User blog comment:Cfp3157/Galahad vs. Batman/@comment-4698460-20151210015618/@comment-4661256-20151210183444

At the risk of coming across as a superhero fanboy (which I'm really not, I'm just annoyed at the gross generalizations present in this vote), I'd like to refute several of your points.

You claimed that the EMP and exposive paste gun won't help Batman much. The EMP can disable Galahad's glasses (which you claimed would help Galahad against Batman - so there's that piece of assistance gone). I fail to see how a gun that shoots out explosive gel is not useful -- you can shoot it at your enemy and blow them up, or coat the environment with the paste and set up a trap... there is quite a bit of tactical and operational variety available when using that weapon.

At the end of your vote you say that "All Batman has taken down are thugs who don't know one end of a gun from another," but I'd like to disagree. In Dark Knight Rises alone, Bane and his League of Shadows mercenaries were able to take over Gotham City and place it under martial law -- and this is Gotham City, a bustling metro that is likely home to millions (in other words, not a city that the police and paramilitary would give up easily). In the Dark Knight, the Joker and his henchmen are a bunch of highly organized terrorists who deliberately utilize terror and chaos to undermine the authorities. And, y'know, in Batman Begins, he takes on Ra's al-Ghul and Scarecrow (again, two very different but competent foes). If anything I'd say that Batman has taken on "about everything under the sun." He's just got way more experience under his belt by virtue of being in more movies.

Basically, you give Batman no credit for his enormous stealth capabilities, his advantages for fighting on his home turf, and you grossly downplay the combat experience that he has gained over the years. For these reasons I think your vote is inaccurate.