Originally posted by Delta1938No, but what's worse, is that he'll take what he learned to a different thread and use the other angle entirely to support against a different character, and somehow both are correct and he was never wrong in his delusional world. That's his history since he came to KMC in a nutshell.
Out of curiosity, has Quanchi EVER admitted when he was blatantly wrong to the point he should be embarrassed like "bacteria expunged?" Or, admitting he was wrong, ever?
Originally posted by Juntai
No, but what's worse, is that he'll take what he learned to a different thread and use the other angle entirely to support against a different character, and somehow both are correct and he was never wrong in his delusional world. That's his history since he came to KMC in a nutshell.
And this is why I drew him as such:
Originally posted by Juntai
No, but what's worse, is that he'll take what he learned to a different thread and use the other angle entirely to support against a different character, and somehow both are correct and he was never wrong in his delusional world. That's his history since he came to KMC in a nutshell.
Why doesn't this surprise me? I'm actually shocked that I'm NOT surprised than the actual revelation of Quanchi you gave me.
Originally posted by Delta1938
In general. Respect Threads are fun to look at and all, but I have seen feats fall under one or more, sometimes all, of those categories. I'm not saying they're worthless, but now I mostly go to them when I'm bored as opposed to going to them to gather evidence.And I have a passing knowledge of Thor. What I've seen isn't comparable to Superman's best.
Specifically on Zeus, wouldn't that not be a great example of Thor's durability? If lightning refreshes Thor, wouldn't half of Zeus' attacks in that fight just rejuvenate him?
And I could always bring-up Emperor Joker.
Blaze isn't powerful? 🙄 And where did I say she was the most powerful? But she is an impressive example.
More impressive than someone who wields the power of the Big Bang and consumes entire galaxies?
One: That wasn't a question, it was a statement. There was no question mark. Two: I was referring to when Superman was blasted by Imperiex Prime after Imperiex killed Doomsday. Superman wasn't Sun-Dipped until after Brainiac came in with Warworld and absorbed Imperiex Prime's energy.
Yeah, so says the guy who thought Superman was Sun-Dipped in my example.
Correction to this...Superman almost died from Imperiex attack. Darkseid saved him. Not a good example imo but the rest are on point (need to reread them to make sure).
Originally posted by Mindship
And small battlefield nuke at that. That reporter doesn't even seem more than a mile or so away. The explosion looks almost like something where Superman would say, "I almost felt that."I think even a MOAB would make a bigger cloud.
I didn't read this comic. But if the bad guys are oh-so powerful, I'd wanna see a Tsar-bomb class mushroom, at least.
The thing is, we all know that area of effect by itself doesn't indicate how much power is actually used. Something can be super concentrated and a lot more damaging. Odin's Gungnir blasts against Thanos for example, the explosions were big enough to maybe take out a convenience store (lol), but we know that they were powerful as hell.
Thanos would have been able to stand within that barrage from the amped U-Foes and Osborne and not feel a thing.
Basically, what I'm saying is, we have no idea if that explosion is supposed to be equivalent in power to a conventional explosive of the same magnitude. It may be greater.
As for the size of the explosion itself, I think it might be bigger than a MOAB, the explosion is definitely farther than a mile away as well. Since at sea level alone, the visible horizon is about 3 miles away, and the reporters are standing on a building that's maybe 30 feet tall, and on top of that, assuming the reporter is like a bare minimum of 5 feet tall, that should increase the visible horizon to just about 8 miles. The explosion isn't on the horizon, but its definitely closer to the horizon than it is to the reporters.
Originally posted by -Pr-I thought the instance was clear.
Not really. If Superman was burning because of the sun, it would be hurting him, which basically pisses all over your assertion that he was somehow boosted by his own power source. You're breaking your own logic in your desperate attempt to make Superman look bad.😬
Superman doesn't burn in the sun, ergo, the sun isn't what set him on fire.
What point are you actually trying to make here?
Some of Imperiex's blast hit Supes--that's why he was 'burning'. However, Darkseid transported Superman away from said blast, just before he was killed. All of this was explicitly stated:
Where did Darkseid teleport Supes to? Right next to earth:
Why would he do that? Because Apokolips was right next to earth at the time:
If Superman would have been teleported into the sun (which wasn't even alluded to, btw), he would have been AMPED.... But he clearly wasn't. Why the hell blatant facts like this are argued with blows my mind.
Originally posted by CosmicCometSure, in the end, we can make it work. I just wasn't impressed visually for such a deadly blast.
The thing is, we all know that area of effect by itself doesn't indicate how much power is actually used. Something can be super concentrated and a lot more damaging. Odin's Gungnir blasts against Thanos for example, the explosions were big enough to maybe take out a convenience store (lol), but we know that they were powerful as hell.Basically, what I'm saying is, we have no idea if that explosion is supposed to be equivalent in power to a conventional explosive of the same magnitude. It may be greater.
Originally posted by CosmicCometGotta disagree with you here. All the buildings look more or less similar size, and the ones right next to the explosion (apparently, pre-shock wave) don't look all that far away. IMO, it looks close enough that the reporter should be worried about the blast wave.
As for the size of the explosion itself, I think it might be bigger than a MOAB, the explosion is definitely farther than a mile away as well. Since at sea level alone, the visible horizon is about 3 miles away, and the reporters are standing on a building that's maybe 30 feet tall, and on top of that, assuming the reporter is like a bare minimum of 5 feet tall, that should increase the visible horizon to just about 8 miles. The explosion isn't on the horizon, but its definitely closer to the horizon than it is to the reporters.
But like you were saying before, this could be a "compacted" energy effect, intended with minimal peripheral power loss (ie, little/no blast wave).
Originally posted by JakeTheBank
Well, they are comparable with Superman being more "invincible" than Thor, but Thor's damage soak and ability to keep ticking evening things up. And then you look at the cosmic beings and such they've battled and you realize that the idea that Superman being so much more durable than Thor isn't true.
I find myself agreeing with your positions a lot on this forum, but here I think you're wrong. Superman's durability is so far beyond Thor's it's really silly to argue otherwise. Do you really think Superman would get cut up by Wolverine like Thor was? Yeah, Superman was cut up by Doomsday, as some others have stated, but to compare that to WOLVERINE....that's preposterous. As far as this thread goes, I would say the Dark Avengers and U-Foes would NOT be able to KO Superman with that blast. And yeah, it's a good point that piercing durability wouldn't matter much in a fight between Superman and Thor, but the fact that thor can be pierced easier, can be taken as evidence that Superman's overall durability is better. Thor's been one-shot A LOT lately. Diablo, Amadeus Cho, etc.
Here's how we can break this down:
Superman, weakened, survived an explosion equal to 50 supernovas.
Thor, died from one NOVA.
Head to head:
Superman beat Thor. (and yes, it was canon)
Piercing: We already covered this in this thread. Superman is far more impressive in this category.
High end showings: Superman has more, and more impressive. BTW: Saying Thor has survived attacks from Odin? Does anyone think Odin was trying to kill Thor? Doubtful.
Low end showings: Many of Superman's have extenuating circumstances (not all, admittedly), but Thor has more without extenuating circumstances.
Magic: Thor wins here. But even here, not by as much as some people think.
Consistency: Superman has more REALLY high end showings over a longer period of time. Compared to Thor, there's no context here.
Originally posted by keiththegreat
I'm still waiting for someone to show that that blast was amped by the norn stones. I don't think it was.
They were not amped but it isn't a bad showing for Thor either. First, he was still standing after the attack and was pissed. Second, the people that blasted him are hellava powerful. Vector alone has fts that puts him in low to mid trans.
Originally posted by carver9They were amped the whole battle it is revealed when loki strips the u foes and company of the norn stones powers and gives it to the avenger to fight void. Carver when will you stop commenting on stuff you never even read 🙄
They were not amped but it isn't a bad showing for Thor either. First, he was still standing after the attack and was pissed. Second, the people that blasted him are hellava powerful. Vector alone has fts that puts him in low to mid trans.
Originally posted by PillarofOsiris
I find myself agreeing with your positions a lot on this forum, but here I think you're wrong. Superman's durability is so far beyond Thor's it's really silly to argue otherwise. Do you really think Superman would get cut up by Wolverine like Thor was? Yeah, Superman was cut up by Doomsday, as some others have stated, but to compare that to WOLVERINE....that's preposterous. As far as this thread goes, I would say the Dark Avengers and U-Foes would NOT be able to KO Superman with that blast. And yeah, it's a good point that piercing durability wouldn't matter much in a fight between Superman and Thor, but the fact that thor can be pierced easier, can be taken as evidence that Superman's overall durability is better. Thor's been one-shot A LOT lately. Diablo, Amadeus Cho, etc.Here's how we can break this down:
Superman, weakened, survived an explosion equal to 50 supernovas.
Thor, died from one NOVA.
Head to head:
Superman beat Thor. (and yes, it was canon)
Piercing: We already covered this in this thread. Superman is far more impressive in this category.
High end showings: Superman has more, and more impressive. BTW: Saying Thor has survived attacks from Odin? Does anyone think Odin was trying to kill Thor? Doubtful.
Low end showings: Many of Superman's have extenuating circumstances (not all, admittedly), but Thor has more without extenuating circumstances.
Magic: Thor wins here. But even here, not by as much as some people think.
Consistency: Superman has more REALLY high end showings over a longer period of time. Compared to Thor, there's no context here.
Now wait a minute. About the slashing piercing resistance. Stating "Do you think Superman would be cut by WOLVERINE?" is hardly conclusive evidence. What's your evidence that he wouldn't be cut? Also for the purposes of this forum JLA/Avengers is not Canon. That's been stated in the rules. Everything else you wrote is for Thor's fans to dispute, I'm only interested in this claim that Supes wouldn't be sliced by Wolverine.
