayne. There is only The Bat.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 16, 2015)

Tonguez said:


> well and Damian Wayne, Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, Kirk Langstrom, Terry McGinnis,Tim Drake and apparently Jim Gordon



Yeah, no. Those guys were cheap replacements. They were never really Batman. They may have put on his tights, but you know you didn't consider them Batman.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 16, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> There is no Bruce Wayne. There is only The Bat.



You mean BATs, right?


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 16, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Damn it, Squirrel! Spoilers! Spoilers!




Wuahahahaha!!!! Sufferrrrrrrr... Also, Tony Stark is Iron Man.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 16, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Wuahahahaha!!!! Sufferrrrrrrr... Also, Tony Stark is Iron Man.




I thought it was Clark Kent, aka the Man of Steel.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 16, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> You mean BATs, right?
> 
> View attachment 71163




A pale android imitation, created so that SOMETHING could finally be 'killed' in that show.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 16, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> A pale android imitation, created so that SOMETHING could finally be 'killed' in that show.



They made the show better.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Oct 18, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Yeah, no. Those guys were cheap replacements. They were never really Batman. They may have put on his tights, but you know you didn't consider them Batman.




Dick put in the time and effort before he wore the Batsuit. I'd give him a not as "The Batman" if Bruce isn't around.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 19, 2015)

Lord Mhoram said:


> Dick put in the time and effort before he wore the Batsuit. I'd give him a not as "The Batman" if Bruce isn't around.



Yeah, he may have had a better claim to being Batman than the other replacements, but you know he was still just a cheap replacement. He was like the Pepsi One of Batman, just one calorie, not Batman enough.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 19, 2015)

It's not as if Bruce isn't going to come back and be Batman again.  He'll eventually get his memory back and be good as new.


----------



## CaptainGemini (Oct 19, 2015)

Unless they've made it not canon (I can't keep up), Batman would always win against Superman... and Superman set it up that way. Gave Batman some Kryptonite so that Batman could act as a check and balance against him.

Now, Batman vs. Iron Man... I would pay to see that fight.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 19, 2015)

CaptainGemini said:


> Unless they've made it not canon (I can't keep up), Batman would always win against Superman... and Superman set it up that way. Gave Batman some Kryptonite so that Batman could act as a check and balance against him.
> 
> Now, Batman vs. Iron Man... I would pay to see that fight.




Batman beat the Hulk without much effort.  One gas pellet and one well placed punch or kick.  He's much better at taking people out than Iron Man is.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 19, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Batman beat the Hulk without much effort.  One gas pellet and one well placed punch or kick.  He's much better at taking people out than Iron Man is.




Yeah, that's just really bad writing from DC writers. They tend to make their characters super-awesome-amazing-undefitable-jazz-hand-masters whenever they do a crossover comic. I'm pretty sure that if they did another crossover with Batman VS the Celestials, Batman would kill all the Celestials with one kick and a flick of his finger. DC writers can be very lame. So can their characters.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Oct 19, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Yeah, he may have had a better claim to being Batman than the other replacements, but you know he was still just a cheap replacement. He was like the Pepsi One of Batman, just one calorie, not Batman enough.




lol

I'd say the analogy would be Dick is Mt Dew - not as old, not as dark, different taste, strong in different ways, but from the same company (bat family).


----------



## Tonguez (Oct 19, 2015)

Lord Mhoram said:


> lol
> 
> I'd say the analogy would be Dick is Mt Dew - not as old, not as dark, different taste, strong in different ways, but from the same company (bat family).




OMG, please start a new thread - what soft drink is most like your favourite superhero...


----------



## delericho (Oct 20, 2015)

CaptainGemini said:


> Unless they've made it not canon (I can't keep up), Batman would always win against Superman... and Superman set it up that way. Gave Batman some Kryptonite so that Batman could act as a check and balance against him.




Problem being that if Superman were to go bad, he'd know Batman had that Kryptonite and so be ready with counter-measures. Such as, for example, going and ripping out that lead-lined safe Bruce keeps it in before he's able to go tool up with it.

He's not the smartest cookie, Superman, even when he's trying to outwit himself.


----------



## CaptainGemini (Oct 20, 2015)

delericho said:


> Problem being that if Superman were to go bad, he'd know Batman had that Kryptonite and so be ready with counter-measures. Such as, for example, going and ripping out that lead-lined safe Bruce keeps it in before he's able to go tool up with it.
> 
> He's not the smartest cookie, Superman, even when he's trying to outwit himself.




Too true!!!


----------



## Tonguez (Oct 20, 2015)

delericho said:


> Problem being that if Superman were to go bad, he'd know Batman had that Kryptonite and so be ready with counter-measures. Such as, for example, going and ripping out that lead-lined safe Bruce keeps it in before he's able to go tool up with it.
> 
> He's not the smartest cookie, Superman, even when he's trying to outwit himself.




which is why he gave it to Batman, Batman has contingencies for is contingencies, so we can be sure that the lead safe isn't the only place to find kryptonite or maybe its kryptonite laced lead - lets see if the real writers use that idea


----------



## megamania (Oct 20, 2015)

For cross-overs I would still love to see Batman vs the Black Panther.    Very similar in wealth, power (lack there of) and master strategist for their respected universe.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 21, 2015)

delericho said:


> Problem being that if Superman were to go bad, he'd know Batman had that Kryptonite and so be ready with counter-measures. Such as, for example, going and ripping out that lead-lined safe Bruce keeps it in before he's able to go tool up with it.
> 
> He's not the smartest cookie, Superman, even when he's trying to outwit himself.




Batman knows that, which is why it wouldn't be in the place Superman knows about.  However, Superman ripping out the decoy safe would alert Batman that it's time to put Superman down.


----------



## delericho (Oct 21, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Batman knows that, which is why it wouldn't be in the place Superman knows about.  However, Superman ripping out the decoy safe would alert Batman that it's time to put Superman down.




I was mostly joking, but if we're taking it seriously Evil Superman wouldn't go after the safe at all. Instead, the very first thing he'd do (before his evil-ness became known) would be to arrange to meet Bruce for coffee (or similar) and take him out with heat vision. The main effect of giving Bruce the Kryptonite is to paint a huge target on him in case of Evil Superman issues.

Of course, the _other_ problem with the Kryptonite countermeasure is that while it may protect against Evil Superman issues, it only compounds and potential Evil Batman issues. And let's not pretend _that_ couldn't happen.


----------



## Tonguez (Oct 21, 2015)

delericho said:


> I was mostly joking, but if we're taking it seriously Evil Superman wouldn't go after the safe at all. Instead, the very first thing he'd do (before his evil-ness became known) would be to arrange to meet Bruce for coffee (or similar) and take him out with heat vision. The main effect of giving Bruce the Kryptonite is to paint a huge target on him in case of Evil Superman issues.
> 
> Of course, the _other_ problem with the Kryptonite countermeasure is that while it may protect against Evil Superman issues, it only compounds and potential Evil Batman issues. And let's not pretend _that_ couldn't happen.




huh, yeah as if Batman is going to accept an invitation to meet the big boy scout for coffee. Batmangets the strange invitation and goes in and tags Clark with a tracker, sets up a cordone and stakes out the cafe while Clark arrives and waits.

As for evil Batman, we have no chance anyway. It's not as if he's going to be obviously evil, he'll destroy all opposition via systematic schemes that nobody expects


----------



## delericho (Oct 21, 2015)

Tonguez said:


> huh, yeah as if Batman is going to accept an invitation to meet the big boy scout for coffee.




They work together in the Justice League. I would assume they have at least _some_ not-world-saving interactions. Indeed, they must have - at least enough for Supes to trust Batman enough to give him the Kryptonite in the first place.


----------



## Tonguez (Oct 21, 2015)

delericho said:


> They work together in the Justice League. I would assume they have at least _some_ not-world-saving interactions. Indeed, they must have - at least enough for Supes to trust Batman enough to give him the Kryptonite in the first place.




Batman regularly growls at Supes telling him "get out of my city" and "I work alone", his standard MO is surly tactiurn loner and he has been shown a few times as not showing up to JL 'meetings', standing aloof from the others during social interactions and conducting his own operations behind the backs of his 'team' mates.

if irc Batman tells Supes that the JLA is the contigency against evil Batman and thats enough for Supes to hand over the krytonite, however I don't think Batman trusts Superman  (or anyone else), he knows the JLA is useful and the JLA recognise that Batman gets results and so they balance


----------



## delericho (Oct 21, 2015)

Tonguez said:


> Batman regularly growls at Supes telling him "get out of my city" and "I work alone", his standard MO is surly tactiurn loner




Sure, but 'regularly' doesn't mean "all the time". They've worked together often enough, and well enough, that he wouldn't immediately jump to full-on Ackbar mode. He may be paranoid, but he's not completely incapable of dealing with others.


----------



## Cor Azer (Oct 21, 2015)

Honestly, Evil Supes doesn't even need to 'innocently' meet Batman. He waits well out of sight until Bruce is travelling to work one morning and divebombs him at superspeed into pulp.


----------



## CaptainGemini (Oct 22, 2015)

Cor Azer said:


> Honestly, Evil Supes doesn't even need to 'innocently' meet Batman. He waits well out of sight until Bruce is travelling to work one morning and divebombs him at superspeed into pulp.




Or he just pushes the Earth into the Sun and hope it's not an interation of Batman that can breathe in space.


----------



## Cor Azer (Oct 22, 2015)

CaptainGemini said:


> Or he just pushes the Earth into the Sun and hope it's not an interation of Batman that can breathe in space.




I was positing a scenario with less collateral damage


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 23, 2015)

Cor Azer said:


> I was positing a scenario with less collateral damage



Evil Superman doesn't care about collateral damage.


----------



## Cor Azer (Oct 23, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Evil Superman doesn't care about collateral damage.




That depends on whether Evil Superman is a nihilist or a tyrant.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 23, 2015)

Cor Azer said:


> That depends on whether Evil Superman is a nihilist or a tyrant.



What if he is a nihilistic tyrant?


----------



## Kaodi (Oct 23, 2015)

Tony Stark would lose hard in a fight fight. Batman would lose hard in a flying armour suit fight. Because of, you know, _the flying_.


----------



## delericho (Oct 23, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Evil Superman doesn't care about collateral damage.




All his cool stuff's here. Plus his pets.


----------



## The_Silversword (Oct 24, 2015)

Neil DeGrasse Tyson? The guy who decided that Pluto wasnt a planet anymore and everything  Iwas taught in school was wrong? Screw that guy, what does he know about batman?


----------



## Morrus (Oct 24, 2015)

The_Silversword said:


> Neil DeGrasse Tyson? The guy who decided that Pluto wasnt a planet anymore and everything  Iwas taught in school was wrong? Screw that guy, what does he know about batman?




NDT decided that everything you were taught in school was wrong? Did that include punctuation?


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 24, 2015)

Superman is dead and what you see in the comics is a Wayne Enterprises robot.  Batman realized the danger from Superman long ago and took care of things.


----------



## Cor Azer (Oct 25, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Superman is dead and what you see in the comics is a Wayne Enterprises robot.  Batman realized the danger from Superman long ago and took care of things.




DOOM does not like when others inch in on his methods!


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 25, 2015)

Cor Azer said:


> DOOM does not like when others inch in on his methods!




Now Doom vs. Batman would be something I'd like to see.  That's a more comparable match-up.


----------



## Tonguez (Oct 25, 2015)

Cor Azer said:


> DOOM does not like when others inch in on his methods!




Superman Robots have been a thing for a while


----------



## The_Silversword (Oct 25, 2015)

Morrus said:


> NDT decided that everything you were taught in school was wrong? Did that include punctuation?






punctuation is overrated.


----------



## Cor Azer (Oct 25, 2015)

Tonguez said:


> Superman Robots have been a thing for a while




DOOM cares not for chronological order!


----------

