Tony Stark v.s. Bruce Wayne

[Indolent]

Mh?

 

Green Goblin and Batman?

 

In a fight you mean?

[Guest Red Blue Blur]

Are you freaking kidding me? Superman is THE most unrelatable character in all comics every written of all time. He wasn't created to be relatable, he was created to be a super man, hence the name Superman. Batman is not that much better either. You want to see the epitome of relatable than read Peter Parker, the first character in comics who pretty much invented relatability. Marvel is much more relatable on every character, thats why they make underpowered characters (as opposed to DC). Thats why they give character flaws to different characters like Tony Stark and Norrin Radd. I think, that a person creating a suit and kicking ass in it is much more realistic than Batman, who shouldnt even be able to take on some thugs with guns, kicking ass. I mean really, Batman is more realistic as far as equipment goes, but thats it, there, the line ends. His conflicts, his personae, everything else about him is grossly unrealistic. In fact even his equipment is unrealistic, if he has such complex gadgets that he can pull out of nowhere in the midst of battle, youd think hed run around in something more than just a Kevlar suit. You'd think considering all of the technological acheivements you mentioned above, hed have a more powerful staple offensive armament than Batarangs.

 

On a different note, who would win, Batman or Green Goblin?

God your an idiot. Quit flaming you retard. A character is relatable to anyone who relates to them. Its all an Opinion. People could relate to Galactus if thats the way they felt. Hell they could relate to Doomsday if they choose. In my opinion Superman/Clark Kents story I can relate too. Evidently you relate to Spiderman/Peter Parker. Im sure someone else relates to Batman/Bruce Wayne. This is all opinion on who someone can relate too. So its more realistic for a man to invent a super powered armor suit, then for a person to develop a kevlar suit and fight crime? You have a warped sense of reality and should probably see s shrink if you do believe that. Its more possible in the real world for a person to become someone like Batman than Iron man. Also Batman may not have super powers but he has also never needed them.

[Indolent]

Japan's on its way of developing a power exo-skeleton. That super power armor might just be around the corner in the next half century or so.

[Guest Red Blue Blur]

Japan's on its way of developing a power exo-skeleton. That super power armor might just be around the corner in the next half century or so.

In that case in 50 years IF it works I will say Iron Man is more realistic but until then Batman is still at the top of my list as actually possible real life heroes.

[Indolent]

http://scienceray.com/technology/a-power-a...an-for-farmers/

[Guest Red Blue Blur]

http://scienceray.com/technology/a-power-a...an-for-farmers/

thats still nowhere near being applicable as a super hero suit

[Indolent]

thats still nowhere near being applicable as a super hero suit

That's the power exo-skeleton I was talking about... >.> I wasn't talking about it being the suit.... that might be in the next fifty years. -.-

[Guest American Dragon]

In business I'm not sure.

In Combat if Tony has on his armor then Bruce has no way to hurt him and he has better weapons so he would win especially with no prep time but in just h2h combat with no weapons Bruce wins hands down cuz hes way better trained than Tony

[baneblade]

Are you freaking kidding me? Superman is THE most unrelatable character in all comics every written of all time. He wasn't created to be relatable, he was created to be a super man, hence the name Superman. Batman is not that much better either. You want to see the epitome of relatable than read Peter Parker, the first character in comics who pretty much invented relatability. Marvel is much more relatable on every character, thats why they make underpowered characters (as opposed to DC). Thats why they give character flaws to different characters like Tony Stark and Norrin Radd. I think, that a person creating a suit and kicking ass in it is much more realistic than Batman, who shouldnt even be able to take on some thugs with guns, kicking ass. I mean really, Batman is more realistic as far as equipment goes, but thats it, there, the line ends. His conflicts, his personae, everything else about him is grossly unrealistic. In fact even his equipment is unrealistic, if he has such complex gadgets that he can pull out of nowhere in the midst of battle, youd think hed run around in something more than just a Kevlar suit. You'd think considering all of the technological acheivements you mentioned above, hed have a more powerful staple offensive armament than Batarangs.

 

On a different note, who would win, Batman or Green Goblin?

 

Bro Force. C'mon my man. Batman unreal? No more than any other comic character I know. Batman's a realistic character, no matter which way you cut it. With that ego, that single minded Black and White thought zone, and will power, and personal life 'fallability'? C'mon bro, even Omega 11 pointed out he's made so many mistakes. How 'flawed' can a character be? I know Marvel pushes that envelope to the point of redundancy. But Bats is as flawed as they come. Plus Batman gave me one of the first logical 'comic sense' phrases: 'While young teens were busy windowshopping and girl toting, I was busy meditating'. Or the first grammatical implication in comics: 'It is Batgirl and I, Robin, not Batgirl and Me.', or 'You're the most powerful man on earth Clark, you don't have the luxury of that excuse'. As for SUperman, agree with Blur's point, 'relatable' changes from person to person. There's a reason why SUperman has endured so long, and yet managed to stay afloat. Of the characters you mentioned, one is already losing is grip (yet again) Norin Radd, being used as 'mainstay' fodder from title to title, with that one exception of Annihilation where he was though, one of a mix. Sorry bro, opinions are opinions, but i think yours landed a bit erroneously right there.

 

And bro Red Blue? You might wanna calm down a bit. Calling names and staving off heat even on something that is incorrect is wrong. Lets all keep the respect here. We are ferreters. Dignity is essential to our forum. All agree?

[Guest Red Blue Blur]

Bro Force. C'mon my man. Batman unreal? No more than any other comic character I know. Batman's a realistic character, no matter which way you cut it. With that ego, that single minded Black and White thought zone, and will power, and personal life 'fallability'? C'mon bro, even Omega 11 pointed out he's made so many mistakes. How 'flawed' can a character be? I know Marvel pushes that envelope to the point of redundancy. But Bats is as flawed as they come. Plus Batman gave me one of the first logical 'comic sense' phrases: 'While young teens were busy windowshopping and girl toting, I was busy meditating'. Or the first grammatical implication in comics: 'It is Batgirl and I, Robin, not Batgirl and Me.', or 'You're the most powerful man on earth Clark, you don't have the luxury of that excuse'. As for SUperman, agree with Blur's point, 'relatable' changes from person to person. There's a reason why SUperman has endured so long, and yet managed to stay afloat. Of the characters you mentioned, one is already losing is grip (yet again) Norin Radd, being used as 'mainstay' fodder from title to title, with that one exception of Annihilation where he was though, one of a mix. Sorry bro, opinions are opinions, but i think yours landed a bit erroneously right there.

 

And bro Red Blue? You might wanna calm down a bit. Calling names and staving off heat even on something that is incorrect is wrong. Lets all keep the respect here. We are ferreters. Dignity is essential to our forum. All agree?

I know. Its just getting annoying because in every discussion Im a fanboy because of my opinion when compared to him I actually provide facts, where as he just builds off what other members say.

[Indolent]

Bro Force. C'mon my man. Batman unreal? No more than any other comic character I know. Batman's a realistic character, no matter which way you cut it. With that ego, that single minded Black and White thought zone, and will power, and personal life 'fallability'? C'mon bro, even Omega 11 pointed out he's made so many mistakes. How 'flawed' can a character be? I know Marvel pushes that envelope to the point of redundancy. But Bats is as flawed as they come. Plus Batman gave me one of the first logical 'comic sense' phrases: 'While young teens were busy windowshopping and girl toting, I was busy meditating'. Or the first grammatical implication in comics: 'It is Batgirl and I, Robin, not Batgirl and Me.', or 'You're the most powerful man on earth Clark, you don't have the luxury of that excuse'. As for SUperman, agree with Blur's point, 'relatable' changes from person to person. There's a reason why SUperman has endured so long, and yet managed to stay afloat. Of the characters you mentioned, one is already losing is grip (yet again) Norin Radd, being used as 'mainstay' fodder from title to title, with that one exception of Annihilation where he was though, one of a mix. Sorry bro, opinions are opinions, but i think yours landed a bit erroneously right there.

 

And bro Red Blue? You might wanna calm down a bit. Calling names and staving off heat even on something that is incorrect is wrong. Lets all keep the respect here. We are ferreters. Dignity is essential to our forum. All agree?

I can't relate to a man who's a playboy millionaire that seems to be able to kick the shit out of super beings (Which is what makes him unrealistic in my opinion). He is also said to have mastered 127 martial arts, where it takes a long time to master just one, compared to mastering 127 within a short time, furthering his unrealistic status as per my opinion. I could list more. He is not TOTALLY unrealistic, however, because he has been somewhat portrayed similar as us, capable of making mistakes the same as us, and that is his saving grace.

[Guest force_echo]

Batman makes mistakes, I agree. His equipment is realistic compared to Iron Man, I openly said that. What im saying is, the villains he takes down are completly unrealistic. The things he does are completly unrealistic. At least Iron Man sets up a power level and sticks to it. You dont see Iron Man beating up Galactus, and you dont see Iron Man taking down a thug robbing a liquor store. What I'm trying to say is, earlier in the debate, you gave examples of the technological acheivements of Batman. If they were so great, how is it that he runs around in a Kevlar suit with Batarangs? At least Iron Man has no disillusions about being superhuman, Batman is someone who is defined as peak human doing superhuman things. However it is another thing for a person to be a genius in math, sciences, magical lore, next-gen technology, forensics, botany, applied weaponry, an ace in aerial combat ....etc etc etc.

Or to be a master of 127 combat systems and styles.

Or able to come up with stratagems that take care of EVERY proabibility (eg in No Man's Land Batman told Superman that he had a perfect plan for saving Gotham, and he had 5 backup plans just in case, and for each of those 5 backup plans he had 5 OTHER plans ..each ....just in case). That is not 'normal.' That is not "peak human". All you need to do is look up some Batman respect threads for more examples.

 

I chose the Surfer because even though he is the most powerful superhero in the MU he has a complex personality, which woven together, makes to be a power inhibitor, but also makes a good story and a very complex character. Superman is more of an ideology than a defined character and Batman is more of a precept than a character.

 

When I think of relatability I dont think of it differing that much, I mean, if you're Bill Gates, you'd obviously relate to Batman more, but I'm saying, out of Batman, Superman, and Spiderman who is your average Joe going to relate to? And that's why I think Spiderman was one of the first relatable comic characters, one of the ones who introduced "relatability" in comics. Now it seems every other comic book character is a teen going to high school, but Parker was the one of the first. I admit Iron Man is not a very relatable guy, but at least he had his alcohol problem.

[Guest Red Blue Blur]

Batman makes mistakes, I agree. His equipment is realistic compared to Iron Man, I openly said that. What im saying is, the villains he takes down are completly unrealistic. The things he does are completly unrealistic. At least Iron Man sets up a power level and sticks to it. You dont see Iron Man beating up Galactus, and you dont see Iron Man taking down a thug robbing a liquor store. What I'm trying to say is, earlier in the debate, you gave examples of the technological acheivements of Batman. If they were so great, how is it that he runs around in a Kevlar suit with Batarangs? At least Iron Man has no disillusions about being superhuman, Batman is someone who is defined as peak human doing superhuman things. However it is another thing for a person to be a genius in math, sciences, magical lore, next-gen technology, forensics, botany, applied weaponry, an ace in aerial combat ....etc etc etc.

Or to be a master of 127 combat systems and styles.

Or able to come up with stratagems that take care of EVERY proabibility (eg in No Man's Land Batman told Superman that he had a perfect plan for saving Gotham, and he had 5 backup plans just in case, and for each of those 5 backup plans he had 5 OTHER plans ..each ....just in case). That is not 'normal.' That is not "peak human". All you need to do is look up some Batman respect threads for more examples.

 

I chose the Surfer because even though he is the most powerful superhero in the MU he has a complex personality, which woven together, makes to be a power inhibitor, but also makes a good story and a very complex character. Superman is more of an ideology than a defined character and Batman is more of a precept than a character.

 

When I think of relatability I dont think of it differing that much, I mean, if you're Bill Gates, you'd obviously relate to Batman more, but I'm saying, out of Batman, Superman, and Spiderman who is your average Joe going to relate to? And that's why I think Spiderman was one of the first relatable comic characters, one of the ones who introduced "relatability" in comics. Now it seems every other comic book character is a teen going to high school, but Parker was the one of the first. I admit Iron Man is not a very relatable guy, but at least he had his alcohol problem.

 

In my perspective I consider a character relatable by their personality and not money or powers. Its their outlook on life in general. Thats how I relate to Superman

[Guest force_echo]

In my perspective I consider a character relatable by their personality and not money or powers. Its their outlook on life in general. Thats how I relate to Superman

Yes, I know, and who is perfect all of the time? Superman is a highly unrelatable character.

[Guest Red Blue Blur]

Yes, I know, and who is perfect all of the time? Superman is a highly unrelatable character.

TOO YOU. To me he is highly relatable in personality.

 

Superman isnt perfect all the time. Thats shows how little you know about the character. He does what he believes is best. In Final Crisis doing what he thought was best cost him his best friend and nearly his wife because it was a huge mistake he made. How about his anger shown when Lex was President or him sacrificing himself to save the ones he loved against Doomsday. Its not that he is perfect but that he does what he believes is right. He knows people are watching and that is why he tries to be a good example to those because being the leader of the Justice League he is held at even higher standards than the other heroes.

 

If you think Superman is so perfect read Superman:for tomorrow. He makes mistakes like everyone else, but its how he deals with it. How he moves froward in life.

I admire the Superman character for his honor, loyalty, trustworthyness, determination, and care.

[Indolent]

He's comparing/relating himself to Superman in terms of morals. Leave him be.

[baneblade]

I can't relate to a man who's a playboy millionaire that seems to be able to kick the shit out of super beings (Which is what makes him unrealistic in my opinion). He is also said to have mastered 127 martial arts, where it takes a long time to master just one, compared to mastering 127 within a short time, furthering his unrealistic status as per my opinion. I could list more. He is not TOTALLY unrealistic, however, because he has been somewhat portrayed similar as us, capable of making mistakes the same as us, and that is his saving grace.

 

Bor Jaeger, visit any convention, in a sit down with any scribe, or a bunch of them: pop the question in an open forum: who is an 'ideal' hero? 85% answer: Sueprman or Batman. Does that mean anything? To me it does. Arnold Schwarzenneger, 1980 Olympia, took the crown in 3 months flat. (intensive mandatory training). He was out of shape. Just because someone said that 'if he was aorund' he would have lost today', He whipped himself into near peak shape and entered the contest after a 5 year layoff, and won, and beat others in the lineup who were traiing for at least 9 months minimum. Why? because repeatedly, sources have said, that Arnold's greatest tool is his will power. Let's say judging was bad (to give greatest benefit of doubt). The fact alone that he shipped himself into spectacular shape in 3 months flat is in itself a wonder to comprehend, leave alone accept. Bruce Lee, is the only martial asrtist to break barriers that no other martial artist had and has. In relatively 5 years time, he mastered his own 'craft' of an amalgamation of Kungfu and TaeKwonDo, labelling it Jeet Kune Do. In a hospital bed, paralyed he wrote a book on it called the Tao of Jeet Kune Do. Then, he did the unthinkable, he not only walked against all medical synopsis from doctors, but he went back into shape, in no more than 3 months, and inspite of restrciting pain, established his domain by beating the very same person who had blindsided him in a fight that he had on points won. These are feats 'unthinkable' and unrelatable to the everyman. But they stand. In comics, extend the line a bit more. (They are comics after all), and Batman is not 'unrealistic or 'unrelatable' at all.

 

 

I know a guy, personally who 'edetically' learned the entire Bible in 6 days. 6 Days flat! No one knows, him, he's never been on the news. He lived in my neighbourhood. Here's another amazing thing: He was not good at English. So, does that make the scenario a lie or impossible? What MArvel has done is wrong to a great degree. They have made their heroes not what they 'ought to be', but what fans 'want them to be'. That is a perfect sales boat. That is why Marvel 'rules' sales charts every month.

 

Now, here's a question for you Jaeger bro. What do you think:

 

1) What's more important: What's more relatable, or what 'should' be? To me, the answer is 'should be'.

2) What 'should be' relatable'? Mediocrity, or superiority. To me the answer is 'superiority'.

3) What should be acceptable: 'Flaws' or perfection? To me the asnwer is logically perfection.

See where this is going?

Superheroes are superheroes. It matters not if you seek a little of yourself in them for sake of entertainment or 'relativity'. What matters is what they ought to be. There are enough flawed characters around for scribes to completely flaw and contradict the ones who are yet 'not as flawed'. Enough is enough. Stark was a drunk. Warbird too. Spidey was a ham. Surfer was feeble. Catman, deadshot, severaly contradictory in their own heads. There's something that should still be left to uphold the ideals that folks 'hope' for but will back away to work for. That is where Superman and Batman come in.

 

Here is now the question that will stump you (or anyone):

Who will you wish your kids to be like? Spiderman, Hulk, Surfer, or Batman, Superman and Zauriel? Simple straightforward question. I know what your answer will 'obviously' will be.

 

Hence, relatable is not only what you 'want' to see or feel, but also, 'what you should' or 'ought' to feel and see. And in a fictional universe, at least, seeing those ideals or those realities no matter how 'unrealistic' or 'too-good' they are is a welcome mainstay, always.

[Guest force_echo]

You're not getting my point, I agree with you Baneblade, 100%, but what im saying is, Superman is more of an ideology than a defined character and Batman is more of a precept than a character.

[Guest Omega11]

Bor Jaeger, visit any convention, in a sit down with any scribe, or a bunch of them: pop the question in an open forum: who is an 'ideal' hero? 85% answer: Sueprman or Batman. Does that mean anything? To me it does. Arnold Schwarzenneger, 1980 Olympia, took the crown in 3 months flat. (intensive mandatory training). He was out of shape. Just because someone said that 'if he was aorund' he would have lost today', He whipped himself into near peak shape and entered the contest after a 5 year layoff, and won, and beat others in the lineup who were traiing for at least 9 months minimum. Why? because repeatedly, sources have said, that Arnold's greatest tool is his will power. Let's say judging was bad (to give greatest benefit of doubt). The fact alone that he shipped himself into spectacular shape in 3 months flat is in itself a wonder to comprehend, leave alone accept. Bruce Lee, is the only martial asrtist to break barriers that no other martial artist had and has. In relatively 5 years time, he mastered his own 'craft' of an amalgamation of Kungfu and TaeKwonDo, labelling it Jeet Kune Do. In a hospital bed, paralyed he wrote a book on it called the Tao of Jeet Kune Do. Then, he did the unthinkable, he not only walked against all medical synopsis from doctors, but he went back into shape, in no more than 3 months, and inspite of restrciting pain, established his domain by beating the very same person who had blindsided him in a fight that he had on points won. These are feats 'unthinkable' and unrelatable to the everyman. But they stand. In comics, extend the line a bit more. (They are comics after all), and Batman is not 'unrealistic or 'unrelatable' at all.

 

 

I know a guy, personally who 'edetically' learned the entire Bible in 6 days. 6 Days flat! No one knows, him, he's never been on the news. He lived in my neighbourhood. Here's another amazing thing: He was not good at English. So, does that make the scenario a lie or impossible? What MArvel has done is wrong to a great degree. They have made their heroes not what they 'ought to be', but what fans 'want them to be'. That is a perfect sales boat. That is why Marvel 'rules' sales charts every month.

 

Now, here's a question for you Jaeger bro. What do you think:

 

1) What's more important: What's more relatable, or what 'should' be? To me, the answer is 'should be'.

2) What 'should be' relatable'? Mediocrity, or superiority. To me the answer is 'superiority'.

3) What should be acceptable: 'Flaws' or perfection? To me the asnwer is logically perfection.

See where this is going?

Superheroes are superheroes. It matters not if you seek a little of yourself in them for sake of entertainment or 'relativity'. What matters is what they ought to be. There are enough flawed characters around for scribes to completely flaw and contradict the ones who are yet 'not as flawed'. Enough is enough. Stark was a drunk. Warbird too. Spidey was a ham. Surfer was feeble. Catman, deadshot, severaly contradictory in their own heads. There's something that should still be left to uphold the ideals that folks 'hope' for but will back away to work for. That is where Superman and Batman come in.

 

Here is now the question that will stump you (or anyone):

Who will you wish your kids to be like? Spiderman, Hulk, Surfer, or Batman, Superman and Zauriel? Simple straightforward question. I know what your answer will 'obviously' will be.

 

Hence, relatable is not only what you 'want' to see or feel, but also, 'what you should' or 'ought' to feel and see. And in a fictional universe, at least, seeing those ideals or those realities no matter how 'unrealistic' or 'too-good' they are is a welcome mainstay, always.

 

So then, for you, the most relatable person ever is Jesus?

 

I don't know about any of you, but I can tell you that I am certainly not without sin, even if I'd like to be.

 

Similarly, while Superman may be someone to aspire to, he's not really someone most people can relate to.

 

Peter Parker has girl troubles, money troubles, school troubles, bully troubles, etc. Just about everyone can relate to his experiences in one way or another.

[Indolent]

Bor Jaeger, visit any convention, in a sit down with any scribe, or a bunch of them: pop the question in an open forum: who is an 'ideal' hero? 85% answer: Sueprman or Batman. Does that mean anything? To me it does. Arnold Schwarzenneger, 1980 Olympia, took the crown in 3 months flat. (intensive mandatory training). He was out of shape. Just because someone said that 'if he was aorund' he would have lost today', He whipped himself into near peak shape and entered the contest after a 5 year layoff, and won, and beat others in the lineup who were traiing for at least 9 months minimum. Why? because repeatedly, sources have said, that Arnold's greatest tool is his will power. Let's say judging was bad (to give greatest benefit of doubt). The fact alone that he shipped himself into spectacular shape in 3 months flat is in itself a wonder to comprehend, leave alone accept. Bruce Lee, is the only martial asrtist to break barriers that no other martial artist had and has. In relatively 5 years time, he mastered his own 'craft' of an amalgamation of Kungfu and TaeKwonDo, labelling it Jeet Kune Do. In a hospital bed, paralyed he wrote a book on it called the Tao of Jeet Kune Do. Then, he did the unthinkable, he not only walked against all medical synopsis from doctors, but he went back into shape, in no more than 3 months, and inspite of restrciting pain, established his domain by beating the very same person who had blindsided him in a fight that he had on points won. These are feats 'unthinkable' and unrelatable to the everyman. But they stand. In comics, extend the line a bit more. (They are comics after all), and Batman is not 'unrealistic or 'unrelatable' at all.

 

 

I know a guy, personally who 'edetically' learned the entire Bible in 6 days. 6 Days flat! No one knows, him, he's never been on the news. He lived in my neighbourhood. Here's another amazing thing: He was not good at English. So, does that make the scenario a lie or impossible? What MArvel has done is wrong to a great degree. They have made their heroes not what they 'ought to be', but what fans 'want them to be'. That is a perfect sales boat. That is why Marvel 'rules' sales charts every month.

 

Now, here's a question for you Jaeger bro. What do you think:

 

1) What's more important: What's more relatable, or what 'should' be? To me, the answer is 'should be'.

2) What 'should be' relatable'? Mediocrity, or superiority. To me the answer is 'superiority'.

3) What should be acceptable: 'Flaws' or perfection? To me the asnwer is logically perfection.

See where this is going?

Superheroes are superheroes. It matters not if you seek a little of yourself in them for sake of entertainment or 'relativity'. What matters is what they ought to be. There are enough flawed characters around for scribes to completely flaw and contradict the ones who are yet 'not as flawed'. Enough is enough. Stark was a drunk. Warbird too. Spidey was a ham. Surfer was feeble. Catman, deadshot, severaly contradictory in their own heads. There's something that should still be left to uphold the ideals that folks 'hope' for but will back away to work for. That is where Superman and Batman come in.

 

Here is now the question that will stump you (or anyone):

Who will you wish your kids to be like? Spiderman, Hulk, Surfer, or Batman, Superman and Zauriel? Simple straightforward question. I know what your answer will 'obviously' will be.

 

Hence, relatable is not only what you 'want' to see or feel, but also, 'what you should' or 'ought' to feel and see. And in a fictional universe, at least, seeing those ideals or those realities no matter how 'unrealistic' or 'too-good' they are is a welcome mainstay, always.

Um, I didn't realize I was criticizing people on their likes...

[Guest Red Blue Blur]

So then, for you, the most relatable person ever is Jesus?

 

I don't know about any of you, but I can tell you that I am certainly not without sin, even if I'd like to be.

 

Similarly, while Superman may be someone to aspire to, he's not really someone most people can relate to.

 

Peter Parker has girl troubles, money troubles, school troubles, bully troubles, etc. Just about everyone can relate to his experiences in one way or another.

Your seriously going to argue this point? This is all opinions. Superman is relatable. He makes mistakes just like everyone else. He tries to do the right thing all the time but sometimes it just doesnt work. He deals with many problems in almost every comic. Final Crisis: The loss of his best friend and near death of his wife. Superman For Tomorrow: The loss of about 300,000 people. Superman and Batman Supergirl: He wanted to protect Kara but it resulted in her being kidnapped by Darkseid. Crisis on Infinite Earths: He cant prevent Supergirl from dying. So on and so on, Superman is far from perfect but its his character of trying to do the right thing even when the right thing isnt popular, never givving up when odds are against you, being honest and trustworthy, and staying true to your morals and values.

[Guest force_echo]

Your seriously going to argue this point? This is all opinions. Superman is relatable. He makes mistakes just like everyone else. He tries to do the right thing all the time but sometimes it just doesnt work. He deals with many problems in almost every comic. Final Crisis: The loss of his best friend and near death of his wife. Superman For Tomorrow: The loss of about 300,000 people. Superman and Batman Supergirl: He wanted to protect Kara but it resulted in her being kidnapped by Darkseid. Crisis on Infinite Earths: He cant prevent Supergirl from dying. So on and so on, Superman is far from perfect but its his character of trying to do the right thing even when the right thing isnt popular, never givving up when odds are against you, being honest and trustworthy, and staying true to your morals and values.

Almost every damn superhero does that. Just in more realistic ways. You think Peter dosen't dp the right thing? In my opinion, Parker has the strongest sense of good and willpower in comic book history. Yes, even more so than Cap. Well not more so than Cap, because he's Marvel's equivalent to supes as far as characters go. But you know what I mean.

[Guest Red Blue Blur]

Almost every damn superhero does that. Just in more realistic ways. You think Peter dosen't dp the right thing? In my opinion, Parker has the strongest sense of good and willpower in comic book history. Yes, even more so than Cap. Well not more so than Cap, because he's Marvel's equivalent to supes as far as characters go. But you know what I mean.

Its all relevant. The problem makes no difference. Its how the character handles the problem and then overcomes it.

[Guest God-Speed_88]

Almost every damn superhero does that. Just in more realistic ways. You think Peter dosen't dp the right thing? In my opinion, Parker has the strongest sense of good and willpower in comic book history. Yes, even more so than Cap. Well not more so than Cap, because he's Marvel's equivalent to supes as far as characters go. But you know what I mean.

 

I love how you started a rant claiming Peter Parker has the "strongest sense of good and willpower in comic history". Your thought process was continuing with "even more so than Cap" then *CLICK* Cap is "Marvels" equivalent so it can't be.

 

So your logic was:

 

Peter > Clark

 

Bucky = Clark

 

Bucky (Marvel) > Peter (Marvel) > Clark (D.C)

 

Me senses a pattern 'ere captain.

[Guest Omega11]

Your seriously going to argue this point? This is all opinions.

 

Relatability isn't really opinion. I can think that I'm most relatable to Gandhi, but most likely I'm much more relatable to a kid who went to the same school I did and grew up in the same neighborhood.

 

I love how you started a rant claiming Peter Parker has the "strongest sense of good and willpower in comic history". Your thought process was continuing with "even more so than Cap" then *CLICK* Cap is "Marvels" equivalent so it can't be.

 

So your logic was:

 

Peter > Clark

 

Bucky = Clark

 

Bucky (Marvel) > Peter (Marvel) > Clark (D.C)

 

Me senses a pattern 'ere captain.

 

I assume(and really hope) that he was talking about Steve Rogers, not Bucky.

 

But yeah, a few holes in the logic there.