Woohoo, official off-topic thread!

Ergo the Superman example, obviously. I'm not that big a fool. What are you trying to have said, though? Not sure I get it, or I do and it goes without saying.

That Sora cannot compete with anyone too far beyond his level of power.

You mean like how Lex Luthor couldn't beat Superman?

Give Lex Luthor five minutes and he would be capable of killing Sora too.

Sora is not Lex Luthor.

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
[b]You mean like how Lex Luthor couldn't beat Superman? [/B]

Sora is not as intelligent as Luthor.

Are you saying he's less powerful?

Since I know next to nothing about Luthor, I can't say anything in regards to his power or not. I only know he's intelligent, whereas Sora is certainly not.

Lex Luthor is plain human, without superpowers. Yet he pose a threat to Superman. Sora would never. Does that make him more powerful than Sora?

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
[b]Lex Luthor is plain human, without superpowers. Yet he pose a threat to Superman. Sora would never. Does that make him more powerful than Sora? [/B]

Power is not merely physical.

Luthor's intellect and resources make him more powerful.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
Not every character has a weakness and can be beaten logically.

A character that lacks weaknesses and flaws is a shitty character.

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
[b]Lex Luthor is plain human, without superpowers. Yet he pose a threat to Superman. Sora would never. Does that make him more powerful than Sora? [/B]

Why, no it doesn't. Not physically anyway. If he and Sora were tossed in an arena to fight, I can't see why Sora would have any problem with killing him. Give Luthor his prep time to learn his enemy's weakness(which Sora doesn't really have one aside from being very gullible) and he could kill Sora.

Yes, intelligence does play a factor in battles and can tip the side for the weaker side. Hell, in the Lloyd vs Link I listed intelligence as a factor for Link. But Sora, aside from a few instances of partial cleverness, is not what anyone could call intelligent.

Originally posted by Peach
A character that lacks weaknesses and flaws is a shitty character.

I know?

Comic book examples are really bad examples. Lex Luthor poses a threat to Superman due to PIS. Batman only poses a threat to beings that are in the high meta-human level, out of PIS.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
Why, no it doesn't. Not physically anyway. If he and Sora were tossed in an arena to fight, I can't see why Sora would have any problem with killing him. Give Luthor his prep time to learn his enemy's weakness(which Sora doesn't really have one aside from being very gullible) and he could kill Sora.

Yes, intelligence does play a factor in battles and can tip the side for the weaker side. Hell, in the Lloyd vs Link I listed intelligence as a factor for Link. But Sora, aside from a few instances of partial cleverness, is not what anyone could call intelligent.

I know?

Your definition of powerful appear to be situational. You wouldn't define Lex Luthor as powerful, yet you put him above one you consider powerful, this against an opponent vastly more powerful than both.

You don't have an absolute idea of what powerful is to you, do you? If I understand you properly, you view powerful as a ladder thing. If you can't beat X, you're not as powerful. Correct?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Comic book examples are really bad examples. Lex Luthor poses a threat to Superman due to PIS. Batman only poses a threat to beings that are in the high meta-human level, out of PIS.

Not completely true. You can compare Lex Luthor and Superman to Gandhi and the British Empire.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Comic book examples are really bad examples. Lex Luthor poses a threat to Superman due to PIS. Batman only poses a threat to beings that are in the high meta-human level, out of PIS.

Ghandi "beat" the British Empire through "PIS", so that kind of enforces my point. 😐

edit- PIS and CIS are the same ****ing thing. Making a difference of the two is incredible pedantic. They both describe something that shouldn't realistically happen happening anyway for the sake of some out of universe equilibirum.

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
[b]Your definition of powerful appear to be situational. You wouldn't define Lex Luthor as powerful, yet you put him above one you consider powerful, this against an opponent vastly more powerful than both.

You don't have an absolute idea of what powerful is to you, do you? If I understand you properly, you view powerful as a ladder thing. If you can't beat X, you're not as powerful. Correct? [/B]

Powerful is defined as "having great power or force or potency or effect."

Power is defined as "ability: possession of the qualities (especially mental qualities) required to do something or get something done."

Luthor's power is not found in his physical potential, which is why in a situation where he has no access to his butt ton of cash, he would not beat someone would could kill him with ease. With his ton of cash and resources, he would destroy Sora.

And no, I do not view power in that way except in DBZ logic of course. It can in fact be a very situational thing.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Ghandi "beat" the British Empire through "PIS", so that kind of enforces my point. 😐

edit- PIS and CIS are the same ****ing thing. Making a difference of the two is incredible pedantic.

PIS is inherently negative, CIS is not necessarily so.

Would it be easier to kill Lex Luthor? Absolutely. Would it be better to? Objectively, maybe so. But if Superman were to do so, he would be seen by the populace as a murderer, since somehow Lex still has that whole good publicity thing going on, and Superman would be shunned by those he would save, his reputation tarnished. Beyond that, Superman is not so prone to murder.

That said, there is really no good reason for the Joker still being alive. 😐 I somehow doubt offing him would bother most people.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Ghandi "beat" the British Empire through "PIS", so that kind of enforces my point. 😐

edit- PIS and CIS are the same ****ing thing. Making a difference of the two is incredible pedantic. They both describe something that shouldn't realistically happen happening anyway for the sake of some out of universe equilibirum.

Incorrect. CIS is about in of universe equilibrium.

There is a huge difference between CIS and PIS. To equal them is to be ignorant, for they revolve two entirely different aspects of a story.

Gandhi defeated the British Empire. You can twist and turn "PIS" however much you want, it happened.

There's a Swedish history example, where peasants of low numbers defeated the vastly larger authority and claimed the country. More PIS? It's everywhere. It's not valid, because it's not as it could be?

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
[b]There is a huge difference between CIS and PIS. To equal them is to be ignorant, for they revolve two entirely different aspects of a story.

Gandhi defeated the British Empire. You can twist and turn "PIS" however much you want, it happened.

There's a Swedish history example, where peasants of low numbers defeated the vastly larger authority and claimed the country. More PIS? It's everywhere. It's not valid, because it's not as it could be? [/B]

Why do you post in bold?