Originally posted by Stoic👆
That's my point. Superman and Atrocitus are two different characters with totally different powers. Attrocitus is a very powerful hard light character with specific defenses against spiritual, and psychic assaults. Superman is a very powerful character, but he's a physical one. A powerful physical one but a physical one all the same.Do you see what I'm aiming at?
Originally posted by StoicYes, but the way Helspont handled Superman showed a vast gap in their power levels.
Uhmmm, hmmmm. You realize that one guy does not equate to the other. Superman really isn't the benchmark for every character out there under the sun. Majestic is a match for Helspont, so I think Atrocitus would be able to do as good or better against Helspont.Atrocitus gets my vote for the win.
I don't see Atrocitus casully owning Kal-El like Helspont did.
Originally posted by Zack Fair
Yes, but the way Helspont handled Superman showed a vast gap in their power levels.I don't see Atrocitus casully owning Kal-El like Helspont did.
Superman takes full damage, from magical attacks, and if those magical attacks happen to be laced with psychic energy he may take double the damage, whereas a hard light user has specific defenses against these types of attacks.
This is why using Superman as a benchmark in place of Atrocitus is wrong. I bet Captain Marvel would have done better against Helspont.
Originally posted by Stoic
Superman takes full damage, from magical attacks, and if those magical attacks happen to be laced with psychic energy he may take double the damage, whereas a hard light user has specific defenses against these types of attacks.This is why using Superman as a benchmark in place of Atrocitus is wrong. I bet Captain Marvel would have done better against Helspont.
Wait; Helspont's attacks were magical in origin?
