Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Does or rather is collateral damage a good way to determine a characters power level? City, planetary, galaxy?


If Hero A destroys a few city blocks when he's unleashing all his power in narration. Does that infer that, that is his highest level of power output? And if Villain B destroys universes as a side effect of a fight is his power considered multi versal?

It's a good way to get at least a ballpark on how powerful they are. If someone destroys an entire city block as a side effect after merely a single lazy swipe with his arm, we can at least assume that if he decided to put in any real effort it would wind up being significantly more powerful then city block destroying.

It's the same even as you go into higher levels of destruction. A character having to pour every single bit of his power into an attack in order to be able to destroy a planet isn't anywhere near the same as someone who destroys a planet without even specifically meaning to do so. We can't get an exact measure on how far above planet busting they'd be, but it'd be a safe bet to assume "a good deal above it".

Though you illustrate a perfect point, if a villain destroys a few universes as a side effect of a fight is his power multiversal? Well, for instance, what if a villain destroys a few universes as a side effect..but we also know that there exist thousands if not millions of individual universes inside even a single multiverse? Calling him multiversal might be technically correct while at the same time might also make him seem more powerful then he really is. Since destroying a few universes is impressive, but it's not even a blip on the radar if there are millions of universes in the multiverse.

Whenever Thor gets KO'd or dies and there is debris nearby is ALWAYS an indication of great power!

When it applies to any Superman or Hulk feat

Originally posted by Surtur
It's a good way to get at least a ballpark on how powerful they are. If someone destroys an entire city block as a side effect after merely a single lazy swipe with his arm, we can at least assume that if he decided to put in any real effort it would wind up being significantly more powerful then city block destroying.

It's the same even as you go into higher levels of destruction. A character having to pour every single bit of his power into an attack in order to be able to destroy a planet isn't anywhere near the same as someone who destroys a planet without even specifically meaning to do so. We can't get an exact measure on how far above planet busting they'd be, but it'd be a safe bet to assume "a good deal above it".

Though you illustrate a perfect point, if a villain destroys a few universes as a side effect of a fight is his power multiversal? Well, for instance, what if a villain destroys a few universes as a side effect..but we also know that there exist thousands if not millions of individual universes inside even a single multiverse? Calling him multiversal might be technically correct while at the same time might also make him seem more powerful then he really is. Since destroying a few universes is impressive, but it's not even a blip on the radar if there are millions of universes in the multiverse.

I dont know. I think it's tricky and an extremely slippery slope if taken too far left or right. Like take Sentry vs WWH for example. IIRC and correct me if Im wrong but Sentry was unleashing all his power. And i consider him planetary level but i know that's not what he displayed there. Even if he was focusing it solely on hulk because he knew hulk could take it. Still seemed pretty weak sauce (collateral damage wise) .

Side effect of a attack indicate power. If he can destroy a planet as side effect, he can for sure destroy a planet.

In other hand, if he dont show side effect, this dont mean the attack is weak or not capable of destroying a planet. Ex: Galactus attacks.

I think once you get into the high Herald level and above its a little hard to judge since a lot of them have the power to bust planets but when they hit a bad guy with "all.they've got" it's like a few city blocks destroyed.

it can get confusing, especially with characters like the ones from DBZ, how many times con you see shockwaves from characters hitting each other or powering up before its gets redundant? especially if their power levels keep on rising and the same effects are shown regardless of power level achieved

Originally posted by Sin I AM
Does or rather is collateral damage a good way to determine a characters power level? City, planetary, galaxy?


If Hero A destroys a few city blocks when he's unleashing all his power in narration. Does that infer that, that is his highest level of power output? And if Villain B destroys universes as a side effect of a fight is his power considered multi versal?

Collateral damage can add to a feat. Not take away from it, really.

That's the attitude I take, anyway.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Collateral damage can add to a feat. Not take away from it, really.

That's the attitude I take, anyway.

it's pretty much just an additive that doesn't tell the whole story. For example Odin.

Guy is destroying galaxies in a fight. But what he's not doing is knocking out a huge pussy in Seth when he's doing it. If something is that encompassing but fails to damage actual durable things, then how much stock can you put in it?

Would you rather throw a forest fire at a wet Carver or would you rather throw blue-white flames in a radius that only surrounds his body?

So the galaxy he was destroying ain't durable

Collateral damage is one of those things in comics that never really stands up to a lot of scrutiny.

Remember Spider-Man surviving the UN?

It's of no value in comics. Writers don't take collateral damage in equation when writing fights. Silver Surfer can destroy planets in one comic and not even a forest with all his power unleashed. How do you really compare that?

Originally posted by Insane Titan
When it applies to any Superman or Hulk feat

Originally posted by -Pr-
Collateral damage can add to a feat. Not take away from it, really.

That's the attitude I take, anyway. this

I'm with Paul in that it can only add to a feat and not detract from it.

Originally posted by Sin I AM
I dont know. I think it's tricky and an extremely slippery slope if taken too far left or right. Like take Sentry vs WWH for example. IIRC and correct me if Im wrong but Sentry was unleashing all his power. And i consider him planetary level but i know that's not what he displayed there. Even if he was focusing it solely on hulk because he knew hulk could take it. Still seemed pretty weak sauce (collateral damage wise) .

I think it's less a slippery slope and more just a selective application of physics by the writers. When they want to be dramatic or show how powerful people are they will show realistic consequences to their powers. But other times..well, you don't want Superman turning nearby bystanders into pulp as a result of a shockwave from one of his punches.

The Sentry thing was more just "everybody was jobbing hard to Hulk in that story". If he was truly going all out then the entire planet would of been vaporized. Except you can't really have that happen from a story telling standpoint, they were on Earth. Yet notice when Sentry cuts lose in the microverse he shows a massive energy output because f*ck the microverse.

Originally posted by Surtur

The Sentry thing was more just "everybody was jobbing hard to Hulk in that story". If he was truly going all out then the entire planet would of been vaporized. Except you can't really have that happen from a story telling standpoint, they were on Earth. Yet notice when Sentry cuts lose in the microverse he shows a massive energy output because f*ck the microverse.

This. Well said.