Superman Vs. Homelander

[Bartmanhomer]

Ok, this battle will be the battle of the Supers! Superman from DC Comics versus Homelander from The Boys. I did both an analysis of both Superman and Homelander. First Superman has super-strength, near-invulnerability, super-speed, he can shoot a laser beam from his eyes, he can fly He's weak against, Kryptonite, the red sun, and magic. Homelands the evil counterpart of Superman. He also has super-strength, invulnerability, super-speed, he can also shoot laser beams from his eyes and he can also fly as well. Homelander doesn't have any weakness as far that I can tell. So in the one-on-one battle if Homelander found out that Superman has any weakness he'll use it against him. Otherwise, this might be a tie. So what are your thoughts on this fight? :smile:

[Traab]

Superman wins, its beyond contestation. Superman is as far beyond homelander in stats and the level of his abilities as homelander is beyond you.

[Anymage]

Ignoring kryptonite, Homelander has yet to show any tricks like crushing coal into a diamond or handling galactic level threats. Magic isn't a thing in The Boys and Homelander doesn't seem like he's ever gone offworld before, so Superman is just orders of magnitude stronger and his weaknesses aren't relevant.

Kryptonite would be the equalizer. Homelander isn't stupid and Vought has crazy amounts of money, so they could acquire some if it suited their interests and wasn't super rare. Both of those are hard to tell in this hypothetical. How much is Homelander acting in Vought's interests vs. going off the rails, and how rare is kryptonite in the setting? If you port Superman to The Boys universe then Krypton as a planet never existed, and if you port Vought to the DC universe their money will have to compete with other massive businesses like Wayne enterprises. So availability of kryptonite would be the deciding factor, and how available it is depends on what assumptions you're coming in with.

[comicshorse]

Even leaving aside powers for the second Superman has lived fighting challenging opponents most of his life. Homelander has spent his time smiling for the camera's. He has no moves Superman won't have seen before and already beaten

[Bartmanhomer]

Superman wins, it's beyond contestation. Superman is as far beyond homeland in stats and the level of his abilities as homeland is beyond you.You might be right on that.


Ignoring kryptonite, Homelander has yet to show any tricks like crushing coal into a diamond or handling galactic level threats. Magic isn't a thing in The Boys and Homelander doesn't seem like he's ever gone off-world before, so Superman is just orders of magnitude stronger, and his weaknesses aren't relevant.

Kryptonite would be the equalizer. Homelander isn't stupid and Vought has crazy amounts of money, so they could acquire some if it suited their interests and wasn't super rare. Both of those are hard to tell in this hypothetical. How much is Homelander acting in Vought's interests vs. going off the rails, and how rare is kryptonite in the setting? If you port Superman to The Boys universe then Krypton as a planet never existed, and if you port Vought to the DC universe their money will have to compete with other massive businesses like Wayne enterprises. So the availability of kryptonite would be the deciding factor, and how available it depends on what assumptions you're coming in with.I think Vought is very resourceful and they'll find Kryptonite one way or another.


Even leaving aside powers for the second Superman has lived fighting challenging opponents most of his life. Homelander has spent his time smiling for the cameras. He has no moves Superman won't have seen before and already beaten
Yeah, Superman has face heavy-hitter villains before.

[The Glyphstone]

Which is why he wins. Even if their powers were equal (they arent), Superman has fought enemies as strong as himself and won, he has experience in actually using his powers in a fight. Homelands has never fought anyone even close to him in power, let alone stronger.

[Bartmanhomer]

Which is why he wins. Even if their powers were equal (they aren't), Superman has fought enemies as strong as himself and won, he has experience in actually using his powers in a fight. Homelands have never fought anyone even close to him in power, let alone stronger.

Homelander is that weak?! Wow! I'm surprised about that. In the show, Homelander kills so many people. :eek:

[Peelee]

In DC, Kryptonite is a remnant of a planet. In The Boys, Kryptonite is presumably the solidified state of a noble gas, which pretty much can only be sustained under laboratory conditions. Not anything Homelander could really work with, or use to any effect even if he could work with it.

Also,Homelander does have weaknesses - his fragile mental state. Superman is mentally stable. Homeland er is significantly mentally unstable.

[Anymage]

Homelander is that weak?! Wow! I'm surprised about that. In the show, Homelander kills so many people. :eek:

Homelander kills normal people and low powered supers. Normal people are pretty fragile.

Superman has slugged it out with planetbusters. It's not about Homelander being objectively weak, it's about Superman being that friggin' strong.


Also,Homelander does have weaknesses - his fragile mental state. Superman is mentally stable. Homeland er is significantly mentally unstable.

If we're talking about politics or long term planning, Homelander has exploitable weaknesses easily. Batman would have a field day with him, for instance.

In a straight up fight or even immediate term tactics? Homelander is pretty canny. If we assume that he has a stash of kryptonite to swing things in his favor, I don't think that Superman would be able to use any psychout tricks to swing things in his favor. If anything, Homelander's desire to prove himself would make him even less susceptible to being talked down.

[Lord Raziere]

Homelander kills normal people and low powered supers. Normal people are pretty fragile.

Superman has slugged it out with planetbusters. It's not about Homelander being objectively weak, it's about Superman being that friggin' strong.

Indeed. Superman fights one of the smartest men to ever exist (and sometimes, the other heroic one to), an advanced AI designed by his own civilization that is only slightly smarter than that man, numerous superman clones and other kryptonians, a being specifically designed to kill him who becomes stronger every time he is defeated, matches wits with a cartoon level reality warper, and fights the literal godly embodiment of despair, oppression and tyranny in his universe.

Homelander is strictly little league compared to that.

Edit: I find VS battles Wiki (https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/VS_Battles_Wiki) a good resource for this kind of thing, they rate Homelander as Tier 9-A (pretty low, small building level) while Post-crisis Superman is 4B (solar system level). so....it fits.

[Bartmanhomer]

Homelander kills normal people and low powered supers. Normal people are pretty fragile.

Superman has slugged it out with planet busters. It's not about Homelander being objectively weak, it's about Superman being that friggin' strong.



If we're talking about politics or long term planning, Homelander has exploitable weaknesses easily. Batman would have a field day with him, for instance.

In a straight-up fight or even immediate term tactics? Homelander is pretty canny. If we assume that he has a stash of kryptonite to swing things in his favor, I don't think that Superman would be able to use any psychonaut tricks to swing things in his favor. If anything, Homelander's desire to prove himself would make him even less susceptible to being talked down.
What's the difference?! Superman can KO Homelander with one punch just like Goku can KO Hercule with one punch. So Homelander is considered an ant to Superman.

[TeChameleon]

Honestly, it's probably even more lopsided than Goku vs. Hercule- Hercule could... at least theoretically... have some potential to hurt Goku, no matter how remote. Homelander, unless he learns magic or gets dipped in Kryptonite or something, would have about as much chance of hurting Superman as a bug would of... hurting Superman.

And even if Homelander got his hands on lots and lots of Kryptonite, Superman has successfully beaten a guy that was made of the stuff, so, uhm...

Yeah. No contest.

[Peelee]

What's the difference?! Superman can KO Homelander with one punch just like Goku can KO Hercule with one punch. So Homelander is considered an ant to Superman.

I think you underestimate the power of Hercule, Champion of the World. He did save the universe, after all.

[Bartmanhomer]

I think you underestimate the power of Hercule, Champion of the World. He did save the universe, after all.

Huh? What show have you been watching? :confused:

[Peelee]

Huh? What show have you been watching? :confused:

Look, all I know is that Hercule, the people's champion, went to go defeat that weird Cell guy and a bunch of random nobodies also were there for some reason.

[Bartmanhomer]

Look, all I know is that Hercule, the people's champion, went to go defeat that weird Cell guy and a bunch of random nobodies also were there for some reason.

That's a lie. Gohan defeated Cell not Hercule and his band of nobodies. :annoyed:

[Tvtyrant]

That's a lie. Gohan defeated Cell not Hercule and his band of nobodies. :annoyed:

Then why did Hercules become so rich?

[Peelee]

That's a lie. Gohan defeated Cell not Hercule and his band of nobodies. :annoyed:

Look man, I don't know what a "Gohan" is. All I know is I saw Hercule, the world's strongest man, who won the World Martial Arts Tournament, go to fight Cell. There were also some random people with a kid there (pretty irresponsible if you ask me). The cameras go out, my TV feed was cut, and then Hercule was still around and Cell wasn't. Pretty cut and dry.

[Bartmanhomer]

Then why did Hercules become so rich?Because they felt sorry for him that why.


Look man, I don't know what a "Gohan" is. All I know is I saw Hercule, the world's strongest man, who won the World Martial Arts Tournament, go to fight Cell. There were also some random people with a kid there (pretty irresponsible if you ask me). The cameras go out, my TV feed was cut, and then Hercule was still around and Cell wasn't. Pretty cut and dry.

Well, it's pretty clear that you never watched Dragonball Z and I recalled that Gohan beat Cell not Hercule. Hercule is flat-out weak, simple as that. :annoyed:

[Peelee]

Well, it's pretty clear that you never watched Dragonball Z and I recalled that Gohan beat Cell not Hercule. Hercule is flat-out weak, simple as that. :annoyed:

Ya know, now that you've mentioned it, I actually do recall seeing those other people who were near Cell again! Some of them fought in the World Tournaments later on. Of course, they all eventually lost to Hercule in those tournaments. Not sure where you're getting "Hercule is weak" when he's clearly the strongest man in the world, fought that weird Cell guy and clearly won (we didn't have video feed of it, but again, Cell was gone and Hercule was still around, so pretty easy to put 2 and 2 together here), and even those other fighter guys (who, again, were just super irresponsible bringing a kid with them!) later at the World Tournament and won every time.

Oh, and Hercule also directly told us he beat Cell. And those other fighter guys never claimed otherwise.

[Bartmanhomer]

Ya know, now that you've mentioned it, I actually do recall seeing those other people who were near Cell again! Some of them fought in the World Tournaments later on. Of course, they all eventually lost to Hercule in those tournaments. Not sure where you're getting "Hercule is weak" when he's the strongest man in the world, fought that weird Cell guy and won (we didn't have a video feed of it, but again, Cell was gone and Hercule was still around, so pretty easy to put 2 and 2 together here), and even those other fighter guys (who, again, were just super irresponsible bringing a kid with them!) later at the World Tournament and won every time.

Oh, and Hercule also directly told us he beat Cell. And those other fighter guys never claimed otherwise.

Well, I think it's pretty clear that you never watch the show because I watch Dragonball Z a long time ago. I watch the episode when Gohan beat Cell many times. You're being very misinformed for what you're saying and I strongly suggested that you need to research the Gohan Vs. Cell Fight on Youtube and see it for yourself. I know what I'm talking about. :annoyed:

[Peelee]

Well, I think it's pretty clear that you never watch the show because I watch Dragonball Z a long time ago. I watch the episode when Gohan beat Cell many times. You're being very misinformed for what you're saying and I strongly suggested that you need to research the Gohan Vs. Cell Fight on Youtube and see it for yourself. I know what I'm talking about. :annoyed:

I don't think I can make it any more obvious without actually straight-up telling you, so I'm gonna go that route. I'm portraying the viewpoint of literally everyone else in the world (well, the DBZ world). As far as the entire population of the Earth was concerned, Hercule defeated Cell. They believed this because A.) Cell blew up the cameras providing the televised feed, 2.) Cell was destroyed and Hercule was not, and iii.) Hercule told them that's what happened. The Z fighters did not want to gain notoriety so none of them disputed Hercule's version of events, and they all went so far as to deliberately lose to Hercule in all World Tournaments they faced him in later to maintain the illusion that they were not significantly stronger than he.

As far as everyone in the world was concerned, Hercule beat Cell, and nobody knew who Gohan was (barring his Great Saiyaman phase, in which case they still didn't know who he was but were aware of his "super hero" alter ego).

[Bartmanhomer]

I don't think I can make it any more obvious without actually straight-up telling you, so I'm gonna go that route. I'm portraying the viewpoint of literally everyone else in the world (well, the DBZ world). As far as the entire population of the Earth was concerned, Hercule defeated Cell. They believed this because A.) Cell blew up the cameras providing the televised feed, 2.) Cell was destroyed and Hercule was not, and iii.) Hercule told them that's what happened. The Z fighters did not want to gain notoriety so none of them disputed Hercule's version of events, and they all went so far as to deliberately lose to Hercule in all World Tournaments they faced him in later to maintain the illusion that they were not significantly stronger than he.

As far as everyone in the world was concerned, Hercule beat Cell, and nobody knew who Gohan was (barring his Great Saiyaman phase, in which case they still didn't know who he was but were aware of his "super hero" alter ego).

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I0WaiRulyoY

What do you going to say now? I was right about everything about Gohan kill Cell. Hercules didn't do swat.

[Peelee]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I0WaiRulyoY

What do you going to say now?

I say this:

I don't think I can make it any more obvious without actually straight-up telling you, so I'm gonna go that route. I'm portraying the viewpoint of literally everyone else in the world (well, the DBZ world). As far as the entire population of the Earth was concerned, Hercule defeated Cell. They believed this because A.) Cell blew up the cameras providing the televised feed, 2.) Cell was destroyed and Hercule was not, and iii.) Hercule told them that's what happened. The Z fighters did not want to gain notoriety so none of them disputed Hercule's version of events, and they all went so far as to deliberately lose to Hercule in all World Tournaments they faced him in later to maintain the illusion that they were not significantly stronger than he.

As far as everyone in the world was concerned, Hercule beat Cell, and nobody knew who Gohan was (barring his Great Saiyaman phase, in which case they still didn't know who he was but were aware of his "super hero" alter ego).

[Dire_Flumph]

Edit: I find VS battles Wiki (https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/VS_Battles_Wiki) a good resource for this kind of thing

(Starts looking up random fictional characters)

Well, there's my evening plans down the tubes. At least I have some solid data for a hypothetical Bugs Bunny vs Shoggoth fight now.

[Bartmanhomer]

I say this:

I don't think I can make it any more obvious without actually straight-up telling you, so I'm gonna go that route. I'm portraying the viewpoint of literally everyone else in the world (well, the DBZ world). As far as the entire population of the Earth was concerned, Hercule defeated Cell. They believed this because A.) Cell blew up the cameras providing the televised feed, 2.) The cell was destroyed and Hercule was not, and iii.) Hercule told them that's what happened. The Z fighters did not want to gain notoriety so none of them disputed Hercule's version of events, and they all went so far as to deliberately lose to Hercule in all World Tournaments they faced him in later to maintain the illusion that they were not significantly stronger than he.

As far as everyone in the world was concerned, Hercule beat Cell, and nobody knew who Gohan was (barring his Great Saiyaman phase, in which case they still didn't know who he was but were aware of his "superhero" alter ego).

Well, it's obvious that I'm the only member in this thread who got the evidence and all you got is hearsay with no evidence to back up. Well, it obvious that I won this debate. So I'm not going to continue my frustration debating anymore. I feel like that we derail this thread as we already are. :annoyed:

[JNAProductions]

It's a joke.

Peelee is posting from the perspective of someone in the Dragon Ball Z universe, who do NOT know that Gohan beat Cell and Hercule is (while an immensely strong man, despite his lack of ki) small peanuts.

[Bartmanhomer]

It's a joke.

Peelee is posting from the perspective of someone in the Dragon Ball Z universe, who does NOT know that Gohan beat Cell and Hercule is (while an immensely strong man, despite his lack of ki) small peanuts.

Then he could have mentioned that in blue text saving my frustration for a few posts arguing back and forth. That would save me a big amount of trouble for that. :annoyed:

[Peelee]

Well, it's obvious that I'm the only member in this thread who got the evidence and all you got is hearsay with no evidence to back up.

I'm really trying to think of how to break this down more for you, and I gotta say, it's not getting easy.

The people in the DBZ world are not real. They cannot go to YouTube and watch DragonBall Z episodes. For the people in that world, there is no show called Dragon Ball Z. It doesn't exist. They live in a world where houses spring up from capsules and dinosaurs and animals talk and green aliens exist and one of them kind of ruled the world for a while. Anyway. In this fictional world, there is no DBZ.

So, I was portraying the viewpoint of someone in this fictional world. Not the real world. The fictional DBZ world. You could not show someone in the DBZ world a DBZ video, because that doesn't exist in their world.

In this fictional DBZ world, as far as they know, Hercule defeated Cell. They know this because, in this fictional world, where they cannot watch DBZ clips on youtube, they were toild that Hercule defeated Cell. By Hercule. After Cell was defeated.

Now, for objective truth, yes, Hercule did not defeat Cell. But nobody in this fictional world realizes this. All of them think that Hercule did defeat Cell, because that's what they were told. The only people who could refute this did not. Those people also told everyone that Hercule defeated Cell. So everyone in the fictional world believes that Hercule defeated Cell.

I was portraying the point of view of one of those fictional people. There is zero evidence you can provide that Hercule did not defeat Cell to these fictional people, because you are a real-world person using real-world evidence, and that doesn't work.

Analogy time! It's like if I was pretending to be Darth Vader and you were trying to tell me that Luke was my son by showing me clips of Revenge of the Sith. It doesn't work like that.

You didn't "win the debate" because there was no debate. I made a joke, then I tried a few times to be more and more obvious to clue you in to the fact that I was making a joke, then I explained the joke to you, and now I am explaining the joke even more to you.

[Bartmanhomer]

I'm trying to think of how to break this down more for you, and I gotta say, it's not getting easy.

The people in the DBZ world are not real. They cannot go to YouTube and watch DragonBall Z episodes. For the people in that world, there is no show called Dragon Ball Z. It doesn't exist. They live in a world where houses spring up from capsules and dinosaurs and animals talk and green aliens exist and one of the kinds of ruled the world for a while. Anyway. In this fictional world, there is no DBZ.

So, I was portraying the viewpoint of someone in this fictional world. Not the real world. The fictional DBZ world. You could not show someone in the DBZ world a DBZ video, because that doesn't exist in their world.

In this fictional DBZ world, as far as they know, Hercule defeated Cell. They know this because, in this fictional world, where they cannot watch DBZ clips on youtube, they were told that Hercule defeated Cell. By Hercule. After Cell was defeated.

Now, for objective truth, yes, Hercule did not defeat Cell. But nobody in this fictional world realizes this. All of them think that Hercule did defeat Cell because that's what they were told. The only people who could refute this did not. Those people also told everyone that Hercule defeated Cell. So everyone in the fictional world believes that Hercule defeated Cell.

I was portraying the point of view of one of those fictional people. There is zero evidence you can provide that Hercule did not defeat Cell to these fictional people because you are a real-world person using real-world evidence, and that doesn't work.

Analogy time! It's like if I was pretending to be Darth Vader and you were trying to tell me that Luke was my son by showing me clips of Revenge of the Sith. It doesn't work like that.

You didn't "win the debate" because there was no debate. I made a joke, then I tried a few times to be more and more obvious to clue you into the fact that I was making a joke, then I explained the joke to you, and now I am explaining the joke even more to you.

That was the funniest joke that I ever heard. You should be a stand-up comedian.

Can we please just get back into the topic now?

[Mystic Muse]

Guys, I found the lost footage of the Cell Games! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymFLIUkMMvc)

Also, yes, Superman would destroy Homelander no contest.

[Friv]

That was the funniest joke that I ever heard. You should be a stand-up comedian.

Can we please just get back into the topic now?

The issue is, there really isn't anything else to say on the topic. It's been resolved.

And honestly, it was a very funny joke. It's okay to say that you just missed it. It's the Internet, we all miss things from time to time.

[Peelee]

Can we please just get back into the topic now?

Sure. Superman wins. What else would you like to talk about?

And honestly, it was a very funny joke.

https://wompampsupport.azureedge.net/fetchimage?siteId=7575&v=2&jpgQuality=100&width=700&url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.kym-cdn.com%2Fentries%2Ficons%2Ffacebook%2F000%2F010%2 F809%2Fohstopitu.jpg

[Bartmanhomer]

The issue is, there isn't anything else to say on the topic. It's been resolved.

And honestly, it was a very funny joke. It's okay to say that you just missed it. It's the Internet, we all miss things from time to time.

Well, I'm sorry if I missed the joke. I'm just a serious guy who needs a laugh now and then

[Peelee]

Guys, I found the lost footage of the Cell Games! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymFLIUkMMvc)

That documentary was amazing! Also, let's not forget the time that Goku got the Satan Punch treatment (https://youtu.be/xfuCmLbqGNc?t=124).

ETA: Any DragonBall game where you cannot play as Hercule is a failure of a game.

[AvatarVecna]

Honestly, it's probably even more lopsided than Goku vs. Hercule- Hercule could... at least theoretically... have some potential to hurt Goku, no matter how remote. Homelander, unless he learns magic or gets dipped in Kryptonite or something, would have about as much chance of hurting Superman as a bug would of... hurting Superman.

And even if Homelander got his hands on lots and lots of Kryptonite, Superman has successfully beaten a guy that was made of the stuff, so, uhm...

Yeah. No contest.

If we're talking the strongest version of Superman vs Homelander then yeah it's not even worth discussing. Homelander is a middling powerhouse who happens to be impressive by mortal standards, sure. But Superman is strong enough to punch the universe into retconning, fast enough to escape the gravitational pull of a black hole, and tough enough to take a nuke to the face without much problem even in some of his weaker incarnations.

...but if we're talking "more powerful than a locomotive, faster than a speeding bullet, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound" Superman, that's probably more of a fair fight? And sure that's probably not what OP meant, but also Superman has lost battles on occasion when by all accounts he shouldn't have even been inconvenienced. (https://i.imgur.com/RdHTpSi.jpg)

[Peelee]

If we're talking the strongest version of Superman vs Homelander then yeah it's not even worth discussing. Homelander is a middling powerhouse who happens to be impressive by mortal standards, sure. But Superman is strong enough to punch the universe into retconning, fast enough to escape the gravitational pull of a black hole, and tough enough to take a nuke to the face without much problem even in some of his weaker incarnations.

...but if we're talking "more powerful than a locomotive, faster than a speeding bullet, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound" Superman, that's probably more of a fair fight? And sure that's probably not what OP meant, but also Superman has lost battles on occasion when by all accounts he shouldn't have even been inconvenienced. (https://i.imgur.com/RdHTpSi.jpg)

Oof, yeah, steel should be nothing for him.

Also, there's a reason why Silver Age DC produced the best comics ever and you will never convince me otherwise.
https://www.comicbookdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/act454cover.jpg
https://www.superdickery.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/1296_4_009.jpg
https://www.superdickery.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/1027_4_030.jpg
https://www.superdickery.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/c7b088b026ccdb57c91c6b9a2faff852.jpg

[Bartmanhomer]

That documentary was amazing! Also, let's not forget the time that Goku got the Satan Punch treatment (https://youtu.be/xfuCmLbqGNc?t=124).

ETA: Any DragonBall game where you cannot play as Hercule is a failure of a game.

You call that a punch? :smile:

[Mystic Muse]

You call that a punch? :smile:

I mean, it knocked him over the crowd, and somehow changed Goku's momentum so that he grabbed the tractor thing and flew over a building.

I'd call that a punch.

[Bartmanhomer]

I mean, it knocked him over the crowd, and somehow changed Goku's momentum so that he grabbed the tractor thing and flew over a building.

I'd call that a punch.

I'll admit that grabbing a tractor after the punch was funny. :biggrin:

[Giggling Ghast]

I think you underestimate the power of Hercule, Champion of the World. He did save the universe, after all.

Actually, Hercule kinda did help save the universe, since without him Buu would have never been defeated. Remember, he helped reform Fat Buu and convinced the people of Earth to give up energy for the Spirit Bomb.

“Wait, couldn’t Beerus have defeated Buu”? Sure, if he woke up before Buu killed the Supreme Kai. Otherwise, Buu would have continued his rampage.

[Peelee]

Actually, Hercule kinda did help save the universe, since without him Buu would have never been defeated. Remember, he helped reform Fat Buu and convinced the people of Earth to give up energy for the Spirit Bomb.

“Wait, couldn’t Beerus have defeated Buu”? Sure, if he woke up before Buu killed the Supreme Kai. Otherwise, Buu would have continued his rampage.

Yes, that was the reference.:smallwink:

[Ramza00]

Honestly what Superman villains would I find the most enjoyable beating up Homelander should be the question.

Currently I am thinking I would enjoy Mongrel doing it the most!

[Friv]

Actually, thinking about it the real question is: what ludicrous "upgrades" does Lex Luthor manipulate Homelander into demanding after Superman beats him the first time? Does he become the next Metallo?

[Anteros]

That was the funniest joke that I ever heard. You should be a stand-up comedian.

Can we please just get back into the topic now?

I for one found the whole exchange hilarious.

[TeChameleon]

Probably the funniest Superman villain I can imagine squishing Homelander like the psychotic bug he is would be Maxima.

"How dare you lay hand on the mate I have selected!" *Telekinetic beatdown* *Homelander's Head Asplode* (seriously, Maxima is an immensely powerful telepath. Somebody with as many loose screws as Homelander would come apart like a spun sugar castle under a firehose)

Brainiac would be fun too, just because of how incredibly dismissive he'd be. Luthor too, for that matter.

[Lord Raziere]

Brainiac would be fun too, just because of how incredibly dismissive he'd be. Luthor too, for that matter.

Indeed. Hm. Lex Luthor Vs. Every superman Expy. Thats a fight/scenario I'd like to see. Just see how many of them fare against trying to defeat a man whose devoted his entire life to outwitting the real thing. because none of them are as powerful or as familiar with his tricks, and I'd wager many of them have similar problems with Luthor doing the "so rich his lawyers are an impenetrable legal shield" thing.

[Rater202]

Indeed. Hm. Lex Luthor Vs. Every superman Expy. Thats a fight/scenario I'd like to see. Just see how many of them fare against trying to defeat a man whose devoted his entire life to outwitting the real thing. because none of them are as powerful or as familiar with his tricks, and I'd wager many of them have similar problems with Luthor doing the "so rich his lawyers are an impenetrable legal shield" thing.

Gonna be honest: I don't think a lot of them would care about Lex's lawyers.

The thing about Superman Expies is that they're never as moral as Superman.

And even Clark has contemplated just up and murdering Lex.

Like, not even a bad future thing.

There was one arc durig the time where Lex was president where something something involving a Kypronite Meteor and d Lex actively screwing people over.

Bruce and Clark confront him and the whole time he's boasting that they don't have what it takes to do anything major about him.

Meanwhile Clark is thinking about something Pa Kent told him: Sometimes the only way to protect the hen house is to kill the fox.

And Bruce? Bruce is doing the math in his head. The Joker is really only a threat to one town, and despite his reputation doesn't really kill that many people*. The Joker is also, legitimately, mentally ill so whether or not he's responsible for his actions is questionable. Lex, meanwhile, is a threat to the entire planet and is directly or indirectly responsible for more suffering in a day that the Joker has been... Ever. And he does this all of his own free will while in his right mind.

So then Batman turns to Superman and says something along the lines of "If you want to kill him, I won't stop you. I can cover it up."

So, Homelander? Probably just kill Lex. Plutonian probably already killed. Dr. Manhattan, Alan Moore's cynical attempt o explain that someone with godlike power couldn't possibly relate to people who don't, the only reason he wouldn't have killed Lex is becuase he saw himself not killing Lex.

Even Superman Expies that aren't actively trying to deconstruct his archetype... Like, Currently, Carol Danvers/Captain MAarvel is being pushed as Marvel's "Answer" to Superman. Carol's an air force colonel who has worked all her life to achieve something meaningful in a world dominated by people like Lex. (If you ignore that she's way to0 young to have earned her military rank legitimately cough cough.) She has no qualms with killing if it needs to be done. She was a pro-reg in the first Civil War and was basically the bad guy in Civil War II so she has no problems with breaking the law or violating people's rights if she finds it to be for the greater good. If she can't bring him in legally, she may well just break his neck and use her own connections to get away with it.

Or toss him into the sun. That's a thing she does sometimes.

*Which does check out by the way. Adding all of the "main" timelines confirmed Joker kills on average across his nearly eighty-ish year career kills on average less than 40 people a year, which in a city like Gotham which is consistently described as "Chicago at it's worst" isn't even a statistic.

[Lord Raziere]

Eh, I kind of eliminate Dr. Manhattan as a viable combatant from any Versus discussion just on general principle, because due to how he perceives time there is no room for uncertainty of what actions he or anyone he perceives he will take, thus he is a walking fate-person that could arbitrarily win or lose simply because that is what the story requires him to do.

the rest don't have his fate-bound perception of time, don't who Lex is or if they would even be fighting him. I'm of the different opinion that these less moral superpeople could be easily convinced to turn against one another and see each other as the bigger threats, not used to perceiving a seemingly normal man as an archenemy. 10th level intellect is nothing to sneeze at, and no one you list has any equivalence to that kind of intelligence in their universe.

The Plutonian is probably the biggest threat of what you listed, sure, but your only talking about a very few of the many superman expies out there. I'd try to get more in, have Lex Luthor exploit their various issues to fight each other so he can buy time to prepare against the survivors make it a "which remaining superman expy will face Lex?" kind of story.

[Traab]

Its kind of funny that homelander is basically "Superman, but nuts, and like, a trillionth as strong in every measurable way" Homelander can turn crowds of people into ash, superman has heat visioned an entire planet. http://i.stack.imgur.com/y01ZM.jpg

Homelander is pretty strong, superman can tow a solar system. https://pm1.narvii.com/6429/32e223188b35309890b2a722facf07cdf7c89f1f_hq.jpg

Im aware they are different continuities but OP never established which one to use.

[HandofShadows]

Even leaving aside powers for the second Superman has lived fighting challenging opponents most of his life. Homelander has spent his time smiling for the camera's. He has no moves Superman won't have seen before and already beaten

Totally agree. Even if for some strange reason Superman isn't more powerful, he has a LOT more experience in combat. He has strategies and tactics that Homelander hasn't even dreamed of. Heck, even if Sups was depowered to the point Homelander was significantly stronger I would still give it to Sups just because he is much stronger emotionally and mentally than Homelander. If Homelander even felt extreme pain there is really nothing to stop him from curling up into a ball and drying like a baby since he never had to deal with it before. On the other hand Superman would just power through it without slowing down very much if at all. I think the much less powerful Spider Man could wipe the floor with Homelander with the only real fighting being while Peter figures out some way to really hurt Homelander (and he would).


Probably the funniest Superman villain I can imagine squishing Homelander like the psychotic bug he is would be Maxima.

"How dare you lay hand on the mate I have selected!" *Telekinetic beatdown* *Homelander's Head Asplode* (seriously, Maxima is an immensely powerful telepath. Somebody with as many loose screws as Homelander would come apart like a spun sugar castle under a firehose)

When I first read this I though you were talking about Maxima from the Grrl Power webcomic. Though I think she would also wipe the floor with Homelander. Just more violently. :smallamused:

[Jan Mattys]

Homelander is pretty strong, superman can tow a solar system. https://pm1.narvii.com/6429/32e223188b35309890b2a722facf07cdf7c89f1f_hq.jpg

That's just hilarious :smallbiggrin:

[Peelee]

Homelander is pretty strong, superman can tow a solar system. https://pm1.narvii.com/6429/32e223188b35309890b2a722facf07cdf7c89f1f_hq.jpg

He's kind of holding back on his powers there, though.
https://www.superdickery.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/woHHO.jpg

[Traab]

He's kind of holding back on his powers there, though.
https://www.superdickery.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/woHHO.jpg

Yep, he can fly fast enough to reach a long dead galaxy before his need to sneeze overpowers him. And then said sneeze destroys the entire place. Silver age superman is hilariously bananas. In perhaps SLIGHTLY less absurd terms, Im pretty sure the current incarnation of superman was able to bench press the weight of a planet for three days straight without stopping. At least i think thats the current version of supes, there might have been yet another reboot since then. Bottom line, homelander is a scrub compared to dc comic heroes. He is godlike to a civilian populace with no powers of their own, but against the dc stage he is second class at best. He isnt even top tier in the mcu which generally is far lower on the list than dc.

[Comissar]

The people in the DBZ world are not real. They cannot go to YouTube and watch DragonBall Z episodes. For the people in that world, there is no show called Dragon Ball Z. It doesn't exist.

((Snip))

So, I was portraying the viewpoint of someone in this fictional world. Not the real world. The fictional DBZ world. You could not show someone in the DBZ world a DBZ video, because that doesn't exist in their world.

In this fictional DBZ world, as far as they know, Hercule defeated Cell. They know this because, in this fictional world, where they cannot watch DBZ clips on youtube, they were toild that Hercule defeated Cell. By Hercule. After Cell was defeated.

I don't know about that, this certainly looks like a valid accounting of events in the DBZ world - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4Fa9OY2nmM

Edit - To be clear, specifically addressing the presence/absence of media covering the events of DBZ in DBZ, it's obvious that Hercule won, after all.

Edit the second - I'm saddened to realise my reading comprehension has failed me and that I was beaten to this joke by Mystic Muse.

[TeChameleon]

Yep, he can fly fast enough to reach a long dead galaxy before his need to sneeze overpowers him. And then said sneeze destroys the entire place. Silver age superman is hilariously bananas. In perhaps SLIGHTLY less absurd terms, Im pretty sure the current incarnation of superman was able to bench press the weight of a planet for three days straight without stopping. At least i think thats the current version of supes, there might have been yet another reboot since then. Bottom line, homelander is a scrub compared to dc comic heroes. He is godlike to a civilian populace with no powers of their own, but against the dc stage he is second class at best. He isnt even top tier in the mcu which generally is far lower on the list than dc.
Heh. Homelander vs. the Hulk would be fun to watch.

Bruce Banner: "You think you have mental issues? Mine are externalized, green, and break worlds."

That being said, I've been trying to think of who would be an even fight vs. Homelander, and I'm honestly having trouble. According to the VS. Battles Wiki (https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/VS_Battles_Wiki), by feats, Homelander is significantly weaker than Plastic Man. And yeah, I know, it's hardly an authoritative source, but it's a useful listing of feats, if nothing else.

... bloody hell, he's got less impressive feats than Killer Croc. Yeah, Homelander's not even second string in the DCU. Admittedly, a lot of that is probably because he's in a universe that's much, much lower power overall (quite frankly, the Boys has always struck me as "The Punisher kills the DC Universe."), so it's hard to gauge his feats since he doesn't have comparable foes to demonstrate against, but even so... :smallconfused:


When I first read this I though you were talking about Maxima from the Grrl Power webcomic. Though I think she would also wipe the floor with Homelander. Just more violently. :smallamused:
Agreed that Grrl Power Maxima would annihilate Homelander, but I'm not sure she'd do it more violently than DC Maxima- DC Max is a planetary monarch with very little regard for the lives of those who cross her and powers that let her give Superman a solid fight. GP Max is immensely powerful, but I don't think she can quite hang at the Superman tier, and in her current role she doesn't exactly have a license to kill.

... although I sincerely doubt that Homelander would enjoy the experience either way.

[Hariman]

Assuming approximately even power levels, Superman would win due to being more stable and less prone to mental breakdowns/arrogance, as well as being a more experienced fighter, as others have mentioned.

Really, it's not a question of IF Superman would win in my mind, but of how much damage Homelander would do before Superman stopped holding back and started beating him into a pulp.

Also... for the mention of Batman "doing the math" on how many people The Joker killed, it's not that. It's Batman's No Kill policy combined with the fecklessness of the Gotham City Justice System being unwilling to put The Joker on death row for mass murder with witnesses and repeat offenses with witnesses.

[Rater202]

Also... for the mention of Batman "doing the math" on how many people The Joker killed, it's not that. It's Batman's No Kill policy combined with the fecklessness of the Gotham City Justice System being unwilling to put The Joker on death row for mass murder with witnesses and repeat offenses with witnesses.
That's not what was being referred to.

There was a scene in the comics where Batman justifies to himself that it may be necessary for Superman to kill Lex Luthor by pointing out that Lex is a far bigger threat to far more people who does much, much more harm than even the Joker, then says to Clark something along the lines of "I won't stop you if you want to kill him."

Doing the math was something I did a few months ago, and the math supports the idea that, in the grand scheme of things, the Joker isn't a big deal.

All of the "main timeline" jokers, golden age, silver age, post crisis, and New 52 collectively have a body count of 616 confirmed kills.

The Joker first appeared in 1940.

So, the Joker's average body count, per year, is 7.7. I actually misremembered my own math and thought it was much higher than that.

If you account for the fact that there are canonically three jokers, it becomes just over two people a year on average.

For comparison, 65.8 people per year die from car accidents in Chicago(and Gotham is typically based on Chicago.)

[Ramza00]

If you account for the fact that there are canonically three jokers, it becomes just over two people a year on average.

What is happening with that? I only heard bad things so far (please use spoilers since it is new comics for other people, but I am really curious.)

[Peelee]

Gotham is usually based on New York or Chicago ("Gotham" is an unofficial old name for NYC). Also, Joker's body count would be significantly higher if Batman didn't stop him constantly, so the low kill count says more about Batman's efficacy over Superman's with LL, I'd argue.

Also, if Batman says that, just make him pull the trigger. That's a cheap cop out of his "no kill" rule.

[Rater202]

Also, if Batman says that, just make him pull the trigger. That's a cheap cop out of his "no kill" rule.

No... Because the scene was Batman and Superman confronting lex in person while Clark was pissed and actively contemplating killing Lex due to the stunt Lex had just pulled.

We see Clark's thoughts, he's comparing Lex to a fox that just won't stay out of the henhouse and sometimes there's no choice bu to kill the fox.

It's not Batman's no kill policy being tested. It's Clark's.

All Bruce says, after some internal monolog about the threat that Lex poses is that if Clark kills Lex at this moment, Bruce won't hold it against him. And that he'd help hide the body.

Ultimately, Clark doesn't go through with it... But near thing.

[Devonix]

When it comes to the killing thing, you also have to take into account that this is a world in which the characters involved know for a fact that killing someone won't get rid of them forever. Killing the Joker just means some demon's gonna get ahold of him, and probably send him back to Earth, now you have Demon Joker.

At least if you lock him up, you actually know where he is.

[Peelee]

No... Because the scene was Batman and Superman confronting lex in person while Clark was pissed and actively contemplating killing Lex due to the stunt Lex had just pulled.

We see Clark's thoughts, he's comparing Lex to a fox that just won't stay out of the henhouse and sometimes there's no choice bu to kill the fox.

It's not Batman's no kill policy being tested. It's Clark's.

All Bruce says, after some internal monolog about the threat that Lex poses is that if Clark kills Lex at this moment, Bruce won't hold it against him. And that he'd help hide the body.

Ultimately, Clark doesn't go through with it... But near thing.

If Batman sees Superman debating killing a guy and Batman says, "I won't stop you if you want to kill him," then Batman doesn't have a no-kill rule. That Batman has a "the blood isn't technically on my hands" rule. As I said, cheap cop out. Just have him pull the damn trigger if he's gonna go that route.

Also, I was unaware that Superman had an absolute no-kill rule.

[Devonix]

If Batman sees Superman debating killing a guy and Batman says, "I won't stop you if you want to kill him," then Batman doesn't have a no-kill rule. That Batman has a "the blood isn't technically on my hands" rule. As I said, cheap cop out. Just have him pull the damn trigger if he's gonna go that route.

Also, I was unaware that Superman had an absolute no-kill rule.

Superman doesn't have a no kill rule, he has a no murder rule. The thing is that Superman can easily capture most opponents, with no threat to himself or to other people. Supes wants to protect life, all life. He doesn't want to beat his opponents, he wants to save them, because he feels that everyone has the possibility of change and becoming better.

Superman killing is a last resort to save the lives of others.

[Peelee]

Superman doesn't have a no kill rule, he has a no murder rule. The thing is that Superman can easily capture most opponents, with no threat to himself or to other people. Supes wants to protect life, all life. He doesn't want to beat his opponents, he wants to save them, because he feels that everyone has the possibility of change and becoming better.

Superman killing is a last resort to save the lives of others.

That's more or less what I meant with that last line. But you put it much better.

[Rater202]

If Batman sees Superman debating killing a guy and Batman says, "I won't stop you if you want to kill him," then Batman doesn't have a no-kill rule. That Batman has a "the blood isn't technically on my hands" rule. As I said, cheap cop out. Just have him pull the damn trigger if he's gonna go that route.

Also, I was unaware that Superman had an absolute no-kill rule.

Superman's code against killing is a lot less strict than Batman's. Superman has no problems killing something that needs killing, though he'll feel really bad about it afterward.

Batman's code against killing is "I do not believe that I have the right to make the decision to end someone's life. As an unelected vigilante, I have no actual authority to make the decision to imprison or execute, and as it is the law is being bent significantly in my favor. Beyond that, Gordon was quite clear that the deal I have with the police department goes away if he ever suspects I deliberately killed someone, and finally, having done a thorough inventory of my mental state I do not believe I could take a man's life and be okay afterward. The best-case scenario is it breaks me, the worst-case scenario is that I go off the deep end and end up murdering criminals" and overtime added, "honestly a lot of them don't stay dead anyway and there's a serious risk of the particularly evil or insane people coming back with supernatural powers."

It's not about moral superiority. It's about, for as cynical as Bruce is, he still believes that the system can work. He values life enough, even the lives of murderers, that he doesn't think he has the right to personally take it. If someone is to be killed, it should be done by the cold judgement of the state, not by any one individual man who may or may not have an emotional reason for doing it.

Batman doesn't have a problem with other people killing, per se... He has a problem with murderers, and he insists that if you are in his territory you follow his rules("we bring them in, but it's the state's job to determine what justice is and carry it out"). If you, on your own time, commit a justifiable homicide in the interest of saving lives, he doesn't have a problem with that, unless there were other options and you can't give a good reason for why you didn't pursue them.

This isn't a "don't get blood on my hands" thing, this is a "I can see the argument for killing him, and this is your call. If you want to go for it..."

[Peelee]

Superman's code against killing is a lot less strict than Batman's. Superman has no problems killing something that needs killing, though he'll feel really bad about it afterward.

Batman's code against killing is "I do not believe that I have the right to make the decision to end someone's life. As an unelected vigilante, I have no actual authority to make the decision to imprison or execute, and as it is the law is being bent significantly in my favor. Beyond that, Gordon was quite clear that the deal I have with the police department goes away if he ever suspects I deliberately killed someone, and finally, having done a thorough inventory of my mental state I do not believe I could take a man's life and be okay afterward. The best-case scenario is it breaks me, the worst-case scenario is that I go off the deep end and end up murdering criminals" and overtime added, "honestly a lot of them don't stay dead anyway and there's a serious risk of the particularly evil or insane people coming back with supernatural powers."

It's not about moral superiority. It's about, for as cynical as Bruce is, he still believes that the system can work. He values life enough, even the lives of murderers, that he doesn't think he has the right to personally take it. If someone is to be killed, it should be done by the cold judgement of the state, not by any one individual man who may or may not have an emotional reason for doing it.

Batman doesn't have a problem with other people killing, per se... He has a problem with murderers, and he insists that if you are in his territory you follow his rules("we bring them in, but it's the state's job to determine what justice is and carry it out"). If you, on your own time, commit a justifiable homicide in the interest of saving lives, he doesn't have a problem with that, unless there were other options and you can't give a good reason for why you didn't pursue them.

This isn't a "don't get blood on my hands" thing, this is a "I can see the argument for killing him, and this is your call. If you want to go for it..."

No, that line is pretty much a "don't get blood on my hands" thing. Like, you can keep trying to argue the point, but it's not going to sway me. I fundamentally disagree with you on this.

[comicshorse]

Doing the math was something I did a few months ago, and the math supports the idea that, in the grand scheme of things, the Joker isn't a big deal.

All of the "main timeline" jokers, golden age, silver age, post crisis, and New 52 collectively have a body count of 616 confirmed kills.

The Joker first appeared in 1940.

So, the Joker's average body count, per year, is 7.7. I actually misremembered my own math and thought it was much higher than that.

If you account for the fact that there are canonically three jokers, it becomes just over two people a year on average.

For comparison, 65.8 people per year die from car accidents in Chicago(and Gotham is typically based on Chicago.)

I'm intrigued by this. Is there a web-site that's worked this out (and if so what) ? Because this seems awfully low. I mean if we are including people killed by the Joker's minions I'd think the 'War of Jokes and Riddles' storyline would be easily into treble figures on its own

[Rater202]

I'm intrigued by this. Is there a web-site that's worked this out (and if so what) ? Because this seems awfully low. I mean if we are including people killed by the Joker's minions I'd think the 'War of Jokes and Riddles' storyline would be easily into treble figures on its own

Google "Joker Body count" and there's a page on the Dc wiki that keeps track of them.

Admittedly, I there are also an unknown number of possible kills. I only did my math on the confirmed kills.

[comicshorse]

Google "Joker Body count" and there's a page on the Dc wiki that keeps track of them.

Admittedly, I there are also an unknown number of possible kills. I only did my math on the confirmed kills.

Ok, thanks :smallcool:
That's this morning's plans made (takes deep breath, dives in)

[M1982]

Hercule would best this Superdude. After saving the world from Cell, he later saved the world again from this god of destruction guy called Billig. He even became a god himself to fight him. How could some Supermen alien beat him?

The last alien champion arriving on earth to challenge our hero had a change of heart at last Minute and rather ran for his live!

That's how Hercule Deals with aliens!

[M1982]

If we're talking the strongest version of Superman vs Homelander then yeah it's not even worth discussing. Homelander is a middling powerhouse who happens to be impressive by mortal standards, sure. But Superman is strong enough to punch the universe into retconning, fast enough to escape the gravitational pull of a black hole, and tough enough to take a nuke to the face without much problem even in some of his weaker incarnations.

...but if we're talking "more powerful than a locomotive, faster than a speeding bullet, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound" Superman, that's probably more of a fair fight? And sure that's probably not what OP meant, but also Superman has lost battles on occasion when by all accounts he shouldn't have even been inconvenienced. (https://i.imgur.com/RdHTpSi.jpg)
It's almost as if the authors have no grasp of physics:)

Mentioning tanking a nuke isn't actually worth mentioning at all after the black hole Stunt. The forces he endured there are so many orders of magnitude beyond, in comparison tanking a nuke is as meaningless as tanking a snowball thrown by a toddlet

[dancrilis]

"I won't stop you if you want to kill him," then Batman doesn't have a no-kill rule. That Batman has a "the blood isn't technically on my hands" rule.

Batman has at least once explained his rule on killing fairly clearly and easily.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJCxgt7Qb6k

[Rater202]

Batman has at least once explained his rule on killing fairly clearly and easily.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJCxgt7Qb6k

That's actually a pretty bad example... Batman was involved in the causing of that train accident. So, by not saving Ras from it, he did in fact kill him.

[CharonsHelper]

Superman's code against killing is a lot less strict than Batman's. Superman has no problems killing something that needs killing, though he'll feel really bad about it afterward.

Batman's code against killing is "I do not believe that I have the right to make the decision to end someone's life. As an unelected vigilante, I have no actual authority to make the decision to imprison or execute, and as it is the law is being bent significantly in my favor. Beyond that, Gordon was quite clear that the deal I have with the police department goes away if he ever suspects I deliberately killed someone, and finally, having done a thorough inventory of my mental state I do not believe I could take a man's life and be okay afterward. The best-case scenario is it breaks me, the worst-case scenario is that I go off the deep end and end up murdering criminals" and overtime added, "honestly a lot of them don't stay dead anyway and there's a serious risk of the particularly evil or insane people coming back with supernatural powers."

It's not about moral superiority. It's about, for as cynical as Bruce is, he still believes that the system can work. He values life enough, even the lives of murderers, that he doesn't think he has the right to personally take it. If someone is to be killed, it should be done by the cold judgement of the state, not by any one individual man who may or may not have an emotional reason for doing it.

Batman doesn't have a problem with other people killing, per se... He has a problem with murderers, and he insists that if you are in his territory you follow his rules("we bring them in, but it's the state's job to determine what justice is and carry it out"). If you, on your own time, commit a justifiable homicide in the interest of saving lives, he doesn't have a problem with that, unless there were other options and you can't give a good reason for why you didn't pursue them.

This isn't a "don't get blood on my hands" thing, this is a "I can see the argument for killing him, and this is your call. If you want to go for it..."

Yeah, it always struck me that Batman wasn't a pacifist; he wouldn't be against killing in war etc.

It always felt that it was largely a rule for himself as a line that he would never cross, because he knew that once he crossed it he could easily go full-on Punisher if he wasn't careful, or possibly even worse.

In the scene described above with Superman & Lex, I'd only consider that a hypocritical "blood's not on MY hands" if he'd been egging Superman on to kill Lex Luthor.

[Peelee]

Batman has at least once explained his rule on killing fairly clearly and easily.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJCxgt7Qb6k

Yeah, I don't think that really makes the case you believe it does.

[Friv]

No, that line is pretty much a "don't get blood on my hands" thing. Like, you can keep trying to argue the point, but it's not going to sway me. I fundamentally disagree with you on this.

I would call it not "don't get blood on my hands", so much as "I do not trust me, but I trust Clark, and Clark isn't going to kill Lex unless it really is absolutely necessary."

[Peelee]

I would call it not "don't get blood on my hands", so much as "I do not trust me, but I trust Clark, and Clark isn't going to kill Lex unless it really is absolutely necessary."

Nope. "I won't kill you but I won't stop this guy from killing you" is "I technically don't have blood on my hands". "I trust this guy to kill" means "I have nothing against killing, so long as it's the right person doing the killing".

I don't buy it. I never have bought it. I never will buy it. If they want Batman to go that route, then just let Batman do it himself instead of making him hide behind weak words.

[dancrilis]

Yeah, I don't think that really makes the case you believe it does.

I am not really making a case more I think it can be helpful to get words from the horse's (or a version of the horse's) mouth at times.

For comparison:


https://youtu.be/2MU5c0zKjVE?t=82

[Ramza00]

(I agree with Peelee)

Batman’s who thing with killing is the “sacredness” of murder can only be performed by people who have the sacred right to do so, people who are ritually pure and ordained the sovereign right to kill, like a high priest. This high priest in the Gotham, US culture is the judge and jury. Put another way the sacred sovereignty rests in the people in this culture, but in other cultures society allows / grants this power to a king, and other cultures a high priest. Etc, etc.

Batman / Bruce recognizes he is not the sacred sovereign, he is merely a rich guy who dresses up in a drag costume trying to tap into the elemental fears of criminals where someone can stop them and drag them away out of the corner of their eyes.

—————

Batman / Bruce has an ideology but like Peelee I find it lacking and I do not grant this mystical belief of this is how things should be with killing and murder. It is merely a farcical word game where saying Murder is Profane, but ritual killing by the law is somehow Sacred for the ritual acts cleans the judge and creates an atmosphere of forgiveness and atonement.

[Strigon]

Nope. "I won't kill you but I won't stop this guy from killing you" is "I technically don't have blood on my hands". "I trust this guy to kill" means "I have nothing against killing, so long as it's the right person doing the killing".

I don't buy it. I never have bought it. I never will buy it. If they want Batman to go that route, then just let Batman do it himself instead of making him hide behind weak words.

I mean, his reasoning is essentially "It may be right to kill some people. I do not trust myself to make that distinction, so I will not make the choice to kill anyone. However, someone else may be in a better position to make that call, and I won't stop them."
It's no different than a normal person not prescribing medicine because they don't have the expertise, but allowing a doctor to prescribe that same medicine when they see it as necessary.

The issue isn't "Killing is wrong, so I don't want blood on my hands," it's "I don't trust myself in particular to choose who dies, but I recognize Superman as a higher authority on the matter, and I'm willing to accept his judgement."

Also, for what it's worth, I don't think Batman would consider himself innocent in the killing of Luthor in this case. I'm pretty sure he'd consider himself just as responsible for Luthor's death as he would Superman.

Edit: It's also worth pointing out that there are many Batmans out there, who tend to vary drastically on who they will kill and why/why not. But as a rule, it tends to be more pragmatism than morality with Batman - ie, "If I kill this person, I lose the trust of Gotham and risk going down an ever-darker path". Whether or not he performs an action that is morally the same as killing someone himself is kind of irrelevant, because his justifications for not killing are usually not, at their core, moral.

[Peelee]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOooJW5SSDA

Anything less than that doesn't fly, as far as I'm concerned. Various Batman's in the hands of various authors have done worse. I disagree with those. That is my Batman. TAS Batman is my Batman. Gandalf's "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?" is my Batman.

[CharonsHelper]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOooJW5SSDA

Anything less than that doesn't fly, as far as I'm concerned. Various Batman's in the hands of various authors have done worse. I disagree with those. That is my Batman. TAS Batman is my Batman. Gandalf's "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?" is my Batman.

That's not mutually exclusive with being okay with killing in other circumstances. She was an innocent who had been manipulated. Lex Luther isn't.

To a slightly different tac: that's basically the classic DM Paladin trap of "kill the baby or the demons win" BS, but not killing the baby doesn't mean that a Paladin wouldn't kill the demons that show up, or their summoners.

[Peelee]

That's not mutually exclusive with being okay with killing in other circumstances. She was an innocent who had been manipulated. Lex Luther isn't.

Don't care. Like I've said before, this is a fundamental disagreement. I will not be swayed in this. You can explain your reasoning (like how I'm explaining mine), but it's not a debate.

For me, Batman is best Batman when he wants to stop the killing. Doesn't matter who. Doesn't matter why. And nobody should be killed while trying to accomplish that. Bad guys try to kill? He should try his best to stop that. Good guys try to kill? He should try his best to stop that. Because just stop the damn killing.

When Batman stops caring, I stop caring.

[dancrilis]

Sure if you take one of the best versions of Batman (most in my opinion don't really live up to that) - but even he was willing to risk killing someone at at least one point (and was tempted to do the job himself a short while later).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUyWVhjbGcE

[Peelee]

Sure if you take one of the best versions of Batman (most in my opinion don't really live up to that) - but even he was willing to risk killing someone at at least one point (and was tempted to do the job himself a short while later).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUyWVhjbGcE

I see Batman immediately trying to save him, then Batman being human but still not giving in. I don't see him killing. I don't see him trying to kill.

You can't "gotcha" me with a clip. TAS is among the best I've ever seen Batman consistently portrayed, but if you can dredge up a clip of him killing someone on there, I'll be the first to decry that episode. It's not going to make me change my stance. It's just going to make me dislike that rendition of Batman.

I agree that most versions of Batman don't live up to his best. And it should be pretty easy to guess how I feel about most versions of Batman.

[Traab]

I wonder, can anyone tell me when it was that batman stopped killing people? Classic batman killed PLENTY of people, mooks especially. There was one comic where he basically hung a big mental aptient a bad guy had doped up on drugs with a cable from the bat plane while he flew off. His very first comic he literally punched a fat dude into a vat of acid. Another dude in a later comic threw a sword at him, batman used a door to block it, then punched the guy as he begged for mercy neck first into his own sword. In another detective comic he dodged a gunman trying to shoot him, the proceeded to break his neck by kicking him so hard in the head his neck snapped. These were all in the first year or so of his creation. A lot of the others were alternate versions so dont count, but im honestly curious to know when they established "no killing, no, not even then." as his mantra.

For the record I agree, BtAS is THE batman character for me, and the ace scene was great.

[CharonsHelper]

Don't care. Like I've said before, this is a fundamental disagreement. I will not be swayed in this. You can explain your reasoning (like how I'm explaining mine), but it's not a debate.


Two things.

1. This is the internet. EVERYTHING is up for debate. :cool:

2. I was mostly pointing out that the clip about Ace (which I agree is awesome) doesn't actually prove your point at all, though you seemed to think that it did. My explanation of Batman above is 100% consistent with that scene, as well as the rest of Batman TAS.

In addition - I really don't see Batman being ALWAYS for saving lives. I definitely see him being okay with the death penalty (assuming Gotham had it). He wouldn't plunge the needle in himself, but I don't see Batman showing up at the execution to punch prison guards and save a serial killer from the needle either.

In the Sewer King clip above, he specifically said that it was up to the courts - which implies that he'd be okay with whatever sentence they gave.

[Ibrinar]

Don't care. Like I've said before, this is a fundamental disagreement. I will not be swayed in this. You can explain your reasoning (like how I'm explaining mine), but it's not a debate.


What does it matter whether you care or will be convinced to whether the clip is relevant as example?

[Peelee]

Two things.

1. This is the internet. EVERYTHING is up for debate.

2. I was mostly pointing out that the clip about Ace (which I agree is awesome) doesn't actually prove your point at all, though you seemed to think that it did.

In addition - I really don't see Batman being ALWAYS for saving lives. I don't see him not being okay with the death penalty (assuming Gotham had it). He wouldn't plunge the needle in himself, but I don't see Batman showing up at the execution to save a serial killer from the needle either.

In the Sewer King clip above, he specifically said that it was up to the courts - which implies that he'd be okay with whatever sentence they gave.

1.) 1 and 2 are the same point, in a way; I'm not debating. I'm not making a point. I'm not proving a point. I'm explaining why I have my belief, and used a clip as an example. I don't care if the clip doesn't cover all cases; it's just an example, it doesn't need to. If you disagree, that's perfectly fine. If you want to convince me I should think differently, that's not going to happen, and I'm perfectly happy to tell you why.

B.) I don't see Batman breaking in to stop the plunger from being pushed in a state-sanctioned execution. I do see Bruce Wayne fighting against the death penalty in Gotham City with his considerable resources. I should also point out that I like when Gotham City, from all appearances, does not seem to have the death penalty (for any depictions where it does, see my opinion in depictions of Batman being OK with killing in some circumstances).

[dancrilis]

I see Batman immediately trying to save him, then Batman being human but still not giving in. I don't see him killing. I don't see him trying to kill.

My point (such as it is a point) was more that he kicked a man into a pool of alligators - and yes he tried to save him but if the man had tried to grab his hand and failed and then been eaten I think it would be fair to say 'Batman killed that guy', and when he thought that was the case his response was not 'what have I done!' and more 'he deserved that'.



You can't "gotcha" me with a clip. TAS is among the best I've ever seen Batman consistently portrayed, but if you can dredge up a clip of him killing someone on there, I'll be the first to decry that episode. It's not going to make me change my stance. It's just going to make me dislike that rendition of Batman.

The closest I can think of to this actually happening (for normal humans* at least) would be where Justice Lords Batman allows Justice Lords Superman to kill the Lex Luthor of that world - and that version of Batman was still a fair bit morally above the rest of the Justice Lords.

[Peelee]

My point (such as it is a point) was more that he kicked a man into a pool of alligators - and yes he tried to save him but if the man had tried to grab his hand and failed and then been eaten I think it would be fair to say 'Batman killed that guy', and when he thought that was the case his response was not 'what have I done!' and more 'he deserved that'.

I got that, and I should have addressed it better myself. Batman saved himself. That was the single most important priority. Self-preservation is a hell of a thing to overcome even if you're not a super-genius detective ninja. He saved himself the only way he could. He then immediately, without any hesitation whatsoever, tried to save the man who has just tried to kill him.

This wasn't pushing other people out of the way to get into a lifeboat on a sinking ship. This was the only way he could possibly not die. It was a full-on you-or-me, where he wasn't the one forcing that situation. Self-defense is different. But here's the kicker: even then he still tries to save the guy. If you give Batman a "you die or he dies" scenario, Batman picks option 3: Batman lives, then tries to save the other. Binary choice be damned.

TAS did right by Batman.

[Sapphire Guard]

Homelander would not care about the legalities... but Lex would factor that into his plans and plot his downfall while avoiding face to face confrontations.

On Batman rules, I'm not familiar with that comic. I've heard of it, but have we the internal monologue somewhere? It may be that Bats is factoring in the effect saying that may have on Lex.

Yeah, the Batman Begins deal is just rules lawyering.

Why doesn't he kill the Joker is never really a good question. Mr J's kill count isn't much higher than the rest of his rogues gallery (and is well below the likes of Ra's, maybe Bane, sometimes Ivy and Scarecrow.) The only difference is he occasionally randomly kills his own men. He's not special.

Batman tries, to the absolute best of his abilities, not to kill people, but he's aware that other people are not Batman, so if Gordon has to shoot someone in self defence by virtue of not having non lethal options, Bats won't hold it against him.

[Ramza00]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOooJW5SSDA

Anything less than that doesn't fly, as far as I'm concerned. Various Batman's in the hands of various authors have done worse. I disagree with those. That is my Batman. TAS Batman is my Batman. Gandalf's "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?" is my Batman.

But that is healthy Batman, one with friends, equals, where he open himself up to vulnerability and support systems.

But there are other forms of Batman, with toxic Bat Family dynamics, and even less healthy Batman where he is the loner and he is more compulsive in his death drive eternal quest with Gotham, re-enacting the death of his parents except now he has power for he is costumed and 30s and not an 8 year old boy visiting the place of the other a night on the town as a child full of wonder.

Healthy Batman that you identify Peelee is him open himself up to vulnerability, allowing the stranger and fear to wash over him and he is a parent to Ace during this time of the unknown. He is literally what he needed as an 8 year old. Thus best Bruce.

[Peelee]

But that is healthy Batman, one with friends, equals, where he open himself up to vulnerability and support systems.

But there are other forms of Batman, with toxic Bat Family dynamics, and even less healthy Batman where he is the loner and he is more compulsive in his death drive eternal quest with Gotham, re-enacting the death of his parents except now he has power for he is costumed and 30s and not an 8 year old boy visiting the place of the other a night on the town as a child full of wonder.

Healthy Batman that you identify Peelee is him open himself up to vulnerability, allowing the stranger and fear to wash over him and he is a parent to Ace during this time of the unknown. He is literally what he needed as an 8 year old. Thus best Bruce.

Huh. I never thought about it like that, but yeah, you're totally right.

I like healthy Batman.

[Ramza00]

Huh. I never thought about it like that, but yeah, you're totally right.

I like healthy Batman.

As do I.

For example the scene in Justice League where Batman is in Guerrilla City and he thinks Wonder Woman has died and he is trying to save her / unbury her not sure if she is alive or dead under rubble. Then we see Diana is alive, and she notices his dirty hands which he quickly hides behind his cowl for he realizes he is vulnerable. This type of Bruce is interesting. Healthy vulnerable Batman is also the most generous, charitable, forgiving, kind, and empathizing Batman, unhealthy Batman is a person I would not like to know.

[Bartmanhomer]

I like Batman. Batman is very compassionate and empathetic. :smile:

[Mystic Muse]

I like Batman. Batman is very compassionate and empathetic. :smile:

Unless you like punk music.

He thinks Punk is nothing but death, crime, and the RAAAAAAAGE of the beast!

(It's really funny how blatant people get with thrusting their own beliefs into characters where they do not work.)

[Bartmanhomer]

Unless you like punk music.

He thinks Punk is nothing but death, crime, and the RAAAAAAAGE of the beast!

(It's really funny how blatant people get with thrusting their own beliefs into characters where they do not work.)

I get the joke. Funny. :smile: Punk music isn't my cup of tea though.

[Traab]

As do I.

For example the scene in Justice League where Batman is in Guerrilla City and he thinks Wonder Woman has died and he is trying to save her / unbury her not sure if she is alive or dead under rubble. Then we see Diana is alive, and she notices his dirty hands which he quickly hides behind his cowl for he realizes he is vulnerable. This type of Bruce is interesting. Healthy vulnerable Batman is also the most generous, charitable, forgiving, kind, and empathizing Batman, unhealthy Batman is a person I would not like to know.


Yeah that batman is awesome. He is gruff, stern, stoic, and all of that hard nosed behavior you expect from the terror that flaps in the night. But he CARES. He cares so deeply its incredible when you get to see those rare flashes. He cares for his children, every member of the bat clan. He cares for the league who are, at least the senior council members, his friends, or more family to him. He would rather that nobody ever see that as he knows it can be used against him. "Oh so you care about robin ey? I wonder what would happen if I, i dunno, beat him to death with a crowbar then blew him up?" (Not sure why such a random scenario popped into my head) And he also hates showing any vulnerability. But its there. I also liked the start of batman beyond. Where bruce retired because he picked up a gun to threaten a thug with due to his heart issues nearly getting him killed. The second he got out of there he swore never again, and stuck to it. Because he knew he was an inch from being forced to shoot someone or die himself. He hung up his suit and stopped.

[Ramza00]

I wonder, can anyone tell me when it was that batman stopped killing people? Classic batman killed PLENTY of people, mooks especially. There was one comic where he basically hung a big mental aptient a bad guy had doped up on drugs with a cable from the bat plane while he flew off. His very first comic he literally punched a fat dude into a vat of acid. Another dude in a later comic threw a sword at him, batman used a door to block it, then punched the guy as he begged for mercy neck first into his own sword. In another detective comic he dodged a gunman trying to shoot him, the proceeded to break his neck by kicking him so hard in the head his neck snapped. These were all in the first year or so of his creation. A lot of the others were alternate versions so dont count, but im honestly curious to know when they established "no killing, no, not even then." as his mantra.

This is complicated but let me give you the rough idea.

Batman was first introduced in the Detective Comics in 1939. He was such a popular character that he got his own spin off in 1940 (Batman Vol 1 issue 1.) Likewise there was a 2nd spin off in 1941 with World Finest Comics. At the same time Robin (**** Grayson) was almost always as old as Batman for he was introduced in Detective Comics in 1940 (so a year after), and was in Batman Vol 1 #1 in 1940, and World Finest Comics with Superman, Batman, and **** in 1941 (focusing on these 3 characters.)

When Batman is first introduced in Detective Comics he used guns and flats out murder people. Yet editors of DC behind the scenes were already reformulating the character by 1940. Batman still is murdering people with Guns in 1940 in Batman Vol 1 and by issue 4 (labeled Winter 1940 but not released until mid January 1941) Batman now sometimes uses the opponents guns against them but never shoots to kill. See editor's note.


https://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2116/144/1600/Batman004-43.jpg


Note there are contradictory stories which editor decided Batman should not use Guns but after that 1941 issue we see the amount of gun use dramatically decrease.

That said Batman was still killing via other means in the 1940s like throwing people off buildings, including a time a person was literally hanged. It was a very "pulpy" time in the 1940s with grim and dark. Yet that Batman #4 issue in 1941, in a different comic of this same anthology we hear Batman tell Robin to try not to kill via using the non sharp end of the blade when fighting villains while sword fighting.

-------

The Silver Age Batman more or less started in 1954 and 1955 with Seduction of the Innocent where psychiatrist Fredric Wertham, was corrupting the youth in various ways such as making them gay (see famous Batman and Robin picture with them in the same bed) and making the violent and so on. Fredric Wertham even had a congressional hearing for this was the time of the Red Scare and also the other politics of the Era tied to the Baby Boom.

Thus we see two things happen with Batman.

A) Batman becomes more sci-fi and "kids friendly" with things like Batmite and so on. The style of the silver age of Batman comics is different than the darker more gritty crime fighter of the 1939 to early 1950s. Note the sales of Batman was already going down in the late 1940s and early 1950s for "pulp comics were no longer in fashion."

B) 2nd the Comic Industry decided to self-censor itself with the adoption of the Comic Code Authority, something similar to the Hay's Code.

Here is the list of the rules of the CCA with 1954 http://cbldf.org/the-comics-code-of-1954/ Note there is not a single CCA for it got revisions at later dates notably 1971 and 1989. But the 1954 code would not allow Batman to throw people off buildings and so on. The heroes must be heroic and the villains must always lose and their plans thwarted. Crime can never be fun it must be seen as unpleasant and sordid. Authority figures such as Cops, Judges, Mayors, etc should always be presented in a light that elicits respect and is not disrespectful. No gay stuff, no horror, so on and so on. It is only 1200 something words long so go read it, and only 900 words of actual rules with the rest being preamble and set up on the mission statement.

But yeah the CCA pretty much created the "no killing rule" for Batman while prior to that it was "no gun rule" in less than 2 years of the character's introduction.

-------

And thus writers wrote around these constraints especially when Batman became less sci-fi and less camp in the bronze age roughly with the 70s. That said in the 70s to 00s we see different takes on Batman some giving tragic backstories like Batman does not use guns due to his 8 year old trauma.

While other stories have Batman specifically killing supervillains in direct and indirect ways. For example in (Batman Annual #8 in 1982) Ra's Al Ghul is mad and space laser stuff. At the end of the comic Ras is getting away but Batman modified the shuttle before the final conflict and Batman literally kills him with the sun / space laser, via remote controlling the spacecraft. Let me repeat this, Batman purposefully murders Ra's for Ra's is nuts. Batman after listening to Ra's dying screams decides to turn off the radio where he is listening. Then he vents the body from the space shuttle (now dust, not a body) and Batman, Robin, and Talia go back to earth. Robin calls him out on this this and says you killed him and Batman rhetorically says "did I?" Talia is crying. When they get back on Earth Talia who was planning to marry Bruce earlier in the issue and helped betray her father tells Bruce to leave and she doesn't want to see him again.

-------

In sum Batman is a complicated character over 75 well now 81 years of history. Many of the different Batmans are "Not My Batman" for I use a "loose cannon" approach with Superheroes and also Myths when the stories are dozens of years old and thus there are THOUSANDS of issues.

For example do I want to think about in Greek Myth in one of the stories of Odysseus he had kids with Circe (3 of them) and one of the kids, the youngest Telemachus, wants to know where his absent dad is? That kid Telemachus thus goes Ithaca to search for his father, gets lost actually shows up to Ithaca but does not know it is Ithaca then raids that city for he is starving and in the process kills his father Odysseus. More stuff happened but the end result is Telemachus marries Odysseus first wife Penelope, while Telegonus (son of Penelope and Odysseus) who also did his own sea journey searching for his dad goes to Circe's island and marries Circe. In sum two "half-brothers" marry each other's Step-Mothers who used to be married to their dad Odysseus. So did these stories both happen? Can we merge the Illiad with the Odyssey, and the later epic story the Telegony? Well I say they are merely Loose Cannon and you can say the stories take place in alternate universes for sometimes these canon fights get creepy and weird. :smalltongue:


Yeah that batman is awesome. He is gruff, stern, stoic, and all of that hard nosed behavior you expect from the terror that flaps in the night. But he CARES. He cares so deeply its incredible when you get to see those rare flashes. He cares for his children, every member of the bat clan. He cares for the league who are, at least the senior council members, his friends, or more family to him. He would rather that nobody ever see that as he knows it can be used against him. "Oh so you care about robin ey? I wonder what would happen if I, i dunno, beat him to death with a crowbar then blew him up?" (Not sure why such a random scenario popped into my head) And he also hates showing any vulnerability. But its there. I also liked the start of batman beyond. Where bruce retired because he picked up a gun to threaten a thug with due to his heart issues nearly getting him killed. The second he got out of there he swore never again, and stuck to it. Because he knew he was an inch from being forced to shoot someone or die himself. He hung up his suit and stopped.

And that is the batman that I like, for as you pointed out Traab even though he is mostly healthy in Justice League, he is not always healthy and he was a jerk some of the time with **** Grayson, and Terry McGinnis. Sometimes you wonder why the Bat Family bothers with him. Other times the same person actually does care when he is around people he cares about and he gives himself permission to be a better version of himself (which in turn helps other people , even the villains of the series.)

[Peelee]

Yeah that batman is awesome. He is gruff, stern, stoic, and all of that hard nosed behavior you expect from the terror that flaps in the night. But he CARES. He cares so deeply its incredible when you get to see those rare flashes. He cares for his children, every member of the bat clan. He cares for the league who are, at least the senior council members, his friends, or more family to him. He would rather that nobody ever see that as he knows it can be used against him. "Oh so you care about robin ey? I wonder what would happen if I, i dunno, beat him to death with a crowbar then blew him up?" (Not sure why such a random scenario popped into my head) And he also hates showing any vulnerability. But its there. I also liked the start of batman beyond. Where bruce retired because he picked up a gun to threaten a thug with due to his heart issues nearly getting him killed. The second he got out of there he swore never again, and stuck to it. Because he knew he was an inch from being forced to shoot someone or die himself. He hung up his suit and stopped.

I also loved everything about Batman Beyond, but i Hagerty really seen it since it aired. I sound check it out again. I bet it's still shway.

[dancrilis]

I also loved everything about Batman Beyond, but i Hagerty really seen it since it aired. I sound check it out again. I bet it's still shway.

If you haven't seen it Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_Beyond%3A_Return_of_the_Joker) is one of the best batman movies in my opinion, and I say that despite not really thinking much of Batman Beyond in general (decent but nothing special).

[Rater202]

If you haven't seen it Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_Beyond%3A_Return_of_the_Joker) is one of the best batman movies in my opinion, and I say that despite not really thinking much of Batman Beyond in general (decent but nothing special).

As a child of the 90s, Mark Hamill will always be my Joker, but this is the movie that cemented him as The Joker in my honest opinion.

[Ramza00]

If you haven't seen it Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_Beyond%3A_Return_of_the_Joker) is one of the best batman movies in my opinion, and I say that despite not really thinking much of Batman Beyond in general (decent but nothing special).

Only Batman movie superior to Return of the Joker is Mask of the Phantasm. And only after these two can we talk about the awesomeness that some of the live action Batmans are :smalltongue:

But don't take my word on it, instead remanesse with this wonderful video essay.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04Rpb1rPf-4

[Peelee]

If you haven't seen it Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_Beyond%3A_Return_of_the_Joker) is one of the best batman movies in my opinion, and I say that despite not really thinking much of Batman Beyond in general (decent but nothing special).

Loved it, though Mask of the Phantasm and Sub Zero were also phenomenal. I'm a sucker for how they changed Mr. Freeze in TAS. Even though his name should be Dr. Freeze.

ETA: Also, on the completely opposite end of the "is killing ok" spectrum, In Bruges may well be a perfect movie, and is definitely a beautiful movie. And there is also a video essay on that which I wholly recommend, if anyone is interested.

[Ramza00]

ETA: Also, on the completely opposite end of the "is killing ok" spectrum, In Bruges may well be a perfect movie, and is definitely a beautiful movie. And there is also a video essay on that which I wholly recommend, if anyone is interested.

Come on share the video essay :smalltongue:

-----

And while I am here lets me share another video link, the Mask of the Phantasm original trailer. Short, sweet, to the point, and effective.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PK5CYZlHMA

[Peelee]

Come on share the video essay :smalltongue:

It's titled "The Absurd Worth of Redemption". I can neither imbed it nor link to it for obvious reasons (well, obvious to anyone who's seen In Bruges).

It might be in my top 5 favorite movies, come to think of it. Hell, even that video essay is better than a lot of movies. Best analysis I've seen since Every Frame A Painting.

[Rynjin]

I wonder, can anyone tell me when it was that batman stopped killing people? Classic batman killed PLENTY of people, mooks especially. There was one comic where he basically hung a big mental aptient a bad guy had doped up on drugs with a cable from the bat plane while he flew off. His very first comic he literally punched a fat dude into a vat of acid. Another dude in a later comic threw a sword at him, batman used a door to block it, then punched the guy as he begged for mercy neck first into his own sword. In another detective comic he dodged a gunman trying to shoot him, the proceeded to break his neck by kicking him so hard in the head his neck snapped. These were all in the first year or so of his creation. A lot of the others were alternate versions so dont count, but im honestly curious to know when they established "no killing, no, not even then." as his mantra.

For the record I agree, BtAS is THE batman character for me, and the ace scene was great.

Characters that canonically don't kill often have some early installment weirdness that makes you go "huh?". This extends even into much more recent material.

Kiryu Kazuma, protagonist of the Yakuza series, is stated to have never killed anyone. This is despite sequences like firing RPGs at pursuing helicopters and kicking people off of speeding trucks, microwaving their heads, shooting them in the gut like 6 times, etc. as part of gameplay stuff.

Most put that off as gameplay/story segregation, as do I. But there IS one bit of what I would call straight up murder in an actual cutscene, not even halfway through the first game.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_GimrcIt5A&ab_channel=YeahTotally

My assumption is generally when a character is stated to have a "no killing" rule at any point after their first appearance...it probably wasn't intended to be a thing when the character was conceived.


Only Batman movie superior to Return of the Joker is Mask of the Phantasm. And only after these two can we talk about the awesomeness that some of the live action Batmans are :smalltongue:

But don't take my word on it, instead remanesse with this wonderful video essay.

First: it's reminisce for future reference; one of those weird words I have definitely heard spoken more than read, to be sure.

Second: never forget that Roger Ebert held up the movie as a testament to how animation can be a legitimate storytelling artform a looong time before that stopped being a divisive opinion. It's that good.

[Traab]

And that is the batman that I like, for as you pointed out Traab even though he is mostly healthy in Justice League, he is not always healthy and he was a jerk some of the time with **** Grayson, and Terry McGinnis. Sometimes you wonder why the Bat Family bothers with him. Other times the same person actually does care when he is around people he cares about and he gives himself permission to be a better version of himself (which in turn helps other people , even the villains of the series.)
Last edited by Ramza00; Yesterday at 06:18 PM.

This is something I wanted to bring up because im not sure if its canon or fanon, but a lot of his issues with grayson and terry are a part of batmans massive guilt complex. He feels terrible for bringing his kids (and he DOES see them as his kids) into his dangerous and deadly life as a hero. So he kind of waffles between pushing them away in an attempt to save them and hiding how deeply he cares because of the earlier mentioned reasons. Intellectually he knows they chose this life and its only his training and guidance that allowed them to (mostly) survive, and that they probably would have tried to do it anyways if he shut them down and gotten killed or turned bad themselves, but emotionally he feels awful that they are a part of things like this.

[Lans]

What if it was Homelander vs George Reeves's superman?

[Bartmanhomer]

What if it was Homelander vs George Reeves's superman?

Superman still wins by default.

[Lans]

Superman still wins by default.

How so? I don't think GR superman has done much beyond break down a brick wall, tank dynamite or bend a metal rod

[Rynjin]

How so? I don't think GR superman has done much beyond break down a brick wall, tank dynamite or bend a metal rod

...And, you know, fly around the Earth counterclockwise really fast to REVERSE TIME. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjgsnWtBQm0&ab_channel=BattleOfShadows)

[Peelee]

...And, you know, fly around the Earth counterclockwise really fast to REVERSE TIME. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjgsnWtBQm0&ab_channel=BattleOfShadows)

Wrong Reeves.

[Bartmanhomer]

How so? I don't think GR superman has done much beyond break down a brick wall, tank dynamite or bend a metal rod

He's still Superman anyway.

[comicshorse]

What if it was Homelander vs George Reeves's superman?

Actually I think towards the end of the series they started giving him new powers Superman never had in a desperate attempt to keep people interested in a dying show

[Mystic Muse]

He's still Superman anyway.

That...doesn't actually matter.

There are some iterations of characters that are weaker than others.

There's a version of Batman that can theoretically beat Superman, and maybe even Darkseid.

But send up Christian Bale/Christopher Nolan Batman against them, and you end up with a pancake.

[Tyndmyr]

How so? I don't think GR superman has done much beyond break down a brick wall, tank dynamite or bend a metal rod

I believe that Superman is missing powers like the super speed. That's a biggie. Movement on a speed on par with Flash, as some renditions have, is pretty much an auto-win for Superman against a wild array of opponents.

The x-ray vision and super hearing doesn't really matter vs Homelander, who doesn't care a great deal about stealth, and in any case, also has them.

As for strength and toughness, I think he had literally zero superhuman opponents. So, he was definitely stronger than random bank robber #12, but...that doesn't mean much. He does fly, and his flight speed is fairly quick, but super speed never comes up, even where it'd be handy. Homelander could break the sound barrier as a small child, which exceeds anything this Superman is shown doing.

This superman has the kryptonite vulnerability, though. And Homelander is pretty good at digging up people's dirty secrets. Homelander has no such vulnerability. There's also oddities like superman losing his powers after stepping into a chamber that is too cold* or metal that is too strong for him to affect.

I'm gonna say that Homelander absolutely wrecks this version of Superman....but this is a stupidly low powered version of Superman.

*A temperature lower than absolute zero. Continuity back then was....not great.

[Bartmanhomer]

That...doesn't
There are some iterations of characters that are weaker than others.

There's a version of Batman that can theoretically beat Superman, and maybe even Darkseid.

But send up Christian Bale/Christopher Nolan Batman against them, and you end up with a pancake.

Any version of Superman is just as powerful including Batman. :tongue:

[Xyril]

The x-ray vision and super hearing doesn't really matter vs Homelander, who doesn't care a great deal about stealth, and in any case, also has them.


"Stealth" from a military perspective isn't just about sneaking around like a Rogue--it's also about increasing your range of effective engagement. Superman and Homelander both have powersets that effectively give them over-the-horizon engagement abilities. Perhaps neither would be the sort to want to sneak up on the other and ambush them, but I could imagine both flying at the other from a great distance in order to build up momentum before they strike. If one had superior senses and could locate the other guy and, essentially, aim himself (or his heat vision, or whatever) from a much greater distance, that would be a tactical advantage.

[Ramza00]

"Stealth" from a military perspective isn't just about sneaking around like a Rogue--it's also about increasing your range of effective engagement. Superman and Homelander both have powersets that effectively give them over-the-horizon engagement abilities. Perhaps neither would be the sort to want to sneak up on the other and ambush them, but I could imagine both flying at the other from a great distance in order to build up momentum before they strike. If one had superior senses and could locate the other guy and, essentially, aim himself (or his heat vision, or whatever) from a much greater distance, that would be a tactical advantage.

Less Rogue more Sniper / Ranger.

[Bartmanhomer]

Less Rogue more Sniper / Ranger.

That's Deathstroke territory.

[Tyndmyr]

"Stealth" from a military perspective isn't just about sneaking around like a Rogue--it's also about increasing your range of effective engagement. Superman and Homelander both have powersets that effectively give them over-the-horizon engagement abilities. Perhaps neither would be the sort to want to sneak up on the other and ambush them, but I could imagine both flying at the other from a great distance in order to build up momentum before they strike. If one had superior senses and could locate the other guy and, essentially, aim himself (or his heat vision, or whatever) from a much greater distance, that would be a tactical advantage.

Homelander appears to take off pretty rapidly. I'm not sure exactly what his maximum acceleration is, but at minimum, it's far faster than a fighter jet, since his casual every day acceleration exceeds that. Superman might need more of a charge up, at least in this incarnation.

In terms of apples to apples comparison, this homelander can, between a bomb's trigger being released and the bomb being detonated, move fast enough to get TWO people out of blast range. Superman cannot stop a single person who is merely near the trigger to the bomb, with only a single hostage being threatened. That's at least an order of magnitude speed advantage.

That said, I don't think either of them would start off by aiming a blitz like that. It just doesn't fit their style. Both like to talk a bit first, albeit for different reasons, and both are used to winning most fights they're in.

[Traab]

I believe that Superman is missing powers like the super speed. That's a biggie. Movement on a speed on par with Flash, as some renditions have, is pretty much an auto-win for Superman against a wild array of opponents.

The x-ray vision and super hearing doesn't really matter vs Homelander, who doesn't care a great deal about stealth, and in any case, also has them.

As for strength and toughness, I think he had literally zero superhuman opponents. So, he was definitely stronger than random bank robber #12, but...that doesn't mean much. He does fly, and his flight speed is fairly quick, but super speed never comes up, even where it'd be handy. Homelander could break the sound barrier as a small child, which exceeds anything this Superman is shown doing.

This superman has the kryptonite vulnerability, though. And Homelander is pretty good at digging up people's dirty secrets. Homelander has no such vulnerability. There's also oddities like superman losing his powers after stepping into a chamber that is too cold* or metal that is too strong for him to affect.

I'm gonna say that Homelander absolutely wrecks this version of Superman....but this is a stupidly low powered version of Superman.

*A temperature lower than absolute zero. Continuity back then was....not great.

Old black and white superman I did a quick google search for and found this
By the time this series started, Superman’s powers in the comics were fully developed. He had gone well beyond just strength and speed and had all of the powers we normally associate with Superman. However, the show had some differences.

In the show, Superman is a brick with great strength and durability. He seldom displays superhuman combat speed, however. He can go multiple levels of Mach speed in flight but his running speed is not so impressive. His flight also has limitations as discussed in the game stats.

He also has various vision and hearing powers and, of course, his Heat Vision explained as the heat from his X-Ray Vision. As it is a side effect of his X-Ray Vision, it can go through things without harming them and damage other things.

On rare occasions, he displayed some more exotic powers, usually powers that appeared for one episode and were never seen again just as they had never been seen before.

So it sounds like the fight would be much closer.

[Bartmanhomer]

He's still going to win anyway.

[Saintheart]

Wrong Reeves.

It's not even Reeves!

Christopher Reeve.

George Reeves.

[Bartmanhomer]

No matter what version of Superman that Homelander will fight, Superman is always going to win. :smile:

[Peelee]

No matter what version of Superman that Homelander will fight, Superman is always going to win. :smile:

If you're so certain, why did you start a thread asking who would win?

[Bartmanhomer]

If you're so certain, why did you start a thread asking who would win?

Because other people said it, Superman. :tongue:

[awa]

If you're so certain, why did you start a thread asking who would win?

just look at past threads " https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?616226-Superman-Is-Too-Overpowered/page3&highlight=Superman "

this feels pretty similar

[Bartmanhomer]

just look at past threads " https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?616226-Superman-Is-Too-Overpowered/page3&highlight=Superman "

this feels pretty similar

How is this similar? :confused:

[Tyndmyr]

Old black and white superman I did a quick google search for and found this

So it sounds like the fight would be much closer.

Homelander has all of that and more, though. And he simply lacks the weaknesses shown in that show.

You can ascribe some of it to bad writing, but that Superman is stopped by things like a really cold fridge, a metal that's really hard, or a regular gangster with a bomb and a human hostage.

Homelander would faceroll his way through all of that(as would most renditions of Superman).

[Xyril]

Homelander would faceroll his way through all of that(as would most renditions of Superman).

So you think Homelander would have the edge because he could use Captain Hero's Hero Shield?

[lowfyr]

I believe that Superman is missing powers like the super speed. That's a biggie. Movement on a speed on par with Flash, as some renditions have, is pretty much an auto-win for Superman against a wild array of opponents.

The x-ray vision and super hearing doesn't really matter vs Homelander, who doesn't care a great deal about stealth, and in any case, also has them.

As for strength and toughness, I think he had literally zero superhuman opponents. So, he was definitely stronger than random bank robber #12, but...that doesn't mean much. He does fly, and his flight speed is fairly quick, but super speed never comes up, even where it'd be handy. Homelander could break the sound barrier as a small child, which exceeds anything this Superman is shown doing.

This superman has the kryptonite vulnerability, though. And Homelander is pretty good at digging up people's dirty secrets. Homelander has no such vulnerability. There's also oddities like superman losing his powers after stepping into a chamber that is too cold* or metal that is too strong for him to affect.

I'm gonna say that Homelander absolutely wrecks this version of Superman....but this is a stupidly low powered version of Superman.

*A temperature lower than absolute zero. Continuity back then was....not great.

Superman has superspeed. He is not as fast as Flash but fast enough.
And even if Homelander does learn about Kryptonite question would be how can he get it?
Homelander has one big weakness: Never fought against someone who is in the same power range than him. Superman not being the kind of guy to go for the kill is the only thing that would save Homelander from getting wrecked.
Someone like Majestic from Wildstorm would be finished with him in seconds.

[Tyndmyr]

Superman has superspeed. He is not as fast as Flash but fast enough.
And even if Homelander does learn about Kryptonite question would be how can he get it?
Homelander has one big weakness: Never fought against someone who is in the same power range than him. Superman not being the kind of guy to go for the kill is the only thing that would save Homelander from getting wrecked.
Someone like Majestic from Wildstorm would be finished with him in seconds.

This is discussing a very specific incarnation of Superman who has been unable to deal with a gangster having a bomb set off via push button. He could walk over and push the button before Superman can get there.

Therefore, this Superman does not have super speed. At all.

This Superman isn't in the same power band, and throughout the show, fights no other superpowered people. He fights regular human gangsters. Homelander actually has the edge in having fought more significant opponents.

Edit: In this continuity, kryptonite is an artificially made material originating here on earth. It isn't super common, but with the knowledge and resources, you can just make it.

[Cheesegear]

{scrubbed}

[lowfyr]

This is discussing a very specific incarnation of Superman who has been unable to deal with a gangster having a bomb set off via push button. He could walk over and push the button before Superman can get there.

Therefore, this Superman does not have super speed. At all.

This Superman isn't in the same power band, and throughout the show, fights no other superpowered people. He fights regular human gangsters. Homelander actually has the edge in having fought more significant opponents.

Edit: In this continuity, kryptonite is an artificially made material originating here on earth. It isn't super common, but with the knowledge and resources, you can just make it.

Thread started with "Superman from DC Comics" vs. Homelander. So sorry that I missed that a few posts made it "Finding one of the few Versions of Superman he would have a chance against" in it.

[Ibrinar]

Thread started with "Superman from DC Comics" vs. Homelander. So sorry that I missed that a few posts made it "Finding one of the few Versions of Superman he would have a chance against" in it.

You weren't criticized for that just informed pretty neutrally. Though I will change that now by pointing out what could have tipped you off :smalltongue::

"Movement on a speed on par with Flash, as some renditions have, is pretty much an auto-win for Superman against a wild array of opponents." that sentence makes clear that Tyndmyr knows other incarnations of Superman have super speed so he likely talking about a specific one.

"I think he had literally zero superhuman opponents. " Also doesn't make much sense when not talking about a specific incarnation unless Tyndmyr is exceptionally ignorant about Superman

"This superman has the kryptonite vulnerability, though." the "this" points at it being about a specific Superman.

And of course "I'm gonna say that Homelander absolutely wrecks this version of Superman....but this is a stupidly low powered version of Superman." explicitly says it is about a specific version that is stupidly low powered.

All important clues were in the post itself, I rest my case! ^^

[Xyril]

Thread started with "Superman from DC Comics" vs. Homelander. So sorry that I missed that a few posts made it "Finding one of the few Versions of Superman he would have a chance against" in it.

I generally try not to enter a thread without at least skimming through it, precisely because I hate to be the one being so confused or causing this sort of confusion. However, I understand that some folks don't feel the way, or simply don't have the time, and I would never fault someone for missing a shift in the conservation like that.

However, the snark in response to being (pretty politely) updated on the topic is unnecessary and inappropriate. If you're wading into a thread that's already several pages long, it's reasonable to expect that the topic of conversation might have narrowed or shifted. You seem to have been offended by somebody politely letting you know that your response to his comment was ignoring important context. How should he have responded instead?

[lowfyr]

I didn't mean to sound aggressive, I apologize for that. Another reason for not writing stuff in the heat of the moment and first reading it over.

[Ajustusdaniel]

Silver Age Superman, realizing that a punch-out with Homelander would lead to needless destruction, would embark upon a convoluted psychological warfare campaign that would convince Homelander to abandon Earth forever*. For reasons no one would ever be able to adequately explain, this would also require Jimmy Olsen to marry a gorilla.

*Forever here being a length of time lasting until sometime in the eighties when someone decides to bring Homelander back for an arc where he threatens Superman's loved ones.

[Peelee]

For reasons no one would ever be able to adequately explain, this would also require Jimmy Olsen to marry a gorilla.

Which, for me, is why DC's Silver Age is the best of all possible ages.

[GloatingSwine]

Which, for me, is why DC's Silver Age is the best of all possible ages.

At least we have the legacy of those days, which is that there are no less than three talking gorillas still in the DC canon.

Albeit one of them is a mad scientist who transplated his brain into a gorilla. But he still counts.

[Peelee]

Frankly, I think the sentence "For reasons no one would ever be able to adequately explain, this would require Jimmy Olsen to marry a gorilla" is criminally underused and should be a staple of modern literary theory.

[TeChameleon]

At least we have the legacy of those days, which is that there are no less than three talking gorillas still in the DC canon.

Albeit one of them is a mad scientist who transplated his brain into a gorilla. But he still counts.

Three? I'm... pretty sure that Gorilla City is still canon, given that it's inextricably linked to Gorilla Grodd's backstory. So that's several hundred thousand more, isn't it?

[The Glyphstone]

Named gorillas, then?

[dancrilis]

Named gorillas, then?

Just on Prime Earth (which I believe is current) there seem to be:
Karmak, Lorix, Mallah, Congorilla, Nnamdi, George Dyke, Gorilla Grimm, Sam Simeon, Solovar, Grodd II, Ultra-Humanite II, Jackanapes.

Left off:
Silverback and Xenon who are robot gorillas.
King Grodd as he seems to be deceased.

[tonberrian]

Named gorillas, then?

Let's see, Grod, Solovar, Ultra Humanite, and Monsier Mallah all come to mind to me personally (I had to look up Mallah's name).

[McStabbington]

Silver Age Superman, realizing that a punch-out with Homelander would lead to needless destruction, would embark upon a convoluted psychological warfare campaign that would convince Homelander to abandon Earth forever*. For reasons no one would ever be able to adequately explain, this would also require Jimmy Olsen to marry a gorilla.

*Forever here being a length of time lasting until sometime in the eighties when someone decides to bring Homelander back for an arc where he threatens Superman's loved ones.

I was about to post a considered response, but nothing I could say can top this.

[dancrilis]

For reasons no one would ever be able to adequately explain, this would also require Jimmy Olsen to marry a gorilla.

For Reference:
http://www.superdickery.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/1027_4_098.jpg

[Peelee]

OK, that actually takes it a bit too far. Did Superman really have to be the local witch doctor? Dude's from Metropolis or the Arctic. Why couldn't he have been a visiting witch doctor? Given that he had a prior relationship with Jimmy, it really seems like they would extend him some professional courtesy and allow him to practice outside of his normal area, so it wouldn't have been all that hard to explain.

[Traab]

Of course he is the local witch doctor! After he saved the tribe from some disaster they named him as such. He isnt a practicing witch doctor anywhere else because he hasnt been named as such anywhere else. Thats just logic.

[Tvtyrant]

OK, that actually takes it a bit too far. Did Superman really have to be the local witch doctor? Dude's from Metropolis or the Arctic. Why couldn't he have been a visiting witch doctor? Given that he had a prior relationship with Jimmy, it really seems like they would extend him some professional courtesy and allow him to practice outside of his normal area, so it wouldn't have been all that hard to explain.

My head canon: Superman literally doesn't sleep, and he lives a bunch of different lives simultaneously. Clark is just his Metropolis identity, he has a similar identity in two other places and lives 8 hours shifts.

[Peelee]

Also, I love how the whole interaction plays out on the cover.

Superman: Jimmy, do you take this ape as your wife?
Jimmy: NO!
Superman: Oh. Well, sucks to be you, I guess. I DECLARE YOU MARRIED!

[Tvtyrant]

Also, I love how the whole interaction plays out on the cover.

Superman: Jimmy, do you take this ape as your wife?
Jimmy: NO!
Superman: Oh. Well, sucks to be you, I guess. I DECLARE YOU MARRIED!

"Grod dang it!" But he was married to the gorilla in a flash.

[Rater202]

Remember: Silver Age Superman was kind of an asshat.

One time he adopted Jimmy... And then heard a prophecy that the man of steel would destroy his sun(referring to an artificial star he created) so he started acting like an abusive dad to get Jimmy to want to cancel the adoption becuase he assumed it was a prophecy to destroy his "son."

Instead of just saying "Jimmy... A man who sees the future said I'm going to destroy my son, so I can't have any sons. I... I don't know the context, but for your safety, I have to cancel the adoption and keep my distance from you."

Or asking the oracle to clarify.

[Peelee]

Remember: Silver Age Superman was kind of an asshat.

https://www.superdickery.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/1027_4_115.jpg

Ok, I'll admit that using the Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen line of comics might be cheating.

[Rater202]

https://www.superdickery.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/1027_4_115.jpg

Ok, I'll admit that using the Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen line of comics might be cheating.

I've learned to qualify my statements on the morality of certain characters.

On another forum, I got jumped on repeatedly for calling a character who for sure fits some of the symptoms of psychopathic personality disorder, can easily be argued to have the others, and the only reason we don't know if she fits the remaining ones or not is becuase the narrative doesn't go into her sexual habits a "psychopath" becuase she's technically too young to be legally diagnosed with a psychopathic personality disorder.

I also got called on for calling a character who met half of the symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder, including having the "feels intense self-loathing for failing to live up to perfection" symptom as a defining character trait, and who clearly falls into the pattern of alternating narcism and self-loathing common among clinical narcissists as a narcissist... Jokes on them, the work eventually confirmed that the character was in fact a narcissist(In fact, she's worse than I'd ever thought she was. to the point that I couldn't even be smug about it.)

Digression aside, I've learned to add qualifiers to statements becuase even when the evidence is overwhelming, absolute statements on character morality might as well be flame bait.

[Peelee]

I've learned to qualify my statements on the morality of certain characters.

On another forum, I got jumped on repeatedly for calling a character who for sure fits some of the symptoms of psychopathic personality disorder, can easily be argued to have the others, and the only reason we don't know if she fits the remaining ones or not is becuase the narrative doesn't go into her sexual habits a "psychopath" becuase she's technically too young to be legally diagnosed with a psychopathic personality disorder.

I also got called on for calling a character who met half of the symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder, including having the "feels intense self-loathing for failing to live up to perfection" symptom as a defining character trait, and who clearly falls into the pattern of alternating narcism and self-loathing common among clinical narcissists as a narcissist... Jokes on them, the work eventually confirmed that the character was in fact a narcissist(In fact, she's worse than I'd ever thought she was. to the point that I couldn't even be smug about it.)

Digression aside, I've learned to add qualifiers to statements becuase even when the evidence is overwhelming, absolute statements on character morality might as well be flame bait.

Well, barring being licensed with backing degrees in psychology, it probably is a good idea to not play armchair psychologist (more so with real people, less so with fictional ones, but still), so I can see where those people may have been coming from. However, "asshat" is delightfully non-clinical, and I doubt anyone would have given you any grief about it here. I certainly wouldn't.

[Traab]

Too be fair EVERYONE in silver age superman was a massive jerk. Ive seen ones where lois lane and some other woman try to brainwash a baby superman to love them. Also the black lois edition was good where, iirc, she turned herself black to get a scoop then demanded superman say if he wanted to marry her since she is black and he is white. For its time it was probably considered progressive as heck but now? Yeah, thats the sort of thing that gets you cancelled fast.

[The Glyphstone]

The entire Superdickery website exists to catalogue how awful everyone in the Silver Age was, though usually its Superman. So this is no surprise.

[Lord Raziere]

The entire Superdickery website exists to catalogue how awful everyone in the Silver Age was, though usually its Superman. So this is no surprise.

now I'm imagining a convention where all the versions of Superman ever to exist meet each other, every single, including Red Son, Kingdom Come and so on, the normal Supermen dislike these morally grey anti-heroes or even villainous ones of course, they are a dark reflection of what they could be. But they are nothing compared to the true monster of which they all know of. When he enters the room everyone except Golden Age Superman shudders in memory at what their origin, and they turn to see his eternal smile and Silver Age Superman proclaims:
Silver Age Superman: "None of you are safe, other Supermen! Jimmy Olsen had his turn but its only fair that your all next!"
Injustice, Gods Among Us Superman: I killed the Joker and tried to conquer the world for what he did to me....but that man....that man scares me.
Red Son Superman: He....he doesn't even have a reason and he does it all with a smile on his face...what kind of twisted crazy version of myself is he?
Kingdom Come Superman: If I ever become anything like that, end me. We cannot allow it to spread.

[Traab]

now I'm imagining a convention where all the versions of Superman ever to exist meet each other, every single, including Red Son, Kingdom Come and so on, the normal Supermen dislike these morally grey anti-heroes or even villainous ones of course, they are a dark reflection of what they could be. But they are nothing compared to the true monster of which they all know of. When he enters the room everyone except Golden Age Superman shudders in memory at what their origin, and they turn to see his eternal smile and Silver Age Superman proclaims:
Silver Age Superman: "None of you are safe, other Supermen! Jimmy Olsen had his turn but its only fair that your all next!"
Injustice, Gods Among Us Superman: I killed the Joker and tried to conquer the world for what he did to me....but that man....that man scares me.
Red Son Superman: He....he doesn't even have a reason and he does it all with a smile on his face...what kind of twisted crazy version of myself is he?
Kingdom Come Superman: If I ever become anything like that, end me. We cannot allow it to spread.

Worst part is, they all lose against him in fights. Silver age superman was just absurdly broken with powers far beyond any other incarnation, barring maybe that infinite pages thing that triggers all sorts of arguments. Dude obliterates entire galaxies by sneezing, tows solar systems around for whatever reason, has more gadgets in his fortress of solitude than every batman ever created has on his utility belt, and more random inexplicable powers than the entire justice league.

[Rater202]

Worst part is, they all lose against him in fights. Silver age superman was just absurdly broken with powers far beyond any other incarnation, barring maybe that infinite pages thing that triggers all sorts of arguments. Dude obliterates entire galaxies by sneezing, tows solar systems around for whatever reason, has more gadgets in his fortress of solitude than every batman ever created has on his utility belt, and more random inexplicable powers than the entire justice league.

Superman Prime(who is implicitly All-Star Superman) after hundreds of thousands of years of studying the science and biology of, and copying the powers of, and absorbing energy from countless different kinds of stars, and breaking through the Source Wall and studying/absorbing what's on the other side, and then coming back to Earth and establishing a contract where he'd power up his descendants and in exchange copying their full power sets, and meditating in the center of the sun is omnipotent(or damn close to it.)

At the very least, he's a high-end reality warper.

[GloatingSwine]

Worst part is, they all lose against him in fights. Silver age superman was just absurdly broken with powers far beyond any other incarnation, barring maybe that infinite pages thing that triggers all sorts of arguments. Dude obliterates entire galaxies by sneezing, tows solar systems around for whatever reason, has more gadgets in his fortress of solitude than every batman ever created has on his utility belt, and more random inexplicable powers than the entire justice league.

Although usually he doesn't do those things, what he would usually do is reveal some heretofore unknown and incredibly specific superpower laser targeted to solving the problem of the moment.

Like why move the entire solar system a mile to the left to avoid the asteroid colliding with the earth when you could instead use the power of super-weaving to create a giant net to catch it in, then shrink it down into a bottle in case you need it later?

[dancrilis]

He also had the power of super-mathematics which was like regular mathematics only wrong.
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/30/7b/35/307b35796198c20dc965a499768a0365--math-jokes-math-humor.jpg

... or I suppose possibly more concerning he might be right if super-mathematics allows him to rewrite reality, maybe math is whatever superman says it is.

[Peelee]

Superman also makes himself king a frankly shocking amount of times. Or maybe shockingly few, depending on your feelings about Silver Age Superman.

https://foxhugh.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/00-king-collage.jpg


https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2f/63/6f/2f636f2ff12a68c8cc2f4bcdc5f7d33c.jpg

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/teEAAOSwE4hd6wG0/s-l640.jpg

[Traab]

Although usually he doesn't do those things, what he would usually do is reveal some heretofore unknown and incredibly specific superpower laser targeted to solving the problem of the moment.

Like why move the entire solar system a mile to the left to avoid the asteroid colliding with the earth when you could instead use the power of super-weaving to create a giant net to catch it in, then shrink it down into a bottle in case you need it later?

Very true, he would go up against the supermen and go "Hmm, after years of exposure to kryptonite, I have absorbed enough of it to create beams of kryptonite energy instead of heat beams! HAHA! I win!" And Rater, true, there are also all those other random supermen incarnations that either do or dont count depending on how you want to go like cosmic armor superman whose powers include literal plot manipulation. As in, its not enough that he is a reality warper on a quantum level, he ALSO has the power of directly manipulating the plot. He also has damage and durability feats BEYOND multiversal levels. Superman gets pretty stupid if you keep digging for the outliers.

[Rater202]

You know, a Non-Silver Age, Non-subverted superman might actually do a good job as a world-leading.

Without getting into the nitty-gritty details of politics, but looking just at the facts of how most versions of Superman are presented: He is moral, compassionate, and empathic enough to genuinely want the best for everyone. He can be wherever he's needed at a moment's notice. He has an easy time forming both friendships and professional relationships built on trust and mutual respect.

He's also remarkably intelligent, with some versions of him being depicted as world-class scientists who can solve all kinds of problems, so things like balancing a national budget and evaluating the pros and cons of various policies is a no-brainer in comparison, and he's a good enough judge of people that there won't be too many problems with any jobs he does have to delegate for.

So the concern isn't Superman making himself a King, the concern is that it's the one version of Superman who nobody should listen to is the one that keeps doing it.

[Lord Raziere]

New headcanon:
Silver Age Superman was addicted to red kryptonite and constantly took it as a form of drugs to be as silly as he could be for that era. Its just that since that since drugs is not allowed by the Comics Code he could never do it on panel. Once the Silver Age ended it allowed to clean up his act because he was allowed to act saner now.

[Traab]

You know, a Non-Silver Age, Non-subverted superman might actually do a good job as a world-leading.

Without getting into the nitty-gritty details of politics, but looking just at the facts of how most versions of Superman are presented: He is moral, compassionate, and empathic enough to genuinely want the best for everyone. He can be wherever he's needed at a moment's notice. He has an easy time forming both friendships and professional relationships built on trust and mutual respect.

He's also remarkably intelligent, with some versions of him being depicted as world-class scientists who can solve all kinds of problems, so things like balancing a national budget and evaluating the pros and cons of various policies is a no-brainer in comparison, and he's a good enough judge of people that there won't be too many problems with any jobs he does have to delegate for.

So the concern isn't Superman making himself a King, the concern is that it's the one version of Superman who nobody should listen to is the one that keeps doing it.

Also, he has access to incredibly advanced tech. With him in charge there is nothing stopping him from providing clean energy, eliminating world hunger, just improving every aspect of life with kryptonian tech. And considering he is functionally immortal under a yellow sun, we dont have to worry too much about that pithy argument over being ruled by the perfect man of "What happens when he gets a bellyache?"

[Peelee]

Also, he has access to incredibly advanced tech. With him in charge there is nothing stopping him from providing clean energy, eliminating world hunger, just improving every aspect of life with kryptonian tech. And considering he is functionally immortal under a yellow sun, we dont have to worry too much about that pithy argument over being ruled by the perfect man of "What happens when he gets a bellyache?"

https://64.media.tumblr.com/929152ee2041b69ff55b57122eb66e06/tumblr_inline_pc8sqaCKQf1rb1q9n_500.jpg

[Bartmanhomer]

The Silver Age Comics has so many flaws. :sigh:

[TeChameleon]

I've gotta say, this thread has gone from talking about a horrible evil grimdark ripoff of Superman (well, that and actual Superman) to the glorious nonsense of the Silver Age. I'd be lying if I said I didn't consider it an improvement :smalltongue:

... and Silver Age Superman was a ****, but I'd hesitate to call him straight-up evil.

As an aside, speaking of talking gorillas, did you know that Sam Simeon's partner, Angel (Sam Simeon was the 'Ape' in the "Angel and Ape" comics) was the half-sister of Dumb Bunny of the Inferior Five (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferior_Five), which means that the Inferior Five are sorta canon to the main DCU. Which is somewhat bonkers and I find it more amusing than I really should.

[Peelee]

I've gotta say, this thread has gone from talking about a horrible evil grimdark ripoff of Superman (well, that and actual Superman) to the glorious nonsense of the Silver Age. I'd be lying if I said I didn't consider it an improvement :smalltongue:

Honestly, I'd love a Silver Age version of The Boys.

[Eldan]

Honestly, I'd love a Silver Age version of The Boys.

"The Flash ran over my girlfriend's cake! Now I must challenge the entire justice league to a game of checkers! FOR VENGEANCE!"

[AvatarVecna]

I felt like sharing a thing that feels relevant to the conversation in a "what even counts as a suitable challenge for Superman" sense:

https://i.redd.it/5l2e7tgfmo661.jpg

[Phobia]

"The Flash ran over my girlfriend's cake! Now I must challenge the entire justice league to a game of checkers! FOR VENGEANCE!"

This made me laugh for long time. Thank you.

[Brother Oni]

He also had the power of super-mathematics which was like regular mathematics only wrong.

I think we've found Superman's other flaw other than kryptonite - working with Imperial measurements. :smalltongue:

[The Glyphstone]

I felt like sharing a thing that feels relevant to the conversation in a "what even counts as a suitable challenge for Superman" sense:

https://i.redd.it/5l2e7tgfmo661.jpg

Why does Robin look like he is trying to push her off the edge while she is clinging on to stop him?

[Peelee]

I think we've found Superman's other flaw other than kryptonite - working with Imperial measurements. :smalltongue:

Superman is American, so he uses American Customary Units, not Imperial. :smalltongue:

[Traab]

Superman is American, so he uses American Customary Units, not Imperial. :smalltongue:

Anything with the word imperial in it is automatically evil. Superman has no dealing with such filth!

[Rater202]

Anything with the word imperial in it is automatically evil. Superman has no dealing with such filth!

...Honestly, that's an interesting question.

Stepping very lightly, when it comes to any one system of government or policy there-off, the problems are usually not that the system is inherently bad but that there are flaws that allow bad people to seize and stay in power, and even then very rarely are they deliberately malicious so much as they are selfish or shortsighted.

Silver Age aside, Superman is usually depicted as being a one-in-a-billion incorruptible pure heart. He has more power than he could ever possibly want but remains levelheaded and empathetic, and is often depicted as knowing when he's out of his depth and finding people to do what he can't(going to Batman for detective work or asking Shazam to fill in for him in matters of magic, for example.)

Clark is probably the best person, in fiction, to be an Emporer.

[tomandtish]

...Honestly, that's an interesting question.

Stepping very lightly, when it comes to any one system of government or policy there-off, the problems are usually not that the system is inherently bad but that there are flaws that allow bad people to seize and stay in power, and even then very rarely are they deliberately malicious so much as they are selfish or shortsighted.

Silver Age aside, Superman is usually depicted as being a one-in-a-billion incorruptible pure heart. He has more power than he could ever possibly want but remains levelheaded and empathetic, and is often depicted as knowing when he's out of his depth and finding people to do what he can't(going to Batman for detective work or asking Shazam to fill in for him in matters of magic, for example.)

Clark is probably the best person, in fiction, to be an Emporer.

Injustice: Gods Among us would beg to disagree.

[Lord Raziere]

Injustice: Gods Among us would beg to disagree.

And Justice Lords

and Superman Red Son

point is alt supermen trying to take over the world or decide whats best for everyone? shown repeatedly to not end well.

[Ajustusdaniel]

And Justice Lords

and Superman Red Son

point is alt supermen trying to take over the world or decide whats best for everyone? shown repeatedly to not end well.

I think Red Son more or less ended well, it just went through some rough patches on the way.

[Lord Raziere]

I think Red Son more or less ended well, it just went through some rough patches on the way.

Yeah.

Because Luthor fixed it.

[AvatarVecna]

...Honestly, that's an interesting question.

Stepping very lightly, when it comes to any one system of government or policy there-off, the problems are usually not that the system is inherently bad but that there are flaws that allow bad people to seize and stay in power, and even then very rarely are they deliberately malicious so much as they are selfish or shortsighted.

Silver Age aside, Superman is usually depicted as being a one-in-a-billion incorruptible pure heart. He has more power than he could ever possibly want but remains levelheaded and empathetic, and is often depicted as knowing when he's out of his depth and finding people to do what he can't(going to Batman for detective work or asking Shazam to fill in for him in matters of magic, for example.)

Clark is probably the best person, in fiction, to be an Emporer.

"Silver Age aside"

I mean let's be realistic: as has already been pointed out in this very thread, a shocking number of "Superman being a bad guy" moments from the Silver Age are directly related to him deciding "you know what, maybe I should just take over the world, they can't stop me". Tossing out the Silver Age because he's frequently kinda an ass is also coincidentally tossing out a whole buncha evidence that this idea has been tried and went badly.

[Lord Raziere]

Besides there is something better that Superman can be than emperor:
his fortress of solitude is on the North Pole right? and superman still believes in Santa right?

therefore, Superman is secretly DC's Santa Claus. He has been making the myth real by using his Kryptonian technology, superspeed and so on to become Santa for Earth every year because he can. he believes in Santa, because he IS Santa.

[Rater202]

I'm gonna say it, "alternate universe where Superman goes insane or is raised by people other than Ma and Pa Kent was a bad ruler of the world" doesn't at all convince me that you know, normal not-insane, not evil superman would do a good job running this bitch.

Every "evil Tyrant" superman AU seems to have Clark acting out of character for reasons. The good ones explain why, the bad ones... Not so much.
Besides there is something better that Superman can be than emperor:
his fortress of solitude is on the North Pole right? and superman still believes in Santa right?

therefore, Superman is secretly DC's Santa Claus. He has been making the myth real by using his Kryptonian technology, superspeed and so on to become Santa for Earth every year because he can. he believes in Santa, because he IS Santa.

Superman can't be Santa.https://tytempletonart.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/darkseid-vs-santa-1.jpg?w=500
https://tytempletonart.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/darkseid-vs-santa-2.jpg?w=500

Not even Superman is powerful enough to get away with doing that.

However, a Justice league of America story implies that DC's Santa Claus has heat vision, while a special release back in 2008 implied that Santa Claus, while not a Kryptonian, has similar powers to Superman and a nearly identical origin story.

[HandofShadows]

Yeah.

Because Luthor fixed it.

That's because Superman planned for him to fix since he realized he couldn't. :smallamused:

[Lord Raziere]

That's because Superman planned for him to fix since he realized he couldn't. :smallamused:

Thus admitting that Superman wouldn't be a good emperor. :smallamused::smallbiggrin:

@ Rater: except it shows he can go insane, fall or be raised by others with different values and that his morality isn't some unassailable immutable fact about him, but something that can be altered. the possibilities exist and therefore like all realities with parallel universes therefore happen simultaneously with any reality that doesn't. therefore any reality where superman is evil is just as valid as a universe as one where he doesn't. now given that the superman you are talking about is a single version of Superman that has underwent numerous retcons and thus only changed along the 4th dimension of forward/backward time, his long time morality has no bearing on the 5th dimension of sideways time, which there are at least three or more evil versions of himself, perhaps even more.

Buts let put aside that and look at this way: an incorruptible pure heart could be said to be a detriment to ruling as they lack the ability to handle the nuances of being a ruler, as a pure heart means innocence. balancing the budget of the entire planet is basically what his job would boil down to, you don't do that with innocence thats ridiculous. pure hearts are rare for a reason, they're easily broken and not fit to meet the challenges of life most of the time, any depiction of a pure heart in fiction often turning out to be someone so stubborn they take foolish idiotic decisions that would get them killed in any sane world. a pure heart is nothing but a romantic notion, a fantasy more detrimental than cool powers or awesome swords. we know the cool powers don't exist, and morality is all well and good, but this purity? I'll always maintain as unrealistic and incompatible with rational thought and actual solutions, and some level humanity. people are imperfect- this is not a dour fact, but a thing to be celebrated, for it is the imperfections that make people who they are, who WE are. Its an inescapable fact of our existence.

a pure heart in the face of such beauty is one note, fragile, unprepared, incompatible, and the greatest heights always fall into the deepest pits. a less pure person has a more reasoned, rational and flexible response to trouble and when misfortune occurs the change is less hurtful, less extreme for they are more well-rounded, they have calluses and thicker skin. a purehearted man who attempts to rule is inviting nothing but endless suffering upon themselves no matter how great, for rulership is not about how great or good the man, or endless suffering on others for their responses are not measured with experience, not tempered with caution and wisdom. I'd gladly take a well forged alloy over a pure heart. for the pure heart is like gold: shiny and great to look at, but not for much else for it is soft. but a heart of alloys is made of impurities that can give it all sorts of uses. I'd rather have a heart of steel than gold. steel is far more useful and beneficial after all. sure iron isn't real great, but we have to start the forging process from something no? indeed, I protest against morality being a thing of purity at all and that we can somehow know it through some natural purity, morality is a thing learned and cobbled together, built and rebuilt constantly from many sources, combined together to make something stronger than what it is apart. that is what makes morality great, for it isn't pure at all, but is more moral when it doesn't hesitate to be more to take in what is valuable rather than keep it out.

something incorruptible? unfortunately means that its either unreactive or destructive to anything that isn't itself. why would I ever want to be ruled by a being that only sees me as a problem to fix? as an impure being who needs their imperfections gotten rid of? I am not some broken machine for some god to fix no matter how well intentioned or how competent they are- and nor is any other person for that matter.

[Peelee]

"is a nice guy" is a horrible criteria for "could be emperor of the world." Like, it's be a nice bonus, sure, but that's it.

[The Glyphstone]

Arguably, he is already emperor of the world for the exact reason that no one could stop him. He just usually chooses not to exercise any of his power and permits people the illusion of choice; they have freedom as long as their choices do not go against what behaviors he has judged acceptable.

[Strigon]

Arguably, he is already emperor of the world for the exact reason that no one could stop him. He just usually chooses not to exercise any of his power and permits people the illusion of choice; they have freedom as long as their choices do not go against what behaviors he has judged acceptable.

I wouldn't call that an illusion of choice, though - they do have meaningful choices, and can drastically alter their futures.
The only choices he won't permit are, essentially, dystopian or apocalyptic ones.

[Friv]

Arguably, he is already emperor of the world for the exact reason that no one could stop him. He just usually chooses not to exercise any of his power and permits people the illusion of choice; they have freedom as long as their choices do not go against what behaviors he has judged acceptable.

While the average person could not stop Superman, the DC universe is sufficiently stacked that I think we've seen plenty of evidence that Superman could be stopped (and indeed has been stopped, in those instances where he's gotten himself mind-controlled or possessed.) He has a tremendous amount of power and influence, but he's not a god-emperor.

[The Glyphstone]

While the average person could not stop Superman, the DC universe is sufficiently stacked that I think we've seen plenty of evidence that Superman could be stopped (and indeed has been stopped, in those instances where he's gotten himself mind-controlled or possessed.) He has a tremendous amount of power and influence, but he's not a god-emperor.

Isn't this looping back to 'which superman are we using'? Someone cited a literal Reality Warping Superman with Plot Alteration powers upthread, IIRC. He yo-yos his own power tremendously even within a single Age, let alone between cosmic resets.

[M1982]

Yeah.

Because Luthor fixed it.

Or was it rahter Luthor manipulated it to fail first?

[Peelee]

While the average person could not stop Superman, the DC universe is sufficiently stacked that I think we've seen plenty of evidence that Superman could be stopped (and indeed has been stopped, in those instances where he's gotten himself mind-controlled or possessed.) He has a tremendous amount of power and influence, but he's not a god-emperor.

How many of those people are on earth and opposed to Supes ruling?

[Lord Raziere]

Or was it rahter Luthor manipulated it to fail first?

You saving people from Red Son Superman's oppressive tyranny?

[Friv]

Isn't this looping back to 'which superman are we using'? Someone cited a literal Reality Warping Superman with Plot Alteration powers upthread, IIRC. He yo-yos his own power tremendously even within a single Age, let alone between cosmic resets.
My counter-argument would be that then we're into the Silver Age, in which a lot of superheroes have equivalent nonsense up their sleeves. If Silver Age Batman pulls out his Kryptonite Bat-Spray and sprays down the stage that the God-Emperor Superman is going to use to address the world, it all comes down to whoever the writers want to win.


How many of those people are on earth and opposed to Supes ruling?

Quite a few are on Earth, and several of them would be very opposed to Superman ruling things. If the original posit was "Superman is de facto a god-emperor because no one can stop him," the fact that a lot of people can stop him feels important. If Superman only has the status of an emperor until such time as he attempts to take advantage of that status, he doesn't really have that status at all.

If the argument is just "Superman is a god-emperor because no one wants to stop him from doing the things he's currently doing" that would make me a god-emperor, too. No one's stopping me from doing the things that I want to do.

[M1982]

You saving people from Red Son Superman's oppressive tyranny? Would he ever have become such a tyrant if the US didn't keep throwing things like Superior Man and the Green Lantern Force at him? More like Luther manipulated him to fail to then be able to save the day.

[Lord Raziere]

Would he ever have become such a tyrant if the US didn't keep throwing things like Superior Man and the Green Lantern Force at him? More like Luther manipulated him to fail to then be able to save the day.

Ah yes, I assume you somehow think Luther put him an oppressive paranoid regime to be raised in as well, manipulated the rocket traveling backwards through time so that he'd be raised from birth to be an oppressor? your supposedly godlike Luther is a ridiculous assumption. he doesn't have such control over events.

[TeChameleon]

If we assume edge-case feats, the utterly crazy stuff that characters have managed to do once because the writers either have no sense of scale or were shilling them, then a short list of some of the heroic types who could potentially stop a solo Emperor Superman would be:

* Martian Manhunter. Even with Superman's telepathic-martial-arts (Torquasm Vo), J'onn is still the strongest telepath on Earth. Add in a combo platter of powers that puts even Clark's to shame, and he has a decent shot at being one of the strongest heroes in DC. Superman can take him, probably, but he's not going to be in much shape to be ruling anything for a while afterwards.
* The Spectre. If Emperor Superman kills someone, that puts him in the Spectre's purview, and, not to put too fine a point on it, at that point, he's boned.
* Dr. Fate. Magic vs. Superman doesn't tend to have a happy outcome for dear old Kal, and Dr. Fate is tough enough that Supes can't just blitz him (if memory serves, he's actually taken some shots from a mind-controlled Superman and pretty much shrugged them off).
* Captain Marvel/Shazam. Billy is an even match for Supes, with a slight edge because magic.
* Wonder Woman. With the power upgrades she's gotten over the last few years, Wonder Woman has gone from 'might be able to hold her own for a few minutes if she's having a good day' to 'pull out godmode and stomp'.
* The Flash (either of them, but especially Wally). The Flashes have an utterly ludicrous bag of tricks, and if they're bringing their A-Game, then, well... something something Speed Force something... aaaaaand history has been rewritten seventy-six times and Emperor Superman is now Captain Carrot.

And a few that would probably need some help, but could do it...

* Captain Atom. The Captain has faced down with Supes multiple times, and even though Superman has an edge, Captain Atom is tough enough that if he worked with someone of roughly equivalent power, the two could probably bring Emperor Superman down.
* Power Girl and Supergirl. Either of his cousins could be a match for Superman, and one or both would probably be brought in if he went rogue.
* Aquaman and Mera. The two have fought Superman to a standstill in the (recent) past.
* Mr. Miracle and Big Barda. Barda has nearly beaten Superman to death in the past (mind control), and if she tanks for Mr. Miracle, Supey's gonna get boom tubed three realities over and be somebody else' problem.

And that's completely disregarding 'Batman and/or John Constantine has a plan', or a lot of the lesser-known heroes that could probably do some unpleasant things to Superman if the need arose (Blue Beetle III has a weapon labelled 'potential theological implications' as an example, Hawkman has the Claw of Horus, there's literally nothing that Superman could do to permanently stop Plastic Man, Zatanna can magic Superman into oblivion, Etrigan can match Superman blow-for-blow and have fun doing it, Raven can melt his brain, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera).

[Rynjin]

Wouldn't Supes be a pretty bad matchup for Manhunter? I'd think heat vision would solo him.

[Lord Raziere]

Wouldn't Supes be a pretty bad matchup for Manhunter? I'd think heat vision would solo him.

I mean Manhunter is still greatest telepath on Earth and shapeshift into anything, so he doesn't need to beat him in a straight up fight where Supes can see him: just transform into some random dude in some random city, proceed to remote mind-attack him from the other side of the planet. its not as if Superman can track psychic stuff.

[TeChameleon]

Wouldn't Supes be a pretty bad matchup for Manhunter? I'd think heat vision would solo him.

The Martian Manhunter has Ice-Cream Vision, your argument is invalid.

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/powerlisting/images/3/3a/Martian_Manhunter_Ice_Cream.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20180210204926

[GloatingSwine]

Wouldn't Supes be a pretty bad matchup for Manhunter? I'd think heat vision would solo him.

Heat vision by itself isn't a problem. J'onn isn't vulnerable to heat, he's afraid of fire. At least when he isn't being his turbocharged evil alter-ego that can solo the entire Justice League.

So unless superman catches a serious case of pyromania and uses his heat vision to start loads of fires around J'onn, heat vision isn't a trump card.

[Saqib Ali]

Superman will definitely win the battle because of the extraordinary powers he has.

[woweedd]

Superman wins, so easy. It's not even funny. Homelander gets demolished, both physically and philosophically, as Superman delivers a heartrending speech on the true meaning of heroism.

[tomandtish]

I'm gonna say it, "alternate universe where Superman goes insane or is raised by people other than Ma and Pa Kent was a bad ruler of the world" doesn't at all convince me that you know, normal not-insane, not evil superman would do a good job running this bitch.

Every "evil Tyrant" superman AU seems to have Clark acting out of character for reasons. The good ones explain why, the bad ones... Not so much.

Superman can't be Santa.https://tytempletonart.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/darkseid-vs-santa-1.jpg?w=500
https://tytempletonart.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/darkseid-vs-santa-2.jpg?w=500

Not even Superman is powerful enough to get away with doing that.

However, a Justice league of America story implies that DC's Santa Claus has heat vision, while a special release back in 2008 implied that Santa Claus, while not a Kryptonian, has similar powers to Superman and a nearly identical origin story.

This made me so happy!

[awa]

I find it interesting just how often superman but evil comes up.

I sometimes wondered why batman does not get that treatment more often.

[Ajustusdaniel]

I find it interesting just how often superman but evil comes up.

I sometimes wondered why batman does not get that treatment more often.

I mean, he may not get it as much historically, but DC's got an ongoing event with a struggle against an entire multiverse apparently mostly inhabited by evil Batmen.

[Lord Raziere]

I mean, he may not get is as much historically, but DC's got an ongoing event with a struggle against an entire multiverse apparently mostly inhabited by evil Batmen.

That and Batman already has a purely canon evil version of himself that serves the purposes an evil batman would most of the time anyways. He's called Lex Luthor.

[tyckspoon]

I find it interesting just how often superman but evil comes up.

I sometimes wondered why batman does not get that treatment more often.

Because 'Superman but evil' is a very large deviation from the standard canon of the character and something that would never actually happen within the standard canon ('Superman gets mind controlled' or 'Superman is given bad information and temporarily does something bad until the truth comes out', sure, but 'Superman goes bad' is massively out of character for Superman) which makes it a nice place to explore for alternate universes and What If... stories.

While 'I think I might actually be a Bad Guy' is basically one of Batman's standard character elements. You can do a darker style Batman where he goes a bit over the top and does something villainous then worries about how he might be losing it and is no longer being helpful, and that's just Batman - there's less need or want to do full on 'What if Batman but Evil' stories because you can hit most of the same beats with normal Batcanon story pieces.

(Also because 'Batman but Evil' would essentially just be another of the costumed villains running around Gotham - a big part of his normal environment is the symmetry/mirroring between himself and his normal collection of people wearing weird costumes with a single-minded dedication to an unusual activity or theme.)

[awa]

That and Batman already has a purely canon evil version of himself that serves the purposes an evil batman would most of the time anyways. He's called Lex Luthor.

I mean, he may not get it as much historically, but DC's got an ongoing event with a struggle against an entire multiverse apparently mostly inhabited by evil Batmen.

Personally I don't count either of those. Obviously opinion vary but lex luthor does not work for me. Sure their both rich and smart but that is not the only thing that makes batman bat man. The skills, the look and flavor of his tools are all just as important. You can deviate a little, say evil batman with a gun but do it to much and its not really batman.

Ironically its also why I don't count the dark batmen I have seen because they aren't batman, I mean technically they are. Now I only read the first part of that and apparently there's been more since so this complaint may no longer be valid but from what I saw they were just knock offs of other characters not actually bat man. Like the green lantern one hes just an evil green lantern with a vague bat theme, he doesn't sneak around, use martial arts or gadgets, he is not a detective hes well not batman.

Now obviously your mileage will vary but compare them to all the many many evil superman's which basically always have his power set and often a very close match to his costume.

[Lord Raziere]

Personally I don't count either of those. Obviously opinion vary but lex luthor does not work for me. Sure their both rich and smart but that is not the only thing that makes batman bat man. The skills, the look and flavor of his tools are all just as important. You can deviate a little, say evil batman with a gun but do it to much and its not really batman.


ah but its not just the riches and smarts, its the fact that Lex and Batman both represent human potential and in how they relate to Superman. Lex Luthor, consumed by jealousy constantly makes plans to take out Superman as a matter of course. Batman works with Superman but has kryptonite back up plans in case he ever goes out of control. they are both consumed by their obsessions and thus not living up to all the good they can do humanity (Batman his crusade against crime, Luthor his vendetta against superman) and if they both learned to give those up they could probably do a lot more good than any amount of evil schemes or martial arts crime fighting could ever accomplish. the only thing holding them back is their own focuses and biases, its just Batman's bias is more positive than Luthor's bias.

[awa]

ah but its not just the riches and smarts, its the fact that Lex and Batman both represent human potential and in how they relate to Superman. Lex Luthor, consumed by jealousy constantly makes plans to take out Superman as a matter of course. Batman works with Superman but has kryptonite back up plans in case he ever goes out of control. they are both consumed by their obsessions and thus not living up to all the good they can do humanity (Batman his crusade against crime, Luthor his vendetta against superman) and if they both learned to give those up they could probably do a lot more good than any amount of evil schemes or martial arts crime fighting could ever accomplish. the only thing holding them back is their own focuses and biases, its just Batman's bias is more positive than Luthor's bias.

I don't really agree I feel that is to broad. Evil superman tend to have far more points of similarity than just that. If we applied that broad a brush to superman it would ludicrously increase the number of knock offs.

[Lord Raziere]

I don't really agree I feel that is to broad. Evil superman tend to have far more points of similarity than just that. If we applied that broad a brush to superman it would ludicrously increase the number of knock offs.

I don't know, I don't feel as whether he knows martial arts or has some specific aesthetic is real important to whether someone is a foil/evil counterpart. those feel like flimsy physical attributes. someone can have all the aesthetics of superman or batman and still be nothing like them, and if they're too similar to the original it come across as lazy evil goatee level stuff.

[awa]

see i'm not saying it has to be good or say something deep about the character, most superman knock offs good or evil don't.

But I just cant buy that interpretation of lex. Or batman for that matter, most batman stories seem to imply that lurking on a roff top is 100% the most effective use of his time.

My point is their are tons of very exact superman copies that often mimic not only his look and powers but often his backstory as well.

I'm not talking about a foil or evil counter part I am talking about an evil version of a character. Either within universe like ultra-man (dc version) or out of universe like home lander.

[sandmote]

Batman doesn't have one evil mirror so much as there's a bunch of villains mirroring different aspects of his identity. That's why so many of batman's regular foes challenge his detective abilities: Joker and Riddler's entire themes, two-face manipulating the criminal and the cops (before his identity comes out), Ra's al Ghul, The Court of Owls, Clayface being a shape-shifting actor, and I'm out of my depth compared to most people here so I'd like to stop now.

Sure, if you're looking at Batman as "the detective," Luthor doesn't really do the job. But a "detective" villain is more interesting if Bats is there to match wits with them anyway. So even when you do get a clever tactician who can trap up the justice league its usually Batman's evil alternate fighting regular Batman rather than anyone using a straight up evil batman.

[M1982]

Ah yes, I assume you somehow think Luther put him an oppressive paranoid regime to be raised in as well, manipulated the rocket traveling backwards through time so that he'd be raised from birth to be an oppressor? your supposedly godlike Luther is a ridiculous assumption. he doesn't have such control over events.

Superman wasn't an oppressor or tyrant at the start and tried to reach out to the US multiple times only for the US to instigate agression time and again by sending their newest superweapon against him as a first strike. Also Lex claims at the end to have calculated everything that unfolded down to the last digit in advance.

[Lord Raziere]

Superman wasn't an oppressor or tyrant at the start and tried to reach out to the US multiple times only for the US to instigate agression time and again by sending their newest superweapon against him as a first strike. Also Lex claims at the end to have calculated everything that unfolded down to the last digit in advance.

ah yes, anything to paint Superman as the flawless hero yes? can't have him be a character who can be different depending on his circumstances. No dimensions, no flaws, no failures just an idolized figure who can do nothing wrong. Such an idea makes me roll my eyes at the nonsensically high standard. morality is valuable because we keep upholding it even after we fail, not because we have an unbroken streak. honestly with how many people hype him up, I understand how Luthor feels sometimes.

[Rynjin]

Superman wasn't an oppressor or tyrant at the start and tried to reach out to the US multiple times only for the US to instigate agression time and again by sending their newest superweapon against him as a first strike. Also Lex claims at the end to have calculated everything that unfolded down to the last digit in advance.

Ah yes, it's always a great idea to take the compulsive liar egomaniac at his word.

[Anteros]

Personally I don't count either of those. Obviously opinion vary but lex luthor does not work for me. Sure their both rich and smart but that is not the only thing that makes batman bat man. The skills, the look and flavor of his tools are all just as important. You can deviate a little, say evil batman with a gun but do it to much and its not really batman.

Ironically its also why I don't count the dark batmen I have seen because they aren't batman, I mean technically they are. Now I only read the first part of that and apparently there's been more since so this complaint may no longer be valid but from what I saw they were just knock offs of other characters not actually bat man. Like the green lantern one hes just an evil green lantern with a vague bat theme, he doesn't sneak around, use martial arts or gadgets, he is not a detective hes well not batman.

Now obviously your mileage will vary but compare them to all the many many evil superman's which basically always have his power set and often a very close match to his costume.

The character you're looking for here is Owlman.

[Ajustusdaniel]

Ah yes, it's always a great idea to take the compulsive liar egomaniac at his word.

It's been a while since I read Red Son, but my recollection of that scene is that Luthor doesn't directly claim that he had planned everything. He remarks that the outcome, in which his enemies destroy each other, leaving him and his descendants to lead America, and eventually the rest of the world, into a period of unparalleled peace and prosperity, has worked out in his favor to the degree that it would be forgivable to assume that he had planned it all out to the tenth decimal place.

Superman seems to both lend some credence to this and undermine in his closing narration, when he notes that Luthor might have dropped a decimal point in calculating exactly what it would take to destroy him, but was indeed successful in convincing him to permanently remove himself from human affairs.

[awa]

The character you're looking for here is Owlman.

Yes he is a good example, of course in almost every instance with an evil batman their is also an evil superman. But there are many stories with an evil superman that lack an evil batman.

[M1982]

ah yes, anything to paint Superman as the flawless hero yes? can't have him be a character who can be different depending on his circumstances. No dimensions, no flaws, no failures just an idolized figure who can do nothing wrong. Such an idea makes me roll my eyes at the nonsensically high standard. morality is valuable because we keep upholding it even after we fail, not because we have an unbroken streak. honestly with how many people hype him up, I understand how Luthor feels sometimes. So what was the justification to send Superior Man over?

@Ajustusdaniel
I never read the comics. But his quote from the movie is: "Superman gone. Brainica gone. One could be forgiven for thinking that this had all been worked out to the tenth decimal point 25 years ago." and then he knocks over a chess piece

[TeChameleon]

There have actually been at least a couple of anti-Batmen (evil-Superman free, even)- first two that come to mind are Wrath and (believe it or not) Killer Moth.

... and, as somebody pointed out, one of DC's more recent big event thingies, METAL, was about nothing but evil Batmen. An entire Justice League's worth of evil Batmen, including evil Aqua-Bat-Man which was just weird.

[HandofShadows]

If Homelander fights dirty enough, he may well make the VERY big mistake of making Superman mad.

[Traab]

I actually don’t think Homelander is stronger than Superman. I think it would be an interesting fight but I think a lot of it has to do with their origins. Homelander was grown in a lab, Superman is a legitimate alien from a very powerful race of beings that landed on earth.

So I don’t even think Homelander could play dirty because Superman’s not gonna get hurt by any trick move that he tries. The only thing I think Homelander has on Superman is the mentality to do whatever it takes to win in a fight, dirty or not. Superman isn’t gonna fight dirty. So unless Homelander gets his hands on some Kryptonite, I think Superman has this one.

Supermans primary style of combat is, "Ok, lets see how hard I have to hit him to put him down, without erasing his very atoms from existence." Its why he gets hit so much, it generally doesnt actually matter to him because very few things in existence are strong enough to be a threat, and he has so much power he has to be very careful how much he uses because he goes from grabbing a pickpocket off the street, to hitting darkseid in the face with black holes hurled like frisbees. And everything in between. So he always lowballs his estimate then gradually increases it till its dialed in just right to smash whatever he is fighting without killing anyone. Its the same reason why so often in the animated series and such, he say, takes a laser blast that knocks him back the first time, stalls him out the second, then just goes right through it the third. The first one is the surprise that he was just attacked, as he subconsciously gives way as a habit from growing up in smallville and not wanting to be a mobile brick wall for every fellow student that bumps into him. The second blast is him dialing in how hard he has to resist to not be pushed back, third blast is smashy smashy time.