Darkseid vs. Avengers/F4/GoTG

Originally posted by CosmicComet
There is no such thing as 'cutting' durability.

Thanos can't take a punch from Thor and and take an arrow from Hawkeye, shake off the former, and still be pierced by the latter. Not in reality.

The fact of the matter is, Thanos suffered from BIS (bendis induced stupidity), and thus his durability fluctuated anywhere from street level to high herald depending on who happened to be hitting him at the time.

Tell that to Thor, Wonder Woman and Aquaman. It might not be how it should be, but it is a convenient vehicle writers have used in the past, and I don't see it disappearing any time soon.

Originally posted by abhilegend
What feats it had to make it so powerful other than a name? Thanos was never much durable against cutting attacks

Not to mention that he went out of his way to avoid morg's axe which didn't cut terrax in the same issue

This one is self-explanatory.

Originally posted by CosmicComet
....No.

You did not understand.

There is no such thing as 'blunt' durability vs 'sharp'. Not in reality.

A knife is easier to cut with than a hammer because its force is focused on to a smaller surface area, thus producing higher amounts of pressure more easily. Pressure is Force divided by Area. Which simply means that in order to cut with a hammer as well as you would with a knife, you simply have to swing the hammer hard enough enough to overcome its greater surface area, and thus produce equal pressure to what the knife could produce with less.

And from there, let me ask a question; what's more damaging, a knife edge producing x amount of pressure or a hammer producing the same amount of pressure?

The answer is the hammer, since that same pressure figure will be felt across a greater surface area--and thus will produce a bigger cut than the knife.

Originally posted by celeyhyga17
Take whatever you want from this... Godslayer has like a mystical/cosmic quality to it.

Ronan's tampering with it cause a backlash that KO'd both him and Gamora.

This one is self-explanatory.

Different kinds of durability might not be applicable in real life, but in comics they are a staple.

WW is the most perfect example. Can take a beating from guys like Supes just fine, but if you manage to shoot her with a gun she will bleed just fine.

Same as Spidey he can take a beating much better than a knife or a bullet.

Hence anyone trying to rationalize the beating Thanos took applying real science should do the same to every showing in the history of comics that doesn't make sense, thus rejecting the medium itself.

Darkseid getting kicked by Batman (which is PIS of the highest order) seems to fly really well with most Thanos fans, but suddenly I'm supposed to cut Thanos slack because he got flattened by 3 100 toners and some fodder?
LOL. Aint gonna happen any time soon.

As of this week Thanos got penetrated by Hawkeye's arrows.
He also got his teeth busted, and left bleeding on his left and knees, while characters like Iron Man and Rocket Raccoon were cracking jokes on his expense while standing just in front of him.

Bottom line NuDS would fare much better than Thanos in a similar situation.
Deal with it and move on.
Thor's fans have done exactly that, and I consider my self one of them, so just accept what happened ON PANEL and IN CONTINUITY and pray to Starlin to make all this go away.

Cheers

Another example is Loebforce Rulk. Dude fell from moon and wasn't even KO'd, yet his skin got pierced by Tigra, Hellcat and Punisher's knife...

Originally posted by Raptor22
I'm not sure I agree with this I'll have to think about it more. I'm pretty sure there r things in reality with different cutting/blunt force durability. Wouldn't something like rubber (like a tractor tire) have a much higher blunt force durability over it's piercing/cutting? Wouldn't u have to produce far more force with the hammer to do the same amount of damage. And since u need to create more force with the blunt object to do equal damage as the piercing then wouldn't it's blunt force durability be higher since more force is needed to create the same amount of damage/pressure?

You can cut a rubber tire with a sword, or a hammer, provided you bring sufficient force to up the pressure with both.

It's going to be difficult anyway, as rubber holds up well to either. Just like leather.

Here's the thing. Force itself, does absolutely nothing. The sun's rays put thousands of tons of force on the earth. Why aren't we crushed by it? Simple. Because its so spread out. And since its so spread out, the pressure we feel is negligible. Pressure is what causes pain or damage period. Pressure from a hammer blow is why you feel pain. Pressure from a knife is why you feel pain. If neither provided pressure on a swing, you would not be damaged at all. The only difference is that their areas of pressure application, and pressure levels are different--lower for the hammer, higher for the knife. (all else being equal).

If you are durable enough to withstand a hammer swing wielding, say, 200 PSI worth of pressure. Is a knife swing also wielding 200 PSI worth of pressure going to damage you? No. It's the same pressure. And pressure is what causes you a cut in the first place. You weren't cut by the hammer, so you won't be cut by the knife.

'Sharp' or 'blunt' are relative words. A sword may be 'sharp' to us, but they would be quite blunt to a small flee. A hammer may be 'blunt' to us, but it would be quite 'sharp' from the view of a skyscraper towering giant.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Another example is Loebforce Rulk. Dude fell from moon and wasn't even KO'd, yet his skin got pierced by Tigra, Hellcat and Punisher's knife...

Got another one. Galactus blasting him light years away ramming him into a planet and he got up like nothing happened.

Originally posted by comicfan11

Hence anyone trying to rationalize the beating Thanos took applying real science should do the same to every showing in the history of comics that doesn't make sense, thus rejecting the medium itself.

The only rationalization is that Thanos had low feats and below average feats of durability within the same comic. Not different feats. And man were they some low feats. Pathetic. And I say this with disgust as a Thanos fan.

Regardless, even as stupid as comics are--and I criticize the medium like this all the time,--I can scarcely think of situations where any writer would be stupid enough to think you could survive a nuke and be killed by a bullet as well (Brubaker not withstanding).

Wolverine's claws aren't really ever a good example of someone being 'weak to sharp' btw guys. Ever. Wolverine's blades are supposed to be monomolecular, and thus bring extreme pressure, even with his relatively low strength. You can be cut by him and still no sell any other blade.

Originally posted by CosmicComet
The only rationalization is that Thanos had low feats and below average feats of durability within the same comic. Not different feats. And man were they some low feats. Pathetic. And I say this with disgust as a Thanos fan.

Regardless, even as stupid as comics are--and I criticize the medium like this all the time,--I can scarcely think of situations where any writer would be stupid enough to think you could survive a nuke and be killed by a bullet as well (Brubaker not withstanding)

The problem is that this happens all the time.
Most recent example of what you say is WW (Simone's run) tanked a mini nuke in her face, but still was getting cut by swords, arrows etc.

You'll just have to accept how the medium works (flawed true, but this is what gives base to many great stories)

Great to see people trying to sadly grasp saying Thanos has crap cutting durability despite it been shown he has.

Gail Simone has rationalized before, and she was correct, that WW shouldn't have such a backwards durability as it makes no sense. She has caved to pressure I guess.

I disagree that the inherent flaws of comics make for great stories. Good writers make great stories. Seeing things that completely fail in my attempt to rationalize them don't do anything for me but make me nitpick them and question the intelligence of the writers at times. Comics, for me, are by the far the worst written and most certainly the least consistent fictional medium out there. I do not care for the stories they give me the majority of the time as I do not like the writing. I only endure with them as I like feats, and I can like character visuals and dialogue even if I dislike the mechanics of the universe. Thus my favorite characters of all time are often comic related, while at the same time not liking the writing as a whole in comics.

Originally posted by CosmicComet
Gail Simone has rationalized before, and she was correct, that WW shouldn't have such a backwards durability as it makes no sense. She has caved to pressure I guess.

I disagree that the inherent flaws of comics make for great stories. Good writers make great stories. Seeing things that completely fail in my attempt to rationalize them don't do anything for me but make me nitpick them and question the intelligence of the writers at times. Comics, for me, are by the far the worst written and most certainly the least consistent fictional medium out there. I do not care for the stories they give me the majority of the time as I do not like the writing. I only endure with them as I like feats, and I can like character visuals and dialogue even if I dislike the mechanics of the universe. Thus my favorite characters of all time are often comic related, while at the same time not liking the writing as a whole in comics.

Still doesn't matter what you or me or anyone else likes.

What's printed in comics is what defines the realities and laws of the medium.

Hence what happened to Thanos cannot be dismissed on the basis of real life physics.

Yes it can. Afterall, PIS is PIS. And this is a specific battle board term that helps us to separate things from the failures within the pages of comics themselves.

Unless there was something ever written about Thanos having specific types of durability.

You cannot simply do it by feats alone. Why?

Well let's see.

He got cut by wolverine. But that means absolutely nothing. Wolverine can cut damn near anyone since his blades are extraordinarily sharp--and durable enough to maintain that sharpness.

He also no sold the Godslayer dagger. A special blade, backed up by someone of Gamora's strength. A good 'sharp' durability feat.

He got pierced by Hawkeye's arrows. Simple. Low feat.

We have one feat that's not a low feat at all in being cut by Wolverine, a good feat, and then a low feat.

How does one simply get to the same conclusion with him that seems to have been reached for Wonder Woman?

Originally posted by CosmicComet
Yes it can. Afterall, PIS is PIS. And this is a specific battle board term that helps us to separate things from the failures within the pages of comics themselves.

Unless there was something ever written about Thanos having specific types of durability.

You cannot simply do it by feats alone. Why?

Well let's see.

He got cut by wolverine. But that means absolutely nothing. Wolverine can cut damn near anyone since his blades are extraordinarily sharp--and durable enough to maintain that sharpness.

He also no sold the Godslayer dagger. A special blade, backed up by someone of Gamora's strength. A good 'sharp' durability feat.

He got pierced by Hawkeye's arrows. Simple. Low feat.

We have one feat that's not a low feat at all in being cut by Wolverine, a good feat, and then a low feat.

How does one simply get to the same conclusion with him that seems to have been reached for Wonder Woman?

No
Thanos has also been cut by no name alien axes.
And wasn't bone claw Woverine that cut him?

Plus the fact remains it happened in continuity.
It matters as much to Thanos's history as it matters to Vision or Hawkeye.

No matter what you decide to believe I can always pic up the comic, turn the page and see Thanos standing there pierced, bleeding and toothless.
That happened.
If you ask the writer of the story if this happened, he will tell you "of course" it's part of the continuity.

It might not be the greatest showing for Thanos but it's part of his history and a powerlevel indication UNTIL Marvel makes the mistake of bringing back Starlin.

Simple as that.

Originally posted by comicfan11

And wasn't bone claw Woverine that cut him?

Adamantium Logan stabbed Thanos when he had the IG, Bone Claw cut him on another occasion (Marvel vs. DC, I believe):

Bone claw was non cannon. And the alien cutting Thanos was once after fighting 25,000 of the. Good to ignore Gamoras godslayer blade breaking on his skin.

Originally posted by Nihilist
Bone claw was non cannon. And the alien cutting Thanos was once after fighting 25,000 of the. Good to ignore Gamoras godslayer blade breaking on his skin.

So how do you explain being cut by a common axe? If Thanos was truly invulnerable to the axe, it wouldn't matter if 25 or 25.000 enemies struck him.
Because the axe wouldn't be able able to cut him even if he just stood there letting them wail on him.

Like another poster said it wouldn't matter if you shot Superman with one or one million bullets.
The effect would be the same (and we actually saw this happen many times)

That's not the case here.

Who claimed he was totally invulnerable? It makes sense that after taking attacks ftp. That many people his durability would give way

Originally posted by Nihilist
Who claimed he was totally invulnerable? It makes sense that after taking attacks ftp. That many people his durability would give way

That doesn't make sense.
It's quality of the attack that count's.
Not quantity.

A bullet made of adamantium will hurt any character more than 1 billion bullets made of paper.

This only shows that a character with a common no name axe got a hit in and cut Thanos.