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

Blade meets Hellboy in an abandoned vampire temple. Both of them are searching for a significant vampire relic that will aid them in the mission to defeat the nuisance that in the vampire curse.

Both of them want this relic. Only one can have it. The winner gets said prize.

Blade is, more or less, a killer. That's what he does. That's what he's good at.

Hellboy is not, per se, a killer, but he will do what has to be done on order to complete his assignment.

Blade has his Sword of the Daywalker, his stakes, and his pistol. Also, he is at full power since he has recently taken his serum.

Hellboy has the Enforcer (his big ass pistol), his Right Hand of Doom (duh), and his attitide.

Who takes this?

(I've included a poll: Should this be to the death? Do we need to use the morality clause?) The only reason I ask is because I would love to hear you guys' input.

As much as i like Hellboy i'd have to say that he loses. If Blade is Blood Raging i don't think there is much that Hellboy can do to Blade. Blade has all of the benefits of being a vampire with none of the side effects. This means that Hellboy's special bullets are going to be ineffective. The only way that Hellboy is going to down Blade is by lighting his surroundings on fire while keeping Blade from escaping. Hellboy could get a lucky shot on blade with his Gun giving him enough time to get close and smash Blades skull with his fist but otherwise Blade is to fast to strong and to durable. He will eventually cut Hellboy apart with his sword. Although, If Hellboy can Snap Blades sword with his fist that would shift the fight into his favor.

Blade showed some insane durability and speed feats (I believe at one point he reacted faster than a bullet, can't remember) feats in Trinity. His fight with the final dude was literally creating craters in the building.

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
Blade showed some insane durability and speed feats (I believe at one point he reacted faster than a bullet, can't remember) feats in Trinity. His fight with the final dude was literally creating craters in the building. Mhm......Blade FTW, and to the death.

SPEED.

Hellboy has insane levels of durability, but I doubt he could last indefinitely against Blade's speed, as he had trouble in the first fight against the Elf.

With Morals, Id say Hellboy'd respect Blade and what he does enough not to fight and theyd team up..

Without morals, at some point the following day, Blade would be passed from Hellboy's colon, out his schincter, and into some nice cool liquid..

(No not really...
Im not clued up on these guys enough to comment seriously.)

Morals.

Why, Sadako. Why has this happened?

I know....!!!!

Pure evil bought about by a relentless needer of copouts....!!!!

Still rules is rules, though just means having to argue twice as many cases.

wanker

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
wanker

You pinched out the turd while crying and gritting your teeth, now deal with the stench.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
wanker

Same to you only with suitably miniscule little wanking arcs.
Like you'd ever have the testicular fortitude to say that in person...

This ones for you, buddy.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GcVnhNjWV0

Well, Impediment made the call, he decided the morality clause was a good idea, so take it up with him.

I have no issue with him. He just did his job.
Nobody else who were pissed off by it blame him either.


But without you crying about it so much, he'd never have had to be in that position, would he...?

To think otherwise'd be like blaming the death of the child on the ambulancemen who attempted to save the kids life, rather than the driver of the car that hit her.

It would have eventually happened, just so happens I was around when it did.

Nobody had tried to subvert intelligent debate by calling it into question in a Vs thread before.
(certainly not enough to want to call for mod intervention)
It was your predisposal for irrelevancy in that argument that bought it up.

And to compound it, after vehemently fighting for the rule to subvert the thread further, your next thread you specify 'to the death'..

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Nobody had tried to subvert intelligent debate by calling it into question in a Vs thread before.
(certainly not enough to want to call for mod intervention)
It was your predisposal for irrelevancy in that argument that bought it up.

And to compound it, after vehemently fighting for the rule to subvert the thread further, your next thread you specify 'to the death'.. Dude, you are basically saying it is OK for someone to change who a combatant is while discussing who would win.

Jedi do not use dark side powers.

Leon has a saying of "no women no kids"

Batman does not kill.

Simple.

Nope that not what I was saying at all.

He does. He might not always mean it... But historically Batman has killed people. And he let Liam Neeson die in BB.

But the main point in a Violence based VS thread to argue restrict or handicap an opponent was low down weaselly tactics in abscence of a convincing argument, in that case..

Its like Gladiator where the Emporor refuses to fight Maximus without having first stabbed him like a punk before going out for the fight.

Cheap and nasty.

And it nullied most of the threads on here. Past present and future crapping up the whole section.
Thats why people were pissed.

He didn't KILL Liam, he merely left him to die, big difference.

Not morally speaking it isnt.

Did he die by Batman's hand? Did Batman administer the killing blow?

Ah but he had every chance to save him. And didnt.
Thusly he condemned Neeson to death.

Another example about how morals shit f**ks up threads.

Lets not allow it to do it to this thread too.
Its not just me thats expressed dismay/anger/disappointment at your actions, so just take it like a man and drop it for the good of the thread's as well as your own dignity's sakes, would be my advice..

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Ah but he had every chance to save him. And didnt.
Thusly he condemned Neeson to death.

Another example about how morals shit f**ks up threads.

Lets not allow it to do it to this thread too.
Its not just me thats expressed dismay/anger/disappointment at your actions, so just take it like a man and drop it for the good of the thread as well as your own dignity, would be my advice.. No worries, I was just curious why all the hub bub, bub.

Fair enough.

And if you remember, I was pretty neutral to the matchup, I was asking questions about Mandalorian armor and Jango's jetpack, then it hit me, what about Batman's "I do not kill" code? I was just wondering if that would give Jango an edge, if any. I never meant for it to go as far as it did.

Then would you as the one who wanted it, ask for it to be repealed..?

It's not that I wanted it, It's just that all of a sudden it made sense, why not stay true to the movie character? And someone in the future starting a Batman thread is free to include it or not. It's not like Batman can never kill here.

In other words:
"No, because I voted it should stay."
or
"No, because I despite what I have just said, DO believe in it, after all."

If we stay that slavishly true to ethos of the characters, most would never fight anyhow.

Did "celebrity death match" ever worry about such small penised issues as these....? NO. And it rocked.

True. McClaine and Riggs would never fight, the first thing a cop does is ID himself, innit?

Yes.

Ive been asserting this for some time.

Then this is where the term "fantasy" comes into play.

Yes so that in the fantasy in question, an utterly fantasy-stomping concept be bought in is beyond needlessly intrusive and sucks the fun out of it.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Yes so that in the fantasy in question, an utterly fantasy-stomping concept be bought in is beyond needless...? More like an option. You gotta admit, wouldn't it be far more entertaining to watch Batman apprehend Jango instead of simply killing him?

Nope. Episodes of "The Bill" are for that sort of thing.
...Or "Hill Street Blues" reruns.

F*** that morals shit.

Let Ghandi tear them apart with his bare teeth, if need be.

"THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE...........!!!!!!!!"

(obviously though, Ghandi is stll restricted to what a man of his size and conditioning and even skills could do etc.... Im not talking about completely abandoning reality here, of course)

**** me, I had a great idea for a versus thread and lost it.

It'll come back to ya.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
More like an option. You gotta admit, wouldn't it be far more entertaining to watch Batman apprehend Jango instead of simply killing him?

Why wouldn't Jango in turn not use deadly force as Batman, since he's a bounty-hunter and would logically be going after Batman for a subdue and capture?

See the one-sidedness of bringing in "morals" in that particular Vs match was?

P.S. Watch Dune, it's worth the time invested.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Not morally speaking it isnt.
(jumps in argument) you are right. Morally speaking allowing someone to die when you have the ability to save their life and it will cost you nothing is the same as murder. Lawfully speaking it is a big difference but laws rarely have much to do with morality.
Morally speaking Batman is willing to allow death in certain circumstances, which is basically the same as willing to commit murder in certain situations.

Originally posted by Robtard
Why wouldn't Jango in turn not use deadly force as Batman, since he's a bounty-hunter and would logically be going after Batman for a subdue and capture?

See the one-sidedness of bringing in "morals" in that particular Vs match was? See? the thread starter can SPECIFY this, he can SPECIFY whether Jango is trying to kill Batman or deliver him for bounty.

See the beauty of it now?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
See? the thread starter can SPECIFY this, he can SPECIFY whether Jango is trying to kill Batman or deliver him for bounty.

See the beauty of it now?

Sorry, I don't see.

Originally posted by Impediment
As per my own rule about following film canon, my thread about Batman (from The Dark Knight) versus Boba Fett (from Empire) was rather droll due to the fact that Boba didn't do much of anything on screen. Much of Boba's notoriety came from novelizations of the EU. I feel that this can be a thriving thread, or, ultimately, can be a disaster.

Take the same scenario:

Batman has home field advantage. The fight is in Gotham City.

Jango Fett (from Ep. II) has all of his gear and weapons that were present during the fight against Obi Wan. Slave I is not present during this fight.

Batman (from The Dark Knight) has all of his weapons and the Batpod.

Can the Caped Crusader hold his own against Jango Fett?

And before any of you say "D00d, Jango would pwn Batman for teh sure.", just look at what Obi Wan does during the fight, and he doesn't even have near the fighting skills of Bats. (Although, I will admit, he does have the power of The Force at his disposal.)


Can you show me what I'm supposed to be seeing?

I dont either. Why over complicate it...?
It just turns into 'a clusterf**k' as you put it.
Its not meant to be role play, is it...?
Its meant to be a "who is the more capable in combat" thread.

Makes for more than a one dimensional convo, IMO.

Well, you're a one dimensional guy.

Seriously though.. There are already many dimensions, the various aspects, there are lots of hypothetical scenarios and stuff to keep it interesting.

Otherwise the otherwise fun thread is just paralysed in bureaucracy and irrelevancies/get out clauses.

Another thing...Let's say it is established that Jango pwns Batman in this scenario. Well, instead of the thread ending, we can THEN consider what might happen if Jango were trying to "apprehend" Batman alive.

Thats different. That comes under the "Different scenarios" I addressed.

But f***ing with a 'Who is the better in combat'/'mightier' VS thread by interjecting with irrevelavancy concerning the personal politics of the characters is bullshit.

Who the character is kinda defines how they fight.

Well yeah they should otherwise be character accurate but having the no kill moral is the one that is the stander outer of shit ideas.

What the **** does janga fett and batman have to do with this thread ?

They are moaning because a new morality rule has been introduced. Like say, Batman cant kill because his movie character does not kill.

Fun fact: Batman killed Harvey Dent.

Then why are people discussing two face maybe being in the next Batman?

They're stupid?

It would be retarded to bring him back.

How did he die again?

Batman pushed him and he fell, and died.

haermm

Awesome. That wraps that one up then.
Batman owns Jango by pushing.

Back to Hellboy though...

haermm