Comic Battle >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
In Reply To

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 3,077
Subj: Re: Dan Jurgen's take on Darkseid, Doomsday, and Superman
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 at 01:53:32 pm EST (Viewed 232 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Dan Jurgen's take on Darkseid, Doomsday, and Superman
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 at 10:10:52 pm EST (Viewed 261 times)


      Doomsday wasn't defeated. He just got knocked into a structure and buried by rubble. He dug out right away and then beat Darkseid to the point that he would have died had Superman not come along with a motherbox.
    Of course he was. Darkseid even waits for him to get up for some time and then moves on.

No, Darkseid just takes a few steps before Doomsday emerges from the rubble.

    Its a clear loss by any means. In fact Doomsday's bio in countdown shows the time Doomsday has died and it shows the Darkseid conflict suggesting Darkseid actually killed Doomsday who resurrected to become even more powerful to defeat Darkseid.

"Suggesting"? No, it's you doing the suggesting. Doomsday doesn't die and revive right away. Doomsday was dead for a long time after Radiant killed him. Doomsday was dead for a long time after Superman killed him. Doomsday was dead for a long time after Imperiex killed him and in that instance was only revived by Lex Luthor much later.

    Yes, he punched out Darkseid but that version of Doomsday would do the same to any skyfather level being. He was just that physically powerful.

That's purely your exaggerated speculation. Imperiex one-shot killed this Doomsday.



        What's even more interesting is that Jurgens stated Superman is millions of times more powerful than Thor. I guess that must be true too.
      Funny thing is that statement is the only thing from the interview that Jurgens retracted.
    Yes, under the pressure of Thor fans. But we're taking everything from the interview as face value, so be it.

That's not how evidence works. If the subject of the interview retracts what he stated, that means it's not to be used as evidence. But this only hurts your case. So far you've been trying to undermine what Jurgens says, but the moment Jurgens says something you approve of about Superman being superior to Thor (though he also said Superman would lose to Thor in a fight), you want to affirm it. Funny how that works in your mind.


      See, I'm not even saying I agree with Jurgens. I think Darkseid should be more powerful than Superman. But plainly one of Superman's pre-eminent writers thinks differently, which just happens to directly and grossly contradict your take that Darkseid is a skyfather-level being who can defeat Superman-level foes easily.
    Darkseid did defeat superman level foes easily though under Jurgens. He oneshotted Cyborg Superman like nothing and sealed his soul in a container. Cyborg Superman under Jurgens has oneshotted Superman before.

You're being misleading again. That wasn't a one-shot. But I guess you think Cyborg Superman is more powerful than Superman now. Can he lift half of infinity too? (LOL!)

    What Jurgens says in interviews and shows in comics are two different things. As you say interviews are irrelevant.

You're right that I don't take interviews seriously. I made that caveat from the start and just posted this interview for people who do. And YOU are one of them as you often cite interviews as supporting evidence. Of course now that the interview blatantly contradicts you, now you want to say it's irrelevant. So are all the interviews you've used in the past irrelevant too?

How to make an entrance:
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software