though when comparing two universes its usually the best we've got...
I've always held that direct comparisons are best, so yes, it would allow 'tiering up' if thats what saying Thor or Hulk could have done the same thing would entail.
Likewise, Captain Marvel doesn't have as many showings as Superman,and not as many top end feats...neither does Black Adam...but any feat I see Superman pull off when not powered up, I'll say they're capable of. Orion too.
I fall short of saying that Wonder Woman or Martian Manhunter can, as I consider them to be definitively weaker, though close enough that they could be considered in the same general ballpark.
In Marvel, I take the multiple direct tests of strength Thor and Herc have had, Thor's direct test of strength vs. an enraged Hulk, and Eric Masterson Thor matching Gladiator in a direct test of strength as indications that any difference in their strength levels is minimal...unless they're powered up, feats done by them would be replicable by any of the others.
Incidentally, I'd like to say that if the same writer put Thor or Hulk in the same situation, he'd have them capable of doing the same thing Hercules did...
> Although, I don't see how the ground between Atlas and Hercules remains intact if they are literally pressing the mass of the universe. Kind of like the Spectre landing on the Moon and the Moon not shattering. People here invoke that all the time to prove that Spectre isn't all too heavy, and thus Superman and Wonder Woman carrying him isn't all too great a feat, but are not doing the same with Hercules' feat, which confounds me.
| > |
> Also, I find it odd that people are using this unprecedented feat to tier-up all the characters who have matched-up with Hercules, but do not do the same for Superman's peers when Superman executes an enormous, "ridiculous" feat. This also confounds me. Of course, if this feat tiers-up Marvel characters, then, to be fair, it does so for DC characters, too, by way of the Marvel/DC crossovers.
> Personally, I don't subscribe to that point of view, but fair is fair.
It all matters equally to me, and I would consider it all if asked to research and write a character. I'd also look at "common depictions," i.e., the ballpark in which a character typically operates. I weigh those as much as high, mid, and low end showings; as well as failed feats, struggled feats, and easily achieved feats.
The example I like to give is this: Superman is seen benching the composite mass of a billion multiverses. But, for the next 20 or however many years, is never seen lifting more than a single twenty pound bag of flour each month. He doesn't struggle with them, or comment that they are heavy. He handles them just fine. I still wouldn't characterize him as a billion multiverses-level dude, despite having no struggles or failures, as it's just not the ballpark in which he usually plays. It's not his common depiction, in other words, so I wouldn't go by it.
Incidentally, I'm not trying to promote this method of analysis or argue its worth, just saying were I stand.