Comic Battle >> View Post
Post By
The Last Word

In Reply To
J

Subj: Re: Marvel v. DC (Herc v. WW), from below
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:47:50 pm EDT
Reply Subj: Re: Marvel v. DC (Herc v. WW), from below
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:24:07 pm EDT (Viewed 49 times)


>
> > But here's my point -- if that's true, then doesn't that render DC's stated position that Supes is no. 1, which you've repeatedly referenced, false?
>
> No, because ultimately when push comes to shove Superman will be "it."
>

But then your logic fails entirely. WW can't plausibly be just as strong as Supes, and more skilled, and yet Supes is no. 1. You're just making up stuff at this point because your argument is flawed. Saying "ultimately when push comes to shove Superman will be 'it'" means nothing. That's your own unsupported conclusion. And to the extent you rely on DC editorial, then WW can't be as strong.

> Isn't your argument about CM being his equal then ALSO counterproductive to Superman being #1?

I'm not relying on DC editorial like you are. I think DC editorial is irrelevant.

>
> > Then that means that DC editorials are false. Frankly, I don't think they mean anything. But you can't use them in support of the argument that she's his physical equal, when if she was his physical equal she'd clobber him, thus rendering DC's official opinion regarding their relative status false.
>
> You only don't think that because it doesn't support your argument.

It doesn't support your argument, i.e., that she's as strong as he is but far more skilled. Again, I place no credence whatsoever in DC editorial.

>
> The fact of the matter is Superman has tried to kill Wonder Woman TWICE. If he was THAT much more powerful than her then he would have succeeded -- no amount of skill can compensate for THAT much strength and THAT much speed... she HAS to be highly durable to withstand his punches, she has to be fast enough to engage him and she has to be strong enough to hurt him.

I said she was in the ballpark, not completely out of her league. That much skill can compensate for the relative difference.

>
> > First, that's not true, as Trials of Shazam has not been retconned.
>
> Irrelevant. Trials of Shazam deals with Freddy's power source NOT Billy & Mary. Therefore the points still stand.

It does not. The CM power was transferred to Freddy from Billy. You want to say that because it went from Billy to Freddy, that the gods must have changed. That's nonsensical.

>
> > Second, and I am unsure about this, does the Captain Marvel power make the bearer as strong as Hercules, or does it imbue the bearer with the strength of Hercules? These are not the same thing. For example, Captain Marvel was turned inside out by a ray blast, but the durability of Achilles restored him. That doesn't mean that Achilles would react to the blast exactly the same way, however.
>
> How do you know that? For all we know it wasn't Achilles power but the magical body that was protected from the blast.

That's a red herring. Let me state this another way -- if CM has Achilles' actual durability, then his heel is vulnerable to attack. Please identify for me one instance when CM's heel was demonstrated to be less impervious than the rest of him.

Making matters worse, he doesn't even channel Achilles' durability per se. That's always assumed. It's Achilles' courage that he channels. So if it's Achilles' courage and not his durability, then how could CM be invulnerable, since there is no mention of invulnerability or durability, only strength and stamina. Saying his magic body is durable misses the whole point of the enchantment and further undermines your argument. If his magic body is durable without reference to the other attributes, then why isn't he strong without reference to the other attributes? You can't have it both ways.

>
> Captain Marvels form is not Billy. Billy is a 16 year old boy -- he doesn't literally turn into an adult... i.e, that isn't what Billy will look like when he's older. The form of Captain Marvel is Billy's idealized form: his father. The body of Captain Marvel is a magical construct. The "inside out" scene from JLA could be as simple as the magical properties of the body itself...
>

Fair point, except that the magical properties with which the body is imbued are based on SHAZAM! It's not like he has the power to cast spells, etc.

> > I am, however, not sure as to what the post-crisis evidence states regarding this point. Third, I don't think there's any evidence countering the amplification of CM's abilities by the power of Zeus. Indeed, if CM had the power of Zeus in its literal form, he'd have possessed all of Zeus's abilities, not just lightning.
>
> He has a portion of the Power of Zeus. That was explained in the Power of Shazam series as the lightning and the power to hold the magical form (i.e., he changed his costume).

So it's not the power of Zeus, it's a "portion" of the power of Zeus? So, then if it's not identical to the powerset of the named deity, etc., then how, prithee, can you be 100% certain that CM's strength EQUALS the strength of Hercules? It could be less, it could be more, couldn't it? How can you know it's exactly Hercules' strength?

The fact remains that CM does not have the exact powers of the SHAZAM characters. According to you, he doesn't have all of Zeus' power, just a portion of it. We've never seen a weakness in his Achilles tendon, so we know his durability isn't exactly the same as Achilles. Moreover, we also know that Shazam doesn't even have a durability component, just strength and stamina, so how is it possible to be invulnerable in the first place when, according to you, CM's body only possesses the exact powers of the Shazam characters. Accordingly, you cannot conclusively demonstrate that his strength of Hercules is the exact/literal/identical strength of Hercules.

>
> As far as Hercules goes: Shazam approached the demi God who agreed to grant him THAT portion of his own power. So, yes, the source of strength for Captain Marvel is the exact equal of Hercules.
>
> > Not quite. First, armwresting isn't necessarily based on strength, although strength is a component.
>
> You're right. It is also based on stamina. However Wonder Woman also bested Wonder Man in completely different scene, placed Hercules in a choke hold he couldn't free himself from, broke through Quasars constructs, walked all over the Wrecking Crew, etc... hell, she even engaged Thor..
>
> > Second, WW didn't beat Thor -- you can't necessarily conclude that she's as strong as Thor, who's stronger than WM, just because she was stronger than WM.
>
> The difference between Thor and Wonder Man is minimal. Therefore since Wonder Woman is strongER than Wonder Man than she should be, at least, equal to Thor.

Beating WM at armwrestling doesn't make her stronger than him.

>
> > I think the differences are small, but I think they're tangible.
>
> Thor lost to Superman... and a Superman who wasn't even trying to kill him.

He, according to his own words, turned it up to "11." Doesn't that mean he was going all out? Or is there a 12?