|Comic Battle >> View Post|
Subj: Re: Absurdity
Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 01:56:43 pm EST (Viewed 80 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Absurdity
Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 11:46:05 am EST (Viewed 12 times)
I'm having a tough time seperating your post from mine up above so with a bit of editing here goes some quick comments!
Quote:>>>> I honestly interepreted that scene as this: The Avengers just witnessed their beloved Thor go down. And emotionally, they all piled onto Superman. If you were out with a whole group of your closest friends, and you witnessed one of them get laid out, would you alone get pissed off, or would the whole group collectively get pissed off? I assume everyone close to the person would get angry. That's how the heroes reacted. My honest interpretation.
Nothing wrong with that. I myself just don't read it the same way is all.
Quote:>>>>> When making comparisons, you have to make apples to apples comparisons. Mangog uses brute strength/invulnerability to literally toss Thor around like a rag doll. Plus, you also have to look at the text. I believe it's been explicitly said Mangog is on another level of strength. Look at the interaction. Second, it's possible Sentry is stronger than Thor. The best example is how he virtually stalemated a very strong version of the Hulk. This Hulk was said to be stronger than previous versions, which Thor stalemated. Again, that's character interaction. Third, Namor actually has a feat recently where he supported a whole island. So I don't think he is the clear inferior. I'd say Hulk is stronger, but Namor recently has been getting a push.
Which goes to prove my point - it's easy to know how Namor measures up to the Hulk as they've fought and the Hulk has NEVER been able to overpower him barring a weakened Namor. Not in Hulk 118 where Namor Koes him, Not in Tales to Astonish 100, Not in Defenders 52... Namors track record with the Hulk is rock solid and in no way can you argue he's the weaker - there is zero evidence in print to support it as they have fought several times over.
Now if you didn't have that direct Comparison you would be possibly have an argument to say the Hulk is more powerful but in a shared universe everyone has fought everyone else at some point so there is a very clear picture set up. When Marvelman makes it into the MU he won't be more powerful than Thor, that's pretty much a given, just as when DC bought Majestic he was subsequently listed as Supermans peer, not superior!
I just do not think though you can extend your logic cross company as the set-ups in each are totally different, argue the Hulk or Thor is capable of overwhelming a Dragonball character for example, I dare you...
Quote:D: I only *know* that Namor is as strong as Thor/The Hulk because they have met and fought, Just as I only know Superman & Captain Marvel even out because they have met and fought. Just as I can only call Majestic/Apollo as they too have fought.
Quote:>>>>>> But you also know that Thor is relatively equal to Supes because they have fought. And we know Thor = Hercules through their multiple interactions. (arm wrestling draw comes to mind).
If you take JLAvengers as Gospel you know it is Thor With Hammer who is the player, the Hammer is a massive advantage to him as with it he can even the odds somewhat with more versatile opponents - and I shouldn't have to keep pointing that out. If Thor fought Gladiator or Extremis-Iron Man minus Mjolnir he'd be taking a dirtnap pretty quick.
As I also pointed out if you want that fight as definitive then by relation you accept Supermans Physical superiority over the other MU toptier Thor himself has been repeatedly seen to match and beat.
I'm tiring of the circular arguments. I know what you're doing here but be prepared to be hoisted by your own Petard if you keep insisting showings and provenance are an irrelevance when discussing matches on this board... there would be no board if Provenance wasn't a natural requirement.
Quote:D: That is not using provenance and it is not certainly not evaluating the facts between the two given characters. That is what I strongly object to - If I see Superman taking a star exploding on him and him sandwiched between two planets both in the same year among a trend for similar feats stretching back years I then have actual inarguable proof he can survive the Silver Surfers Morg/Ravenous takedowns where he detonates a planet.... whereas with Thor or the Hulk I have no such evidence and no reason to think such a thing possible! It's like arguing Wonderman or Ben Grimm can take a Nuke, where's the reason for even thinking it?
Quote:>>>>> Now you're talking durability more than strength. If Hulk takes a nuke, and Ben Grimm dies from it, then I say Hulk has greater durability than Ben Grimm. If Superman lifts a mountain, and Hulk fails to lift a mountain of equal mass, I say Superman is stronger than Hulk. But you have to make apples to apples comparisons when comparing environmental feats. You say, "Superman survived being sandwhiched between two planets. Hulk survived a nuke. Therefore, Superman must be more durable." I say those are not apples to apples comparisons and until we see whether or not Hulk can survive being sandwhiched between two planets of equal mass we simply can't tell who has the greater durability. If you have no apples to apples environmental comparisons, all you can do is go by character interaction! Hulk's durability when fighting Hulk has been shown to be at the least equal to Superman's, therefore, I rate them all relative peers. I have addressed this with you before, and I still have yet to see a counterargument from you on this one specific point.
Okay, So you say because Ben Grimm has never been seen taking a Nuke doesn't mean he can't? To which i point out he has been injured by less power than that - Liquid fuel in FF#263, The Torch himself, Doom, his durability has never been seen to be extreme enoough to take the sort of power a Nuclear scale blast would entail hence I feel confident in saying so.
You say you think we can't say the Hulk can't survive being crushed between two planets or taking an exploding Star because we've never seen him in that position - to which I reply does this extend to other characters in your view? If I've never seen Luke Cage Fall from Earth orbit can I just ignore all other evidence ruling against him surviving and use your deflective tactic?
If I've never seen Hourman try to lift a 60 story building can I ignore all other evidence contrary and say "Since we've never seen him try it, clearly he could do it"?
I can't use that formula. I just can't go through life on this board saying "we've never seen him/her in this position, so why not?".
You can't seriously say Wonder Woman could dive into the Sun and out of the other side when there is nothing whatsoever to support the idea.... and that is my point in a Nutshell.
If we see the Hulks highest strength feat in 45+ years failing to lift a Mountain(Range) we have an immediate sample of his upper limit right there. Next year he might launch himself at the moon and knock it out of Orbit, but until he does such a thing this is where he's at.
I also point out that if the Hulk has a solid track record of being Koed by Gastank explosions by what logic can we possibly argue he can take a Planet exploding?! If you want to think the Hulk can take the Silver Surfers best hits go right ahead, I myself need some form of proof and as we've seen over the Years the Hulk cannot take the Surfers energy Bolts any more than he can take invulnerable Shrapnel. I posted scans of a weakened Superman taking such attacks in his stride and made the comparison to even Byrnes weaker version of Superman but apparently that dichotomy doesn't count!
The upshot of all this is that if you or anyone ever objects to me saying Bob Kirkmans 'Invincible' Beats Thor I can just turn around and say "Sorry Guv, I don't need to *prove* anything here! Apples and Oranges mate... see Olorin."
Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows Vista
|Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software|