Knightquest: For the past few years, I've really come to believe that Batman's psychological profile not only allows for but kind of demands that he whack the more serious villains out there. He wouldn't do it to some random purse snatcher, but if he were consistent in his views, he'd feel obligated to take, say, the Joker down. For good. And if he legitimately had this worldview, I think that'd provide all the necessary incentive Superman would need to honestly not approve of Batman's methods... except then you'd have to explain why Superman hasn't taken him down already. His reasons for not doing so ("I'd become one of them") never added up to me. He goes out every night without a badge, beats the crap out criminals and violates their civil rights, confiscates evidence without a warrant and interrogates other crooks without even a whiff of probable cause. But, hey, somehow he's better than criminals because he doesn't kill? Am I to believe there's never been a criminal out there who beat the stuffings out of someone to obtain information?!? Batman's a criminal by any definition of the word, not to mention a hypocrite. To me, it makes no sense why he wouldn't go all the way and kill the more dangerous criminals (aside from the Comics Code that is, which, aside from Denny O'Neil, is probably where all this BS comes from in the first place).

T. said: "This is why this supposed “darkness vs. light” ideological rift between Superman and Batman is so stupid and and doesn’t feel genuine."

It's more about clothing style. Superman is a "summer" and Batman is a "winter". Superman likes primary colors and Batman has that mask that's all scowly-like and angry.

Their differing opinions on what color the boxer-briefs you wear over your tights should be has caused YEARS of in-fighting and animosity. Trust me, I've seen friendships end over crap like that. It's how it goes.

There is little reason why an omnipotent being would need the regular assistance of a street level vigilante. It must be a struggle to give Batman a significant part without him becoming a Jimmy Olsen substitute - ie victim/hostage. That is why Superman becomes so much dumber whenever Batman enters the room.

So suggesting that Batman and Superman share profound philosophical differences justifies the comic's existence and gives the writers something to do with Batman. However, the overall effect is often detrimental to Superman - who is portrayed as excessively naive and ineffectual.

Superman has the power to stop a super-criminal by blowing on them. He also has the ability to physically destroy the planet, and probably nothing could stop him. So he's the guy who whisks people off to jail without a scratch on them, because otherwise, he wouldn't be Superman, he'd be Superjerk, and he'd be at war with the world.

Batman is just a detective; he has to break an arm or two sometimes to do his thing and stop the bad guy. So he's okay with it, and considers Superman's methods naive. But he won't kill - it's his quirk, and pretty much a pathological one. So when you narrow the power differential between them, Batman's still willing to go further than Superman, though sometimes still not far enough.

And Wonder Woman, well, she's almost Superman, but she'll do what the two of them won't. She'll kill to save lives if she feels it's necessary, she won't hesitate, and she'll stand up for her decision, pointing out after killing Lord that the other two can be high and mighty since she's already done the dirty work. It's a refreshing take on a female character compared to her male counterparts, and ties into her role as a dignitary.

Now, I didn't get into DC until 52 and had to read back, so I don't know my ass from my elbow on the history and I do know that this take on Wonder Woman is recent and seems sort of unpopular. But I think the trinity is a better concept than Superman/Batman, because Wonder Woman provides that element and puts a recognizable face on it that isn't Cable or Red Robin or whoever.

I like the enmity to tentative allies to mutual respect to friends arc, but I only want to read it once. If Busiek & McDuffie keep Superman & Batman friends, even through their differences, that's fine with me.

I thought much of Batman's problem with Superman had to do with (among other things) one man having the power of a god, and Batman's inability to trust making him unable to fully accept Superman. Superman doesn't like Batman's methods (which is, as T. pointed out, kind of stupid) or his pessimism and distrustful nature.

The difference between Batman and Superman has nothing to do with “darkness” and “light.” It has to do with the motivation behind both characters.

As (arguably) the most powerful person on Earth and (for a while) the last surviving Kryptonian, Superman is motivated to set a good example. He knows the world watches everything he does, and tries his hardest to make sure it is both helpful and meaningful. He wants to be to his fellow heroes and the rest of the world what his adoptive parents were to him — someone to look up to — and to be worthy of his planet’s legacy.

Batman is motivated by a desire to see justice done. He believes that fear, darkness and madness give criminals an unfair advantage over others. By becoming more terrifying, darker and more unpredictable than his foes, he seeks to balance the scales and make the world the kind of place where an eight-year-old will never have to see his parents gunned down in an alley. Unlike Superman, he doesn’t care what other people think of him — yet the limitations he places on himself are greater even than Superman’s.

Honestly, it depends on the writer. For some writers, it's explicitly about the darkness vs. the light, whatever that means. For others, it's the reason you say, that they have a difference in motivation or approach. But my point remains: even if you're right and it's just about one guy wanting to be a shining beacon and another guy wanting to scare criminals, WHY ON EARTH WOULD THAT KEEP THEM AT EACH OTHER'S THROATS FOR 10 YEARS? Especially given that they've saved the world side by side hundreds of times, both refuse to kill or use lethal force, both fight evil, both have the same mutual friends, both have the same mutual enemies, have both had top positions in the Justice League for years, and now in New Earth continuity they are once again founders of the JLA...what is the reason for 10 years of mutual enmity and barely grudging respect? It makes sense in Frank MIller to have that much tension and enmity because they ended up on fundamentally different sides of a major conflict. It made sense in Man of Steel because they were both fairly new and knew little about each other so naturally had a little bit or wariness and distrust. Today, after being teammates for years and founding members of the JLA, knowing each other's secret identities, fighting side by side for ten years in comic time, both sharing a revulsion with killing, after saving each other's lives countless times, you mean to tell me that all that is still outweighed by the fact that they dislike each other's fashion sense and social skills? It's a fundamentally stupid premise. First off, given that Batman has absolutely no powers, why would Superman hold it against him that he doesn't want to make a giant target out of himself by wearing bright clothes and doesn't want to be more socially approachable and nonthreatening to people? Is DC trying to tell me that Superman is such a moron that he can't understand why a man with absolutely no powers and invulnerability would want to cultivate a crimefighting technique of stealthiness and intimidation? To buy into this dynamic in the current DCU continuity is to admit that the characters are horribly petty and/or stupid and shortsighted.

Neither character would kill the Joker. Yet Batman would think nothing of breaking into Arkham Asylum, rummaging through sealed court documents or beating a henchman within an inch of his life in order to find the Joker and bring him to justice. Superman wouldn’t do that, and not just because he doesn’t have to. To him, it’s more important to do the job “right” than to get the job done.

I'm sorry, but it's very rare that Batman would beat a thug within an inch of his life. The only time I've seen him do things like that was right after Jason Todd died and he was becoming unhinged in the Bat-books and maybe a few isolated incidents outside that. If anything, I've seen more stories of Batman trying to protect criminals from unnecessarily brutal vigilantes than I have of him beating thugs within an inch of their lives. He may dangled thugs from rooftops sometimes or use intimidations or run of the mill beatings, but I've seen Superman stories where he uses intimidation and violence to get thugs to talk too. He may not beat them with all out punches like Batman does, but that's because he rarely punches nonpowered people in general due to his fear of killing them thanks to his ridiculous strength. But he's definitely scared thugs into talking by flying around the city dangling them or doing other things to frighten them.

And as far as Batman violating privacy and civil rights by going through sealed court documents, Superman has followed people, spied on them with X-ray vision in just about every decade of his existence, used his X-ray vision to peer into forbidden envelopes, objects and hideaways, used his super-hearing to do similar things. I do not buy this difference either, Sure writers SAY they're very different and repeat justifications in-story similar to what you've stated here, but in actual practice and actions they simply are not that different, or at least not different enough to explain why they can't get along after 10 years of saving the world hundreds of times, saving each others lives even more often, sharing the same friends and enemies and found and serving on the Justice League together. Writers only do it because they like Dark KNight Returns but never bother taking the time to think beyond aping the superficial aspects of their dynamic in that book to discover why it doesn't work in the current DCU.

To an extent, this division has always existed between the two characters.

I dunno about that -- the Pre-Crisis Superman was pretty cavalier about using his super-senses to perform the equivalent sort of prying, and the Pre-Crisis Batman was a deputized member of the Gotham PD at various points.

As (arguably) the most powerful person on Earth and (for a while) the last surviving Kryptonian, Superman is motivated to set a good example. He knows the world watches everything he does, and tries his hardest to make sure it is both helpful and meaningful. He wants to be to his fellow heroes and the rest of the world what his adoptive parents were to him — someone to look up to — and to be worthy of his planet's legacy.

Batman is motivated by a desire to see justice done. He believes that fear, darkness and madness give criminals an unfair advantage over others. By becoming more terrifying, darker and more unpredictable than his foes, he seeks to balance the scales and make the world the kind of place where an eight-year-old will never have to see his parents gunned down in an alley. Unlike Superman, he doesn't care what other people think of him — yet the limitations he places on himself are greater even than Superman's.

Neither character would kill the Joker. Yet Batman would think nothing of breaking into Arkham Asylum, rummaging through sealed court documents or beating a henchman within an inch of his life in order to find the Joker and bring him to justice. Superman wouldn't do that, and not just because he doesn't have to. To him, it's more important to do the job "right" than to get the job done.

To an extent, this division has always existed between the two characters. Prior to Miller and Byrne, both characters recognized and respected this difference: Batman understood the need for Superman to inspire others, and Superman appreciated the effectiveness of Batman's methods. After '86, things changed — though Byrne's version seems like it was intended to be temporary.

In his first Superman annual, for instance, there's a sense that the two characters are developing a respect for each other that could grow into friendship. I'm not sure who decided to keep the sense of opposition as the status quo.

What especially bugs me in batman books is when someone like the Joker escapes from Arkham (again), and in a mere CAPTION they say he killed 12 people. If these were mice in a terrarium, and every time you caught a mouse it'd just hop out of the terrarrium, I'd be looking for a better terrarium.

I think Batman's too afraid to kill someone like the Joker, else he'd become as bad as they are. I mean, how can he not feel a large degre of responsibility for Joker's murders if he keeps on catching Joker, scolding him, and locking him up in a mere revolving door?

But telling a story like that would remove Batman from his status quo. He'd either have to kill or he'd have to admit that he's glorified red tape, not actual deterrence. Whichever way a writer went, what would come out wouldn't be the Batman that has so meticulouly been created.

Hmm...Marvel has What If..., and DC has Elseworlds. Any regualr series where we follow a character through BOTH sides of a crucial choice? Like Sliding Doors?

The ideological difference has NOTHING to do with killing or violence and basically never has. Superman doesn’t like that Batman uses fear and intimidation to get his job done, while Batman feels that Superman SHOULD be using intimidation - being basically the most powerful being on the planet - more than he does.

That's my point...if they both don't kill and don't use excessive violence, and the only real difference is that one is a boy scout that smiles a lot and the other is a boy scout that just a little surlier and brusque, portraying their ideological differences as so extreme that they can't get along after 10 years (comic book time) of being colleagues and have such extreme enmity is just stupid. Either keep them both as boy scouts and make them chummy like they were pre-Crisis, or keep them as having a longstanding mutual enmity but create a REAL ideological difference to justify this longstanding dynamic. For them to be so fundamentally similar yet have such a dysfunctional relatonship just because Superman thinks Batman's costume is a little too scary makes them both look petty and ridiculous.

Post-Crisis DC writers, unthinkingly and slavishly aping Miller's Dark Knight, tried to recreate the dynamic from that book, but the reason why it worked in Dark Knight was because they DID actually have radically different approaches. Miller's Batman was really psychotic and abusive to criminals, while Superman "sold out" and was the government's stooge going against everything Batman stood for. In today's DCU, they have a similar dynamic, but what's the extreme ideological difference to justify it?

Don’t tell me we need a Knightfall II to put those on the back burner for another decade-and-a-half….

Knightfall was never a good refutation of the argument that Batman should be darker, because it used such an obnoxious and grating exaggeration of a dark Batman to make its point that the current Batman was the best choice. Azbats was such an exaggerated parody of a darker, tougher Batman, it almost lent more credibility to the people asking for Batman to be darker, because if editors needed to grossly exaggerate and demonize the opposing idea in order to make the current Batman incarnation look good rather than represent the opposing idea in a level and fair manner, it's like a tacit admission that their position was weak and couldn't stand up to a more objective and faircomparison between the two approaches. No one who was advocating a darker Batman requested the obnoxious, hallucinating, psychotic, ranting and raving extremist that was Azbats.

They never proved that a tougher Batman was a bad idea with Knightfall. All they proved was that they had to grossly exaggerate the idea of a tougher Batman while glossing over any of the possibl ebenefits of such an aggressive approach in order to justify the current criminal-loving version.