Batman v Superman - Batgod Deconstructed: Who Would Win?

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."