Previous Post Quote: I think Thor should beat the Hulk more often then not. The Hulk remains my favorite character, and yet if "I" were to write a battle between the two, I would pen it simply as a mano a mano affair, in which the Hulk in my opinion would have a distinct advantage. Jurgen's comments are empty when he doesn't back them up. Label it as "excuses" if you want, as I am not remotely interested in changing your mind on the matter at hand. To me however, it is very clearly bias in favor of Superman, especially when he follows up his comments by stating he feels Superman is "far" more powerful. Yet, he says that Thor will beat Superman. So how is that biased? He isn't Greg Pak. Quote: Regarding your comments on whether it is Superman's vulnerabilities or Thor's powers that would allow the latter to win, let me ask you this. In the Kingdom Come series, Superman cuts himself with Hephaestus' sword, with Wonder Woman cautioning him on its magical nature. Could Batman, while wielding said sword, injure Superman? Or does one need a measure of superpower to cause Superman harm, even when armed with a magical weapon? If your answer is "yes" that some measure of super power is needed to inflict injury, than it is reasonable to say that Thor's power does have some impact on the outcome, just as the Silver Surfer's ability to produce kryptonite or replicate radiation of a red star would have to be considered as important as Superman's inherent weakness to same should those two battle. Once again, I do feel that Superman is generally written as more powerful than Thor, but I don't consider him to be a superior character, as Thor has abilities that target a specific weakness of Superman. Superman has been cut by magical blades. Mjolnir isn't a magical blade though and in direct portrayal it hasn't shown that effect on him. And by your logic, someone like Captain Marvel should kill Superman with one punch. But they don't. Quote: Quote: While it is interesting to debate my opinions on Character A versus Character B with others, I do feel that a character's stature within their respective universes heavily impact their performances in company crossovers. It's fallacious to suggest otherwise. In my opinion, the simpler truth to all this is that Superman has always been far more important financially to DC than Thor is to Marvel, and so I doubt DC would agree to let one of their top two cash cows play second fiddle to anyone at Marvel, even if it were sensible. Hell, even Batman managed a win over the Hulk for Pete's sake, a battle that should have had Bruce Wayne turned into guano in about 2 seconds time. Quite frankly, I am amazed--nay, flabbergasted--that DC allowed Venom to fare as well as he did against Kal El, but I chalk it up to Venom being at the height of his popularity, whereas (IIRC) Superman titles were at one of their lowest ebbs in terms of sales. That's reasonable enough.

I don't mean to imply that I think magical attacks and weaponry are as much an Achilles heel for Superman as Kryptonite or radiation from a red star, things that knowingly diminish his godlike power to human levels. Superman's reaction to magic seems to vary widely between writers. To me, his "weakness" to magic is simply relative to his nigh-invulnerability against attacks physical in nature. For example, Superman can tank a nuke, whereas Joe Blow can not. However, if Joe Blow is hit with a spell that causes erectile dysfunction, Superman is likely to suffer the same if struck by the same spell. This is what prompted me to ask the question regarding Hephaestus' sword. Admittedly, I haven't read much Superman since the John Byrne days, so my knowledge of his feats are woefully behind the times. "I" feel that a non-superhuman will not be able to cut Superman, even with an enchanted sword (at least per average depiction). As I previously stated, I think a measure of super power is required. I may be wrong, as someone cited Superman succumbing to a vampire's bite due to its magical nature. I would think this to be an exception to the norm, although I may be wrong. Regardless, as you have mentioned, the sword and teeth are sharp instruments for piercing and cutting flesh, whereas Mjolnir is a blunt instrument. However, I find it almost impossible to believe that an item whose mass weighs in at about 37 lbs. (per older Marvel publications) can destroy celestial bodies without magic increasing Thor's striking power (unless Thor is swinging Mjolnir at near-light speeds to increase the weapons's mass, which I seriously doubt). Upon reflection, as this is a magically charged physical attack, perhaps I have given it too much stock when considering the battle's outcome between the characters in question. I will say this though, Thor has managed attacks with energy yields equivalent to that produced by thermonuclear weaponry, and while Superman has repeatedly been shown to survive attacks of that magnitude, he hasn't always done so unscathed. If such an attack can incapacitate the Man of Steel occasionally, then is it folly to suggest that Thor can win this? And even if Mjolnir fails, Thor can always fall back on his magical lightning as Captain Marvel did in Kingdom Come without the latter's fear of becoming mortal(although to be frank, I chalk this up to writer's prerogative, and not really indicative of Superman's average depiction).