Bruce Wayne vs. Tony Stark (when was the last time this came up?)

[Myasishchev]

If the Super Soldier serum doesn't make you super-human why in the world would there this massive global race to re-create it?

Because having an army of peak human soldiers is very desirable.

Even that's debatable. The marginal payoff of a "peak human" driving a tank and a regular guy driving a tank strikes me as not particularly substantive.

Anyway, Tony Stark is more of a dick. That's what this thread's about, right? No? I really hope it wasn't about whether Bruce Wayne could beat up Tony Stark, because that's not much of a discussion.

 

[Satyrquaze]

>>Tony Stark makes mistakes whereas Bruce Wayne doesn't. At least none that he'd admit to.

Actually for a five year period or so leading up to Infinite Crisis Batman was making BUT mistakes. First he abandoned Gotham City when the earthquake hit leaving everyone to think he didn't care about them (in reality he was in Washington trying to convince the government to reclaim the city). Then, when he DID come back finally, he misunderstood the nature of No Man's Land and lost all his lands to the bad guys. This was also his "Bat-Dick" period where he drove everyone away even his friends like Oracle and Gordon and basically tried to manipulate and control everyone from afar. This reached its unfortunate pinnacle when he constructed Brother Eye, a supercomputer to watch his fellow superheroes (after he learned they wiped his memory of their mentally altering their villains) which eventually went nuts and killed thousands of people. At this point he had a moment of clarity and went off on a spiritual journey for a year and reinvented himself.

Nothing of what you said contradicts anything of what I said. Bruce still wins.

 

[Anwar]

Batman was another in a long-line of "Aristocrat turned shadow hero" types, like the Shadow, or the Scarlet Pimpernel or Zorro. He didn't begin to become more of an anti-hero type until the 80s.

Though Denny O'Neil did do a lot to make him more interesting in the mid-70s. Shame they wouldn't let the changes he made to Superman at that stick as well.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I just realized a way Bruce could kick Tony's ass easily and ironically in Stark's case. Now from what I've heard Tony Stark puts all kinds of failsafes into his armor technology to make sure someone else couldn't use it. So couldn't Bruce just hack his suit and turn those failsafes on thus neutralizing the armor?

 

[Satyrquaze]

^A powerful enough EMP would do the job.

If Bruce can take out Amazo, he can take out Iron Man.

 

[Leroy]

Is there anyone that can defeat Batman?

 

[Anwar]

Tony was able to hack Kang's equipment from the year 3000, I'd say he's got the edge in hacking.

And the problem with Batman is that the DC writers can't stand the idea of the normal human being portrayed as weak against powered people, so they made Batman into a Gary Stu who can't lose to any of them.

Until "Sacrifice", where they had a brainwashed Superman come within an inch of killing him.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Is there anyone that can defeat Batman?

Well considering he took out Darkside the God of Evil (or so I've heard) and until Morrison changed it the actual Satan, I kind of doubt it.

 

[JoeZhang]

I was a big fan of the days where Batman was just an really well trained guy who occasionally made mistakes.

If someone wrote "For the Man Who Has Everything" today, I really doubt you'd get Batman giving Wonder Woman the nod to take on Mongul and saying "That's out of our league", instead he'd take him on in hand to hand combat and win.

Then he'd enter Superman's dream world and save him.

 

[issreliant]

My answer is a quote from the 20 geek/nerd commandments: "7) Thou shalt acknowledge that Batman beats everyone, ever, anywhere at fighting. That's right, he beats everybody. Even Optimus Prime. Even Darth Vader. Even Chuck Norris. He'd find a way. He's the fucking Batman."

 

[Satyrquaze]

I was a big fan of the days where Batman was just an really well trained guy who occasionally made mistakes.

If someone wrote "For the Man Who Has Everything" today, I really doubt you'd get Batman giving Wonder Woman the nod to take on Mongul and saying "That's out of our league", instead he'd take him on in hand to hand combat and win.

Then he'd enter Superman's dream world and save him.

I miss Alan Moore's work for DC. That story is probably one of my favorites.

 

[infinix]

My answer is a quote from the 20 geek/nerd commandments: "7) Thou shalt acknowledge that Batman beats everyone, ever, anywhere at fighting. That's right, he beats everybody. Even Optimus Prime. Even Darth Vader. Even Chuck Norris. He'd find a way. He's the fucking Batman."

I looked up the 20 commandments. Had a good laugh.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Is there anyone that can defeat Batman?

Well considering he took out Darkseid the God of Evil (or so I've heard) and until Morrison changed it the actual Satan, I kind of doubt it.

Dr. Hurt is a little more complicated than "the actual Satan" -- and, I think, more interesting.

Batman's defeat of Darkseid is beautiful, in its own way. It's man destroying the gods in a very literal sense, and Morrison writes Batman as being very aware of his own limitations of action and understanding when confronted with the divine.

In a way, I'm disappointed that Morrison didn't take the story where he intended -- with Batman ending the Fourth World and becoming the god of the Fifth World.

If someone wrote "For the Man Who Has Everything" today, I really doubt you'd get Batman giving Wonder Woman the nod to take on Mongul and saying "That's out of our league", instead he'd take him on in hand to hand combat and win.

Why do you say that? Morrison's Batman, especially the one of JLA fifteen years to a decade ago, would definitely be the one to pull the strings. Batman has his limitations. Yes, he's the man with the plan, but he's not in the same league physically as everyone else. Batman might give Wonder Woman pointers on where to attack Mongul, but if he didn't have to fight it himself he wouldn't.

 

[Admiral_Young]

While it's true that the writers have made Bruce nearly an unstoppable combat fighter due to preparation and his own skills, he is aware of his limitations and would default to someone else like Diana or Superman. Bruce is a master tactician.

It always amazes me when people have a rudimentary understanding of what happened between Batman and Darkseid and the whole Dr. Hurt situation. It's practically spelled out for people if they have bothered to read those issues instead of making a judgment on Morrison's writing and changes to the character. He's crafted a very "meta" version of the character but still in keeping with his vast history, something of which Morrison is very respectful of.

I think it was DC's decision not to do the God of the Fourth World thing that Grant planned for Bruce, Morrison has acknowledged that was probably a good decision since he'd never have thought up the idea for Batman, Inc.

 

[Admiral2]

Indeed. As much as everyone jokes that Batman prepares for everything, there is a reason why he does so...he's smart. He's arguably one of the smartest men in the DCU. Not maybe on par with Tony but he's not an idiot. Are we maybe giving Bruce too much credit? Maybe. Tony's no slouch but he's still not in Batman's class combat wise. If Tony is not in his suit, he will get owned by Bruce on a straight mano et mano fight.

Exactly my point. If, which means Tony won't go near Bruce/Bats in a fight situation without the suit. (Or if it's not handy, he'll have half of Stark Industries Security surrounding him.)

Does Tony travel with security? The only bodyguard I recall him having is a guy named "Iron Man".

Which brings us right back to "Tony ain't going up against some nut dressed like a bat without his suit"...most likely the one in the briefcase, and Tony in the suit wins.

 

[TiberiusMaximus]

Batman didn't take out Darkseid ALONE, did he? He was a large part of it, but it wasn't all him.

Batman vs. Iron Man is interesting...it depends what kind of conflict it was. If it went like the typical Marvel/DC teamup, they'd fight at first and then realize they're on the same side and team up to bring down the bad guys.

Still, in a fight with Tony's suit? With all due respect to the Goshdarn Batman, he'd lose. If it was a more drawn-out conflict - a battle of wits and manipulation as opposed to one fight - Tony loses. They have separate skill sets, and like I said above, they'd probably realize they were on the same side after a brief fight.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Batman is the one who did the most damage to Darkseid by firing the God Bullet at him of which Darkseid responded by unleashing the Omega Sanction at Bruce which then thrusted him back in time. Indeed Superman eventually is the one who got the job done but ultimately it is Bruce who got the ball rolling.

 

[TiberiusMaximus]

^I see. I'm not surprised that Bats got it started, I just wasn't sure. Thanks.

 

[Myasishchev]

I was a big fan of the days where Batman was just an really well trained guy who occasionally made mistakes.

If someone wrote "For the Man Who Has Everything" today, I really doubt you'd get Batman giving Wonder Woman the nod to take on Mongul and saying "That's out of our league", instead he'd take him on in hand to hand combat and win.

Then he'd enter Superman's dream world and save him.

As distinct from the real "For the Man Who Has Everything," where Batman's trainee saved everyone.

Although it is funny how little Batman directly contributed to the conflict; it basically amounted to getting possessed by a magical plant and subsequently getting the vapors.

 

[Satyrquaze]

As distinct from the real "For the Man Who Has Everything," where Batman's trainee saved everyone.

Not even the good trainee. But the one which let's be honest, rates third of the three.