Originally posted by DigiAbsolutely. And the battlezone challenge is open to anybody. It is not, and never has been, a small factor. I find that position completely contradictory of the clear and vast history of post-Crisis[ Superman. And I find no need to step that position back due to a handful of contextless (and, yes, there is context: a lot) feats. A simple human schlub can give Superman fits with magic. You take one of, if not the most, powerful Green Lanterns and make him pure magic and that's a small factor? That position deserves derision every day and twice on Sunday.
But the fact that it exists in some capacity suggests that magic wouldn't be a non-factor in this fight....probably just a very small one. Is that statement so hard to get behind?
Originally posted by PillarofOsirisThis is not an issue of you finding an instance of someone else being hurt by magic. Other people have been hurt by fire. That doesn't diminish J'onn's repeated weakness to it, even though he has had a number of high feats resisting it (and at one point, was supposed to have overcome it explicitly).
Keep in mind, when Superman has fought skyfathers, they usually don't intentionally handicap themselves either, like Zeus did with the Hulk. You can claim all you want that Hulk would do better than Superman against Zeus, but the fact of the matter is, Zeus's magic did hurt him. Hulk was NOT invulnerable to Zeus's magic, which was my point all along.But again, I can point out an instance of Hulk being affected by magic for every instance of Superman being affected by it. Like Thor one-shotting Hulk with magic lightning. Dr. Strange has magicked Hulk a lot over the years, particularly while they were Defenders, but also that time Stephen banished Hulk to the place of floating rocks. In WWH, before Hulk broke Strange's hands, he said he could snuff out Hulk's mortal flame with the merest twitch of his finger.
Other people being affected by magic does not diminish Superman's outright punctuated vulnerability to it.
Originally posted by PillarofOsirisBecause Hulk isn't vulnerable to magic like Superman is. smfh
I don't mean to pick on the Hulk here, but it was one example someone else brought up. And I guarantee if this was an "Alan Scott vs Hulk" thread, no one would claim, "Hulk is vulnerable to magic, so Alan Scott wins."
Originally posted by OneDumbG0
A simple human schlub can give Superman fits with magic.
Kind of like Amadeus Cho or Diablo?
Originally posted by OneDumbG0
Other people have been hurt by fire. That doesn't diminish J'onn's repeated weakness to it, even though he has had a number of high feats resisting it (and at one point, was supposed to have overcome it explicitly).
If someone is hurt by fire, that person is vulnerable to fire. And yes, you're correct, it doesn't change the fact that MMH is also vulnerable to it (much like I said Superman IS STILL VULNERABLE TO IT).
Originally posted by OneDumbG0
Because Hulk isn't vulnerable to magic like Superman is. smfh
This is invulnerability to magic:
That's not what the Hulk has. Or Thor.
^ I never said Hulk or Thor was invulnerable to magic. There are degrees of vulnerability to magic that range from being one-shotted like a little b1tch whenever magic comes in your proximity ---> being particularly weak to it ---> faring no better or worse than your peers ---> being particularly resistant to most magic ---> virtually invulnerable to magic.
And I couldn't have decontructed the false dichotomy underlyng your arguments here any better than you just unintentionally did.
Don't even try to half-step out of your position. You're not having it both ways, by "accepting" Superman is vulnerable to magic... but "not really, he isn't" and arguing that he takes it just as well as his peers. You already cemented your stance numerous times as being the latter. And your wordplay isn't softening your stance one bit. Superman doesn't tank magic just as well as Thor, Surfer, Captain Marvel, Wonder Woman, Hulk, etc. And that punctuated vulnerability can exist whether or not Thor, Surfer, Captain Marvel, Wonder Woman or Hulk are invulnerable (which nobody has ever argued).
Tying your straw-man into semantics to cover up your false dichotomy isn't remedying just how much your stance ignores Superman comics.
Originally posted by OneDumbG0
^ I never said Hulk or Thor was invulnerable to magic. There are degrees of vulnerability to magic that range from being one-shotted like a little b1tch whenever magic comes in your proximity ---> being particularly weak to it ---> faring no better or worse than your peers ---> being particularly resistant to most magic ---> virtually invulnerable to magic.And I couldn't have decontructed the false dichotomy underlyng your arguments here and better than you just unintentionally did.
Don't even try to half-step out of your position. You're not having it both ways, by "accepting" Superman is vulnerable to magic... but "not really, he isn't" and arguing that he takes it just as well as his peers. You already cemented your stance numerous times as being the latter. And your wordplay isn't softening your stance one bit. Superman doesn't tank magic just as well as Thor, Surfer, Captain Marvel, Wonder Woman, Hulk, etc. And that punctuated vulnerability can exist whether or not Thor, Surfer, Captain Marvel, Wonder Woman or Hulk are invulnerable (which nobody has ever argued).
Tying your straw-man into semantics to cover up your false dichotomy isn't remedying just how much your stance ignores Superman comics.
Actually, my argument hasn't really changed since page 3, when this argument began:
Originally posted by PillarofOsiris
I'm not saying Superman isn't affected by it, but I am saying everyone else is too (for the most part).
But if it makes you feel better to think I'm flip-flopping that's fine too.
Just because I show examples of Superman resisting magic, doesn't mean I think he's completely invulnerable to it. It's like saying Superman is completely immune to punches from me showing someone breaking their hand punching him.
And you can keep SAYING Thor can tank magic better than Superman all you want, I've yet to see any evidence of it, when I've shown several instances of Superman weathering similar attacks, from higher powered beings better than Thor has.
Originally posted by PillarofOsirisYou're not flip-flopping. You've still got the same baseless position as you've always had. Superman dealing with magic is just like everybody else dealing with magic. I said that, in no uncertain term several times.
Actually, my argument hasn't really changed since page 3, when this argument began:But if it makes you feel better to think I'm flip-flopping that's fine too.
Originally posted by PillarofOsirisEnough with the false dichotomy. I never accused you of arguing that Superman was completely invulnerable to magic. You either can't comprehend that there are degrees of vulnerability, or you're still trying to feign a softening of your position to deflect from just how absurd your position is. But like I said, you're not fooling anybody with your semantics. Your position is as bad and as oblivious to the wealth of evidence there is as I've accused it.
Just because I show examples of Superman resisting magic, doesn't mean I think he's completely invulnerable to it. It's like saying Superman is completely immune to punches from me showing someone breaking their hand punching him.And you can keep SAYING Thor can tank magic better than Superman all you want, I've yet to see any evidence of it, when I've shown several instances of Superman weathering similar attacks, from higher powered beings better than Thor has.
In the meantime, let me not assume that you actually comprehend that there are degrees of vulnerability. Let me not assume that you're just trolling at this point harping on with the same false absolute garbage to deflect from your cracking position. So let me pander to you: MMH's serious vulnerability to fire is worse than Namor's particular vulnerability to fire is worse than Hulk's resistance to fire is worse than Surfer's strong resistance to fire is worse than Surtur's virtual invulnerability to fire.
Just because anybody with a transparent agenda can cherry-pick feats of MMH and Namor and Hulk and Surfer resisting fire in varying degrees, sometimes better or worse than each other, doesn't change the clear depiction of the levels of vulnerability.
You ignoring (and tactlessly dismissing) the several examples I've already listed off the top of my head that illustrate Superman's vulnerability to magic on pages prior doesn't arm you with the right to demand more proof.
This issue doesn't deserve long debate. Superman has a long, rich history of being vulnerable to magic. And I'm only going to stomp this issue in a controlled setting (aka battlezone). In the meantime, I'm just deconstructing your graceless arguments and logical fallacies. If the best you've got is "Hulk isn't like Superman Prime!!!!111 Therefore, you're wrong!!!11" what exactly do you think you have earned here other than my casual contempt?
In all the comics I have Magic is sometimes mentioned as a "weakness" and then right at the very next panel Superman is fine.
The Captain Marvel where he say "CM has the advantage because of his magic" proves this. As everybody knows Superman won the fight.
And what was mentioned of Superman never feeling magical lighting like that before it proves just that He never felt lighting like that before, that's it and nothing else.
If Superman were WEAK to magic, then that Thunder should have killed him as it will kill a normal human, but it did not.
Superman is not weak to magic, he is vulnerable to it as almost everybody is, with it's degrees.
Magic is not a big factor in here. IMO, Evidence is there and plenty of it.
Originally posted by Digi
The whole magic thing is kind of an ancillary point. Alan wins even if his magic does nothing extra (though I think it would).
True. But Alan's not just "magic" anyway. The Starheart is one of the more potent sources of mystical energy in the DCU.
If Alan retained his power level and his power was described as just being Oan based with no magic element, I'd still think he'd edge out Superman.
Originally posted by biensalsa
Because there is plenty of evidence showing that magic does not guarantee a victory over Superman.I can post more if you wish
Of course magic in of itself doesn't guarantee victory. But that doesn't mean magic is inconsequential to Superman.
And it certainly doesn't mean the Starheart's mystical properties wouldn't be a significant factor, either.
In this specific case, the source of Alan's power and its potency is a rather significant factor to consider in this fight.
Originally posted by JakeTheBank
Of course magic in of itself doesn't guarantee victory. But that doesn't mean magic is inconsequential to Superman.And it certainly doesn't mean the Starheart's mystical properties wouldn't be a significant factor, either.
In this specific case, the source of Alan's power and its potency is a rather significant factor to consider in this fight.
I agree, I will be more worried about his overall power level rather than being derived from magic.
But I still need to see the last issues of brightest day and see how powerful he became at the end of the post crisis.
And also take into account what are the limits of a going all out Allan Scott vs the limits of a going all out Superman.
Do you believe Allan will have fared better vs Post Zero hour Parallax?
Originally posted by biensalsa
I agree, I will rather be more worried about his overall power level than being derived from magic.But I still need to see the last issues of brightest day and see how powerful he became at the end of the post crisis.
And also take into account what are the limits of a going all out Allan Scott vs the limits of a going all out Superman.
Ultimately, before the reboot, Alan had obtained and later tamed an even larger portion of the Starheart than he had previously. During the JLA/JSA crossover "The Dark Things", Alan was a definitive team wrecker, taking on the teams using constructs while not even entirely focused on them specifically (Alan himself was sitting on his throne interrogating Dr. Fate and Faust). He was keeping the Emerald City on the Moon, a focal point and gathering place of magic and mystical creatures intact through sheer force of will, and even then wasn't anywhere close to keeping 100% of his focus on the City.
Then the shitty Scythe JSA arc happened and Alan got "crippled".
Pillar's initial point is actually sound, he just overstates it somewhat. Superman is vulnerable to magic, it just seems like it's more of a glaring vulnerability because so much else can't hurt him.
As far as the thread goes, yes, Alan's magic will make a victory a little easier, but it's far from being an "i win" button.