Two here for you:

Two of the biggest heroes that don't actually have superpowers-

Batman V Captain America

and this pairing-

Juggernaut v Rhino

lol i thought you would say that but you're not giving the Martian hunter a fighting chance! if anybody with some kind of fire power can easily take him, why is he compared so much to Superman and Batman?

those guys are not easy to beat despite their weaknesses..

Ok, how bout Dr Fate Vs Dr strange?

Ok, how about Green Arrow versus Hawkeye.

Black Canary uses a concentrated sonic scream to give Ghost Rider a flat tire, causing him to wipe out. He spends the next six months in traction.

Black Canary FTW.

What are you talking about? Captain America does have superpowers. Super soldier serum? Hello?

Anyway, tradition would of course give the impression that Batman was the better fighter (and considering his training, he probably does edge Cap out), but they're both too ninja to call it on just skill alone. That's where Cap's enhanced strength would give him the win in a straight-up fist fight. Batman has taken on enemies with super strength before, but the supers in his rogue's gallery all have to sacrifice speed to some extent, whereas Cap still moves like a normal human, so any mention of Batman being able to beat Bane or Croc is irrelevant.

Cap gets the shaft in general because he's covered in an American flag, but in many ways, he specializes in the same things that Batman does: fighting technique, tactics and strategy, and just being in general the most competent and tenacious hero in his universe. So, it's harder to give Batman an edge when they're so much alike.

Bats does, however, have all those damn gadgets, whereas Cap "just" has his shield. It's a pretty bitchin' shield, but it doesn't quite measure up to grappling hooks, Batarangs, ninja paraphernalia, remote controlled super-car, remote controlled super-plane, remote controlled super-boat, etc. So that's one big point in his favor, though I highly doubt Cap would be one to let a little thing like a Batarang to the face bother him. Besides, they may not be his gadgets, but Cap does work for SHIELD, so...

It's also tradition that with enough preparation, Batman can beat anybody. But Cap is likewise a master tactician, and doesn't have any real weaknesses to exploit. And any tactic that would apply against him, would probably also be just as usable against Batman, which I'm sure Cap would recognize.

I'm trying to think of ways that Batman could use to beat Captain America, but I'm coming up short, so unless anybody has any other ideas...

... Captain America FTW?

How is this even a question? Juggernaut, duh. Juggernaut is even stronger and more invulnerable. Not to mention that all it takes to beat Rhino is one Spider-Man, as opposed to all the X-Men.

Juggernaut FTW.

Superman's weakness is an ultra-rare rock and Batman's weakness (being human) is something he has trained to account for since he was a child. Martian Manhunter could potentially be menaced by a stove.

I have no idea what the difference is in their magical abilities, or the difference in their power levels. It's incredibly hard to compare magical beings, since magic is in many ways an unquantifiable ability.

I'll give it to Dr. Fate, just cause one of the Dr. Fates was a DBZ-like fusion of a woman and her ten-year-old, magically aged stepson, who she was in love with, and Dr. Strange would probably be too busy vomiting to fight.

Honestly, I think Hawkeye is too big a ripoff of Green Arrow for there to be any difference. They both "never miss", they both use trick arrows... alright I can't think up a third thing that they do, but you get my point.

If we're talking Green Arrow from the Arrow TV show, though, then GA hands down, as he's basically Batman with a bow and arrow.

P.S. BTW, if we're just talking comics, then I'd be totally rooting for Hawkeye, cause his current series with Matt Fraction is just insanely good.

Full disclosure: I am not currently high, but I was when I read this.

For those of you rolling your eyes at the idea of Archie comics in general -- I myself have never read any before this, and have no burning need to start now -- Afterlife with Archie is worlds away from the original: G-rated high school hijinks are replaced by more realistic, PG-13, teenage melodrama, until the town of Riverdale is engulfed by a full-blown zombie apocalypse, and petty high school relationships become something more compelling and desperate as the children are forced to become adults within a matter of days. Not to mention the R-rated zombie violence. To illustrate my point I'll post this page from issue #4, where Archie must defend his mother from his zombified father...






But anyway, onto the reason for this entry. Afterlife with Archie is amazing all by itself, but it's just a trip when I'm high. Even while sober, I'm always aware of the old world, sexist, Archie comics tropes (most obviously, two women "BFFs" sniping at, and backstabbing each other over a guy), but I can kind of keep that in the back of my mind due to the strengths of the title (Seriously, possibly the best comic going ATM). When I'm high, however, it's now so in I'm face that, while I'm comforted by the (initial) atmosphere of (deceptively) "simpler times", I'm also uncomfortable every time some modern cultural faux pas is made.






But the title is so mature and modernized -- with the Archie status quo thrown for so big a loop -- that a few pages after a Betty/Veronica spat that makes me wince, they then hit me with a plot point that calls those same themes into question, which always keeps me on my toes as to what the writer is getting at:

Is he to a limited extent aware of the anachronisms, and choosing to challenge them, all the while being ignorant of the cognitive dissonance of glorifying the more outdated elements of the basic nature of the universe.

Or is he completely genre savvy, and using the seeming ambivalence to celebrate a genuinely rich world, while at the same time confronting its flaws? And if so, is he using subtlety for a less preachy contrast, or just toning down his more confrontational points about the comic's core values so as not to offend legit Archie fans? (I'm inclined to go with some form of this option, due to the conscious effort on the part of the writer to subvert just about everything about the Archie universe.)

For example, as a counterpoint to the charmingly misogynist undertones of the Betty/Veronica rivalry, two lesbian characters are carrying on an affair "on the down low", and the merkin boyfriend of one of the women calls her "baby" upon their reunion; incensed by this, the other woman -- who wants to go public with the relationship, as opposed to her partner -- confronts him.






Add on subplots and themes concerning incest, homophobia, the obligatory exploration of the nature of man, etc, and you have a comic book whose basic nature is on the surface at odds with itself, while being made all the more intriguing for these contradictions.

How a company whose entire existence is dependent upon preserving an outdated, fun house mirror image of the world, had the artistic cojones to so abandon that concept (albeit for an AU title) is pretty awesome as far as I'm concerned. I tried getting into The Walking Dead comic book, but found the character drama to be rather dull, while the surreal teen drama of Afterlife with Archie is completely engrossing. This is actually the second time I've powered my way through the entire eight issues of the series, which is something I generally don't do.

So yeah: Afterlife with Archie > The Walking Dead

That is all. You may go about your business.

I love those panels where he's forced to kill his father. The "flashbacks", the tears, the blood, the twin "I love you"s and the fact that he's using the baseball bat his dad taught him to play the sport with to kill him is doubly ironic. Also, this gives me a feeling of Watchmen. Who drew it Batty?

Francesco Francavilla - Comic Book DB


And just for some added awesomeness, here's one of his pages from Afterlife with Archie, without any context whatsoever.

Doctor ****ing Lovecraft????!!!! :yikes:

Yeah, **** gets weird. And I'm not saying weird as far as Archie goes, but just plain weird.

It's hard to put these in any type of definitive order, and I'm not entirely sure I wouldn't knock off one or two for something else in another mood, but these are the top ten comics (both old and new) I've read/been reading since I started really getting into comic books last June/July. There are plenty of books I'd put here (especially Batman comics) from before the cutoff, but since I'm restricting this to a year, then unfortunately things like The Long Halloween aren't being featured. This will be a ten-part series, since it would just be too massive to do in one entry. Anyways, onto #10...






This series is a weekly, digital title, which is actually a prequel to the fighting video game of the same name. It's so much more than some tie-in, however: it's a "What if?" tale about the possibility of superheroes going too far, and the consequences, both for them, and the world itself. Not to mention an excuse to **** with the DC Universe in an alternate universe where anything and everything is possible.

The story -- divided into five "years" -- starts five years into the future, in a fascist police state ruled by Superman...




We are immediately taken five years into the past, and discover a world much like the mainstream DC comics universe: Superman does Superman things, Batman does Batman things, the Justice League does Justice League things, etc. Everything is perfectly as it should be, until Superman is tricked by the Joker into killing his wife, a pregnant Lois Lane, simultaneously setting off a nuclear explosion which wipes Metropolis off of the map.

Superman reacts thusly...




Having now snapped, Superman -- backed by most of the Justice League -- declares a moratorium on conflict throughout the world, directly intervening in every war going on anywhere. At this point the Justice League is mostly benevolent, seeking only to save the world from itself, but as the series progresses, it takes progressively more direct control of world politics, becoming a de facto, totalitarian junta.

Not all of the world's heroes back Superman, however. Led by Batman, a small group of soon-to-be rebels attempts to stop this escalating power grab. While this takes the form of talk early on, battle lines soon harden, friends become rivals, and in the end, bitter enemies now too consumed by hatred to ever reconcile.

Interestingly, the pro-Superman contingent are made up of most of the heavy hitters: Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Flash, etc. It's the street-level heroes who dissent: Batman and his clan, Green Arrow, Black Canary, etc. The series seems to imply that, with great power, comes a skewed perspective.

For me, the best part of Injustice is that no one is safe. By the end of the first two years of the series an alarmingly large percentage of mainstream DC characters are dead, and it doesn't seem to matter whether you're obscure, or an A-lister. Some of the most emotionally heavy moments I've yet read in superhero comics are in this title, and much of that is due to the shock of seeing a character who would never in a million years bite the dust in the real DC Universe, die in service to a world-shattering plot development... or simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Naming names would be a crime, but I'll just say that the rivalry between Superman and Batman is made far more than simply the clash between two opposing ideologies by the end of Year One. There's as much chance of their friendship being revived as there is between Anakin Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi.

And yet it's never black-and-white in this series. Yes, Superman becomes ever more of a corrupted villain, but it's a gradual shift, and no matter how ruthless he becomes, he never loses sight of his goal of saving the world. His allies likewise hold onto their integrity as much as they can. On the other side of the coin, the rebel heroes are at times forced to use tactics they might otherwise never resort to when it becomes necessary. Even villains take sides, both for and against the Justice League: Lex Luthor allies himself with Superman, and genuinely seems to believe in his cause, while Sinestro appears to do so only for his own secret purposes -- and of course Harley Quinn becomes a good guy, because **** YEAH, HARLEY QUINN!!!

But of course, this is all just a glorious excuse to have Batman and Superman go at it. Batman is clearly the antagonist of the series -- because of course he is -- but isn't able to pull some random rabbit out of his cowl as he has done in past Batman/Superman battles. His allies are not in the same league (pun intended) as their enemies, and so must operate like guerrillas: they strike where they can, always knowing that in a direct confrontation with their former allies that they will have to immediately withdraw.

Superman becomes a truly daunting figure of terror. Time and time again, they attempt to defeat him, but always he survives -- like some unkillable, slasher movie abomination -- and proceeds to wreak brutal revenge on those foolish enough to fight him head-on. His superhuman sight, hearing, strength, and speed make any action by Batman's allies, no matter how carefully planned and clandestine, into a potential catastrophe; at any time, the Kryptonian might hear one of his enemies step on a twig halfway across the world, and then it becomes a question of escape vs. death.

I'm only up to Year Three -- I believe Year Four has just ended -- and Injustice just keeps getting better. With so many dead, focus shifts from traditional superheroes to more... esoteric characters, keeping the plot from becoming stagnant, ever keeping you guessing as to what direction the story will take next. Epic in scope and fearless in direction, this is simply one of the best titles on the stands at the moment.

In short, The Batlord ****ing loves Injustice: Gods Among Us, and so should you!