Pic related.

Jokes aside, while I personally like Flash, he's also a fucking Mary Sue just like Supes and Batman, just less popular. And Luther vs. Superman is a fair fight only because Luthor willingly puts himself and others in harms way with the full knowledge that Superman either won't kill the people, or through inaction allow them to die, and manipulates things through smarts and influence. It's not a straight fist fight that he would win, and it's interesting to see Superman languish in spite of his godliness to a mere human. You can agree or disagree, but that's why I've always found Luther vs. Superman and Batman vs. Superman to be some of the most interesting situations. For all his power, Superman can be rendered impotent due to his own imposed limitations. I don't think it's a case of a favorite being able to beat a space god because of favoritism, but rather an illustration that might doesn't necessarily make right, which is contrary to most of Superman's existence.

I can tell you aren't in agreement, but that's why I've always like Batman in spite of people trying to argue that he's a Mary Sue as bad as Superman. Maybe he is a Mary Sue, but the way he is overpowered I find interesting since it involves him, more or less a normal human (abnormally fit and strong, but not a superbeing) beating things that are faster, stronger, smarter, and quicker than himself through cunning and being rich. I like it. And Batman has lost in big ways before, as any fan would know (Robin getting killed by Joker and the Batman getting his spine broke by Bane being two of the biggest ones) so I am not sure why you are acting like his existence is free from loss or consequences. It's not, and while I don't know a ton about Supes' comics, I don't think even his is either.

What it comes down to is what flavor of magic Mary Sue you like. I like Batman's because it feels more believable, while those of Flash and Superman don't. In my opinion, it's that simple.

They still died alone. They were entombed with other people.

True enough.
I'm just spouting hypotheticals. I don't honestly think the CIA is the major force behind the creation of ISIS, I just don't think the U.S. is completely blameless in the creation of ISIS. Regardless of the origin of the group, they're a reactionary movement with a grudge.
There is no proper reaction to the group. Responding to them in any way only legitimizes the group in their own eyes. Fighting them only encourages them to fight back against the group they feel to be the invaders. Ignoring them overtly only encourages their behavior. Wiping them off the face of the earth will encourage likeminded groups to rise up and view them as martyrs. Retreating will encourage them to try to take more ground.

The only true response is either glassing the world, or a full retreat from all outside military ventures. Either we kill literally everyone and become the villains they feel we are, or we stop setting ourselves up to play the antagonist to every tinpot dictatorship, and let them fall when they no longer have a villain to use as a threat.

>everybody [...] except the actual likable heroes
>The second part of the post is showing how the Flash, aka, one of the single best written heroes, is more dangerous than Superman, who's the boring magic space god incarnate

Bruh, are you even trying? Did you even read the post, or are you just saying a contrary opinion for the sake of conflict?
Above, you're stating that your problem is that people think Batman vs. Superman is impossible while saying Luthor vs. Superman is a fair fight. I don't have that problem. I don't think either is a fair fight. They're humans, trying to face off against the stereotypical boring, invincible hero. It's a curbstomp battle in Superman's favor, as far as actual power goes. Superman could really only lose due to the writer having Superman throw the fight.
I have the same issue with this as you do, just a different view of what the actual problem is. My view on the problem is they're setting up what is literally a curbstomp battle in favor of the boring guy, then handing the fight to Batman on a silver platter because he's the fan favorite, and having him become a more boring character because he suddenly loses all ability to lose due to being the fan favorite who beat the space god.
It makes comic plots predictable as fuck, and it makes actually interesting characters boring as fuck. It's why the Flash and the Green Lanterns stay interesting, but Superman and Batman are getting more boring with each passing writer: they aren't fan favorites, and they aren't literally invincible, so they aren't forced into the role of an infallible hero. They fail, and when they fail, they have to deal with the consequences. And, if they fail badly enough, they die. If they die, they are mourned, and, if the time is right, they are replaced.
It's why I like the majority of characters: they aren't Batman, or Superman, and they aren't trying to be them. Batman and Superman bore me to fucking tears. They're put on a pedestal by comic fans, and both are written to be infallible. They're effectively gods, one from powers, the other from favoritism. And gods are boring to read about.

Pic related.

Jokes aside, while I personally like Flash, he's also a fucking Mary Sue just like Supes and Batman, just less popular. And Luther vs. Superman is a fair fight only because Luthor willingly puts himself and others in harms way with the full knowledge that Superman either won't kill the people, or through inaction allow them to die, and manipulates things through smarts and influence. It's not a straight fist fight that he would win, and it's interesting to see Superman languish in spite of his godliness to a mere human. You can agree or disagree, but that's why I've always found Luther vs. Superman and Batman vs. Superman to be some of the most interesting situations. For all his power, Superman can be rendered impotent due to his own imposed limitations. I don't think it's a case of a favorite being able to beat a space god because of favoritism, but rather an illustration that might doesn't necessarily make right, which is contrary to most of Superman's existence.

I can tell you aren't in agreement, but that's why I've always like Batman in spite of people trying to argue that he's a Mary Sue as bad as Superman. Maybe he is a Mary Sue, but the way he is overpowered I find interesting since it involves him, more or less a normal human (abnormally fit and strong, but not a superbeing) beating things that are faster, stronger, smarter, and quicker than himself through cunning and being rich. I like it. And Batman has lost in big ways before, as any fan would know (Robin getting killed by Joker and the Batman getting his spine broke by Bane being two of the biggest ones) so I am not sure why you are acting like his existence is free from loss or consequences. It's not, and while I don't know a ton about Supes' comics, I don't think even his is either.

What it comes down to is what flavor of magic Mary Sue you like. I like Batman's because it feels more believable, while those of Flash and Superman don't. In my opinion, it's that simple.

If there was a situation that put Batman in conflict with most other members of the Justice League, he would be dead faster than he could say "Quickly, Robin! To the Batcave!"
He could theoretically survive against Wonder Woman or Green Arrow. And I'm not entirely sure about him surviving against Wonder Woman; she's on par with Aquaman in terms of sheer physical strength, and she has decades of combat experience, access to and training with most weapons (several of which are available in magical varieties), near physical invulnerability, and command of a literal army of soldiers who are almost as dangerous as she is.

Putting Batman against any League member isn't a normal situation. You can't assume the character against Batman would behave how they normally would. In Injustice, Barry Allen sides with Superman. Hal Jordan believes Sinestro when he says Guy Gardener killed Jon Stewart.
These characters aren't behaving how they normally would in the mainstream DC continuity. This abnormal behavior is exactly what puts them in conflict with Batman. And this is why they're able to kick the shit out of Batman, even after he pops his super-steroids.

If Batman suddenly went evil, Barry could retcon it, Superman could stick him in the Phantom Zone, Wonder Woman could permanently tie him up with the Lasso of Truth (probably even before they fought; Evil Batman is probably into bondage), Aquaman could straight-up kill him (Aquaman gives no fucks about your concepts of disproportionate retribution), Martian Manhunter could brainwash him to be good again, and Green Arrow could get rekt in about five seconds.

tl;dr: If your situation depends on Batman fighting a fellow League member, it depends on abnormal circumstances, meaning what someone would normally do isn't a real factor. If they're fighting, expect neither side to show mercy.

The thing is, if they're being influenced by Al-Quaida or some other similar faction, they aren't spontaneously turning on the U.S.
Al-Quaida has been opposed to the U.S. interest in the area for the past several years, and they have "inspired" (translation: funded, or disguised their operations as the acts of) similar groups. If Al-Quaida and/or similar group(s), or former/current leadership of Al-Quaida and/or some similar group(s), is/are in direct control of ISIS and/or influencing its actions, then two things are true: 1. The people influencing the actions of ISIS are against the U.S., and have been so for more than a decade, and 2. The people influencing the actions of ISIS received funding and training from U.S. intelligence operatives.

True enough.
I'm just spouting hypotheticals. I don't honestly think the CIA is the major force behind the creation of ISIS, I just don't think the U.S. is completely blameless in the creation of ISIS. Regardless of the origin of the group, they're a reactionary movement with a grudge.
There is no proper reaction to the group. Responding to them in any way only legitimizes the group in their own eyes. Fighting them only encourages them to fight back against the group they feel to be the invaders. Ignoring them overtly only encourages their behavior. Wiping them off the face of the earth will encourage likeminded groups to rise up and view them as martyrs. Retreating will encourage them to try to take more ground.

The only true response is either glassing the world, or a full retreat from all outside military ventures. Either we kill literally everyone and become the villains they feel we are, or we stop setting ourselves up to play the antagonist to every tinpot dictatorship, and let them fall when they no longer have a villain to use as a threat.

I like the cut of your jib.

It is an old sailing term talking about the flag that a ship flew.

When someone says that they like the cut of your jib they mean, "I like you." No homo.

They're not wrong. The plot for New Vegas was recycled from the plot for a cancelled project by the original team behind Fallout 1 and 2 under the code name "Van Buren", which was revealed to be their plan for Fallout 3. All they did to change it was tweak the story a bit (your character was originally a prisoner, and you would have met Joshua Grahm as "The Hanged Man" in the start of the game [as a Pariah Dog style companion] if you failed a Luck check). People who know this occasionally have the opinion that New Vegas was a better vision of what Fallout 3 should have been. And they're fucking right. Bethesda had Obsidian do all the work for NV, and Obsidian blew the devs for 3 out of the fucking water. New Vegas wasn't just a better Fallout story, it was a better game.

Really? Because I googled "fallout shelter mr handy" and this was on the first page of results.
gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/231717/how-do-you-get-a-mr-handy
It literally shows a screenshot with someone saying they got one from a lunchbox. Other answers to the question say "you can get one by either buying it or from a lunchbox".
So, yeah, not only are people making the claim, they're saying it's happened to them.

Luck of the draw.
It's an ultra-rare item, which puts your odds of getting one on the same level as a Fat Man or most non-random dwellers: slim. Even then, if you get an ultra-rare instead of a rare, it draws at random from the ultra-rare pool.

I'm lucky on my lunchbox items. Two suits of the +5 Endurance power armor, Bittercup's outfit, two dwellers (one of which was Bittercup, so I have two of her outfit now), and my first lunchbox had my first Mr. Handy.
It's the RNG.