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

Which team?

Diana's got a major speed advantage over Thor, can counter his lightning with her bracelets, and can just dodge or deflect Mjolnir with her shield. Superman can pummel Hulk, toss him into space, or toss him around
DC team outclasses them

DCEU team has too big a speed advantage, though Diana is the least durable among all of them. I still feel like Hulk is the weak link here, just too one dimensional. Replace him with Vision and we'll have a better fight.

She tanked hits from Doomsday, the massive explosion from that warehouse, multiple blasts from Doomsday that disintegrated buildings, and an explosion from the Powerplant that Doomsday blew up, among other things

She's more durable than Hulk who got put on his ass by Chitauri laser fire imo

Team 1. There is little Hulk can do to stop Superman from doing exactly what he did to Doomsday (fly him into space), and then it's a 2-on-1 beatdown of epic proportions.

Wonder Woman's durability was weird. Given some of the impacts she withstood, she should really be more piercing proof than she was shown to be. I mean she can get smashed around by Ares hard enough to tear up the environment when she lands, but she got cut on her arm during the island skirmish with the Germans.

Originally posted by carthage
She tanked hits from Doomsday, the massive explosion from that warehouse, multiple blasts from Doomsday that disintegrated buildings, and an explosion from the Powerplant that Doomsday blew up, among other things

She's more durable than Hulk who got put on his ass by Chitauri laser fire imo

But she still needs to block bullets and gets hurt by human handheld weapons. Everybody else can tank most handheld human weapons.

Also, those chitauri sleds had enough firepower to rip through concrete and mess up buildings. Hulk taking on about 20 of them all pounding him is a lot more firepower than Diana ever took.

Originally posted by carthage
She tanked hits from Doomsday, the massive explosion from that warehouse, multiple blasts from Doomsday that disintegrated buildings, and an explosion from the Powerplant that Doomsday blew up, among other things

She's more durable than Hulk who got put on his ass by Chitauri laser fire imo

Wonder Woman never tanked hits or lasers from doomsday. She always blocked them with her shield. I posted a video showing this a while ago.
The last hit Doomsday hit Diana with she blocked it with her sword.

While Marvel movies are better overall, the DC characters are flying off the charts in overall feats, strength, stamina and durability and powers.

Superman alone could take on Thor and Hulk at this point so this isn't a fair fight.

As the feats we saw from WW the Movie, she could end up being a big enough pest in just her vs Hulk and Thor.

Thors lightning would be rendered useless and her shield would be enough to negate any hammer throws.

She would be way to fast for Thor. I have a feeling Hulk could giver her a real problem but with Superman and Wonder Woman in the fight I see Superman just wrecking Hulk at this point and he can take Thor with minor difficulty. He has no real way to put her down once you nullify his lightning.

What are Ares' best lightning feats?

He can wield and control god level lightning elements at will. But its more about her ability to control and manipulate it and then use it against him or in this case Thor. It literally has no affect on her but she can unleash hell with it. I saw you had not seen the movie yet, so I won't tell you anymore.

^ Thing is, Diana was able to control and block that lightning because she was specifically made to combat Ares . It probably won't work the same with Thor. She can probably block it but she won't be able to control it.

Thor and Hulk beat dat ass.

Originally posted by Sable
He can wield and control god level lightning elements at will. But its more about her ability to control and manipulate it and then use it against him or in this case Thor. It literally has no affect on her but she can unleash hell with it. I saw you had not seen the movie yet, so I won't tell you anymore.

My point is that saying she could handle Ares' lightning therefore she can do the same to Thor is a bit of a No Limits fallacy, I mean, would you be willing to say movie Wonder Woman would not be affected by comic Thor's strongest lightning strike?

Originally posted by Silent Master
My point is that saying she could handle Ares' lightning therefore she can do the same to Thor is a bit of a No Limits fallacy, I mean, would you be willing to say movie Wonder Woman would not be affected by comic Thor's strongest lightning strike?

Even if she could redirect Thor's lighting, it's not likely to hurt him. Ares isn't the God of thunder after all.

I haven't seen WW but I don't need to. Superman would handily solo with almost no effort.

Superman is a whole other level of strength and speed, Wonder Woman also beats them two in speed but is around their level in strength, her magical weapons ought to make up the difference. DC team wins.

Originally posted by NemeBro
I haven't seen WW but I don't need to. Superman would handily solo with almost no effort. This. I haven't seen WW yet either but Supes solos so it's irrelevant.

Supes could take them both, WW added = more of a beating for Team MCU.

Originally posted by Sable
He can wield and control god level lightning elements at will. But its more about her ability to control and manipulate it and then use it against him or in this case Thor. It literally has no affect on her but she can unleash hell with it. I saw you had not seen the movie yet, so I won't tell you anymore.

I've now seen the movie, what feats make you believe that Ares' lightning is either as or more powerful than Thor's?

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
Team 1. There is little Hulk can do to stop Superman from doing exactly what he did to Doomsday (fly him into space), and then it's a 2-on-1 beatdown of epic proportions.

Wonder Woman's durability was weird. Given some of the impacts she withstood, she should really be more piercing proof than she was shown to be. I mean she can get smashed around by Ares hard enough to tear up the environment when she lands, but she got cut on her arm during the island skirmish with the Germans. Her power is based off her emotions and belief. She didn't know she was superhuman at first. This reflected in her low physical stats (strength, speed, etc) in her training and before she realized what he was.
But in most media WW has always been more susceptible to piercing and cutting damage. It's an illogical weakness.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I've now seen the movie, what feats make you believe that Ares' lightning is either as or more powerful than Thor's? It doesn't have to be more powerful in order for WW to absorb Thor's lightning. Absorbing something and resisting damage are two different things. IM had no trouble absorbing it.

Originally posted by h1a8
It doesn't have to be more powerful in order for WW to absorb Thor's lightning. Absorbing something and resisting damage are two different things. IM had no trouble absorbing it.

The question was "what feats make you believe that Ares' lightning is either as or more powerful than Thor's?"

We can deal with your argument after you answer my question.

what makes you think Thors is more powerful?

So instead of answering my question, you want me to answer yours?

Originally posted by Silent Master
The question was "what feats make you believe that Ares' lightning is either as or more powerful than Thor's?"

We can deal with your argument after you answer my question.

By feats only, I'm not sure if we can determine if Ares lightning is more powerful. I don't recall him striking anything of known durability to compare (he probably did but I don't remember). What things of known durability did Thor strike with standing lightning (he pointed Mjolnir at target and shot lightning)?


I'm of the opinion that all lightning that comes from the sky is equal in quality.

I'm not really trying to debate right now, but trying to agree on a common ground as to create a basis on which we all can debate.

Like the other poster said, as shitty as most of DC's movies are, the feats from their top tiers eclipses that of the MCU. Whether Ares' lightning is stronger than Thor's is irrelevant. Thor's neck gets snapped the moment the fight starts.

Originally posted by h1a8
By feats only, I'm not sure if we can determine if Ares lightning is more powerful. I don't recall him striking anything of known durability to compare (he probably did but I don't remember). What things of known durability did Thor strike with standing lightning (he pointed Mjolnir at target and shot lightning)?


I'm of the opinion that all lightning that comes from the sky is equal in quality.

I'm not really trying to debate right now, but trying to agree on a common ground as to create a basis on which we all can debate.

So you think normal lightning can power Iron-man up to 475% power and take out leviathans?

Originally posted by Silent Master
So you think normal lightning can power Iron-man up to 475% power and take out leviathans?

Don't see why you make it sound unreasonable. Do you think "regular" lightning is weak or something?

Is it unreasonable to believe 1 ton of TNT can damage a Leviathan? Because that is roughly how much energy a single lightning bolt can contain.

A single lightning stroke can last up to 50 micro seconds (0.000050 sec).

Now imagine if regular lightning were to behave like Thor's lightning (continuous electric arc) for, lets say 5 seconds...?

In any case, WW was made specifically to counter Ares. So assuming she can absorb Thor's lightning because she did so against Ares is a weak argument. Better instead to cite her absorbing and redirecting Doomsday's energy blasts.

According to what I've found, lightning strikes generate between .5 and 5 gigajoules of energy. Tony's original arc reactor produced 3 gigajoules per second and could only power a suit for 15 minutes. yet Tony's new arc reactor can easily power his new suits for hours and yet a few seconds of Thor's lightning powered it up to 475%.

Doesn't sound like normal lightning to me.

Originally posted by Silent Master
According to what I've found, lightning strikes generate between .5 and 5 gigajoules of energy. Tony's original arc reactor produced 3 gigajoules per second and could only power a suit for 15 minutes. yet Tony's new arc reactor can easily power his new suits for hours and yet a few seconds of Thor's lightning powered it up to 475%.

Doesn't sound like normal lightning to me.

There are 3 issues I will give. But the 3rd one is the one that really matters. The 1st two are not necessary.

1.
If the arc can hold more than 100% (as shown in the scene) then Tony could have started above 100% initially before being struck by Thor's lightning. We see the percentage start to increase after 300%. But that doesn't mean Tony started at 300% or higher before Thor struck. But only it's a possibility. For the sake of debate, let's assume Tony's armor started at or close to 100%.


2. Tony's first suit was a lot heavier. It was made of real iron and much bigger. The new suit is made of lighter materials and much smaller. Also the newer suit is more efficient on power (like newer iphones are faster but have the same battery capacity and last the same amount of time as older iphones).

But the biggest issue is (the one that really counts)

3. Lightning strikes lasts for a fraction of a second (about 50 microseconds). Thor continuously absorbed lightning for over 3 seconds. This is more than 60,000 times more. So only giving Tony 475% is less than we should expect. Thus Thor's lightning is either normal lightning or less than it.

Originally posted by h1a8
There are 3 issues I will give. But the 3rd one is the one that really matters. The 1st two are not necessary.

1.
If the arc can hold more than 100% (as shown in the scene) then Tony could have started above 100% initially before being struck by Thor's lightning. We see the percentage start to increase after 300%. But that doesn't mean Tony started at 300% or higher before Thor struck. But only it's a possibility. For the sake of debate, let's assume Tony's armor started at or close to 100%.


2. Tony's first suit was a lot heavier. It was made of real iron and much bigger. The new suit is made of lighter materials and much smaller. Also the newer suit is more efficient on power (like newer iphones are faster but have the same battery capacity and last the same amount of time as older iphones).

But the biggest issue is (the one that really counts)

3. Lightning strikes lasts for a fraction of a second (about 50 microseconds). Thor continuously absorbed lightning for over 3 seconds. This is more than 60,000 times more. So only giving Tony 475% is less than we should expect. Thus Thor's lightning is either normal lightning or less than it.

1) Why are you assuming the arc reactor absorbed the energy and not the suit?

2) You're forgetting that he also had to use the original arc reactor to power his new suit in the final battle of Iron-man 1, so weight or efficiency had little to nothing to do with it.

3) The 3 gigajoules per second was from his original reactor, his new ones are literally thousands of times more powerful.

Originally posted by FrothByte
In any case, WW was made specifically to counter Ares. So assuming she can absorb Thor's lightning because she did so against Ares is a weak argument. Better instead to cite her absorbing and redirecting Doomsday's energy blasts.

This is a fallacy, saying "she can only counter Ares lightning" she was the daughter of the Zeus, the most powerful god, and the god of the thunderbolt.

Its a weak arguement to now shift from "we go by screen feats here" to "you can't use these screen feats."

She can absorb lightning and she will again.

Originally posted by Sable
This is a fallacy, saying "she can only counter Ares lightning" she was the daughter of the Zeus, the most powerful god, and the god of the thunderbolt.

Its a weak arguement to now shift from "we go by screen feats here" to "you can't use these screen feats."

She can absorb lightning and she will again.

Oh we're still going by screen feats. Screen feat has her blocking/absorbing Ares' lightning. Ares, for whom she was specifically built to defeat. Ares' lightning for whom we never really see just how powerful or destructive it is.

Originally posted by Silent Master
According to what I've found, lightning strikes generate between .5 and 5 gigajoules of energy. Tony's original arc reactor produced 3 gigajoules per second and could only power a suit for 15 minutes. yet Tony's new arc reactor can easily power his new suits for hours and yet a few seconds of Thor's lightning powered it up to 475%.

Doesn't sound like normal lightning to me.

Also, regular lightning is not capable of destroying acres of land mass like Thor's Jotunheim strike.

Laughable defense, she can block a Principle eternal god's lightning, but not a god that isn't really considered a god as Odin said. She the daughter of the god of the thunderbolt. The more I debate with you, the more I noticed you squirm around looking for ways you can exploit certain feats that benefit your argument, and discount others that don't, even if its coming from the same char.

Originally posted by Sable
Laughable defense, she can block a Principle eternal god's lightning, but not a god that isn't really considered a god as Odin said. She the daughter of the god of the thunderbolt.

Like I said, screen feats count. Name me a lightning strike feat from Ares that can compare to Thor's leviathan or Jotunheim strikes.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Also, regular lightning is not capable of destroying acres of land mass like Thor's Jotunheim strike.

You do realize that was an ice shelf, with no ground under neither it whatsoever ever. He hit one area and it caused the whole ice shelf to collapse.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Like I said, screen feats count. Name me a lightning strike feat from Ares that can compare to Thor's leviathan or Jotunheim strikes.

Jotunheim strike was a chain reaction due to it being an ice shelf, and the leviathan he needed the Empire State building to amp his attack, it also wore him out.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Also, regular lightning is not capable of destroying acres of land mass like Thor's Jotunheim strike.

Nor would it be enough to kill a leviathan, remember Jarvis said that Iron-man could drain his battery dry without even scratching their armor.

Originally posted by Sable
You do realize that was an ice shelf, with no ground under neither it whatsoever ever. He hit one area and it caused the whole ice shelf to collapse.

That ice mass was capable of supporting running frost giants and their giant monsters. It's not like our modern streets aren't hollowed underneath with sewers.

Originally posted by Sable
Jotunheim strike was a chain reaction due to it being an ice shelf, and the leviathan he needed the Empire State building to amp his attack, it also wore him out.

Also wore him out? You need to rewatch that movie again.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Also wore him out? You need to rewatch that movie again.

I believe you mean, you need to watch the movie.

Originally posted by FrothByte
That ice mass was capable of supporting running frost giants and their giant monsters. It's not like our modern streets aren't hollowed underneath with sewers.

The whole thing collapsed cause that one area he hit was weakened and the whole thing collapsed.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Also wore him out? You need to rewatch that movie again.

Do you want me to show him breathing hard and sucking wind and needing a break?

Originally posted by Sable
The whole thing collapsed cause that one area he hit was weakened and the whole thing collapsed.

LOL!!!

Originally posted by Silent Master
LOL!!!

You are denying this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSbyknf4vJ4

Your interpretation is massively biased.

Originally posted by Sable
Do you want me to show him breathing hard and sucking wind and needing a break?

Sure go ahead. And make sure that he was breathing hard and sucking wind from the effort, and not due to him being stabbed in the gut just minutes earlier.

Oh so you know what I'm talking about. In The other thread you suggested he was tougher then adamentium. You just proved yourself wrong.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Your interpretation is massively biased.

Biased against who?

Originally posted by Sable
Oh so you know what I'm talking about. In The other thread you suggested he was tougher then adamentium. You just proved yourself wrong.

1. I never suggested he was tougher than adamantium. You really need to stop making stuff up. You have a really nasty habit of lying.

2. How exactly did I prove myself wrong?

3. Do you agree then that Thor looked winded because of getting stabbed instead of being tired from generating lightning?

Originally posted by FrothByte
1. I never suggested he was tougher than adamantium. You really need to stop making stuff up. You have a really nasty habit of lying.

2. How exactly did I prove myself wrong?

3. Do you agree then that Thor looked winded because of getting stabbed instead of being tired from generating lightning?

You literally said Thor was tougher then adamentium. As for lying, you keep changing your story on feats, that's lying.

Originally posted by Sable
You literally said Thor was tougher then adamentium. As for lying, you keep changing your story on feats, that's lying.

Weird. Pretty sure this was what I said:

Originally posted by FrothByte
I never said that Asgardians or Asgardian steel is tougher than Adamantium. My claim was that it's also foolish to assume that adamantium is tougher than Asgardian or Asgardian steel.


Are you going to admit that you were mistaken?

Originally posted by Silent Master
1) Why are you assuming the arc reactor absorbed the energy and not the suit?

2) You're forgetting that he also had to use the original arc reactor to power his new suit in the final battle of Iron-man 1, so weight or efficiency had little to nothing to do with it.

3) The 3 gigajoules per second was from his original reactor, his new ones are literally thousands of times more powerful.

1. Possibly
2. I don't understand. We're both suits were shown to give only 15 minutes before completely running out of juice using the same arc? Or was it just the first suit you get the 15 minutes from?
3. Let's say his new suit can last 24 hours. This is 96 times longer than 15 minutes. So it's not thousands of times more powerful.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Also, regular lightning is not capable of destroying acres of land mass like Thor's Jotunheim strike. A lightning strike lasts from 10 to 50 microseconds. The Jotunheim strike lasted for seconds and thus having tens of thousands (at least) more energy.
And plus it was a domino effect. Destroying a critical area caused the whole shelf to collapse.

Thor absorbed lightning many seconds (using the building as a conduit) when he hit the leviathan. Remember a lightning strike lasts thousands of times less than any of Thor's Lightning feats.

Originally posted by h1a8
A lightning strike lasts from 10 to 50 microseconds. The Jotunheim strike lasted for seconds and thus having tens of thousands (at least) more energy.
And plus it was a domino effect. Destroying a critical area caused the whole shelf to collapse.

Thor absorbed lightning many seconds (using the building as a conduit) when he hit the leviathan. Remember a lightning strike lasts thousands of times less than any of Thor's Lightning feats.

IOW, Thor's lightning was at the very least tens of thousands of times stronger than a lightning strike.

Originally posted by h1a8
1. Possibly
2. I don't understand. We're both suits were shown to give only 15 minutes before completely running out of juice using the same arc? Or was it just the first suit you get the 15 minutes from?
3. Let's say his new suit can last 24 hours. This is 96 times longer than 15 minutes. So it's not thousands of times more powerful.


You seriously need to watch the movie, Iron-man basically drained the original arc reactor dry just flying across a city and having a short fight with the Iron-Monger.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Weird. Pretty sure this was what I said:



Are you going to admit that you were mistaken?

You said it's foolish to assume adamentium is tougher then Thor. It's right there.

Originally posted by Sable
You said it's foolish to assume adamentium is tougher then Thor. It's right there.

Correct. Because there is not enough evidence to base the assumption on. That is quite different from saying Thor is tougher than adamantium. Because it would also be foolish to assume that Asgardians are tougher than adamantium.

Again, I have proven that you like making things up. Now, the mature thing to do would be to admit your mistake.

Originally posted by Sable
You said it's foolish to assume adamentium is tougher then Thor. It's right there.

Right, but where did he say that Thor is tougher than Adamantium?

Originally posted by FrothByte
Correct. Because there is not enough evidence to base the assumption on. That is quite different from saying Thor is tougher than adamantium. Because it would also be foolish to assume that Asgardians are tougher than adamantium.

Again, I have proven that you like making things up. Now, the mature thing to do would be to admit your mistake.

Considering you have never admitted your mistakes, apologised to the numerous people you insulted, no thanks. I have nothing to admit except I admit you were wrong. You carefully shift your words and place them in context to make it obvious what you implied. You do this in every thread I have seen.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Correct. Because there is not enough evidence to base the assumption on. That is quite different from saying Thor is tougher than adamantium. Because it would also be foolish to assume that Asgardians are tougher than adamantium.

Again, I have proven that you like making things up. Now, the mature thing to do would be to admit your mistake.

You said it would be foolish to assume Adamentium is tougher then an Asgardian, now who's lying?

Originally posted by Sable
Considering you have never admitted your mistakes, apologised to the numerous people you insulted, no thanks. I have nothing to admit except I admit you were wrong. You carefully shift your words and place them in context to make it obvious what you implied. You do this in every thread I have seen.

So now you're saying he didn't actually say it, he just implied it?

Originally posted by Silent Master
So now you're saying he didn't actually say it, he just implied it?

You sit around here pressing refresh all day?

Originally posted by Silent Master
So now you're saying he didn't actually say it, he just implied it?

So saying "It's foolish to assume and "prove it" is agreeing that Adamentium is more durable then Thor? LOL

Originally posted by Sable
So saying "It's foolish to assume and "prove it" is agreeing that Adamentium is more durable then Thor? LOL

Do you understand English?

Says the wading to another person's debate while trying to play moderator.

Originally posted by Sable
Says the wading to another person's debate while trying to play moderator.

Another deflection. should I take that as an admission you in fact don't understand English?

I think you have a aggression problem.

I think you have a comprehension problem.

I noticed that about you as well. You also have an attitude problem.

Wow, a "no you' response. how original.

Wonder Woman or Superman solo

Originally posted by Silent Master
Wow, a "no you' response. how original.

More attitude.

Originally posted by Sable
More attitude.

Are you crying?

I'm eating at in and out, with my gf, how about you?

I'm with your gf too, under the table to be specific.

She doesn't go for internet midgets

By gf, he means his dog.

Or does she?

Originally posted by Silent Master
By gf, he means his dog.

Arnt you the one who was just complaining about personal attacks?

How can I attack something that doesn't exist?

You have proof?

Originally posted by Silent Master


So you have proof I have a dog, you made the claim.

dots

You said I had a dog, do you have proof, or did you just lie and make it up?

crazy

Still waiting for proof to back your claim.

How old are you?

artist

Originally posted by Sable
Considering you have never admitted your mistakes, apologised to the numerous people you insulted, no thanks. I have nothing to admit except I admit you were wrong. You carefully shift your words and place them in context to make it obvious what you implied. You do this in every thread I have seen.

This is what I said:



This is what you said I said:



Those are 2 different statements with different meanings. Thus proven that you either were mistaken about what I said (which you should admit to) or that you were flat out lying about what I said (which you continue to do so).

Also, it's spelled adamAntium... with an 'a' and not adamEntium.

Spell checking is the last stop in a losing argument. You lie in every post or just don't know what you are talking about, like the toddler argument you are using now.

Originally posted by Sable
Spell checking is the last stop in a losing argument. You lie in every post or just don't know what you are talking about, like the toddler argument you are using now.

I see you chose to focus on the least important aspect of my post. Again, completely ignoring that proof that you flat out stated something that I never said. In other words, you're trying to use a red herring so you can worm out of admitting that either 1. you were mistaken or 2. you were caught lying.

So when you,want to say something that makes no sense, you call it an analogy. Good grief. Just face it, your arguments are childish at best. You lie every time you misrepresent feats.

Originally posted by Sable
So when you,want to say something that makes no sense, you call it an analogy. Good grief. Just face it, your arguments are childish at best. You lie every time you misrepresent feats.

You're starting to get confused. That analogy bit was on a different thread. Stay on topic please, I know you're trying to dodge the fact that I just posted proof of you misrepresenting what I said.

You keep saying dodged, you dodged my entire post in the other thread detailing how wrong you are. This is called hypocrisy, do you know what that means, look it up. LOL

Originally posted by Sable
You keep saying dodged, you dodged my entire post in the other thread detailing how wrong you are. This is called hypocrisy, do you know what that means, look it up. LOL

Stick to the topic kid. Leave the conversation we have on a different thread alone. Now address my post properly. Were you or were you not mistaken on what you claimed I said?

Originally posted by FrothByte
Stick to the topic kid. Leave the conversation we have on a different thread alone. Now address my post properly. Were you or were you not mistaken on what you claimed I said?

Kid? I am older then you. No, you claimed I dodged, when you dodge yourself, thats hypocrisy. You been here doing this for 13 years? What a waste of time, getting up upset over comic debate, you must really have a big ego to stick around that long defending your honor.

Originally posted by Sable
Kid? I am older then you. No, you claimed I dodged, when you dodge yourself, thats hypocrisy. You been here doing this for 13 years? What a waste of time, getting up upset over comic debate, you must really have a big ego to stick around that long defending your honor.

Considering how often I've caught you lying I'm inclined to think you're probably lying about whatever age you think you are. Fact is, you're acting like a kid so you'll be called a kid. A real adult would man-up (or woman-up) and admit that they were mistaken when confronted with irrefutable proof that they misrepresented someone's words.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Considering how often I've caught you lying I'm inclined to think you're probably lying about whatever age you think you are. Fact is, you're acting like a kid so you'll be called a kid. A real adult would man-up (or woman-up) and admit that they were mistaken when confronted with irrefutable proof that they misrepresented someone's words.

Which is why I started posting Smilies, I figured that was about the level of his understanding.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Considering how often I've caught you lying I'm inclined to think you're probably lying about whatever age you think you are. Fact is, you're acting like a kid so you'll be called a kid. A real adult would man-up (or woman-up) and admit that they were mistaken when confronted with irrefutable proof that they misrepresented someone's words.

Nothing you presented as proof is irrefutable. Who made you the authority? Im wiling to start over if you drop this complex maneuver bs.

Originally posted by Silent Master
IOW, Thor's lightning was at the very least tens of thousands of times stronger than a lightning strike. Possibly but I already stated that it should be because of the time Thor took to absorb the lightning from the sky.

My argument is that Thor's Lightning is similar or weaker than real lightning. If real lightning struck something for more than 3 seconds then it would too be tens of thousands of times more powerful.

So Thor lightning is basic sky lightning but only more of it. The quality of it (substance) is exactly the same as normal lightning.