Originally posted by Damborgson
http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo326/OneDumbG0/Thor%20Fights/ThorvsHulk07.jpgthis? If so that isnt WM by any means...
No he's talking about the fight where they hold each other matching Strength for an hour.
Originally posted by h1a8
The starbreaker feat, the trio planet moving feat, and maggeddon.I don't think so, Superman would be vulnerable to the lightning but not the hammer. But it was his hand, not face. A hand in comics can stop more than one's face can.
Yeah except the Hammer was shooting Lightning at the time. Look at the pic carefully. Supes deflected Mjolnir with Lightning shooting out of it.
So again, this comic is assuming Supes has No Vulnerability to Magic whatsoever. Is that your stance as well?
Im not familiar with those feats. Can you post one of them please, since your claiming they are all beyond Thor.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
No he's talking about the fight where they hold each other matching Strength for an hour.Yeah except the Hammer was shooting Lightning at the time. Look at the pic carefully. Supes deflected Mjolnir with Lightning shooting out of it.
So again, this comic is assuming Supes has No Vulnerability to Magic whatsoever. Is that your stance as well?
Im not familiar with those feats. Can you post one of them please, since your claiming they are all beyond Thor.
Your argument is not that Superman shouldn't have stopped the hammer but he should have been hurt by it in the process of stopping it. Well he could have been slightly hurt from the hammer but took the pain in effort to stop the hammer. Effort can hide pain. Magic doesn't take away his strength now.
Also, Superman has shown time and time again when his will is high then he is HIGHLY resistant to magic. Also, let's not forget that prior Phantom Stranger gave Superman an upgrade to protect against magic.
In the same comic of Clark stopping the hammer, Superman was hit in the face with Mjolnir. He showed great weakness to the hammer. Thus by this and many other examples we must conclude that in comics, one's hand>>>>> one's face or chest.
Originally posted by h1a8
Your argument is not that Superman shouldn't have stopped the hammer but he should have been hurt by it in the process of stopping it. Well he could have been slightly hurt from the hammer but took the pain in effort to stop the hammer. Effort can hide pain. Magic doesn't take away his strength now.Also, Superman has shown time and time again when his will is high then he is HIGHLY resistant to magic. Also, let's not forget that prior Phantom Stranger gave Superman an upgrade to protect against magic.
In the same comic of Clark stopping the hammer, Superman was hit in the face with Mjolnir. He showed great weakness to the hammer. Thus by this and many other examples we must conclude that in comics, one's hand>>>>> one's face or chest.
People need to stop making conclusive statements regarding Superman and magic. It's stupid.
That's one hell of a cop out. Re-read the arc with the Phantom Stranger.
Lol.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Yeah except the Hammer was shooting Lightning at the time. Look at the pic carefully. Supes deflected Mjolnir with Lightning shooting out of it.So again, this comic is assuming Supes has No Vulnerability to Magic whatsoever. Is that your stance as well?
It looks like Supes is struggling to me. Especially compared to how Nefaria took it.
Originally posted by cdtm
It looks like Supes is struggling to me. Especially compared to how Nefaria took it.
Well yeah he should struggle, an enchanted indestructible hammer shooting lightning with the strength of someone who rivals Hercules behind the blow. Even IF Superman is considerably stronger he Should struggle to do that!
But to actually stop it?! Obviously no vulnerablilty to magic is present there.
And im not buying its in character for Thor to take his Heat Vision dead on. Its not. He never let Gladiator hit him with his HV, I dnt see why he would take it from Supes.
Originally posted by CosmicCometIt does seem inconsistent but for what it's worth he was very polite to answer my questions on his own forum years back regarding their fight.
Busiek is dumb.Thor can be ko'd by a bullet according to him(lolwut), and then trudge through Superman HV too?
There is a contradiction there.
Originally posted by CosmicCometWriters don't look at this stuff from a battleboard perspective though and he brought up a good point most artists/writers don't logically think about a structure Spiderman picks up as his norm while battleboard fans start attaching numbers and assuming he's always at this level.
It's wildly inconsistent.You can't shake off a punch from Hulk and then be ko'd by a bullet to the forehead. (I'm pretty sure its been retconned to be a special vibranium bullet well after the fact though)
There is no excuse for such terrible ignorance, that is what he is trying to present with his justification.
Saying him being able to tank a punch from a class 100, but not withstand a bullet, there is no god damn way those two things are reconcilable, Busiek.
A bullet will bounce off a tank. Hulk's fist would smash a tank into scrap heap. This takes no research to understand.
Originally posted by CosmicCometI agree it doesn't make much sense but most writers honestly don't give a rat's ass about continuity.
There is no excuse for such terrible ignorance, that is what he is trying to present with his justification.Saying him being able to tank a punch from a class 100, but not withstand a bullet, there is no god damn way those two things are reconcilable, Busiek.
A bullet will bounce off a tank. Hulk's fist would smash a tank into scrap heap. This takes no research to understand.
IIRC, Busiek said Thor can shrug off an artillery shell (Which he has) but can't take a bullet. That makes zero sense, but it's not unjustified. In the JIM's days for example, Thor strapped a Thermonuclear weapon to his chest for a field test but dodged gun fire. For a while, he had some kind of backwards durability when it came to conventional weapons. The smaller the caliber, the worse the damage. It didn't make a lick of sense but Thor's magic as Busiek liked to put it.
Though I don't appreciate his attempts to ignore or disregard any evidence that contradicts his stance. When scenes were presented with Thor shrugging off bullets and so on, he made up some pathetic arguments like artistic error etc. He's also to blame for Thor being knocked out by that bullet, he'll have a special place in Hel for that.
Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
IIRC, Busiek said Thor can shrug off an artillery shell (Which he has) but can't take a bullet. That makes zero sense, but it's not unjustified. In the JIM's days for example, Thor strapped a Thermonuclear weapon to his chest for a field test but dodged gun fire. For a while, he had some kind of backwards durability when it came to conventional weapons. The smaller the caliber, the worse the damage. It didn't make a lick of sense but Thor's magic as Busiek liked to put it.Though I don't appreciate his attempts to ignore or disregard any evidence that contradicts his stance. When scenes were presented with Thor shrugging off bullets and so on, he made up some pathetic arguments like artistic error etc. He's also to blame for Thor being knocked out by that bullet, he'll have a special place in Hel for that.
I always lol'd at the 'magic' excusie Busiek used to back himself. It's like, he basically had no actual logical way of jelling his argument together to make sense, and he knew it, so he had to fall back on the nigh infallible 'its magic it doesn't have to make sense' routine. F*ck him.
And he pretty much had Thor get ko'd by a bullet to FUEL his argument that Thor is not bullet proof. Which is pretty egotistical.
Unless there's two examples, Thor was knocked out by a bullet under Priest, in the Black Panther run. No idea how Busiek could have had anything to do with that, unless Priest is his friend or something..
I wouldn't take Busiek as the last word on Thor's durability, and I don't take him as the last word on Supermans weakness to magic either.. There's a pretty good history under different writers over decades to make arguments on either case.
Yeah. I hate that backward approach to durability, which is probably a means to distance characters from having Superman-esque invincibility (ie. being bulletproof). People like Arthur and Diana can survive blows from class 100+ beings without batting an eye usually. And yet a bullet can pierce their skin or possibly be implied to be fatal to them.
