Surfer will beat anyone with or without weakness exploits from team 2. He's gonna be a beetch to take down. It will take at least 2 heralds from team 2 to put him away. He's the definition of high herald. Bats, Aquaman, and Plastic Man will go down fast in a fight that has all these heavy hitters. They won't count for much. Probably Zauriel too. Team 1's heavies are too heavy.
Originally posted by carver9
Omg, if one more person bring this feat up without knowing the context of it.SUPERMAN AND ZOD NEVER DESTROYED A PLANET. THEY WERE CONNECTED TO THE PLANET THAT THEY WERE FIGHTING ON. IF SUPERMAN RECEIVED A PAPER CUT A PIECE OF A PLANET GOT DESTROYED BECAUSE OF IT. IF BATMAN WOULD HAVE GOT A ROCK AND CLUBBED ZOD ACROSS THE HEAD HARMING HIM A PIECE OF THE PLANET WOULD GET DESTROYED.
If either zod or superman died from that fight that would have been the destruction of that planet.
Show me where this was stated carver.
Originally posted by carver9
They were connected on a physical level with the planet, that is why superman evacuated everyone, because he thought himself that he wasn't going to make it back after the planet explosion. Read the comics please and stop looking at one page.
I have read all of Superman: For Tomorrow. You merely heard someone imply that and ran with it. Again, show me where it states this.
Originally posted by Sirius77
Show me where this was stated carver.I have read all of Superman: For Tomorrow. You merely heard someone imply that and ran with it. Again, show me where it states this.
I didn't run with anything, I read the comic at least 10 times, I know what I am talking about and you clearly haven't read it. Anyone know this that has actually read the words instead of looking at the pretty pictures.
Read the comic again, I don't have to post anything when overall you should know about it.
Don't bring up a feat you know nothing about.
Originally posted by MONSTAR
When has current superman destroyed a planet????? You are 2 seconds away from me never debating you again.. Want to know why??... Superman and Zods fight destroying a planet because of physical force???? Go look at that fight again and learn what was REALLY going on please.. I will excuse your lack of knowledge this once... please NEVER set yourself up like that again. Using a voodo doll effect as proof.
Wow. Did you not read anything that I typed? He split a moon and survived two planets colliding with him, as well as the dark moon feat. Also, I don't know where everyone is getting this planet connection thing from. I'm curious to find out where everyone is getting this. Have you read Superman: For Tomorrow?
My lack of knowledge? You're the one that is asking for a planet busting feat from current superman. You'd realize that the moon feat was current superman (ie about a year or so ago) if you actually read the comics as you are 'urging' me to do.
Originally posted by carver9
I didn't run with anything, I read the comic at least 10 times, I know what I am talking about and you clearly haven't read it. Anyone know this that has actually read the words instead of looking at the pretty pictures.Read the comic again, I don't have to post anything when overall you should know about it.
Don't bring up a feat you know nothing about.
You're saying all of this but providing no proof.
So again. Provide proof of what you're implying. I saw nothing in the comic indicating that.
Originally posted by Sirius77
You're saying all of this but providing no proof.So again. Provide proof of what you're implying. I saw nothing in the comic indicating that.
I'm not going to provide an entire comic book worth of proof that lead to that one fighting scene. Re-read the comic or stop bringing up the feat.
Originally posted by Sirius77Sirius.. Sweetie, flying through a moon or ramming a shadow moon is not a planet destroying feat hun.... Surviving two planets colliding is a worse example.. Gladiator contained an explosion that would have destroyed half a solar system... Does that in any way show that he can destroy half a solar system with a few hits? NO, it does not in any way.
Wow. Did you not read anything that I typed? He split a moon and survived two planets colliding with him, as well as the dark moon feat. Also, I don't know where everyone is getting this planet connection thing from. I'm curious to find out where everyone is getting this. Have you read Superman: For Tomorrow?My lack of knowledge? You're the one that is asking for a planet busting feat from current superman. You'd realize that the moon feat was current superman (ie about a year or so ago) if you actually read the comics as you are 'urging' me to do.
Originally posted by Sirius77
Wow. Did you not read anything that I typed? He split a moon and survived two planets colliding with him, as well as the dark moon feat. Also, I don't know where everyone is getting this planet connection thing from. I'm curious to find out where everyone is getting this. Have you read Superman: For Tomorrow?My lack of knowledge? You're the one that is asking for a planet busting feat from current superman. You'd realize that the moon feat was current superman (ie about a year or so ago) if you actually read the comics as you are 'urging' me to do.
He is, I think, misinterpreting a pretty standard narrative choice made by Azzarello there.
It's true -- he does liken the battle between Zod and Superman to the destruction of the 'false' planet. Of that there can be no doubt.
But the idea that there is some LITERAL connection between the two, rather than a metaphorical one, is never outright stated, that I know of.
I could be wrong there, but I don't think I am.
Originally posted by DesaadHere we go again.... So the bombs procedure is to explode, then turn around and contain itself? Kind of reaching there yes?
Where is it said that it's Gladiator that contained the energy that could have destroyed half the solar system, rather than being part of the bomb procedure, by the way?
Originally posted by MONSTAR
Here we go again.... So the bombs procedure is to explode, then turn around and contain itself? Kind of reaching there yes?
Uh, why? A controlled explosion seems like a fairly reasonable thing, depending on the desired effect of the bomb.
When Warmaker One hit the Shaggy Man/General with a nuclear bullet, he made it clear that the 'procedure' of the bullet was that it was as powerful as a nuclear blast, but with a radius of only a few feet.
Seems more likely than just making up a new and never before or since seen power for Gladiator.
Originally posted by DesaadWOW, just wow... Did this warmaker design the bomb as well? You destroy yourself by including the fact that the bullets effect is fully explained... Yet you try and apply that to the bombs effect???... Try this ( reed richards words ) That explosion would have destroyed half the solar system if it were not being delibertly contained, and by the SAME nasty coincidence a piece of that debris broke off and is headed for earth at 100 times light speed. The WHOLE subject focus on who?? Yes.. gladiator.
Uh, why? A controlled explosion seems like a fairly reasonable thing, depending on the desired effect of the bomb.When Warmaker One hit the Shaggy Man/General with a nuclear bullet, he made it clear that the 'procedure' of the bullet was that it was as powerful as a nuclear blast, but with a radius of only a few feet.
Seems more likely than just making up a new and never before or since seen power for Gladiator.
I read the feat, I also think there's a little bit of reaching there Desaad with that interpretation.
While Glads didn't completely contain the blast, it DOES seem to be heavily implied that some of the force was, indeed, contained. Tho, I'll go as far as to say the ambiguity of the feat DOES make it debatable.
But to lowball/undermine THAT feat based on its ambiguity while saying:
Originally posted by Desaad
He is, I think, misinterpreting a pretty standard narrative choice made by Azzarello there.It's true -- he does liken the battle between Zod and Superman to the destruction of the 'false' planet. Of that there can be no doubt.
But the idea that there is some LITERAL connection between the two, rather than a metaphorical one, is never outright stated, that I know of.
I could be wrong there, but I don't think I am.
Kinda displays a certain level of bias, don't you think?
Originally posted by D_Dude1210Like i say, they always hang themselves given enough rope. Goodnight people and be safe.
I read the feat, I also think there's a little bit of reaching there Desaad with that interpretation.While Glads didn't completely contain the blast, it DOES seem to be heavily implied that some of the force was, indeed, contained. Tho, I'll go as far as to say the ambiguity of the feat DOES make it debatable.
But to lowball/undermine THAT feat based on its ambiguity while saying:
Kinda displays a certain level of bias, don't you think?
Originally posted by D_Dude1210
I read the feat, I also think there's a little bit of reaching there Desaad with that interpretation.While Glads didn't completely contain the blast, it DOES seem to be heavily implied that some of the force was, indeed, contained. Tho, I'll go as far as to say the ambiguity of the feat DOES make it debatable.
But to lowball/undermine THAT feat based on its ambiguity while saying:
Kinda displays a certain level of bias, don't you think?
No, I don't think so. I'd say they're both fairly ambiguous feats that leave it open to interpretation. Which is why I've said as much.
It seems to me that one - Gladiator being the one who 'controlled' the blast - is accepted without question as fact (certainly I noticed none of YOU were questioning it) while the other - Superman and Zod actually destroying the planet - is dismissed out of hand without any thought for the possibility that it's artistic license.
Why is it that I display bias, but that you and yours - those who believe the other opposite - don't? I'm the only one who was honest about the ambiguity of both of them at the start of things, the only one who didn't trumpet either of them as an absolute.
Originally posted by MONSTAR
WOW, just wow... Did this warmaker design the bomb as well? You destroy yourself by including the fact that the bullets effect is fully explained... Yet you try and apply that to the bombs effect???... Try this ( reed richards words ) That explosion would have destroyed half the solar system if it were not being delibertly contained, and by the SAME nasty coincidence a piece of that debris broke off and is headed for earth at 100 times light speed. The WHOLE subject focus on who?? Yes.. gladiator.
None of which implies or definitively states anything of the kind. It's totally ambiguous, made even less so by the reference to it as a 'process' and the fact that Gladiator has never demonstrated the ability to contain energy blasts that way under any writer, including Byrne.
Originally posted by Desaad
No, I don't think so. I'd say they're both fairly ambiguous feats that leave it open to interpretation. Which is why I've said as much.It seems to me that one - Gladiator being the one who 'controlled' the blast - is accepted without question as fact (certainly I noticed none of YOU were questioning it) while the other - Superman and Zod actually destroying the planet - is dismissed out of hand without any thought for the possibility that it's artistic license.
Why is it that I display bias, but that you and yours - those who believe the other opposite - don't? I'm the only one who was honest about the ambiguity of both of them at the start of things, the only one who didn't trumpet either of them as an absolute.
I believe in neither. I think both feats are arguably ambiguous and I DO NOT argue in behalf of the Glads solar system busting containing feat, I already said that the feat is ambiguous at best. Thus, you shouldn't use generalizations and "sides" to describe my argument.
The thing is, the story implied (far from evidence, I agree) that Gladiator did indeed contain some of the energy and the Superman/Zod story implied that, indeed, the link to the planet is what was causing the planet-wise destruction.
There exists a stronger level of implication supporting those interpretations than there is that doesn't. The only argument I'm hearing is that "due to lack of evidence, a separate interpretation can be arrived at" wherein you transfer the burden of proof to the other side while presenting none of your own.
Reaching happens when one find ANY reason (no matter how implausible) in order to downplay/reinterpret what the story seems to imply.
Maybe we have different interpretations, I don't know. But I do see a certain cognitive bias as you have yet to provide any evidence/wording within the story that points that YOUR interpretation is indeed correct rather than trying to disprove the other side's interpretation by stating a lack of evidence.
We DO agree on one thing tho: Both feats are ambiguous.
Thing is, the opposing side DIDN'T present the gladiator feat first, I believe it was simply a response to the poor evidence presented by Sirius to prove that Superman has indeed busted a planet on-panel.
Originally posted by D_Dude1210
I believe in neither. I think both feats are arguably ambiguous and I DO NOT argue in behalf of the Glads solar system busting containing feat, I already said that the feat is ambiguous at best. Thus, you shouldn't use generalizations and "sides" to describe my argument.
I beg to differ. I've seen you, on multiple threads, proclaim that the interpretation of the Superman/Zod fight as something of pure force is a fallacy.
And, again, you responded to ME when I brought up the ambiguity with a refutation, or an opinion that the other interpretation was more likely, but I have to wonder why I've not seen you bring up the ambiguity when people were arguing the other way in the first place?
The thing is, the story implied (far from evidence, I agree) that Gladiator did indeed contain some of the energy and the Superman/Zod story implied that, indeed, the link to the planet is what was causing the planet-wise destruction.
Where? I'd ask for specific text and quotes highlighting the nature of these implications.
There exists a stronger level of implication supporting those interpretations than there is that doesn't. The only argument I'm hearing is that "due to lack of evidence, a separate interpretation can be arrived at" wherein you transfer the burden of proof to the other side while presenting none of your own.
Again, WHY? Why is it a more logical assumption that Gladiator demonstrated in that one instance powers that he never demonstrated before, that he never demonstrated again? Even under that selfsame writer?
Why is it more likely that there was some mystical connection between the physicalities of Superman/Zod and the structure of the planet in the Phantom Zone than that it was a simple narrative device, one that gets used many times?
Maybe we have different interpretations, I don't know. But I do see a certain cognitive bias as you have yet to provide any evidence/wording within the story that points that YOUR interpretation is indeed correct rather than trying to disprove the other side's interpretation by stating a lack of evidence.
If you're going to claim that Gladiator contained the blast, then I think it should fall upon you to prove without a doubt that he did when he's never demonstrated that kind of power before.
If you're going to say that there was some mystical connection between a planet and a person, fine, but I think it should fall upon you to prove that. Otherwise I'll take them both at their face value.