The Thor Message Board >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Sun Jul 30, 2017
Posts: 884
In Reply To

Member Since: Sun Jan 02, 2011
Posts: 2,113
Subj: Good Points However
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 at 05:02:15 pm EST (Viewed 224 times)
Reply Subj: A good point, but that ship has sailed.
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 at 10:43:25 am EST (Viewed 260 times)

    I think the ship has largely sailed on this issue. Originally my namesake, Roger 'Red' Norvell, required the Belt of Strength, the gauntlets, and the Fires of Gierrodur to equal the strength of Thor. When Simonson introduced Beta Ray Bill, he was already equal to Thor in strength. Walt has since stated (IIRC), that Bill didn't gain any strength from the hammer (correct me if I'm wrong anyone).

I believe you are correct.  Beta Ray Bill did not gain any strength from the hammer, at least not notable.  

    However, when Masterson acquired Mjolnir, he gained most or all of Thor's physical power. As did Dargo in the future. Jake Olsen is a bit more complicated.

Hi Norvell!! Thanks for your reply. It's good to see you back being active again on this site.  I think you may be helping me to establish my point.  You stated:  Masterson "may" have gained most of Thor's physical power so there is doubt here for inquiry.  The question begs--Why would Thor state on several occasions his strength is a direct result of his godly birthright?  Implying his physical power has nothing to do with Mjolnir but is a direct result of his godly heritage? If this is true, then his physical power cannot be fully duplicated by artificial or mystical means and bestowed to someone else.  Perhaps a great deal of it but not 100 percent.

 photo Thor2_zpscczar2ao.jpg

 photo Thor3_zpstrqpzmuz.jpg

    So while you make a good point about the original intended nature of Mjolnir, DeFalco already set the precedent and it hasn't been rolled back.

Quite a coincidence that you mention DeFalco here. While you say he set the precedent, I believe he's a source who adds ambiguity to the topic.

It was DeFalco who had Loki state Masterson did not possess Thor's full strength when they battled for the first time. While we all know Loki is the master of lies, many lies have shreds of truth in them. Loki even states he has no need to resort to deceit to defeat Masterson, a mere mortal, albeit, with Thor's power in physical combat.

 photo Thor4_zpsiozvjnsg.jpg

 photo Thor5_zpsql2aiyrs.jpg

While I do believe Loki is lying to Masterson about him only wielding a tenth of Thor's strength, it's legitimate to question if he does indeed possess all of Thor's physical power based on his lack of durability and stamina in this fight. Thor has fought Loki many times over the years in this same exact scenario and never had busted ribs or was wobbly on his feet. Loki dominated this fight so quickly and decisively. I know Masterson's experience plays a factor but this battle appears to give credibility to Thor's statement of his strength being only his based on birthright.

Your thoughts?

Posted with Google Chrome 63.0.3239.84 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2018 by Alvaro Ortiz and Dave Galanter. Software Copyright © 2003-2018 Powermad Software