Round 1: John Marston vs. James Bond

[Gelgarin]

It's James Bond; and you've really got to be made out of solidified stupid to come to any other conclusion.

Non Bond (I never played RDR myself and can't be fucked to scroll up to learn the character's name) may be a crack shot, but he is armed with frontier era weaponry. That means that, immaterial of his level of skill, there are sharp limits on his weapon's range, power and accuracy. Bond has displayed capability with rifles boasting a potential range far in excess of what Non Bond is capable of. In a battle between the guy with high powered assault weaponry, versatile explosives and rifles accurate over several kilometers and a guy sporting a Remington #1, where do you think the smart money goes?

Bond's weapons also have far greater utility, faster and less frequent reloads and no end of other advantages. Add to that the level of bullshit gadgetry that Bond has at his disposal which includes, but is not limited to: bullet proof clothing, cars than can bring down a tank and a fully functional helicopter that fits in a fucking suitcase. One guy on a horse does not stand much of a chance.

Also: where the fuck is this "Bond isn't a good shot" nonsense coming from. Do I really need to start pulling examples out of the Bond cannon to disprove that? Bond can shoot a padlock off with an assault weapon from across a huge room whilst diving backwards onto a conveyor belt. He out dueled Scaramanga, the greatest gunman in the entire Bond cannon. How much more evidence do you need?

Bond is also well spoken and British, making him clearly the superior choice.

 

[¡Roján!]

I love you Ro, but c'mon man, that's such a ridiculous exaggeration. All you manged to do with that was cement my vote for Marston. Marston even without Dead Eye is a great shot, to suggest Bond is going to have a drink, fuck some bitch, save the world, & yadda yadda yadda, is just silly.

Marston would be unloading rounds on him there is no tomorrow. Sadly Bond will not get a chance to die another day, as Marston, an man who does need a license to kill, will be standing over Bonds rotting corpse with a view to kill. Marston rides into the next round.

Oh, of course it's an exageration, Marston is one hell of a shot, but I still can't fathom why anyone would vote for him. You all yammer on about Dead eye aim as if it actually means shit. If Marston at the beginning of the round had dead-eye aim at his disposal, then why couldn't Bond have one of his many bulletproof cars with him?

All Bond would have to do is run over Marston with his car, emerging unhurt.

However, seeing as I'm not sure whether dead eye is at Marston's disposal or Bond's cars are, if it came down to a duel with weapons only, I'd still back Bond's experience over Marston any day of the week.

Vote Bond. James Bond.