Originally posted by janus77
actually capability does not imply that it actually causes death.a trained martial artist has the capability of delivering a lethal blow but, that isn't to say a martial artist is a killer or will be a killer, merely that the martial artist possesses the requisit skills/abilities.
1. of, pertaining to, or causing death; deadly; fatal: a lethal weapon; a lethal dose.
2. made to cause death: a lethal chamber; a lethal attack.
3. causing great harm or destruction: The disclosures were lethal to his candidacy.
Batman lacks the intent to kill or utterly destroy. Nothing he does will cause death, psychologically he lacks both the intent and at a certain level the ability to cause death, he simply not lethal.
Originally posted by janus77
fine, I pick number 3.
causing great harm or destruction.
🙄 The single least used definition of the word lethal.
Still Batman is mostly against causing harm.
He wants to cause fear and terror not harm, he wants to help people more than he wants to harm criminals, his whole purpose in life goes back to preventing what happened to his parents from happening to someone else.
Originally posted by janus77
what he wants and the means that he applies towards those ends aren't always in harmony, that's part of the tension of Batman comics/movies.
I suppose.
Originally posted by janus77
but the proper word for Batman is menacing ✅.
I would use "FUBAR in the head" but thats not one word.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
He knows Superman better than Luthor. However Luthor knows more about Superman's powers and how to use them since he has had a chance to use them.
Batman also studies Clark's powers, along with the rest of the League's powers on a constant basis. It would be incorrect to say that Luthor knows more about Superman's powers than Batman because Lex is Superman's main villain. Batman understands more about Superman's Kryptonian physiology than Luthor does.
You don't see Lex with tons and tons of Lab tests on Superman, and detailed files on how to counteract his powers.
Lex either gets an assload of kryptonite, or gets an Apokaliptian battle suit to fight Clark... and they both never work.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't know if he's much smarter but he's certainly above him.Against Reed? He's probably below since a lot of Batman's tech is borrowed while Reed built or at least completly understands most of what he has.
😕
Reed is smarter than Batman, however you're mistaken if you think Batman doesn't build most of his technology or doesn't completely understand how to use his stuff.
There have been TONS and TONS of JLA comics where they've relied on his technical expertise.
Originally posted by batdude123
Batman also studies Clark's powers, along with the rest of the League's powers on a constant basis. It would be incorrect to say that Luthor knows more about Superman's powers than Batman because Lex is Superman's main villain. Batman understands more about Superman's Kryptonian physiology than Luthor does.You don't see Lex with tons and tons of Lab tests on Superman, and detailed files on how to counteract his powers.
Lex either gets an assload of kryptonite, or gets an Apokaliptian battle suit to fight Clark... and they both never work.
It has nothing to do with Luthor being Clark's main villian. Batman hasn't spent much time with Superman style powers, Luthor has. So in knowledge of how to use them in practice and sheer experience Luthor probably knows more about the powers.
Originally posted by batdude123
😕Reed is smarter than Batman, however you're mistaken if you think Batman doesn't build most of his technology or doesn't completely understand how to use his stuff.
There have been TONS and TONS of JLA comics where they've relied on his technical expertise.
I mean that kryptonian tech and mother boxes are stuff that people gave to him not really his inventions.
srug He builds a lot of impressive stuff on his own but the really infamous stuff is alien tech.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It has nothing to do with Luthor being Clark's main villian. Batman hasn't spent much time with Superman style powers, Luthor has. So in knowledge of how to use them in practice and sheer experience Luthor probably knows more about the powers.
Luthor has never had Superman-style powers.
If you're referring to the battle suit he wears, then that means nothing in terms of how much knows about Superman's powers. 🤨
Luthor doesn't have practice with them, and he doesn't have experience using them. I don't know where you came up with that one. Luthor doesn't spend actual time researching Superman... guess who does?
Batman flat out knows more about Superman and his Kryptonian physiology than anybody else on Earth... besides Superman himself of course.
All of the counters he's built for Clark can attest to this.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I mean that kryptonian tech and mother boxes are stuff that people gave to him not really his inventions.srug He builds a lot of impressive stuff on his own but the really infamous stuff is alien tech.
Batman doesn't use Kryptonian technology, and I've seen him use a mother box like... two times in his entire history.
I suggest reading up on Batman. Seriously, the really impressive technology he builds is not in his belt.
The guy has outsmarted an alien computer in less than five minutes, built trans-dimensional teleporting devices, built counters for all the JLA members, etc. etc.
Seriously, I could go on and on, but I think you get the message.
He's also proven to be Luthor's superior in intelligence and wealth (read Rock of Ages).
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
1. of, pertaining to, or causing death; deadly; fatal: a lethal weapon; a lethal dose.
2. made to cause death: a lethal chamber; a lethal attack.
3. causing great harm or destruction: The disclosures were lethal to his candidacy.Batman lacks the intent to kill or utterly destroy. Nothing he does will cause death, psychologically he lacks both the intent and at a certain level the ability to cause death, he simply not lethal.
le·thal (lthl)
adj.
1. Capable of causing death.
2. Of, relating to, or causing death.
The words from you own post of the meaning of the word lethal, so he doesn't even need to be willing to kill someone, the fact that lethal can mean the ability to possibly cause dead to a human makes him lethal I don't rememer saying that I thought he would ever kill one, but I said that, even though he doesn't kill he can still be lethal, all judged by your very own post.
But hey the debate is finished just wanted to comment on you sudden change of heart.