Originally posted by leonidas
you crack me up. you're now saying that 100x isn't arbitrary, eh, that your little calculations are what, 'scientific'?? 😂 and that it is in line with 'marvel's' what, opinion of how strong thanos is? oh, yah, i'm sure any editor would say that thanos is 100x thor's strength. you're little comparison earlier about thanos v the jla was genius when he was also about equal to darkseid in that whole thing. darkseid, whom supes beat down. and superman and thor are about equal. so let me guess, now thanos is what, 100x as strong as superman too, right?! and darkseid obviously.
You know, I'm getting really tired of this "crack me up", "arbitrary", "factual error", etc. garbage when you're the one who has been caught making facts up whole cloth.
1. Thor is warrior madness is 10x strength. See here, from Thor 502:
http://img30.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc75&image=03563_Thor_502__01.jpg
A good source from another board, who knows thor inside and out, has indicated to me that there are other occasions where this figure has been cited in comics. But I haven't found these because I don't have the physical comics, and I lost my scan collection due to hd failure. (and don't have issue #s in any event, so it woudl take a while) But since he helped me find this one, I'm assuming he's right about these other instances as well.
All editions of marvel handbooks that mention warrior madness also cite the same 10x figure.
Thanos fought warrior madness thor with the power gem to a standstill. Say the power gem is as weak as the belt of strenght. That means thanos is at least 20x.
Of course, the power gem is not as weak as the belt of strenght. It is the most powerful strength-boosting artifact in the marvel universe, and has been described as such. I would say it boosts AT LEAST as much as the uni-power (50x). Which would make power-gem warrior madness thor a whopping 1000x his normal strength. Thanos fought this version of thor to a stand-still, and imo, was clearly getting the better of the physical fight. (He admitted he would have been defeated eventually, but the power gem grants infinite endurance, so this is unsurprising, as even thanos' endurance has limits.) Which makes 100x a conservative guess.
I've outlined my method of estimating strength. You, on the other hand, simply keep saying "but thor is really strong", and citing scans where thanos is hit in the back, or defeating enemies with dimension-destroying punches such as an x-man-boosted hulk.
Who's being "arbitrary", now?
Now, one might ask, if wm thor w/ power gem is 1000x, why doesn't he decapitate silver surfer, etc in one blow? Because it's a comic. And in comics, vast increases in strength that would be decisive in the real world lead to small increases in combat effectiveness. Again, superman is probably trillions of times stronger than batman. But batman has survived bloodlusted blows with nothing worse than a KO. Thanos himself has floored a well-fed galactus with a cosmic blast -- yet galactus is probably at least 100x thanos power, probably much more when well fed.
It's worth noting, moreover, that WM thor without the power gem was having a tough time against SS and BRB individually. With the power gem, he outclassed both of those, the infinity watch, and Dr. Strange. Strange concedes even before the fight they have no chance, and surfer states that with the power gem, thor will destroy the nine worlds. (I confused this with a statement by odin; my mistake.)
2. You're citing tough battles with galactus as evidence of the infinity gems' weakness? Do you know how absurd that is?
3. He killed the gardener instantly with the power gem, iirc. He beat runner with the time gem.
4. Thor boosted by the odin force and the belt of strength fighting for his life against a WEAK THANOS CLONE, is an indication of thanos' weakness?
5. I've noticed a clear DC bias on these boards. That's fine. I like DC comics more than Marvel. But it's ridiculous when people make assertions (WM thor is not a real strength boost, the belt of strength is weaker than the power gem) that have no basis in the handbooks, in comics, in anything but their own imagination. If you're speculating, or stating an opinion, or asserting your own view of what a character SHOUDL BE, make that clear. And if you don't have knowledge about a character, make that clear.
6. One elemtn of this dispute is surely people's perception of the relevance of an x% boost in strength. In my view, 2x is paltry. You frequently see characters with hundreds thousands, millions of times more strength having trouble with weaker opponents. Adam Warlock is one of the best physical fighters in the universe, and he can press < 100 tons.
There are two intepretive approaches one can take to this:
A. Say that the comics are all wrong, and that we should inject real world comparisons into a fantasy world. Cite PIS for any inconsistencies.
B. Accept fantasy as fantasy. And "consistent inconsistencies" as consistency. So when normal-strength characters such as wolverine, batman, or captain america regularly survive vastly more powerful heavy-weights, there's no PIS/CIS problem.
I take the second interpretive strategy. ANd I think it's consistent with the way comics should be understood. Kurse 2x was having a tough fight with thor. WM thor 10x was having tough fights with surfer and bill. Would this be the case in reality? No. But you know, super powers are not reality. They are a world of hyperbole and fantasy.
In short, the other problem here is that we're talking over each others heads. 100x seems massive to you. Not so big to me (and importantly, for the authors of the comics themselves).
Even in the real world, however, you're overestimating the importance of strength multiples. A massively strong normal human (say, 400 lpbs bench) will still lose a fight with two normal strength humans (say, 200 lpbs bench -- yes, I know that's high) badly. He will hurt one or both of them, in all likelihood. But getting double-teamed effectively amplifies one's opponent's strength considerably. Try a 2on1 boxing match if you don't believe me.
