Batman v.
Superman - Batgod Deconstructed: Who Would Win?
With this
blog entry I wanted to do something a little less formal while adding my own characteristic
formality to it, so as to make the subject matter seem more critical (it's not, lol). In this
entry I am going to attempt to refute the arguments advanced by those who
suggest that Batman has not only beaten Superman in several fights, but that
based on those instances he could do so consistently and with a high degree or
perfect degree of consistency. I argue that the definitions used to establish a
generalized claim of “victory in battle” are inconsistently applied when
assessing the times Batman and Superman have “fought.” Further, I assess the factual details of each
of these scenarios and analyse whether they actually establish the specific
claim that Batman “beat” Superman in that fight, and whether that specific
instance also establishes that Batman would always win a “fight” with Superman.
Ultimately, I conclude that the three most commonly cited evidences of Batman’s
ability to beat Superman in a fight do not actually establish that claim either
specifically or in general.
First, it
is important to establish a set of ground rules that frame the debate in a
fair, logical, and sound manner. This
would be similar to the rules established in a boxing match or other sporting
event. However, I am not going to limit the characters in anyway based on my
own imposed rules. What I mean by this, is that I am simply going to use the
most common and consistent definitions used to show that Batman’s supporters do
not remain consistent about what an objective “win” would look like. In that
sense, Batman is often given various definitions of winning that Superman isn’t
provided. If the conditions that Batman supporters use to support the claim
that Batman wins a fight were applied evenly, then in each of those cases,
Superman would have an equal claim to “winning.” This will be explored in more detail
below. Pursuant to that foundational assumption, then to establish who would “win”
in a “fight” we have to define what winning is and how it is accomplished.
Further, this definition must be applied equally to both characters or there
would be no way to actually determine objectively who has won as subjective
notions of winning may be assumed, or “proven” regardless of the actual
evidence for or against it. However, my
intention in writing this is not to suggest that Superman has always “won” or
that he would always “win,” because I would be doing precisely what Batman
supporters do in “assuming the win” based on inconsistent definitions and
requirements. My argument is simply to suggest that the evidences cited to
support the specific and general claims of Batman supporters are short-sighted
and inconsistently applied.
It would be
appropriate to set forth briefly some common definitions to get a sense of what
I mean by inconsistent application. The dictionary defines “winning,” to
include the following definitions: “to achieve victory in a fight, contest,
game, etc.,” and “to get (something, such as a prize) by achieving victory in a
fight, contest, game, etc.” Additionally, the dictionary defines a “fight” to
include the following definitions: “to use weapons or physical force to try to
hurt someone, to defeat an enemy, etc., “and “to contend against in or as if in
battle or physical combat.” Pursuant to these definitions I will not attempt to
establish what weapons are and if they can be used. However, the terms necessary
to achieve victory must be established if there is to be a “winner.” In none of
the instances cited are there any such rules ever mentioned or established.
Neither combatant appears to be aware of any such system of rules or conditions
necessary for victory. In all three cases both characters subjective mind states
suggests that they are not in actuality engaged in a “fight” or “combat” with a
mind to “victory,” as if in a “contest.” Because of that, foundationally, it is
fallacious to suggest that such limited evidences prove a more general claim
about an actual “fight.” I will highlight the absurdity of this in each of the examples below.
The most
cited examples regarding what has happened in the comics in a “fight” between
Batman and Superman are the following: (1) The Dark Knight Returns: (2) Hush; and (3) Tower of Babel. I analyse each and assess what propositions they actually
stand for in terms of a “fight” between Batman and Superman and how the
definition of "winning" or "beating" matters, and why none of the examples
provided actually establishes a more generalized claim about Batman winning at all, either in
these specific instances or ever. Batman fans often use these examples and rely
on the inconsistent definitions of "winning" that each suggests (or
that they wrongly misinterpret and then incorrectly analogize from) to support
their claims. They often do this without applying the definition of
"winning" suggested by that specific story to Superman but require
that he do more to achieve a victory, essentially saying Batman doesn't have to
do what Superman must do to "win." This would be like me saying that
for me to win a “fight” I simply have to run away from the other person. But
for them to win that fight they have to knock me out. While this may be an
appealing viewpoint to the one getting to run away from the fight, it does
nothing to actually assess who would win in a more general and common sense
notion of what a “fight” is, and as it is defined above.
Let’s now
turn to the individual examples.
The Dark Knight Returns
Worst. Ever. |
Before
getting into the statement of facts regarding the “fight” scene that is used by
Batman fans to suggest Batman has beaten Superman in a fight I would like to
preface that I have an extreme bias and distaste for the this whole story and
its writer. I disclose that simply to show that there will always be bias in
the way we understand the world and in our viewpoints, simply because we are a
priori exposed to a particular bias simply by learning language. My thinking
will always be limited and provide the context for my thoughts and expressive
capabilities. This is not uncommon, and it’s important to recognize that
everyone has a bias but that doesn’t mean there are no objective statements of
fact, or universal rules, or understandings that can be derived and shared. I
believe that such a universal understanding is required based on the actual
plain language reading and interpretation of the fight scene itself. However, I just
want to add that the Dark Knight Returns as a story severely mischaracterizes the
essence of both Batman and Superman as they are more generally and specifically
defined in the cultural canon. In that sense this is a bad story, because it doesn’t
represent that actual motivations, characterizations, and actions of the
characters more generally and more fundamentally. As such the Dark Knight Returns is not a good story to draw any general claims from, let alone to use as the
end all be all measurement stick. However, this is precisely what most Batman
supporters do and in doing so they generalize from the very extremely specific
and as such commit an egregious fallacy of basic logic. That alone should be
enough to disqualify this story from any persuasive application or authority on
the subject, but yet it persists, and so will I, in showing why it doesn’t
actually establish a specific claim either.
Here's the
factual recap of what happened in The Dark Knight Returns: I’ve taken each
action that could fairly be characterized as constituting a part of the “fight”
between Batman and Superman and laid them out chronologically. I’ve tried to avoid biased language and
sentiments and framed the words in as plainly objective descriptions of events
as possible.
1. A future and older Bruce acts
uncharacteristically vindictive (context of the story) because a future and
older Superman also uncharacteristically uses his power (in the context of the
story) in a way Bruce apparently wouldn't (although Bruce’s actions suggest he
is just as extreme). That is, that Superman acts as nothing more than a puppet
for a totalitarian government. However, the absurdity of Batman’s motivations
and actions, however they appear, are betrayed because in the actual canon the
future Gotham under Batman's control, is almost invariably portrayed as police
state under Batman. If anyone resorts to
measures that are totalitarian it is Bruce and not Clark.
2. Superman is weakened dealing with a
nuclear explosion (orchestrated by Bruce as part of a plan to weaken Superman).
Superman is weakened by the blast immensely. However, even though Superman
eventually gets some sunlight it is obvious that he is not at full strength as
it generally takes him extended periods of time to recover. The comic is clear
by the time he engages in a fist fight with Batman that Superman isn't at full
strength. In the context of describing a fair fight, where both parties are
allowed to utilize the full extent of their powers, this would constitute an
inconsistent application of that rule. It would invariably be argued that Batman’s
strategy and plan to win the “fight” would also include his tactics in doing just
what he does do here, weakening Superman. However, the fact is that Superman,
in the context of the story doesn’t see this is a “fight” in an objective
sense. In that sense it would be like you planning to “fight” me and I didn’t
even know it and you walk up to me and handcuff me. In the context of a fight
as generally understood, this would be considered a cheap shot. Regardless,
Superman is weakened by the blast.
3. Batman chains himself to a lamppost
to appear weak and in need of help, showing a more generally uncharacteristic
pettiness in deceit. This would be likened to playing possum to get your
attacker to come close so you can sucker punch him. The debate about whether this constitutes fair
fight conduct falls into the same analysis above. This however, is just mostly
to say what happened in the story.
4. Green Arrow (as part of the plan to “beat”
Superman, unbeknownst to Superman) weakens Superman with Kryptonite gas. As a
result Superman is further diminished physically and is clearly not at full or
even average strength when the fist fight with Batman begins.
5. Batman calls Superman for help and when
Superman responds Batman shifts demeanour and hits Superman with gauntlets
powered by the entire city's power supply. These are not ordinary human
attacks, and do not represent Bruce's normal physical martial arts skills and
abilities.
6. Superman steps back from the punch,
and is undeniably surprised that his friend is attacking him. It must be noted that
during each stage of the "fight" between the two, Batman is possessed
by his seeming need to prove something, while Superman's greatest concern is
the health and well-being of his old friend. As such Superman offers very little
resistance to Bruce's actions as it is made explicitly clear that he is mostly and
genuinely concerned that Bruce's heart might give out. Superman lets Batman
continue to beat him all the while holding back due to the health concerns.
7. Batman breaks his hands and nearly
his whole body beating a weakened Superman, even with the use of his gauntlets
and body armor simply to "prove" to a resisting Superman that
Superman can be "beat." Batman intimates these things after
"proving" that he can beat up a Superman who was weakened through deceit
already, and who was not really engaging in a fight through resistance or
retaliation.
8. After “beating” Superman in the
above mentioned conditions Bruce collapses apparently dead.
9. At Batman's supposed funeral,
Superman hears Bruce's heartbeat and realizes that Batman faked his death.
10. Superman goes along with the deception
(seemingly deferring to the misanthropic and unnecessarily unilaterally planned
temper tantrum of his old friend) which is uncharacteristic of the "government
stooge.” However, it may be argued that this was the whole point of Batman
beating up Superman was to get him to question the authority. But regardless
such a situation doesn’t seem to give credence to the idea that Batman actually
physically “won” a “fight” or “contest” between the two. If anything the moral
of the story is that Batman and Superman were actually helping each other and
not really engaged in a fight at all. Whatever the case, Clark did not report
that deception and therefore does not qualify for the government stooge. If he
was, he would have undoubtedly reported Bruce's faked death.
At all times, Clark's main concern was for Bruce's health, regardless of
any resistance or retaliation he exercised. As such this story can only fairly and
logically stand for the proposition that Bruce can merely "hurt" or
"temporarily incapacitate" Clark, if Clark is severely weakened and
holding back out of concern for Bruce’s health. Bruce wasn't holding back,
destroyed his body in the process and nearly died to only temporarily
incapacitate Clark. Therefore, TDKR can only stand for that limited
proposition, and the only way this can be used to support the specific claim
that Batman “beat” Superman is if you call a cheap-shot, sucker-punch, and
essentially pacifist reaction a “win.” Most reasonable people would look at any
other situation as unrepresentative of a “fair fight.” It is unlikely it could
even be called a fight due to the nature of Clark’s pacifism.
Batman: Hush
Amazing Batman Story. Better Superman Story. |
Second Hush
does not stand for the proposition that Bruce could beat Clark even with Kryptonite. Or that alone,
that with kryptonite it would be enough to make the fight an even one, or a high
probability success. In the context of the story Clark is mind-controlled by
Poison Ivy and is commanded to attack Bruce. Bruce uses Kryptonite and is only
merely able to retreat from the oncoming rushes of Superman. The Kryptonite
does not incapacitate, beat, or stop Clark. It merely and only slows him down.
Bruce nearly breaks his hand punching Clark while Clark is affected by Kryptonite. Bruce states that
the only thing keeping Clark from destroying him is that fundamentally Clark is
a good person and that even Poison Ivy's control over him cannot negate that
character, which is preventing Clark from actually killing Bruce. The argument
that Bruce "wins" by incapacitating Clark doesn't seem to apply to Superman, as
Superman is deemed to
have to "kill" to win or some other unmentioned requirement. Some have made this exact erroneous argument,
on the basis that Bruce states Clark will never kill. This according to extremely faulty reasoning suggests,
incorrectly that Batman actually would kill, because fundamentally he is not a good
person in the same sense as Clark. However, this is not at all what Batman is
suggesting. He is simply saying that Clark is good in a different way,
fundamentally, biologically, culturally, and otherwise. Bruce recognizes that he is not like Clark in those
particulars, but never is it implied nor can it be that Bruce would kill. Bruce
doesn't kill for the same reasons Clark doesn't. Thus, Hush doesn't stand for
the idea that Bruce wins in a fight because he merely keeps Clark from killing
him. Some have understood this limitation but have then equated "survival" with "winning" the fight. While it may be laudable that he survived for a few minutes, he knew it wouldn't last much longer. This in no way supports a "win" scenario for Batman.
Did you break your hand on my face? |
Further, if killing
the other person is the standard for "winning" then Bruce never wins
either, because he never kills Superman, and more than likely never would. In
Hush, the most salient point is that in a fair and true fight, Batman would be
crushed in an instant and Batman fully acknowledges this reality. Further, the
reason that doesn't happen in Hush, is because it's not a real fight in the
sense of it being the primary purpose of the story, and also it does not happen,
and not as a result of some action Batman takes. The reason Superman doesn't
kill Batman is because of Superman’s own character. This has nothing to do with
Batman's planning or strategy or use of Kryptonite. It simply has to do with
Superman's character. In that sense it is Superman who arguably
"wins" on moral principle. This argument could be the same with
regard to TDKR on the basis that it is similar in some respects to the ending
in Captain America: TWS. Captain allowed Bucky to "beat" him for a
greater moral good. He was solely concerned with bringing his friend back to a
sense of identity and reality. While the reasoning isn't completely identical,
no one in their right mind would say that Bucky "beat" Captain. Sure,
he punched him a lot and hurt him physically, but Captain's concern was much bigger and turned
on a morally principled basis. Clark's refusal to hurt Bruce more than he felt Bruce could withstand
and to ultimately play along with his death deception, represents a
similar moral "win."
Whatever the case, Hush lays out the reality of the situation in a fair fight
defined in terms equally applicable and not amounting to death. However, what it
actually does suggest is that there was no actual objective “fight” that took
place between the two. However, it is explicitly stated, by Batman no less that
if Superman were unrestrained (precisely the conditions that would be equally
applied for both in a fight) he would crush Batman in an instant.
Basically. |
Enough Batfanboys |
Justice League: Tower of Babel
This is misleading...it's a Batconspiracy! |
Other examples
are illustrative of more special pleading and Batman’s supporter’s inability to
apply consistent definitions of winning. Often people also refer to Justice
League: Tower of Babel as evidence that Batman could, under all and any
circumstances "beat" Superman. Once again this only follows if you
define "beating" or “winning” in a way that the story itself
supports. In the case of Tower of Babel,
this would mean that a “win” for Bruce would be on the basis of a third party
stealing, and modifying Batman’s original plans to disable Superman (which even
in its modified form only temporarily disables him). This serves the Batman
supporters only if the define a win in that very specific way. Those aren’t
familiar with the story, Ra's Al-Ghul (Vandal Savage in the animated movie) with the
help of numerous others steals Batman’s very specific and detailed
contingency plans in case members of the Justice League go rogue. Batman had
amassed information regarding each member’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities in the
event that he or others needed to stop them. Particularly, Batman supporter’s
point to this story to suggest that just because Batman has these plans, he can
therefore execute them with near perfect precision and timing. Such an outcome
has never actually been shown. Tower of Babel is simply not a story about how
Batman by himself, takes down the whole Justice League (of which Superman is a
part). However, this is exactly the connotation that Batman supporters give the
story. The absurdity of such a claim is demonstrated by analogy.
This line
of reasoning would be likened to this:
1. You make a plan that says you can
"beat" me and by beat me you mean temporarily disable me, by sucker
punching me (that is, attacking me when I am not expecting it).
2. Someone steals your plan and learns
how to disable me by sucker punching me.
3. That person sucker punches me and
disables me as a result.
4. You “beat” me.
Under the
Batman supporters reasoning, this would mean that you "beat" me even
though you specifically didn't do the sucker punching. Further, extrapolating
that argument it would be absurd of you to suggest that you could
"beat" me under any and all circumstances based on that particular
instance. If you define a win in that particular way, then you have “won” that
fight only, and to suggest that you would always win is simply not warranted
either by reference to another story or with regards to the limits of this one.
This is a particularly egregious fallacy because there is actual evidence which
directly contradicts that outcome. Particularly, Hush stands for the proposition
that in an actual fight, Batman would be crushed in an instant. Regardless, Tower of Babel is simply an
example of special pleading and therefore cannot be used to justify a larger
and more general conclusion about Batman’s specific ability to beat Superman in
a fight, let alone whether he could actually himself pull of his contingency
plans. The comic doesn’t suggest so; the only ones that make that unwarranted
leap in assertion are the Batman supporters. In that regard they commit another
fallacy (Deus Ex Machina) of attributing Batman god-like abilities, that of
being able to do things he’s never actually done, and to do so with god-like
effectiveness, efficiency, and foresight.
I actually want to join this...I have faith in Batgod! |
These three
are the most often cited examples or "proof" that Batman has beaten Superman, and that he could beat
him under any and all circumstances, and that it would be a near certain
conclusion. However, none of these specific examples prove any such basis for these
generalized conclusions
and therefore any reliance on them for such a proposition is flawed as it is
fallacious.
Now this is more "realistic." |