"Indeed, and when we take his into consideration Thor's impressive feats displays seem to be lacking compared to Wonder Womans"
Except she doesnt have many on her own.
"if thas really the way comic book showings should be taken, then that also means that we cant take destroying of planets by ANY normal charcters to be cannon, cause that requires literally THOUSANDS of times more force/power than to LIFT a planet{ a ridiculous concept anyway} what i personally think marvel was tryin to show when hercules lifted the earth or thor lifted the serpeant was their MYSTICAL or mythical strengths, not DIRECT physical strength, because looking at those imaged, hercules was nearly 1/10th the size of EARTH. these kinda things only happen in the mystical realms and should not really be taken PHYSICALLY."
Lets put it this way. No feat that involves plenetary force its accurate. That image does strike as being more simbolic or mistical. But in comic terms its valid as much is a bunch of pll flying around and moving the moon without this one breaking into pieces.
"so i should take spidey beating firelord at face value? wolvie stabbing thanos? the statement is ridiculous. not all feats (on panel or not) should be taken at face value."
As much as dumb those wer, they happened. And they can be used. Its not ridiculous no, a guy can come and say that Wolverine beat immortal Herc with bone claws and as stupid as it is, i cant say it never happened. It wasent even retconned.
So how do we get out of it? Maybe with : Its pis, or it would never happen in normal conditions etc.
"Would never happen in normal conditions" its also another way to describe high end showings.
This example its a high end feat like any other. The man has shown strenght as rare as the examples are in that range. Certainly this is extreme but so it was in the myths.
And so its every feat like that in comics. Your just rationalizing feats when characters have been thro black holes by the dozen and doing things even above.
How to we deal with all this. We only accept feats until a certain limit or what?
"it's why we have the term PIS, as much as i HATE invoking it. matter/antimatter can CERTAINLY be viewed as PIS because the writers had no knowledge of what they were really doing."
But it stll can be used in a feat list or comparation, its still there. Pis or no Pis.
"news flash: of course they are!! glads says he can 'rip stars apart'. should i believe him? how about ss having 'infinte power', as he and others have said of him, or ss being 'power incarnate'? should i just blindly accept those statements as fact? "
So we just chose wich statements work for us.
Not to mention those statements arent far fetched, Surfer has done things like giving life and destroying planets. Hes infinite until a certain level. like the Hulk. Glads case?
If no writer ever said he cant, then you can say he cant. Get it?
Any writter can come up and use it since it was never establized he couldnt and he once stated it.
"glads cannot rip stars in half (has never been shown to have that power), ss's 'infinite' power, pales in comparison to odin's 'infinite power' (which odin has claimed) which pales in comparison to lt's 'infinite' power."
Infinity until a certain level isent "lying". Otherwise Beyonder also lied about the Hulk when he said he tapped into a infinite power source. Even he never showed infinite power compared with the likes of Skyfathers and Celestials for example.
"that's a blind fallacy. marvel has ALWAYS represented its characters differently than dc -- more 'realistically'. we won't see anyone in marvel juggling planets or pulling solar systems. never have, never will. "
Just destroying them like Hulk, Surfer, Brb, Gladiator.....realistic indeed.
"if glads was discussing a time he ripped a star in half sitting at some shiar bar table clearly boasting about it, and in the background we saw him ripping a star in half (as though he were recalling the incident) would you believe he did it if no one in the bar contradicted him? if you say yes, well . . . i have nothing for you"
I nothing at all contradicted yes i would accept it s face value until a writter decided to use it or retconned it as bull.
Thor`s example with the Midgard Serpent. Did that enounter you mentioned stated or showed that the previous one where he pulled Jurggamound off Earth never took place? Was it show him trying and one of them saying "you never did manage to accomplish it?"
If so -that- is a retcon/contradiction/new cannon. Whatever you like to call it. If nothing did then the encounter still exists but the characters wer in diferent power levels according to two different writters.
"you seem to deny herc's feat is unique in many many ways"
I dont find it more unique than someone punching planet size objects into pieces or moving/trying to move one with chains or with bare hands. No i dont.
I also think passing thro black holes are more over the top for example. Or at least they should be.
And while i think they are all ridiculous it doesnt take the account that it can be used when high extreme feats are discussed. But only in that situation.
"not that oly isn't level-headed . . "
Eh i have my moments. This is an issue that happens even when aknowleged people dont agree. Theres always one.
I know the feat its ridiculous, i know it cant be explained other than "its magic".
But saying that when showings like this are required it -cant- be used thats another thing. Especially when you dont have anything to say it didnt happened other than "Herc was bullshitting" -without providing a single proof-.