Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Ok, Bruce Wayne is one of the richest and most intelligent cats around. He builds jets from nothing. The man can build just about anything and often creates original inventions. Why doesn't he just make some non-lethal automatic guns?

Why doesn't he just make an armor suit like Iron Man ? ^^

Joke apart, it's a good question but I have not the answer. Maybe the shape of a gun makes him uncomfortable...

It's the symbolic presence of the gun that would taint Batman. Non-lethal or not, the fact that he'd wield one would give his image a bad name and comic sales would plummet.

So gun = bad guy. That would make laugh the Punisher !!

The Punisher is what Batman should be. The Punisher is what Batman would be if he wasn't under the influence of his own pretentiousness and crystal meth.

He used rubber bullets in 'The Dark Knight Returns'.

Originally posted by Toku King
He used rubber bullets in 'The Dark Knight Returns'.

yeah, and he also gunned down one of the mutants with a sub machine-gun no rubber bullets there lol


I know the thing with batman is that gun's are bad and that using one would compromise his philosophy...,what ever that is. I'm just curious though, how do you all think using automatic weapons with non-lethal ammunition would change his style? Would we still see batman swinging from rooftops or would he just sit back with a sniper rifle and take fools down from afar?

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
The Punisher is what Batman should be. The Punisher is what Batman would be if he wasn't under the influence of his own pretentiousness and crystal meth.

LOL im almost tempted to put that as a quote on my sig.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
The Punisher is what Batman should be. The Punisher is what Batman would be if he wasn't under the influence of his own pretentiousness and crystal meth.

Batman > The Punisher, my friend. Batman should never be put into the same sentence as Frank Castle.

Batman had a Batgun in Batman return of the Joker for NES, which i really don't understand.......that was pretty weird, not canon but still.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
The Punisher is what Batman should be. The Punisher is what Batman would be if he wasn't under the influence of his own pretentiousness and crystal meth.

Actually, The Punisher is what Batman would be if he wasn't under the influence of his own pretentiousness .... oh and if he was much, much worse.

Hardly. The Puinisher's a realist. batman's an idealist... to an extreme point.

How many criminals does Batman put in jail just so that they can break out two days later and kill more people compared to The Punisher?

If The Punisher was in charge of Gotham City and he had access to the resources Batman had, The Joker, Two-Face, etc. would never be a problem. Ever. Because they wouldn't be around anymore. Joker would not have been allowed to go to jail and break out the next day after he blows up that orphanage or kills that security guard who's just doing his job.

So no, Batman is an idiot compared to the Punisher. I think that every person that The Joker kills batman should make it a point to go to that persons familiy and explain how he could have prevented that death by killing Joker years ago, but didn't because it wasn't "heroic". He should then explain to them how the loved one's death was instrumental in "justice" or some shit. If he did that to every family then maybe I would have respect for him and people like him... but they don't, and so I don't.

so basically what your saying is its Batman's fault that the court system doesn't just kill these people instead of sending them arkham where they will just escape and that he should became everything that he fights against and becomes a murder like the The joker and two-face

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Hardly. The Puinisher's a realist. batman's an idealist... to an extreme point.

How many criminals does Batman put in jail just so that they can break out two days later and kill more people compared to The Punisher?

If The Punisher was in charge of Gotham City and he had access to the resources Batman had, The Joker, Two-Face, etc. would never be a problem. Ever. Because they wouldn't be around anymore. Joker would not have been allowed to go to jail and break out the next day after he blows up that orphanage or kills that security guard who's just doing his job.

So no, Batman is an idiot compared to the Punisher. I think that every person that The Joker kills batman should make it a point to go to that persons familiy and explain how he could have prevented that death by killing Joker years ago, but didn't because it wasn't "heroic". He should then explain to them how the loved one's death was instrumental in "justice" or some shit. If he did that to every family then maybe I would have respect for him and people like him... but they don't, and so I don't.

...if you are replying to me, I was just referring to their skills, which, indubitably, Batman is superior in.

It's not his fault that court system is corrupt. It is his fault that he accepts that and let's them have their way. The reason why Daredevil became a vigilante is because he was a lawyer so he knew how bullshit the court system was. He put people like the Kingpin's thugs behind bars just to watch them get out and kill someone the next weekend. DD decided that the court system sucked, and he was tired of innocent people being killed for no ****ing reason. So... he could have sat on his ass and done nothing, opening the paper every morning to see that someone he put in jail has robbed a bank and killed two tellers, then yawn and eat his breakfast. Or... he could go out and **** people up so bad that even if they do go to jail they'll think twice about ever doing any crimes again. Punisher's the same way. Batman isn't. He apparently doesn't care how many people die, otherwise he'd do what needs to be done and let his ego and his image suffer. Oh well.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
It's not his fault that court system is corrupt. It is his fault that he accepts that and let's them have their way. The reason why Daredevil became a vigilante is because he was a lawyer so he knew how bullshit the court system was. He put people like the Kingpin's thugs behind bars just to watch them get out and kill someone the next weekend. DD decided that the court system sucked, and he was tired of innocent people being killed for no ****ing reason. So... he could have sat on his ass and done nothing, opening the paper every morning to see that someone he put in jail has robbed a bank and killed two tellers, then yawn and eat his breakfast. Or... he could go out and **** people up so bad that even if they do go to jail they'll think twice about ever doing any crimes again. Punisher's the same way. Batman isn't. He apparently doesn't care how many people die, otherwise he'd do what needs to be done and let his ego and his image suffer. Oh well.

Meh, you could say that about everyone that ever had the chance to kill Joker, which are thousands of people.

I did say that.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
I did say that. So, did you kill any mass murderers lately? hmm

No. If I had the chance and the ability too I probably would, though.

I don't see the relevence, though. mmm

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
No. If I had the chance and the ability too I probably would, though.

I don't see the relevence, though. mmm

I'm sure.

Anyways, it's just odd, you think Batman is pretentious and an idiot, for actually sticking by the law (something you apparently do, too). I enjoy Punisher a lot, he is a great character, and I appreciate his approach towards crime, but I can just as well understand and appreciate Batman's, especially since I, myself, am more like Batman in that aspect, and don't really feel that I have the right to decide over life and death of any person, so I get Batman's position.

But hey, when I see you on the TV, pulling a Punisher I will take into consideration whether a character is an idiot for not doing it

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm sure.

Anyways, it's just odd, you think Batman is pretentious and an idiot, for actually sticking by the law

He doesn't stick by the law. He breaks many laws. He does what suits him. I think he's an idiot for allowing thousands of people to die, then daring to call himself a hero.




Batman's hypocritical. He feels that he doesn't have the right to decide someone's fate, yet he's willing to throw people off of buildings on the chance that they'll live. He doesn't mind driving his batmobile through traffic and over buildings at 200 miles an hour, knowing that he could hit someone, destroy something which can seriously injure someone else. He doesn't mind trespassing on private property, then proceeding to destroy that property, beat the shit out of whatever cops or security guards that might be present, then abducting someone and dropping them off in another country. Dropping SWAT teams off buildings, etc. That's all illegal. He can't know for a fact that his antics will never kill an innocent person, what with all the explosions and driving through walls and such. But he does it anyway. He does know, without a shadow of a doubt, that every time he puts the Joker in jail instead of killing him, Joker will escape and kill someone. That's what he does every time. It's in his nature.

So Batman doesn't have the balls to decide the Joker's fate, yet he is more then willing, perhaps he doesn't eve care, to condemn some poor innocent person to quite possibly an excruciatingly painful death at the hands of a man he could have done away with a long time ago. How heroic.

Like I said,






I'm not sure why seeing me doing that stuff would make you consider it, considering many people do it all the time, everywhere. But okay.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
He doesn't stick by the law. He breaks many laws. He does what suits him. I think he's an idiot for allowing thousands of people to die, then daring to call himself a hero.




Batman's hypocritical. He feels that he doesn't have the right to decide someone's fate, yet he's willing to throw people off of buildings on the chance that they'll live. He doesn't mind driving his batmobile through traffic and over buildings at 200 miles an hour, knowing that he could hit someone, destroy something which can seriously injure someone else. He doesn't mind trespassing on private property, then proceeding to destroy that property, beat the shit out of whatever cops or security guards that might be present, then abducting someone and dropping them off in another country. Dropping SWAT teams off buildings, etc. That's all illegal. He can't know for a fact that his antics will never kill an innocent person, what with all the explosions and driving through walls and such. But he does it anyway. He does know, without a shadow of a doubt, that every time he puts the Joker in jail instead of killing him, Joker will escape and kill someone. That's what he does every time. It's in his nature.

So Batman doesn't have the balls to decide the Joker's fate, yet he is more then willing, perhaps he doesn't eve care, to condemn some poor innocent person to quite possibly an excruciatingly painful death at the hands of a man he could have done away with a long time ago. How heroic.

Like I said,






I'm not sure why seeing me doing that stuff would make you consider it, considering many people do it all the time, everywhere. But okay.

Oh, we are talking movie Batman? Yeah, that pissed me off, too. Though, your assumption that he does it to be called a hero is obviously ridiculous. Also, calling it a matter of balls, again goes against Batman's character and is just as ridiculous. You may (or may not) have a point about his personality having a major flaw (is quite subjective), but your evaluation for the reasons of that flaw (that may not even be one) are wrong.

And many people kill mass murderers that have been subdued in cold blood everywhere? R-really? Not where I'm from, I guess.

That's because you're from Germany. You guys do things in different ways. Wrong ways... You could learn a thing or two from good ol' American policies!

Foreign policies most notably. haermm


My issue is with Batman's character. It goes against his character, I know, and I feel that Punisher is a better character as a result. *shrug* But, similar to to you and Batman my sense of "justice" and what not mirror Franks, so meh. Comes down to opinion like most things.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
That's because you're from Germany. You guys do things in different ways. Wrong ways... You could learn a thing or two from good ol' American policies!

Foreign policies most notably. haermm


My issue is with Batman's character. It goes against his character, I know, and I feel that Punisher is a better character as a result. *shrug* But, similar to to you and Batman my sense of "justice" and what not mirror Franks, so meh. Comes down to opinion like most things.

Hmm, I dunno, I think Batman well written surpasses Punisher, who is a great character anyways. I like them both very much though. Oh and:

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
I think that every person that The Joker kills batman should make it a point to go to that persons familiy and explain how he could have prevented that death by killing Joker years ago, but didn't because it wasn't "heroic". He should then explain to them how the loved one's death was instrumental in "justice" or some shit. If he did that to every family then maybe I would have respect for him and people like him... but they don't, and so I don't.

Ridiculous.

Maybe Gordon, Bullock, Superman, Montoya, Alfred, Nightwing, Robin, every Guard ever at Arkham, every police officer ever present at one of his arrests, every judge and lawyer, every psychologist and every reporter that ever got close to him can come with him and they have a fun group apology for NOT killing someone.

Dunno why you wouldn't respect all the good he does as well as all the skills he has, just cause he doesn't murder people, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Though, I am wondering, where should Batman draw the line? 5 killed people? 20? Maybe someone that steals something worth 2000$ or more should be killed. Insurance fraud? Loitering? Will you make the list for Batman, or how's that going to work out?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, I dunno, I think Batman well written surpasses Punisher, who is a great character anyways. I like them both very much though. Oh and:

I'm not really talking about the character's from an out-of-universe sense. Batman's series are the only ones from DC that I can really stand, for various reasons.

Spiderman and the Hulk are my favorite comic book characters of all time, though I do still frown on Peter's methods sometimes compared to the Punisher. As you can see, I'm pretty judgmental about this sort of thing. I suck, yeah.





I'm not going to act as if my sentiments are exactly logical. But I think Supes is one of the biggest fools out their as well. Gordon's "get him by the book" ideas are just as retarded (I would have killed Joker if Barbra had been my daughter, irregardless of that proving that he was essentially right. I don't have the mental stability to let something like that go.) etc.



I respect him when he does things like take on entire building of thugs to get to the Joker and disarm the bomb that would kill half of Gotham's population. My respect turns to irritation when he slaps the handcuffs on Joker, tells him "I'll see you next week", and lets the police take him away to go on trial sit in a jail cell etc.




I'd write the list for him, yeah.

On a serious note, I'd say he should follow Frank's methods. Ask him where to draw the line.

Yo, Blax. Spidey doesn't kill, either... so, why do you like him more than Batman?

Just wonderin'.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
I'm not really talking about the character's from an out-of-universe sense. Batman's series are the only ones from DC that I can really stand, for various reasons.

Spiderman and the Hulk are my favorite comic book characters of all time, though I do still frown on Peter's methods sometimes compared to the Punisher. As you can see, I'm pretty judgmental about this sort of thing. I suck, yeah.

Well, I have a thing for more rougher "heroes". I only really follow Hellblazer, Punisher and Moon Knight at the moment. But I always admired Batman's great storylines, he is just an amazing character, to me.



Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
I'm not going to act as if my sentiments are exactly logical. But I think Supes is one of the biggest fools out their as well. Gordon's "get him by the book" ideas are just as retarded (I would have killed Joker if Barbra had been my daughter, irregardless of that proving that he was essentially right. I don't have the mental stability to let something like that go.) etc.

Oh yeah, Superman is a major douche. Especially cause that gaylord even breaks his ****ing rules at times. Don't like him at all.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
I respect him when he does things like take on entire building of thugs to get to the Joker and disarm the bomb that would kill half of Gotham's population. My respect turns to irritation when he slaps the handcuffs on Joker, tells him "I'll see you next week", and lets the police take him away to go on trial sit in a jail cell etc.

I guess it can be irritating. But I understand that he thinks it is not his right to do it. (he himself ponders that question at times though)


Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
I'd write the list for him, yeah.

On a serious note, I'd say he should follow Frank's methods. Ask him where to draw the line.

I'm not sure if Frank knows half the time. But that's kinda what distinguishes the two characters. It's what makes Batman redeemable, while Frank, is just gone.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk

So no, Batman is an idiot compared to the Punisher. I think that every person that The Joker kills batman should make it a point to go to that persons familiy and explain how he could have prevented that death by killing Joker years ago, but didn't because it wasn't "heroic". He should then explain to them how the loved one's death was instrumental in "justice" or some shit. If he did that to every family then maybe I would have respect for him and people like him... but they don't, and so I don't.

Yeah, a master plan tactician with incredible detective skills and extremely knowledge of forensics is a total idiot compare to a gun blasting nam vet who shoots first and doesn't even bother to ask questions later.

Of course Marvel would never stoop to the level of ripping off ideas from DC. We all know that Micro chip wasn't model after Alfred Pennyworth for the Punisher.

Yeah....see your point.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Yeah, a master plan tactician with incredible detective skills and extremely knowledge of forensics is a total idiot compare to a gun blasting nam vet who shoots first and doesn't even bother to ask questions later.

Tell that to the families of the people Joker has killed over the years that him and Batman have been going at it.



No wonder AC is always knocking you around the various forums. What exactly does your above point have to do with, well, anything I've said?

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Tell that to the families of the people Joker has killed over the years that him and Batman have been going at it.



No wonder AC is always knocking you around the various forums. What exactly does your above point have to do with, well, anything I've said?

That's what the Wayne Foundation is for! To help the victims of criminals in Gotham. So yes, Bruce Wayne a.k.a. Batman help the victims!

What? you didn't know that a lot of ideas from DC were taken by Marvel? Oh well, now you know.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
That's what the Wayne Foundation is for! To help the victims of criminals in Gotham. So yes, Bruce Wayne a.k.a. Batman help the victims!

What, some money and free therapeutic sessions? Don't make me laugh.



I already knew. My point was that it doesn't have anything with what has been said over the past couple of pages.

What does character A being a knock-off of character B have to do with the differences between Punisher's method for dealing with crime and batmans?

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
What, some money and free therapeutic sessions? Don't make me laugh.


Are you really feeling that thick headed today?

What does the Punisher give the victims of his killings? More pain and suffering...yeah! there is your hero for ya.


The Punisher was NEVER a good character. Much less a good hero. He was nothing but antagonist for Spiderman. He is no better than Bushwacker the only differenc is that the Punisher build up a fanbase and that was it.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf

The Punisher was NEVER a good character.

DC Fanboy

*Random assertion*

In my opinion, Marvel > DC, in general. Except for Batman. He's the one truly outstanding character of DC.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
*Random assertion*

In my opinion, Marvel > DC, in general. Except for Batman. He's the one truly outstanding character of DC.

I would honestly agree with you on that.

But thats just me.

I disagree, DC is obviously better. If you count Vertigo, Marvel isn't even worthy of being in the same sentence as DC (irony).

It's still pretty good.

Er... What was the original question ?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Are you really feeling that thick headed today?

Are you speaking from personal experience like I am when I say that free money and therapeutic sessions don't do shit for most people?



Those victims being the mass murderers and such? At least Punisher makes sure that his "victims" never hurt an innocent person again. You can't say the same for Batman, who doesn't seem to give a rats ass for the future safety of Gotham's citizens.




I'd take your opinion seriously if Batman wasn't plastered all over your signature and avatar.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk

Those victims being the mass murderers and such? At least Punisher makes sure that his "victims" never hurt an innocent person again. You can't say the same for Batman, who doesn't seem to give a rats ass for the future safety of Gotham's citizens.
That's a bit unfair. Of course he gives more than just a rats ass about Gotham's citizen.

I was being overly critical to match WD's ridiculousness.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
I was being overly critical to match WD's ridiculousness.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were making use of specific patterns of speech on account of you being black.

Many of the words in your statement are a few syllables too large for me to understand what you're trying to say.

I actually agree with Blax on this one. Batman definitely is hypocritical with his moral standards.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
No wonder AC is always knocking you around the various forums. What exactly does your above point have to do with, well, anything I've said?

Dude, what's with you? You're always so prickish when it comes to debates.

Bardock, Marvel is more complex and deep than DC. Aside from bullshit characters, like Thor and the whole Greek God stuff, you have awesome characters like Wolverine, Spider-Man, the Hulk, Magneto (he's one of the most complex comic book villains of all time), and even the Punisher, who- while by no means as great as Batman (IMO)- is a great character.

Batman and his surrounding villains are the only things I really like about DC.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Yo, Blax. Spidey doesn't kill, either... so, why do you like him more than Batman?

Just wonderin'.

That was my point. I frown on Peter's methods of not killing anyone as well. I find it irritating that he allows Norman to go to jail then break out a week later. I don't dislike batman, he's pretty cool in his own right. I like his movies, a well written Batman comic can be better then a lot of things, etc. But I simply find his methods aggravating, and so I prefer Punisher's character to his. I prefer Punisher''s methods to Peters but I also like Spiderman more in terms of being a fan of something. I grew up on Spiderman and I like his origins, his powers, and his intelligence.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Bardock, Marvel is more complex and deep than DC. Aside from bullshit characters, like Thor and the whole Greek God stuff, you have awesome characters like Wolverine, Spider-Man, the Hulk, Magneto (he's one of the most complex comic book villains of all time), and even the Punisher, who- while by no means as great as Batman (IMO)- is a great character.

Batman and his surrounding villains are the only things I really like about DC.

Meh, I guess it's opinion anyways. But you know randomly naming characters doesn't really prove much. And DC has great characters and great storylines as well. Just don't enjoy Marvel as much.

Originally posted by Toku King
Dude, what's with you? You're always so prickish when it comes to debates.

Well, I am an *******. I could sugar coat it, but why bother?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Meh, I guess it's opinion anyways. But you know randomly naming characters doesn't really prove much. And DC has great characters and great storylines as well. Just don't enjoy Marvel as much.

I like Marvel's characters more, but i agree with DC storylines, the batman ones i have read are most of the time fantastic, but like you said each to his own.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Are you speaking from personal experience like I am when I say that free money and therapeutic sessions don't do shit for most people?

Yes, from personal experience with dealing with fellas like you BH.


Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk

Those victims being the mass murderers and such? At least Punisher makes sure that his "victims" never hurt an innocent person again. You can't say the same for Batman, who doesn't seem to give a rats ass for the future safety of Gotham's citizens.


Have you gone mad? is this a game?


Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk

I'd take your opinion seriously if Batman wasn't plastered all over your signature and avatar.

I'd take your opinion seriously if you made an ounce of sense.



How long have you been reading comic books MC?

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
That was my point. I frown on Peter's methods of not killing anyone as well. I find it irritating that he allows Norman to go to jail then break out a week later. I don't dislike batman, he's pretty cool in his own right. I like his movies, a well written Batman comic can be better then a lot of things, etc. But I simply find his methods aggravating, and so I prefer Punisher's character to his. I prefer Punisher''s methods to Peters but I also like Spiderman more in terms of being a fan of something. I grew up on Spiderman and I like his origins, his powers, and his intelligence.

Ah, I see.

I gotta tell you, though. I was sort of skeptical about the whole Batman's moral code... until I saw TDK. That really answered some questions about it. So, although it sort've annoys me in cases, I can still accept his attitude towards not killing people.

But he is more brutal, dark, and overall questionable in comparison to most superheroes.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Well, I am an *******.

Well, that's not new to me.
I mean, why not keep it a discussion and not an insult contest?

I don't get how Marvel is more complex or deeper than DC. I still prefer DC heroes and storylines.

I'll add my two cents to this little discussion. I agree with the majority here in the fact that I much prefer Marvel to DC, and the only DC element I actually enjoy is Batman and his universe. I also feel that Frank Castle is a better vigilante than Bruce Wayne because of his permanent solutions, a Mafia Don with a bullet in his head can't order any more hits or continue to bring in drugs and foul up a city.

My major reason for posting here is to explain why I don't like DC, which is the silliness of their characters. Superman, totally invincible unless you happen to have a shiny green rock, said rock always seeming to fall into the laps of supes' enemies. Wonder Woman, nothing more than an advertisement for feminism, and she uses a lasso for heaven's sake. The Green Lantern, who can materialize his thoughts but rather than simply materializing an anvil above the heads of all criminals chooses to make himself useless. The Flash, terrible costume and can run really fast, yeah, that's useful. Aquaman, no explanation needed. Plastic Man, same as Aquaman. Robin, see previous.

Marvel, by contrast, has very interesting characters. People like the Xmen, Spider-Man, Punisher, etc don't have uber superpowers negated by an element all of their foes have, they aren't boring, and they show more character development than anything I've seen in DC.

Of course I could have just summed all of this up with:

Aquaman
Plastic Man
'Nuff Said

But I enjoy digressing.

Originally posted by fascistcrusader
I'll add my two cents to this little discussion. I agree with the majority here in the fact that I much prefer Marvel to DC, and the only DC element I actually enjoy is Batman and his universe. I also feel that Frank Castle is a better vigilante than Bruce Wayne because of his permanent solutions, a Mafia Don with a bullet in his head can't order any more hits or continue to bring in drugs and foul up a city.

Doubt that that is majority opinion in the Batman forum.


Originally posted by fascistcrusader
My major reason for posting here is to explain why I don't like DC, which is the silliness of their characters. Superman, totally invincible unless you happen to have a shiny green rock, said rock always seeming to fall into the laps of supes' enemies.

Meh, Thor, Silver Surfer, Sentry.

Originally posted by fascistcrusader
Wonder Woman, nothing more than an advertisement for feminism, and she uses a lasso for heaven's sake.

Good reasoning. We all know that Lassos and Feminism are the ultimate signs of bad writing.

Originally posted by fascistcrusader
The Green Lantern, who can materialize his thoughts but rather than simply materializing an anvil above the heads of all criminals chooses to make himself useless.

a) He doesn't kill people, b) his foes are usually not just normal crooks, c) he is limited by his willpower, d) how the hell does he "make himself useless"

Originally posted by fascistcrusader
The Flash, terrible costume and can run really fast, yeah, that's useful.

Q-quicksilver

Originally posted by fascistcrusader
Aquaman, no explanation needed.

Namor

Originally posted by fascistcrusader
Plastic Man, same as Aquaman.

Actually, explanation would be good, what's wrong with Plastic Man?

Originally posted by fascistcrusader
Robin, see previous.

Again, just randomly naming characters doesn't make DC worse, but if, in your mind, it actually does, here's a list (Cyclops, Hawkeye, Ant Man, Iron Man, Captain America, Jean Grey, Thor, Silver Surfer, Fantastic ****ing Four, Luke Cage, etc.)


Originally posted by fascistcrusader
Marvel, by contrast, has very interesting characters. People like the Xmen, Spider-Man, Punisher, etc don't have uber superpowers negated by an element all of their foes have, they aren't boring, and they show more character development than anything I've seen in DC.

How?

Originally posted by fascistcrusader
Of course I could have just summed all of this up with:

Aquaman
Plastic Man
'Nuff Said

But I enjoy digressing.

Nah.

And again, of course it is absolutely clear, that if you are going to include DC's Vertigo, Marvel might as well just lube up and bend over the next table...

Its the majority in this thread.




None of whom have a super weakness all of their major enemies seem to keep stockpiles of.




They sure are. Honestly, a shameless political plug and a stupid weapon make a bad character.



He makes himself useless by not utilizing his power to its full potential, wasting it on one on one fights rather than doing some real good.



Not a major staple of Marvel.



He's stretchy, and that's all he can do. Plastic Man is Mr. Fantastic without the genius level of thinking, Mr. Fantastic would be one of the worst characters in Marvel without his intelligence.



I'm not being random at all, the pattern here is that they're all terrible characters, whereas you're listing some of Marvel's, and all of comics', finest.



Useful and/or unwasted powers, are more human than most at DC, show more character development, etc.



You could say "nah" to gravity but that wouldn't make you any less susceptible to falling.

Marvel might have a few minor blunders, but the majority of DC's main supporting characters are garbage.

Originally posted by fascistcrusader
Its the majority in this thread.

Meh, I see 4 on each side that stated their preference.


Originally posted by fascistcrusader
None of whom have a super weakness all of their major enemies seem to keep stockpiles of.

So? They are ridiculously overpowered and boring. Was your point solely "Oh, Superman has a weakness, he sucks!". Would you prefer if he was invincible?


Originally posted by fascistcrusader
They sure are. Honestly, a shameless political plug and a stupid weapon make a bad character.

Yeah, really sucks that them women are portrayed in a good light. Bad DC...Bad! Besides a Lasso that actually has some use is not that bad of a weapon at all. Again, she doesn't want to kill, so a Golden Shotgun wouldn't really suit her.


Originally posted by fascistcrusader
He makes himself useless by not utilizing his power to its full potential, wasting it on one on one fights rather than doing some real good.

What real good would that be?

Originally posted by fascistcrusader
Not a major staple of Marvel.

Haha, but Aquaman, Plastic Man and Robin are.

Originally posted by fascistcrusader
He's stretchy, and that's all he can do. Plastic Man is Mr. Fantastic without the genius level of thinking, Mr. Fantastic would be one of the worst characters in Marvel without his intelligence.

Actually, Plastic Man's powers surpass that of Mr. Fantastic and yeah, he is not the most genius of geniuses (horrible writing that, how dare they make a character not endlessly smart, bad DC!!). Funny thing though, how Plastic Man existed 30 years before Mr. Fantastic...yeah.


Originally posted by fascistcrusader
I'm not being random at all, the pattern here is that they're all terrible characters, whereas you're listing some of Marvel's, and all of comics', finest.

They are terrible in your opinion. They aren't factually terrible. The characters I listed are, in my opinion, terrible characters. Which is the point, random, unsupported listing, doesn't prove a point.


Originally posted by fascistcrusader
Useful and/or unwasted powers, are more human than most at DC, show more character development, etc.

No, I mean how do they. That's just a statement, let me show you how this works.

I hereby state that: DC has heroes with useful and/or unwasted powers, are more human than most at Marvel and show more character development."

Did I cancel out your point now by stating the opposite?

Originally posted by fascistcrusader
You could say "nah" to gravity but that wouldn't make you any less susceptible to falling.

Oh, suddenly you need an elaborate explanation, double standard that. Besides, you just said names, I said that doesn't prove anything.

Originally posted by fascistcrusader
Marvel might have a few minor blunders, but the majority of DC's main supporting characters are garbage.

Haha, few minor, Marvel is just as much as shitfest as DC, maybe even more as Marvel's characters on the whole, seem more like something a whiny 16 year old would write (obviously there are exceptions).

I counted 3 on Marvel's side (Blax, Neo, Master), two on DC's (you and wrathful), including me that's 4 for Marvel and 2 for DC, who were the other DC supporters?



No, the point is that Superman is useless. He's invincible, unless you have kryptonite, a substance that might as well be as common as asphalt for how often people fighting him have it. Don't make an overpowered character and then make him weak in his major battles, instead either make him dominate or give him nothing but overpowered villains.



Wow, great job implying something entirely different from my obvious intentions. Wonder Woman is like having a super pro gay rights or super anti abortion hero, keep blatant politics out of my superhero comics, please.

And a lasso is a ridiculous weapon no matter how you look at it. It belongs in western themed kids shows of the 1950's, nowhere else.



A whole lot more than Namor. Aqua and Plastic Man are prominent in the JLA, and Robin is a major part of the Batman mythos.



No, plastic man and Reed Richards are both really stretchy, which is quite a useless power. Mr. F makes up for this by being one of Marvel's smartest, helping in more ways than being taffy-like. Plastic Man is just lame.



Aquaman and Plastic Man are factually lame. Robin and the other's might be debatable, but stretchy and talkstofish are entirely useless. ANy of the characters you listed would waste them in combat, and if we go by rule of the majority as democracies do, they are far better characters given their popularity levels.




No, you simply made an incorrect statement. : )



Don't be silly, I gave explanations for characters that aren't self explanatory.




Marvel's characters are more popular than DCs, that definitely speaks to their enjoyability. Other than Batman and Superman and their respectiv e franchises, I don't know of many DC characters that enjoy a fan base outside people who are very much into comics. By contrast, Spider-Man, the X-men, the Hulk, Iron Man, etc, enjoy fairly large amounts of mainstream fans.

Not proof, exactly, but it definitely makes a loud point.

Originally posted by fascistcrusader
I counted 3 on Marvel's side (Blax, Neo, Master), two on DC's (you and wrathful), including me that's 4 for Marvel and 2 for DC, who were the other DC supporters?

Neo said he preferred DC's storylines though he likes Marvel's characters more. And SelinaAndBruce said she prefers DC. So it's 3 to 3, innit?


Originally posted by fascistcrusader
No, the point is that Superman is useless. He's invincible, unless you have kryptonite, a substance that might as well be as common as asphalt for how often people fighting him have it. Don't make an overpowered character and then make him weak in his major battles, instead either make him dominate or give him nothing but overpowered villains.


Nah, he's as invincible as Thor, Silver Surfer and Sentry. Just with the addition of a weakness. And that you, personally, want a character to be either dominant or have overpowered villains, doesn't make the idea of Kryptonite bad. It's not your cup of tea, but so what?


Originally posted by fascistcrusader
Wow, great job implying something entirely different from my obvious intentions. Wonder Woman is like having a super pro gay rights or super anti abortion hero, keep blatant politics out of my superhero comics, please.

Again, YOU don't want your superheroes to blatantly stay for something. Doesn't make the character bad.

Originally posted by fascistcrusader
And a lasso is a ridiculous weapon no matter how you look at it. It belongs in western themed kids shows of the 1950's, nowhere else.

Yeah, a Lasso that is unbreakable, listens to your very thoughts and makes people tell the truth, is just pointless. No use can be made of that AT ALL.


Originally posted by fascistcrusader
A whole lot more than Namor. Aqua and Plastic Man are prominent in the JLA, and Robin is a major part of the Batman mythos.

Are you going to pretend that Namor is just a footnote of Marvel to make your point? You know, lying about something doesn't make you right.


Originally posted by fascistcrusader
No, plastic man and Reed Richards are both really stretchy, which is quite a useless power. Mr. F makes up for this by being one of Marvel's smartest, helping in more ways than being taffy-like. Plastic Man is just lame.

No, Plastic Man is quite more versatile, he can take all sorts of shapes and he's almost invincible for one. Their powers aren't comparable, Plastic Man is totally out of his league. Oh and on top of it Plastic Man has an interesting character which would really improve Richards...who just has "Oh, he's smart, yay". And again, Richards is a rip off, so....yeah.

Originally posted by fascistcrusader
Aquaman and Plastic Man are factually lame. Robin and the other's might be debatable, but stretchy and talkstofish are entirely useless. ANy of the characters you listed would waste them in combat, and if we go by rule of the majority as democracies do, they are far better characters given their popularity levels.

Jesus, you constantly saying that they are "lame" doesn't make them lame. You don't like Plastic Man...that's all you are saying. You give no good reasons as to why he is lame (while Richards isn't) and just repeat your own opinion as fact like a broken record. And you got any stats on them being more popular? Luke Cage and Hawkeye in particular...I'd like to see those, but clean them before you give them to me, seeing as they come STRAIGHT OUT OF YOUR ASS!

Originally posted by fascistcrusader

No, you simply made an incorrect statement. : )

Debatable. Though not with you, as you don't understand the most basic rules of argumentation.

Originally posted by fascistcrusader
Don't be silly, I gave explanations for characters that aren't self explanatory.

You stated some as self explanatory, and then gave some personal preferences as "explanations" of why characters are bad (all of which I countered). You don't like DC as much, fair enough, but don't pretend it is fact that Marvel has the better characters and storylines.

Originally posted by fascistcrusader

Marvel's characters are more popular than DCs, that definitely speaks to their enjoyability. Other than Batman and Superman and their respectiv e franchises, I don't know of many DC characters that enjoy a fan base outside people who are very much into comics. By contrast, Spider-Man, the X-men, the Hulk, Iron Man, etc, enjoy fairly large amounts of mainstream fans.

Statistics.

Originally posted by fascistcrusader
Not proof, exactly, but it definitely makes a loud point.

Yeah, you make a loud point. Unlucky for you, screaming a lot doesn't make a point right.

We're discussing characters, its 4 to 3. Neo prefers Marvel characters so he should be included on the Marvel side of the vote.



He3's not exactly invicncible if that power can be taken away by a norma human like Bruce Wayne if he has a piece of kryptonite. That makes him a bit useless, now doesn't it, kind of like having poison darts that all you enemies are immune to.



Characters like Potlegalization Man, KeepourboysinIraq Man and Wonder Woman are pretty shallow. In my opinion shallowness and political pandering make for a bad character.



Plastic Man, interesting? Bwahahahaha! Reed is an extremely interesting character, having super intellect, an interesting personality, and the stretchy thing. Plastic only has 1 out of 3 of those.



Oh no, not the dreaded ALL CAPS! Once again, plastic man is Richards sans the intellect and interesting persona, that is lame. And I never said Marvel didn 't have crappy characters, only that their crappy characters aren't big name players, while DC has one great franchise with the rest of it being quite boring.

Why don't you go to a local shopping center and ask people who their favorite superhero is. I can almost guarantee you the only DC characters you'll here are Supes and Bats.



Its not really debatable. We can compare these things via factors like popularity, and using that we can see that Marvel is more well liked among the general populace and the vast majority of comic book fans I know.



My personal preference is based on universal factors such as character depth and likability. While you can hold any opinion you like, there are objective factors to consider. Aquaman is almost universally mocked for a reason.



Go forth and ask everyone, they'll tell you. Also, consider that Marvel has a whole lot more heroes that are widely recognized. Most people have never heard of major DC characters like the Green Lantern, Plastic Man, etc, while A large number of Marvel characters are household names.



And unluckily for you, people tend to prefer the better product.

Originally posted by fascistcrusader
We're discussing characters, its 4 to 2. Neo prefers Marvel characters so he should be included on the Marvel side of the vote.

No. We were talking about preferring DC in general. That's your quote I replied to.

Originally posted by fascistcrusader
He3's not exactly invicncible if that power can be taken away by a norma human like Bruce Wayne if he has a piece of kryptonite. That makes him a bit useless, now doesn't it, kind of like having poison darts that all you enemies are immune to.

Oh yeah, now "not being invincible" makes a bad character? And no, it doesn't really make him useless, as can be seen by the many, many Comics where he achieves something...so that's bullshit-

Originally posted by fascistcrusader
Characters like Potlegalization Man, KeepourboysinIraq Man and Wonder Woman are pretty shallow. In my opinion shallowness and political pandering make for a bad character.

You do realize that there are women that are quite focussed on Women's rights and are vocal feminists. To think that one of those women could be superpowered and how that would be is hardly shallow. Especially cause her background story explains it quite well. I don't really care for Wonder Woman myself, just don't like most of her stories (they can be quite good sometimes), but to call her a bad character again is just your opinion...it doesn't universally make a bad character at all.

Originally posted by fascistcrusader


Plastic Man, interesting? Bwahahahaha! Reed is an extremely interesting character, having super intellect, an interesting personality, and the stretchy thing. Plastic only has 1 out of 3 of those.

Opinion. Plastic Man is not lame to me and he's not lame to his fans. And again, not being super intelligent is not a sign of lameness.

Originally posted by fascistcrusader
Oh no, not the dreaded ALL CAPS! Once again, plastic man is Richards sans the intellect and interesting persona, that is lame. And I never said Marvel didn 't have crappy characters, only that their crappy characters aren't big name players, while DC has one great franchise with the rest of it being quite boring.

He's not. He's Richards with an interesting personality, and without the stupid "he's so awesome smart that everything works out for him". (but again, it's just opinion)

Originally posted by fascistcrusader
Why don't you go to a local shopping center and ask people who their favorite superhero is. I can almost guarantee you the only DC characters you'll here are Supes and Bats.

Yeah, those probably 500 times more often than any DC (oh, see what I did there, invent a scenario and pretend I know it's outcome)


Originally posted by fascistcrusader
Its not really debatable. We can compare these things via factors like popularity, and using that we can see that Marvel is more well liked among the general populace and the vast majority of comic book fans I know.

Prove it already. As far as I know Marvel and DCs sales go back and forth over time, who is winning right know I am not sure, but it doesn't really matter. Cause you are arguing that DC characters are silly, not that they are less liked.

Originally posted by fascistcrusader
My personal preference is based on universal factors such as character depth and likability. While you can hold any opinion you like, there are objective factors to consider. Aquaman is almost universally mocked for a reason.

Haha, right, and mine is based on random choice. Aquaman is mocked because he's superpowers are weak (Namor probably would be if he was better known) and his costume was kinda gay. Not because his character lacks depths, it a) doesn't and b) people don't ****ing know anything about Aquaman beyond "Haha, he talks to fish and wears Orange".

Originally posted by fascistcrusader
Go forth and ask everyone, they'll tell you. Also, consider that Marvel has a whole lot more heroes that are widely recognized. Most people have never heard of major DC characters like the Green Lantern, Plastic Man, etc, while A large number of Marvel characters are household names.

Could we stop with the arguments at popularity. It has no point.

Originally posted by fascistcrusader
And unluckily for you, people tend to prefer the better product.

Hahaha, you are delusional. I notice your avatar and sig....so...Titanic better than Star Wars, is it?

OMG...

Personally, I prefer greatly Marvel universe than DC universe for numerous reasons (characters, mood, concepts, etc...) but I don't denigrate DC because Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, The Flash, etc... are superheroes of my childhood.

The most important isn't to know if Marvel is better than DC and vice versa, the most important is to feel pleasure reading a good story whichever the editor.

Originally posted by Bardamu
OMG...

Personally, I prefer greatly Marvel universe than DC universe for numerous reasons (characters, mood, concepts, etc...) but I don't denigrate DC because Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, The Flash, etc... are superheroes of my childhood.

The most important isn't to know if Marvel is better than DC and vice versa, the most important is to feel pleasure reading a good story whichever the editor.

I agree with that.

If we're speaking in general then why have we been discussing nothing but characters?



Yeah, because he sure has stopped Lex Luthor once and for all. Isn't it strange that Superman is so incredibly powerful but his enemy is simply a bald business man, and he can't hurt him because of a little rock?



I shudder to think of a screeching owl like Gloria Steinem developing superpowers, ughh.

And to defend a character you yourself find bad, that's just silly. Would you defend a character like AIDSawarenesss man or DrillANWR man?



It is when you have no other useful powers. Plastic man is a terribly silly concept, Marvel took it and gave it a purpose.



He's useless, which explains his small fanbase. Reed, on the other hand, is the source of many significant discoveries and creations in the Marvel universe. Plastic Man still just stretches.



You might think you're pretending, but you're close to the truth. I don't a single person who has a favorite superhero from DC that isn't suopes or bats. In all my years of discussing this, with people at my old middle school, then my old high school, now in my college, at religious functions, etc, no one has ever said green lantern, aquaman, plastic man, wonder woman, etc is my favorite superhero, and this includes a group of hundreds of people. Online its a similar story, the only DC characters that are consistently ranked as favorites are Superman and Batman.



It might be more well enjoyed than the theatrical run of A New Hope, but the franchise in total makes Titanic look minuscule.



As do I, actually when you get down to it nothing about comics is important, but its fun to discuss the pros and cons of Marvel and DC.

To get back on point...

May I please draw your attention to Batman #0 (Oct 1994). Bruce Wayne has recovered the Mantle of the Bat from Jean Paul Valley. He is in the Bat cave:

"Some things, here in the cave at least, have changed."

"His forensic equipment lies smashed and swept aside, replaced by a shooting gallery."

"And whether the targets were designed for Bat-blades or bullets, the very notion of such a gallery strikes him as a perversion of every ideal he has sought to honor and hone..."

"He is reminded, in a red haze, of the gun."

"The hated shattering gun..."

The above describes perfectly, to me, why Bruce Wayne will not allow Batman to use a gun to fight crime.

All of Marvel's uninteresting characters were probably the ones Marvel, themselve's created. Their well known characters are likely just rip-offs of Dc's and Image's characters.

Parts of Deadpool look like they were ripped off from Spawn and changed abit.

Originally posted by The Heap
All of Marvel's uninteresting characters were probably the ones Marvel, themselve's created. Their well known characters are likely just rip-offs of Dc's and Image's characters.

Parts of Deadpool look like they were ripped off from Spawn and changed abit.
Deadpool= Spawn?

Originally posted by The Heap
All of Marvel's uninteresting characters were probably the ones Marvel, themselve's created. Their well known characters are likely just rip-offs of Dc's and Image's characters.

Parts of Deadpool look like they were ripped off from Spawn and changed abit.

1. Deadpool came before Spawn.
2. They are absolutely nothing alike in any way, shape, or form.

Originally posted by fascistcrusader
If we're speaking in general then why have we been discussing nothing but characters?

We were discussing characters. But this particular part was about you saying that a majority in this thread prefers Marvel. So we were discussing that.


Originally posted by fascistcrusader
Yeah, because he sure has stopped Lex Luthor once and for all. Isn't it strange that Superman is so incredibly powerful but his enemy is simply a bald business man, and he can't hurt him because of a little rock?


Actually, Superman can't hurt Luthor because Superman doesn't break the law. Not because of Kryptonite.

Originally posted by fascistcrusader
I shudder to think of a screeching owl like Gloria Steinem developing superpowers, ughh.

And to defend a character you yourself find bad, that's just silly. Would you defend a character like AIDSawarenesss man or DrillANWR man?

Hmm, I guess I would if the person said NAACPman sucks cause he's a negro (cause that would be a stupid reason). Besides, I said she can be well written, she just usually isn't. Similar to X-Men and Spider Man, imo.

Originally posted by fascistcrusader
It is when you have no other useful powers. Plastic man is a terribly silly concept, Marvel took it and gave it a purpose.

Marvel made it a more popular character, so? Doesn't make Plastic Man a bad character. Is Rorschach a worse character because ****ing Captain America is more popular?


Originally posted by fascistcrusader
He's useless, which explains his small fanbase. Reed, on the other hand, is the source of many significant discoveries and creations in the Marvel universe. Plastic Man still just stretches.

So?


Originally posted by fascistcrusader
You might think you're pretending, but you're close to the truth. I don't a single person who has a favorite superhero from DC that isn't suopes or bats. In all my years of discussing this, with people at my old middle school, then my old high school, now in my college, at religious functions, etc, no one has ever said green lantern, aquaman, plastic man, wonder woman, etc is my favorite superhero, and this includes a group of hundreds of people. Online its a similar story, the only DC characters that are consistently ranked as favorites are Superman and Batman.

Well, it's hard to compete with Batman (since that's factually the best character of either Marvel or DC). But I personally quite like Green Lantern and Flash. Oh and I still want stats, please.

Originally posted by fascistcrusader
It might be more well enjoyed than the theatrical run of A New Hope, but the franchise in total makes Titanic look minuscule.

So, Titanic is a better movie than A New Hope? Titanic is a better movie than Empire Strikes Back?

Originally posted by fascistcrusader
As do I, actually when you get down to it nothing about comics is important, but its fun to discuss the pros and cons of Marvel and DC.

Meh, important is hard to define really. Quite subjective.

I can't but notice that you didn't produce any of those stats you were talking of, what's that all about?

Originally posted by Bardock42

So, Titanic is a better movie than A New Hope? Titanic is a better movie than Empire Strikes Back?

It depends. Are you a middle-aged woman?

Originally posted by Almighty Bauer
It depends. Are you a middle-aged woman? Nah, not me. Fascistcrusader might be though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah, not me. Fascistcrusader might be though.
I'm sure he/ she/ it will thank you for that... compliment...

Originally posted by Almighty Bauer
I'm sure he/ she/ it will thank you for that... compliment... Oh, I didn't mean it to be a compliment at all.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh, I didn't mean it to be a compliment at all. Yeah, funnily enough, I worked that out all by myself!

Originally posted by Almighty Bauer
Yeah, funnily enough, I worked that out all by myself!

With your mind?

Originally posted by Bardock42
With your mind? Nah. 'Course not.

Originally posted by Almighty Bauer
Nah. 'Course not.

You are pulling my leg.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Yes, from personal experience with dealing with fellas like you BH.

... wat?






This is the internet.





I guess the feelings mutual, then.


Well that was a waste of a reply.



TDK made it worse, imo. he's not afraid to throw people off buildings and shit yet he can't "kill" someone.



That wouldn't be a very *******'ish thing to do, would it?

rubber bullets?

Originally posted by NonSensi-Klown


I'm going to assume you're referring to Harvey Dent, in which case I will simply point out that I and others have had this argument a thousand times and actually Batman didn't have a lot of choice. Please expand on what "shit" means in this context.

It be harder for Batman to pretend he wasn't a law breaking, vigilante if he carried a gun... even a fake one.

Originally posted by Kovacs86
I'm going to assume you're referring to Harvey Dent, in which case I will simply point out that I and others have had this argument a thousand times and actually Batman didn't have a lot of choice. Please expand on what "shit" means in this context.

No.

I'm referring to the whole "I won't die from this height!"

"I'm counting on it." *toss*


Uh- yeah. Yeah, you can die from that height. People do all the time.

What would Batman have done if the gangster's leg had buckeld in addition to breaking and he hit his head died? Would he just be like "oops.... oh well", and be done with it?

Tossing SWAT teams off of buildings. Yeah they were tied to ropes, but what if the rope snapped, or what if they smacked into the side of the wal land got lacerated by the glass? Or what if in falling someone panicked and pulled the trigger of his gun, injuring or killing someone?

Driving your car at 200 miles an hour and firing rockets= asking to hurt someone. If he's driving at 2000 MPH down a narrow street how can he possibly know for a fact that all those cars he was blowing up were empty?

Originally posted by NonSensi-Klown
No.

I'm referring to the whole "I won't die from this height!"

"I'm counting on it." *toss*


Uh- yeah. Yeah, you can die from that height. People do all the time.

What would Batman have done if the gangster's leg had buckeld in addition to breaking and he hit his head died? Would he just be like "oops.... oh well", and be done with it?

Tossing SWAT teams off of buildings. Yeah they were tied to ropes, but what if the rope snapped, or what if they smacked into the side of the wal land got lacerated by the glass? Or what if in falling someone panicked and pulled the trigger of his gun, injuring or killing someone?

Driving your car at 200 miles an hour and firing rockets= asking to hurt someone. If he's driving at 2000 MPH down a narrow street how can he possibly know for a fact that all those cars he was blowing up were empty? i'm sure he would avoid getting served a lawsuit pretty easily.

azrael's batman had a full auto batarang launcher if that counts.

oh and then there was that bracer-launcher that launched the spikes into the joker's face. why wouldn't that kill him? it imbeded pretty deeply in wood. flesh is softer.

Originally posted by NonSensi-Klown
No.

I'm referring to the whole "I won't die from this height!"

"I'm counting on it." *toss*


Uh- yeah. Yeah, you can die from that height. People do all the time.

What would Batman have done if the gangster's leg had buckeld in addition to breaking and he hit his head died? Would he just be like "oops.... oh well", and be done with it?

Tossing SWAT teams off of buildings. Yeah they were tied to ropes, but what if the rope snapped, or what if they smacked into the side of the wal land got lacerated by the glass? Or what if in falling someone panicked and pulled the trigger of his gun, injuring or killing someone?

Driving your car at 200 miles an hour and firing rockets= asking to hurt someone. If he's driving at 2000 MPH down a narrow street how can he possibly know for a fact that all those cars he was blowing up were empty?

Well, you've got to suspend belief, even in these films, to be honest. I thought the car chase in Begins would surely have resulted in the death of several policemen, too...
However, as for the thing when he threw Maroni down, I'm pretty sure if his leg had buckled, Maroni would have been slowed down enough so that he wouldn't die if he hit his head. But hey... Batman's done some pretty dangerous stuff in comics. In DKR, he did chuck a guy through a glass window, which severed one of the guy's arteries, and he kicked a cop through a brick wall in Year One. He does take some risks. Just suspend your disbelief. It isn't hard.
In that world, Batman gets away with a lot of foolish risks and people don't die.

Originally posted by NonSensi-Klown
No.

I'm referring to the whole "I won't die from this height!"

"I'm counting on it." *toss*


Uh- yeah. Yeah, you can die from that height. People do all the time.

What would Batman have done if the gangster's leg had buckeld in addition to breaking and he hit his head died? Would he just be like "oops.... oh well", and be done with it?

Tossing SWAT teams off of buildings. Yeah they were tied to ropes, but what if the rope snapped, or what if they smacked into the side of the wal land got lacerated by the glass? Or what if in falling someone panicked and pulled the trigger of his gun, injuring or killing someone?

Driving your car at 200 miles an hour and firing rockets= asking to hurt someone. If he's driving at 2000 MPH down a narrow street how can he possibly know for a fact that all those cars he was blowing up were empty? And what if he walks out the door and trips and kicks a ball that flys into a window and th glass shards fall on a dog that runs barking past a cook carrying deep frying fat who is so surprised he yanks the pot and spills all the hot oil on a bystanding child which dies of the inflicted burn wounds? What then?

Better stay at home, Batsy.

Running sentence with questions gives me the cuckoo-cuckoo....

Originally posted by Kovacs86
Well, you've got to suspend belief, even in these films, to be honest. I thought the car chase in Begins would surely have resulted in the death of several policemen, too...
However, as for the thing when he threw Maroni down, I'm pretty sure if his leg had buckled, Maroni would have been slowed down enough so that he wouldn't die if he hit his head. But hey... Batman's done some pretty dangerous stuff in comics. In DKR, he did chuck a guy through a glass window, which severed one of the guy's arteries, and he kicked a cop through a brick wall in Year One. He does take some risks. Just suspend your disbelief. It isn't hard.
In that world, Batman gets away with a lot of foolish risks and people don't die.

I'm willing to suspend my disbelief about certain things, but not something like a code. It doesn't matter if it's a movie, you can't go around saying that it's against your moral code to kill someone, yet be so reckless with people's lives. Tossing people off of three story buildings, for example. My uncle died when he threw himself off a three story building.



Than it was a complete accident and was completely beyond his control and his knowledge.

If Batman was fighting the mobster guy and he socked him and the mobster stumbled and dived for a gun, but missed and then fell off the building, that's one thing. Kidnapping a man who is at your mercy, than tossing him off a building, is a completely different matter that you could have easily prevented.

Do you have a point, or are you just going to play semantics with me?

Originally posted by NonSensi-Klown

If Batman was fighting the mobster guy and he socked him and the mobster stumbled and dived for a gun, but missed and then fell off the building, that's one thing. Kidnapping a man who is at your mercy, than tossing him off a building, is a completely different matter that you could have easily prevented.

Do you have a point, or are you just going to play semantics with me?


You do realize that semantics are not the opposite of "having a point"?

And the point is, Batman takes risks. He does it for his version of the greater good. You think he's a hypocrite for some odd reason. But he does indeed work on not killing anyone on purpose. I guess you just respect those who just kill everyone over those disliking to kill people.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You do realize that semantics are not the opposite of "having a point"?

I realized that after I posted, yeah. I'm too much of a tough guy to edit that, though.



Bull. Shit.

You can't throw people off of three story buildings, and than act like you're anti-killing.

I don't understand why people seem to have trouble understanding that throwing someone off of a building is not "trying to not kill someone".

It isn't. At all. That's like shooting someone in the chest, and than saying "well... I wasn't trying to kill them! Otherwise I woulda shot 'em in the head!"

I like people who, if they are going to do things to people that has a probable chance of killing them, they don't bullshit around and act like killing is against there code.

Originally posted by NonSensi-Klown
I realized that after I posted, yeah. I'm too much of a tough guy to edit that, though.



Bull. Shit.

You can't throw people off of three story buildings, and than act like you're anti-killing.

I don't understand why people seem to have trouble understanding that throwing someone off of a building is not "trying to not kill someone".

It isn't. At all. That's like shooting someone in the chest, and than saying "well... I wasn't trying to kill them! Otherwise I woulda shot 'em in the head!"

I like people who, if they are going to do things to people that has a probable chance of killing them, they don't bullshit around and act like killing is against there code. Well, to be fair it is a comic based movie. And I'd assume Batman has some knowledge about what likely happens. So it might be more like shooting someone in the leg, which, yes, might kill them, but the risk is much slimmer and it gets their attention.

But.... the probability of someone dying from being thrown off a building is very, very high.


I know that it's a movie, though, and it follows movie logic. It's just an irritating plot hole is all.

Originally posted by NonSensi-Klown
But.... the probability of someone dying from being thrown off a building is very, very high.


I know that it's a movie, though, and it follows movie logic. It's just an irritating plot hole is all.

Fair enough.