Place your bets

[andrewducker]

via

Comments

[ashfae.livejournal.com]

Um, my money's on Galactus. Batman is awesome but he's also squishable.

[andrewducker]

Batman: Never beaten.
Galactus: Beaten repeatedly.

My money's on the caped crusader.

[ashfae.livejournal.com]

Batman: Good guy
Galactus: Bad guy

If we're talking within demands of plot/narrative, sure, Batman, because frankly badass good guys tend to win because otherwise the story is over/people stop reading. If we're talking realistically, Galactus.

[andrewducker]

Did you just use the words ' realistically' and "Galactus" in the same sentence?

[ashfae.livejournal.com]

Yes, though not without irony, I admit.

It's possibly my stance is entirely dictated by the fact that I find the idea of Batman finally being defeated by someone stepping on him completely hilarious. Hee.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Depends who's writing it.

Batman is, by explicit DC editorial command, not beatable. He always, always, always wins if he has any preparation time, and if he does not have any preparation time then he is permitted to lose briefly, escape, and prepare.

(A side effect of this is that, in order to maintain Batman's artificially elevated competence, Batman *villains* are not permitted to lose handily against other superheroes. Superman, The Flash, the Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, Martian Manhunter, and Stilt-Man could all defeat the Joker with a thought, taking zero time and making him a complete non-threat.... except that Batman has trouble with the Joker, and as long as that's the case AND Batman Is Not Allowed To Lose Ever To Anyone, everyone else *must also* have trouble with the people who give Batman trouble, or it makes Batman look bad.)

Anyway. If DC is writing it, Batman will win because Batman is not permitted to ever lose no matter who or what he is facing.

If anyone else is writing it, then Batman will be (accurately) treated as a less-effective version of The Punisher, and Galactus will step on him unless Superman shows up to do something that might actually matter, and Galactus gets distracted.

(Notably, DC will *never* allow anyone else to write Batman, for exactly this reason)

[ashfae.livejournal.com]

Thank you, that's the point I was trying to make to Andrew above but much more clear. =) I was answering realistically (insert laughter here) as opposed to narratively.

I still love Batman though.

[andrewducker]

See pictographic version of this response below.

Also, Emperor Joker.

[strawberryfrog.livejournal.com]

Galactus (aka The great filter) vs. Batman?

[andrewducker]

Yup.

[anton-p-nym.livejournal.com]

Fermi: "Where are they?"
Galactus: "*Urrrp*" [picks teeth]

-- Steve'd still bet on Batman, though, knowing the biases of the writers involved.

[johnbobshaun.livejournal.com]

No contest. The Goddamn Batman.

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

this might help

[andrewducker]

Aaah, the succinct version of theweaselking's reply.

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

the important thing about batman is that if he found a rock so heavy that he couldn't lift it, he'd still be able to lift it because he's the Batman

[drdoug.livejournal.com]

Backing Galactus* is a sucker bet. If Batman wins, people who backed him will collect. But if Galactus wins, the world's energies will be drained, we'll all be dead, and nobody's going to be paying anybody anything. No matter how you rate the odds, it doesn't make sense to put your money on Galactus (or against Batman), since you can only lose.

Plot savvy and economics in perfect alignment.

* Or laying Batman. Er, so to speak.

[opusfluke.livejournal.com]

...obviously Judge Dredd would win...

[lpetrazickis.livejournal.com]

I hate Batman, therefore I always root for anyone but Batman.

[swisstone.livejournal.com]

Bet on the Bat. Every time.