Christopher_America Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 I apologize if this is not the appropriate place to put this, if this would be more suited to the DC part of the forums, but I was wondering if we could have a fight/debate on who is smarter: Lex Luthor or Bruce Wayne. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
You Know Who Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 Welcome to the forums. I think in terms of sheer knowledge and expertise at various things, I think Luthor would beat Wayne. But, almost solely because Luthor a) has all this knowledge and yet hasn't utilized it effectively enough to take out the Man of Steel once and for all and b) because he, of all people, hasn't deduced that Clark Kent is Superman, in terms of sheer smarts I'd have to give the edge to Wayne. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher_America Posted January 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 The argument I've always heard is Batman, easily. But then some Luthor fans pop up and explain that Bruce is brilliant but he's not got a scientific understanding like Luthor does, thus making Luthor smarter. But then other people up and state that application of said knowledge makes Bruce better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuaveStar Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_Confidential#Rules_of_Engagement_.28.231-6.29 Welcome, and I think at the end of the day, Lex Luthor is too arrogant to actually beat Batman. Batman is able to work out superhero's secret identities, Lex Luthor is to full of himself to believe that someone like Superman would ever be so stupid as to pretend to be a human being, let alone someone as bumbling as Clark Kent. As Luthor can only see the world from his perspective and what he would do with those powers, whereas Batman would try to think outside the box and understand the person's personal characteristics to work out who they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightWing Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 Yeah, I think Suave really nailed it. Luthor is insanely book-smart, but Bruce has less of an ego to get in the way and is a bit more clever. If you used some kind of academic system to test them both, Luthor might come out on top, but in real application, Bruce would probably win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 Exactly what KW said. In his lab or a board room, nobody beats Luthor. Outside that, plenty of people can outsmart him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightWing Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 To an extent, Luthor actually overthinks, missing the real point entirely and allowing others to take advantage of his weakness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
You Know Who Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 New fight/debate: Who has had a shittier life, Peter Parker or Matt Murdock? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuaveStar Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 New fight/debate: Who has had a shittier life, Peter Parker or Matt Murdock? Daredevil has never asked the actual devil to mulligan one of his marriages for plot convenience. Edit: A bit more detail. Daredevil has lost every woman he has ever loved, and his life never gets out of the toilet, he's been driven insane by a demon in Shadowland, and has just constantly been one step away from killing himself. His alter ego is a dark brooding character, so unlike Spider-Man he cannot use his alter ego to blow off some steam from his personal life problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobobob_100 Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 New fight/debate: Who has had a shittier life, Peter Parker or Matt Murdock? Yeah this one goes to peter, Matt Murdok is blind but is a super sucessful lawyer. Peter Parker got bit, started sticking to everything he touched, and yet still he's an under payed over worked photographer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
You Know Who Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Actually, Murdock was basically disbarred for suspected vigilantism in Waid's first issue. It took me a while to decide, but I think I gotta agree with Suave on this one for all the reasons he stated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Peter Parker has his problems, and whines CONSTANTLY, but Matt Murdock is perpetually a heartbeat away from eating his gun. The universe has conspired to make him utterly miserable in virtually every facet of his life at one point or another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
You Know Who Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 New debate topic: Which mentor figure in comics needs to die and stay dead more, Professor Xavier, Aunt May, or neither? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc20willsave Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Here's my way of looking at it. Xavier is a character that can exist in universe by himself. He has progressed past the mentor stage years ago. As for Aunt May, if they can come up with interesting stories, by all means she shouldn't have to die. I liked when she knew about Peter being Spider-Man. I like her and John Jonah Jameson together. Really, I honestly believe neither should die as long as they have stories to tell. Besides, if Aunt May dies, then Peter will just sell his relationship to someone else to bring her back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuaveStar Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Both have been dead for a time. (Xavier in the 90's, and Aunt May was going to die during OMD, which counts to me) so, both have died, and both have came back. If I'm wrong about either, my mistake. Different topic: What do you prefer, new supervillains created from a retcon to the characters past events (Parralax entity, Hush for example) or do you prefer villains who do not have a past with the characters and just come out, and make a name for themselves, without some need to be involved with the characters history. For example, Professor Pyg, Batzarro etc. Sorry I used DC characters for the examples, I know more about DC than I do Marvel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
You Know Who Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Both have been dead for a time. (Xavier in the 90's, and Aunt May was going to die during OMD, which counts to me) so, both have died, and both have came back. If I'm wrong about either, my mistake. I haven't read many X-books for the past few years, but I do know that Xavier was killed by Bishop at the end of Messiah CompleX (2008), yet was in the first issue of Wolverine and the X-Men (2011). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc20willsave Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Xavier was shot, not killed. His dead period was actually in the 70s but it turns out it was just a shapeshifter who had taken his place while he worked on combating aliens. Also, Aunt May was dead for a time during the 90s when she had been replaced with an actress while being held captive. It was kinda contrived to be perfectly honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
You Know Who Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Okay, but I thought I heard somewhere (probably the Uncanny X-Cast) that he was "dead" for a time in the 2000s. I do know, for sure, from that show that he was "dead" for part of the original Stan Lee run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc20willsave Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Not really. The closest was getting shot post-Messiah Complex but he didn't die then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 He's been 'comics' dead loads. Uncanny X-cast cited at least two times that he's been declared dead to readers when I was listening. Some of the more recent stuff has been absences like post House of M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
You Know Who Posted March 22, 2012 Report Share Posted March 22, 2012 Different topic: What do you prefer, new supervillains created from a retcon to the characters past events (Parralax entity, Hush for example) or do you prefer villains who do not have a past with the characters and just come out, and make a name for themselves, without some need to be involved with the characters history. For example, Professor Pyg, Batzarro etc. Though retcons aren't always a bad thing, I prefer villains who come out of nowhere and make names for themselves to those that we should have been introduced to earlier, especially if the hero already has a very rich history when the villain from the past emerges. I find Professor Pyg moving to Gotham from some other city, setting up shop there, and making a name for himself much easier to swallow than a villain who's Bruce's closest childhood friend debuting over sixty years after the first Batman comic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.