Luke Cage vs. Loki

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



FrothByte
Pure h2h fight in a parking lot. Winner via KO, submission or death. Combatants know nothing about each other. Who wins?

KingD19
Luke is definitely stronger, but Loki can probably take all the beatings he can dish out if he takes hits from Thor and Hulk.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by FrothByte
Pure h2h fight in a parking lot. Winner via KO, submission or death. Combatants know nothing about each other. Who wins?

Loki after Cage getting tired of not being able to K.O him.

ShadowFyre
I doubt Luke is stronger

KingD19
Originally posted by ShadowFyre
I doubt Luke is stronger

What feats does Loki have that show him as stronger? Fighting Thor doesn't count as he doesnt use strength to do that.

FrothByte
Originally posted by KingD19
What feats does Loki have that show him as stronger? Fighting Thor doesn't count as he doesnt use strength to do that.

To be fair, he's thrown and manhandled Thor a few times. I do think you some considerable strength to do that. Plus a full kick from Cap didn't budge Loki.

Robtard
Loki wins, stronger, more durable and a better fighter, he's had decades at least, though likely centuries of Asgardian martial training

nfactor1995
Loki. Better at everything.

tkitna
Not sure Cage would have survived the Hulk beating Loki got.

https://media0.giphy.com/media/12xOv7MOVSpX8I/giphy.gif

Robtard
A shotgun to the chin put Cage in a coma for a couple days. That thrashing would have messed him up more. Edit: Could even say the exploding arrow Loki took to the face would have likely KO'd Luke for a bit.

Plebeian Asgardians are probably around Luke's level, Loki while not an Asgardian, is comparable to the higher ups.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by tkitna
Not sure Cage would have survived the Hulk beating Loki got.

https://media0.giphy.com/media/12xOv7MOVSpX8I/giphy.gif

Agree, however i don't see Loki being stronger than Luke.

I see it more like Luke not being able to put down Loki, and Loki not being able to out-power Luke.

Silent Master
Loki wins due to being a much better fighter.

TheVaultDweller
Originally posted by Robtard
A shotgun to the chin put Cage in a coma for a couple days. That thrashing would have messed him up more. Edit: Could even say the exploding arrow Loki took to the face would have likely KO'd Luke for a bit.

Plebeian Asgardians are probably around Luke's level, Loki while not an Asgardian, is comparable to the higher ups.

A few things about the shotgun:

1. It was actually a single day, based on the JJ timeline (Luke gets shot the one evening, they have the hospital bit, then move him to her apartment with Claire's help, and then off Purple Man later that next evening). Even according to Claire on Luke's show own show, she only watched him for a few hours.

2. Either Kilgrave virus contributed to his state, or it is massive PIS. Because he was actively straining his mind, fighting against Kilgrave when he was shot. And he woke up immediately, totally fine, the moment Jess killed him. Because, since then, he took standing inside an exploding bar, an impact from a rocket launcher, as well as multiple hard hits to the same area as the shotgun, without being seriously hurt. Like an Iron Fist from Danny, or even this knee from Diamondback.

https://imgur.com/a/3tc34

And then that's not getting into the SUV, eating a garbage truck to the face etc. Hell, the Judas bullets exploded inside his body, past his skin layer, and he was able to still fight off Diamondback and some cops after being shot.

Anyway, Loki still wins. Luke can't KO him.

h1a8
Originally posted by FrothByte
To be fair, he's thrown and manhandled Thor a few times. I do think you some considerable strength to do that. Plus a full kick from Cap didn't budge Loki. It did budge him. It just didn't make him leave his feet, which is PIS. Loki weighs less than 200lb. So Cap not having the strength to launch him is PIS.

He didn't manhandle Thor. Do you know the definition of manhandle?

FrothByte
Originally posted by h1a8
It did budge him. It just didn't make him leave his feet, which is PIS. Loki weighs less than 200lb. So Cap not having the strength to launch him is PIS.

He didn't manhandle Thor. Do you know the definition of manhandle?

It didn't budge him off his feet. Happy?

This is the definition of manhandle:


Loki grabbed Thor by the nape and smashed his head into some railings. Yes, that's manhandling.

relentless1
Nah, Loki is stronger; he fought on par with Thor and bitchslapped Cap in Germany, above Cages pay grade as far as strength goes

h1a8
Originally posted by FrothByte
It didn't budge him off his feet. Happy?

This is the definition of manhandle:


Loki grabbed Thor by the nape and smashed his head into some railings. Yes, that's manhandling.
Post the showing. I want to see Thor trying to resist the push. Although Loki was in a significantly greater mechanical Advantage over Thor.

h1a8
Originally posted by relentless1
Nah, Loki is stronger; he fought on par with Thor and bitchslapped Cap in Germany, above Cages pay grade as far as strength goes

Loki is not stronger. He did nothing to suggest it.

Cage casually bent a metal handgun. That trumps anything Loki has done.

Silent Master
Loki wins.

TheVaultDweller
Doesn't matter who is stronger. Luke does not have the physical damage output to incapacitate Loki. Whereas we know that, given enough time, repeated hits from people in Luke's strength ballpark does wear him down eventually. It would probably take a while (because Loki just doesn't have too many pure H2H striking feats), but he wins in the end.

FrothByte
Originally posted by h1a8
Post the showing. I want to see Thor trying to resist the push. Although Loki was in a significantly greater mechanical Advantage over Thor.

https://youtu.be/f7cjpeRuNQc

0:44 Loki slams Thor onto railings and then bodily hurls him down. Like I said, Loki manhandled Thor.

h1a8

FrothByte
Loki didn't judo-flip Thor or use his momentum against him. Of course, there is going to be skill involved since I don't think anyone here believes Loki can match Thor in pure strength. Still, the ability for Loki to manhandle Thor like that without using any intricate maneuver proves he's at least somewhere within Thor's strength range.

As for Cage being able to do the same to Thor... maybe, maybe not.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by relentless1
Nah, Loki is stronger; he fought on par with Thor and bitchslapped Cap in Germany, above Cages pay grade as far as strength goes

Uhhh i forgot that!! Then yes, i agree. Loki wins.

Silent Master
Originally posted by FrothByte
Loki didn't judo-flip Thor or use his momentum against him. Of course, there is going to be skill involved since I don't think anyone here believes Loki can match Thor in pure strength. Still, the ability for Loki to manhandle Thor like that without using any intricate maneuver proves he's at least somewhere within Thor's strength range.

As for Cage being able to do the same to Thor... maybe, maybe not.

Luke doesn't have the skill needed to ever be in a position to try.

h1a8
Originally posted by FrothByte
Loki didn't judo-flip Thor or use his momentum against him. Of course, there is going to be skill involved since I don't think anyone here believes Loki can match Thor in pure strength. Still, the ability for Loki to manhandle Thor like that without using any intricate maneuver proves he's at least somewhere within Thor's strength range.

As for Cage being able to do the same to Thor... maybe, maybe not.

Wrong. Loki had a mechanical advantage over Thor. It wasn't a direct comparison of strength. Also Loki used a circular motion (creates more torque) and mechanical advantage.

Cage has the strength to do the exact same thing. You would be deluded to think otherwise.

Silent Master
Originally posted by h1a8
Wrong. Loki had a mechanical advantage over Thor. It wasn't a direct comparison of strength. Also Loki used a circular motion (creates more torque) and mechanical advantage.

Cage has the strength to do the exact same thing. You would be deluded to think otherwise.

Prove it, show Luke doing something similar to someone in Thor's strength class.

FrothByte
Originally posted by h1a8
Wrong. Loki had a mechanical advantage over Thor. It wasn't a direct comparison of strength. Also Loki used a circular motion (creates more torque) and mechanical advantage.

Cage has the strength to do the exact same thing. You would be deluded to think otherwise.

Dude, everyone here knows that you're completely dumb when it comes to fighting techniques, so don't even try.

Of course there was technique involved, Loki isn't as strong as Thor and wouldn't be able to overpower him in a straight up tug-of-war. But the leverage of body mechanics involved weren't that much and it would not have worked had Loki not been within Thor's strength class.

I mean, you go ahead and try to smash a heavyweight wrestler's face against some railing by simply grabbing them by the nape. Put as much torque as you want, as long as they're resisting, you'll realize how stupid you'll look.

h1a8
Originally posted by Silent Master
Prove it, show Luke doing something similar to someone in Thor's strength class. It's takes a fraction of Thor's strength to achieve that. 2nd Cage casually bent a metal handgun.

Dreampanther
Originally posted by h1a8
It's takes a fraction of Thor's strength to achieve that. 2nd Cage casually bent a metal handgun.

What an idiotic statement. So what? Cap is superhumanly strong as well, and a much more skilled fighter than Cage, plus he's got an indestructible shield. None of this gave Loki much trouble.

Silent Master
Originally posted by h1a8
It's takes a fraction of Thor's strength to achieve that. 2nd Cage casually bent a metal handgun.

Prove the strength needed to bend a metal handgun is enough to replicate Loki's feat.

FrothByte
Originally posted by h1a8
It's takes a fraction of Thor's strength to achieve that. 2nd Cage casually bent a metal handgun.

A fraction of Thor's strength to do what? Bend a metal handgun or manhandle Thor?

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by Dreampanther
What an idiotic statement. So what? Cap is superhumanly strong as well, and a much more skilled fighter than Cage, plus he's got an indestructible shield. None of this gave Loki much trouble.

plus Cap has proven to be stronger than Cage on screen.

I honestly forgot the park scene in Avangers 1. Loki certainly wins then.

h1a8
Originally posted by Dreampanther
What an idiotic statement. So what? Cap is superhumanly strong as well, and a much more skilled fighter than Cage, plus he's got an indestructible shield. None of this gave Loki much trouble.

Cage is stronger than Cap. Significantly so.

h1a8
Originally posted by Silent Master
Prove the strength needed to bend a metal handgun is enough to replicate Loki's feat.

It takes less than 2 tons of strength to replicate Loki's feat. Cage's feat shows strength above 50 tons (feat is beyond 10 tons and casual means he can apply 5x more force).

h1a8
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
plus Cap has proven to be stronger than Cage on screen.

I honestly forgot the park scene in Avangers 1. Loki certainly wins then. Cage is proven significantly stronger than Cap on screen m

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by h1a8
Cage is proven significantly stronger than Cap on screen m

No.

This has been debated several times, Cap wins.

Silent Master
Originally posted by h1a8
It takes less than 2 tons of strength to replicate Loki's feat. Cage's feat shows strength above 50 tons (feat is beyond 10 tons and casual means he can apply 5x more force).

Prove that it takes less than 2 tons to replicate Loki's feat.

FrothByte
Originally posted by h1a8
It takes less than 2 tons of strength to replicate Loki's feat. Cage's feat shows strength above 50 tons (feat is beyond 10 tons and casual means he can apply 5x more force).

What feat? I'd like to see how you came up with these numbers.

Dreampanther
Originally posted by FrothByte
What feat? I'd like to see how you came up with these numbers.

He pulls it out off his ass then licks it shiny and presents it to the world.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by Dreampanther
He pulls it out off his ass then licks it shiny and presents it to the world.

OMG.

TheVaultDweller
The fact that threads like this make it to page 3 shows how retarded MvF has become.

FrothByte
Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
The fact that threads like this make it to page 3 shows how retarded MvF has become.

I tried to move to Comicvine but that place is a bit overwhelming.

TheVaultDweller
Originally posted by FrothByte
I tried to move to Comicvine but that place is a bit overwhelming.

They need to clean up the Versus section on that site (in terms of giving it more structure). The few times I have checked it out it was a mess.

For me, KMC is mainly good for new movie/tv news/trailers at this point.

h1a8
Originally posted by Silent Master
Prove that it takes less than 2 tons to replicate Loki's feat.

There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
If you disagree then post it.

FrothByte
Originally posted by h1a8
There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
If you disagree then post it.

No, you're the one who made the claim, who even made up a number, you need to prove it.

Silent Master
Originally posted by h1a8
There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
If you disagree then post it.

That isn't how debates work, the person making the claim has to provide proof. if no proof is provided, the claim gets ignored for the made up crap that it is.

abhilegend
Valkyrie koed Loki, didn't she.

h1a8
Originally posted by Silent Master
That isn't how debates work, the person making the claim has to provide proof. if no proof is provided, the claim gets ignored for the made up crap that it is.

A negative is always considered true (no onus) unless there is evidence to support otherwise.

For example, Cap can't do Dr. Strange magic. Why? Because there is no evidence to support otherwise.

There is no evidence to support it took Loki more than 2tons.

Silent Master
Originally posted by h1a8
A negative is always considered true (no onus) unless there is evidence to support otherwise.

For example, Cap can't do Dr. Strange magic. Why? Because there is no evidence to support otherwise.

There is no evidence to support it took Loki more than 2tons.


You didn't state a negative, you claimed that a certain feat only required 2 tons of strength.

Prove it.

FrothByte
Originally posted by h1a8
A negative is always considered true (no onus) unless there is evidence to support otherwise.

For example, Cap can't do Dr. Strange magic. Why? Because there is no evidence to support otherwise.

There is no evidence to support it took Loki more than 2tons.

And you claimed it takes less than 2 tons to do what Loki did. That's not a negative, therefore you need to provide proof.

TheVaultDweller
lol good luck with that.

h1a8
Originally posted by Silent Master
You didn't state a negative, you claimed that a certain feat only required 2 tons of strength.

Prove it.

Less than 2 tons.

h1a8
Originally posted by FrothByte
And you claimed it takes less than 2 tons to do what Loki did. That's not a negative, therefore you need to provide proof.

It takes less than a billion tons. Do I have to prove that too?

It takes less than any amount unless there is evidence to support otherwise. 2 tons is just an arbitrary amount.

Silent Master
Originally posted by h1a8
Less than 2 tons.

Prove it.

tkitna
Originally posted by abhilegend
Valkyrie koed Loki, didn't she.

She sparred with the Hulk too.

TheVaultDweller
lol so H1 admits that 2 tons is an arbitrary number that he literally just made up, yet still demands people disprove it? And the billion ton comparison is utterly retarded. Not only is there a huge difference between the numbers, but a billion tons is completely inconsistent with MCU Asgardian/Frost Giant power levels, whereas feats of over 2 tons are well within their shown capabilities.

FrothByte
Originally posted by h1a8
It takes less than a billion tons. Do I have to prove that too?

It takes less than any amount unless there is evidence to support otherwise. 2 tons is just an arbitrary amount.

Yes, when you create numbers that you yourself admit is an arbitrary amount, you do have to provide proof. Like you said, it's not a negative, so go and provide proof.

tkitna
Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
lol so H1 admits that 2 tons is an arbitrary number that he literally just made up, yet still demands people disprove it? And the billion ton comparison is utterly retarded. Not only is there a huge difference between the numbers, but a billion tons is completely inconsistent with MCU Asgardian/Frost Giant power levels, whereas feats of over 2 tons are well within their shown capabilities.

Its H1. Space numbers man, space numbers.

h1a8

FrothByte
^ You are not stating a negative. You said it takes less than 2 tons for Loki to manhandle Thor like he did. That's not a negative. Now you're trying to backtrack and reword your sentence to make it look like a negative, well all that does is make you look completely stupid since we all can go back a few pages and see your original statement.

Now, here's my statement: You don't know what the hell you're talking about. That's a negative and doesn't need proof. If you disagree, please provide proof that you actually know what you're talking about.

Silent Master

h1a8
Originally posted by FrothByte
^ You are not stating a negative. You said it takes less than 2 tons for Loki to manhandle Thor like he did. That's not a negative. Now you're trying to backtrack and reword your sentence to make it look like a negative, well all that does is make you look completely stupid since we all can go back a few pages and see your original statement.

Now, here's my statement: You don't know what the hell you're talking about. That's a negative and doesn't need proof. If you disagree, please provide proof that you actually know what you're talking about.


Ok. Prove that it takes less than a trillion tons to do what Loki did. Can you?

h1a8
Originally posted by Silent Master
Your claim wasn't a negative, so you have to prove it.

It is. It's implied.

Loki DIDN'T apply 2 tons or more.

That's a negative. Negatives can be disproven but not proven.

Silent Master
Originally posted by h1a8
It is. It's implied.

Loki DIDN'T apply 2 tons or more.

That's a negative. Negatives can be disproven but not proven.

Saying that the feat required less than 2 tons of force isn't a negative. you're just trying to weasel your way out of having to back a claim.

Originally posted by h1a8
It takes less than 2 tons of strength to replicate Loki's feat. Cage's feat shows strength above 50 tons (feat is beyond 10 tons and casual means he can apply 5x more force).

Prove it

h1a8
Originally posted by Silent Master
Saying that the feat required less than 2 tons of force isn't a negative. you're just trying to weasel your way out of having to back a claim.



Prove it

It is. I rephrased the statement to show the implied negative.

“Loki DIDN'T apply 2 tons or more.”

Silent Master
Originally posted by h1a8
It takes less than 2 tons of strength to replicate Loki's feat. Cage's feat shows strength above 50 tons (feat is beyond 10 tons and casual means he can apply 5x more force).

The above is not a negative claim and thus the burden is on you to prove it.

Attempting to re-word your claim to avoid the burden of proof is a troll move, are you a troll?

h1a8
Originally posted by Silent Master
The above is not a negative claim and thus the burden is on you to prove it.

Attempting to re-word your claim to avoid the burden of proof is a troll move, are you a troll? Rewording without changing the meaning is always valid.

Silent Master
Originally posted by h1a8
Rewording without changing the meaning is always valid.

I challenge you to a battlezone in regards to whether or not your orignal claim was a negative.

h1a8

Blindside12
Loki stomps and its not even hard.

Silent Master
Originally posted by h1a8
It takes less than 2 tons of strength to replicate Loki's feat. Cage's feat shows strength above 50 tons (feat is beyond 10 tons and casual means he can apply 5x more force).

Prove it.

h1a8
Originally posted by Silent Master
Prove it.

It DOES NOT take 2 or more tons to achieve the feat.

This is a negative.

Silent Master
Originally posted by h1a8
It takes less than 2 tons of strength to replicate Loki's feat. Cage's feat shows strength above 50 tons (feat is beyond 10 tons and casual means he can apply 5x more force).


The above claim is not a negative statement and thus it requires proof.

h1a8
Originally posted by Silent Master
The above claim is not a negative statement and thus it requires proof.

Which means exactly

It DOES NOT take 2 or more tons to achieve the feat.

This is a negative.

Silent Master
Originally posted by h1a8
Which means exactly

It DOES NOT take 2 or more tons to achieve the feat.

This is a negative.

Back up your claim.

TheVaultDweller
I've seen H1 pull some utterly pathetic tactics to try and back out of things (including the whole forum-wide conspiracy thing against him he made up), but this one takes the cake.

TheVaultDweller
Originally posted by Silent Master
Back up your claim.

The idiot doesn't realise that, using his own argument, someone else can just say it doesn't take less than 2 tons to achieve. And then, by H1's current standards, they are not required to prove their claim. Though there is already showings where Thor (the guy Loki was muscling around) physically scuffled with the Hulk, all of Cap's feats (who Loki toyed with), as well as other feats from Asgardians (like bending tactical knives, busting through concrete, kicking camper trailers so they skid like 20 feet etc.) which suggest over 2 ton level strength for those characters (people Loki can physically compete with). Which is infinitely more evidence in support of 2+ tons than anything H1 has presented for his claim... Considering he has presented literally nothing, and admitted to making up the 2 ton number.

h1a8
It is up to someone to prove the negative wrong.

So prove that it took more than 2 tons.

Edit: Feats are not shared. Loki is a frost giant. Asgardians are made of different races of beings, with different strengths. Even within a race there are differences.

ABC logic does not work since Hulk treated Loki as a play toy.
Loki had a difficullt time with Cap. Cap hits were affecting him, just not a whole lot. Loki failed to put Cap down after several hits. He's not much above Cap.

FrothByte
Originally posted by h1a8
Ok. Prove that it takes less than a trillion tons to do what Loki did. Can you?

Yes, I can actually. But I don't need to prove it and I won't, you know why? Because I never made that claim. You can't ask me to prove something I never made a claim for. You're the one who made the claim, you provide your proof.

Robtard
So it looks like everyone except H1 thinks Loki does this to Luke thorboned?

Silent Master
Originally posted by h1a8
It takes less than 2 tons of strength to replicate Loki's feat. Cage's feat shows strength above 50 tons (feat is beyond 10 tons and casual means he can apply 5x more force).

The above isn't a negative statement and thus the claim does require proof.

h1a8
Luke beats Loki. It would be very hard for Loki to hurt Luke.

FrothByte
Originally posted by h1a8
Luke beats Loki. It would be very hard for Loki to hurt Luke.

If Loki is strong enough to hurt Thor, he's strong enough to hurt Luke.

Silent Master
Originally posted by h1a8
Luke beats Loki. It would be very hard for Loki to hurt Luke.

So you're dropping your retarded claim about it taking less than 2 tons to replicate Loki's feat?

Dreampanther
Originally posted by Silent Master
So you're dropping your retarded claim about it taking less than 2 tons to replicate Loki's feat?

That would require him to stop being a retard.

TheVaultDweller
Originally posted by FrothByte
If Loki is strong enough to hurt Thor, he's strong enough to hurt Luke.

Not to mention Luke would have a tough time hurting Loki. Knock him around, sure (physically, Loki isn't the biggest guy around). But actually causing damage is a different story.

h1a8

h1a8

Dreampanther

FrothByte
H1a8: So does this mean you think Luke can beat Thor in an unarmed h2h match?

h1a8
Originally posted by FrothByte
H1a8: So does this mean you think Luke can beat Thor in an unarmed h2h match?

I think Thor is the better fighter. Strength is close.
Luke Cage is a little more durable.

Thor wins after a tough fight.

FrothByte
Originally posted by h1a8
I think Thor is the better fighter. Strength is close.
Luke Cage is a little more durable.

Thor wins after a tough fight.

And do you think Luke can hurt Hulk with his punches like Thor did? Do you think Luke can survive a thrashing like the Hulk gave Loki without getting knocked out?

TheVaultDweller
Luke has better piercing durability feats than Thor, because he gets shot at like 90% of the time, so it's to be expected. But Thor has way better blunt force durability feats. Luke's best blunt force durability showing to date is probably eating an impact from a speeding garbage truck without injury. Thor soaks up hits from the Hulk.

And lol at the two of them having comparable strength. I have a lot of love for MCU Luke, but just no.

TheLordofMurder
Loki wins...

Silent Master
Originally posted by h1a8
I think Thor is the better fighter. strength is close.
Luke Cage is a little more durable.

Thor wins after a tough fight.



LOL!!!!!!!

Silent Master
Originally posted by h1a8
IMO, Luke > or = Thor in durability.
The gun bending feat puts his strength on par with Thor and past Loki.

I challenge you to a BZ in regards to Thor and Luke's strength and durability.

h1a8
What feat by Thor greatly exceeds the gun bending feat?

Nevan
Knocking Hulk through several meters of metal with a normal hammer, dazing him in Ragnarok.

Stopping one of Hulk's blows with one arm, then holding it with both in the Avengers.

Dismantling spaceships barehanded in Ragnarok.

Want more?

Silent Master
Originally posted by h1a8
What feat by Thor greatly exceeds the gun bending feat?

Crushing Iron-man's armor, hitting Iron-man so hard that he goes through a tree, catching and holding Hulk's arm, cracking a prison made for the Hulk, ripping spaceships apart etc etc etc.

For crying out loud, watch the movies before commenting on them.

h1a8

Josh_Alexander
Loki wins H1.

Cage doesn't have enough power to put him down. And arguably Loki is stronger than Cage.

Loki takes the lead.

Silent Master
All of the feats I listed were better, H1 is just doing his normal trolling.

Eon Blue
H1 has to be the biggest troll on this site and that’s saying something.

Loki wins.

HulkIsHulk
Originally posted by Eon Blue
H1 has to be the biggest troll on this site and that’s saying something.

Loki wins.
You had to dig up this thread? That's some monumental spite

h1a8
Cage wins in h2h

FrothByte
Originally posted by h1a8
Cage wins in h2h

Why?

Silent Master
Originally posted by FrothByte
Why?

Because h1 is a massive troll.

h1a8
Originally posted by FrothByte
Why?

Stronger, more durable.
And Loki kind of sucks in h2h.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by Eon Blue
H1 has to be the biggest troll on this site and that’s saying something.

Loki wins.

Naah thats Quanchi

FrothByte
Originally posted by h1a8
Stronger, more durable.
And Loki kind of sucks in h2h.

Kinda sucks? What makes you say that?

Silent Master
Originally posted by FrothByte
Kinda sucks? What makes you say that?




Originally posted by Silent Master
Because h1 is a massive troll.

Surtur
I laughed at the "but he can bend a gun" argument. Top notch.

TheVaultDweller
Originally posted by Surtur
I laughed at the "but he can bend a gun" argument. Top notch.

Well, based on his posts across various threads, he seems to think casually bending a gun > caving in the face of a giant, alien space-whale.

FrothByte
Apparently, Thor crushing IM's armor in his grip is not as impressive as Luddendorf crushing a WW1 pistol.

Surtur
Ha jokes on all of you, the gun was obviously made of adamantium.

h1a8
Originally posted by FrothByte
Apparently, Thor crushing IM's armor in his grip is not as impressive as Luddendorf crushing a WW1 pistol.

No its not.

1. Casually implies that someone has multiple times more strength
2. The damage was at least an order greater (Thor only slightly bent the wrist armor where Luddendorf crumpled the gun).

Here's a good analogy.
Someone casually lifting 1 ton off the ground and then throwing it 100ft away vs
Someone lifting 2 ton 1ft off the ground.

Your fallacy lies in thinking since IM wrist armor is more durable (debatable) then it is automatically the greater feat.
Its not, because you are not considering levels of damage and levels of effort.

TheVaultDweller
Loki wins.

Silent Master
Originally posted by h1a8
No its not.

1. Casually implies that someone has multiple times more strength
2. The damage was at least an order greater (Thor only slightly bent the wrist armor where Luddendorf crumpled the gun).

Here's a good analogy.
Someone casually lifting 1 ton off the ground and then throwing it 100ft away vs
Someone lifting 2 ton 1ft off the ground.

Your fallacy lies in thinking since IM wrist armor is more durable (debatable) then it is automatically the greater feat.
Its not, because you are not considering levels of damage and levels of effort.

Only a troll or biased fanboy would think Iron-man's armor being more duable than a WW1 era gun is debatable. Which are you?

FrothByte
Originally posted by h1a8
No its not.

1. Casually implies that someone has multiple times more strength
2. The damage was at least an order greater (Thor only slightly bent the wrist armor where Luddendorf crumpled the gun).

Here's a good analogy.
Someone casually lifting 1 ton off the ground and then throwing it 100ft away vs
Someone lifting 2 ton 1ft off the ground.

Your fallacy lies in thinking since IM wrist armor is more durable (debatable) then it is automatically the greater feat.
Its not, because you are not considering levels of damage and levels of effort.

IM's armor is bulletproof. A WW1 gun... is not. Your analogy is completely flawed since the numbers are way off.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.