Originally posted by -Pr-
That's very vague, tbh. You can't really use that as the sole basis for a comparison.
This was stated right before Thor used the attack on Juggs. The writer was trying to show the reader that Juggs can withstand the very same attack. There is no mention that the attack is lesser than before but it's the writer's intention that it is the same.
Here's the image
I don't think his intent is what you say it is at all, to be honest.
One, it's not even narration; it's Thor speaking. Second, he could very easily be talking about the type of attack he's using. In fact, i'd say it's more likely than him conveying that it's the exact same intensity and power as the other, previous attack.
Originally posted by -Pr-
I don't think his intent is what you say it is at all, to be honest.One, it's not even narration; it's Thor speaking. Second, he could very easily be talking about the type of attack he's using. In fact, i'd say it's more likely than him conveying that it's the exact same intensity and power as the other, previous attack.
The writer made Thor say those words. So Thor is speaking for the writer. I could be wrong but
I believe it's the writer's intention to show that both attacks are the same.
Otherwise, what would be the point of referencing those events and having Juggs tank the attack afterwards?
The plot or story was to sell and cement Jugg's massive durability.
Originally posted by h1a8
The writer made Thor say those words. So Thor is speaking for the writer. I could be wrong but
I believe it's the writer's intention to show that both attacks are the same.
Otherwise, what would be the point of referencing those events and having Juggs tank the attack afterwards?The plot or story was to sell and cement Jugg's massive durability.
You're free to believe it's his intent, but proving that it's in any way definitive is not going to be easy.
And in general on this forum, we treat character statements to be different from narration; just saying.
Originally posted by h1a8
The writer made Thor say those words. So Thor is speaking for the writer. I could be wrong but
I believe it's the writer's intention to show that both attacks are the same.
Otherwise, what would be the point of referencing those events and having Juggs tank the attack afterwards?The plot or story was to sell and cement Jugg's massive durability.
Saying that something is the same attack doesn't mean it's the same power level.
Originally posted by abhilegend
That godblast against Exitar was arguably amped by belt of strength as mjolnir has never shattered channeling godblast. Oh and that godblast against Galactus/Scrier/Other was amped too, not that it did anything against them.
Hmmm I wasn't aware that the belt of strength amped magical attacks from thor, I thought it was only physical stats and drained his stamina over time.
Originally posted by h1a8
Why couldn't the hammer have had varying durabilities in both scenes (Exitar vs. Juggs)? Characters and other objects do.The writer clearly explained both Godblasts to be equal in power.
So we can either ignore the varying durability concept in comics and go against the writer.
Or we can go along with the writer and apply the varying durability concept.Lastly, we can't fully know the upper durability of Exitar's inner dome without speculation. Obviously, his armor is less durable than enchanted Uru or adamantium. So how much more can we assign his inner dome over his hammer?
If you think that's the case, prove it then.
No, he did not. He explained it as the same attack. It wasn't the same level of power. He literally destroyed a fortified Mjolnir in the Exitar scene, it by definition could not be.
Stop pretending the writer fully agreed with you.
It took all his might just to shatter the exterior shell and the interior was even more durable. This was Celestials in their prime, before almost anyone could even singe them.
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
Why would beating a full-power Mephisto not mean that one is a skyfather? He crushed him like a bug.That's not what happened. Anyways, even if you believe that it rejuvenates him, then that coupled with the fact that he was still wearing it in the panel where the narrative claims he's exhausted, means that it also rejuvenated him before he put it on Mjolnir. Kind of puts a hole in your argument, so I suggest you drop it and take into consideration the rest of the narrative statement which tells us that Thor is regaining his strength.
How would you know? Notwithstanding the colossal amount of punishment Thor took in that comic and still kept coming, your own rejuvenation theory tells us that he performed the GB at full power.
Returning strength=/=full strength.
Because he took off the belt.
Originally posted by kevdudeOther than Firestorm's funnel, GL constructs, Wonder Woman's bracers, heat vison, etc.
The Entropy Aegis wasn't a normal Imperiex Probe but it was still the Probes armor that repelled Darkseid's Omega Effect. The Probes are truly uber compared to anything else in the DCU.
Originally posted by abhilegend
Because of his low showings. This wasn't a prime mephisto anyway and Scrier needed help and surprise to beat him.Returning strength=/=full strength.
Because he took off the belt.
He regained his strength. That means he wasn't exhausted.
In later panels. Your rejuvenation theory clearly tells us that he wasn't exhausted.
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
His later showings establish him as a legit Abstract-level character, so no need to cling to particular showings just to denigrate him. Current versions are used unless specified.He regained his strength. That means he wasn't exhausted.
In later panels. Your rejuvenation theory clearly tells us that he wasn't exhausted.
He didn't said that. He said his strength was returning, not that he was at full strength.
One or two panels where his strength returning doesn't mean much.
Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
If you think that's the case, prove it then.No, he did not. He explained it as the same attack. It wasn't the same level of power. He literally destroyed a fortified Mjolnir in the Exitar scene, it by definition could not be.
Stop pretending the writer fully agreed with you.
It took all his might just to shatter the exterior shell and the interior was even more durable. This was Celestials in their prime, before almost anyone could even singe them.
2 Things
1. Objects have variable durability in comics
2. Writer's intentions trump anything else though.
So we can't ignore the varying durability concept in comics and go against the writer.
In other words, We must go along with the writer and apply the varying durability concept.
Originally posted by abhilegend
What later showingS? He has only one showing since then and he jumped to abstract level without any explanation. This is the same scrier unless you know of an amp I don't. Not to mention The Other was imprisoned by the same scrier.He didn't said that. He said his strength was returning, not that he was at full strength.
One or two panels where his strength returning doesn't mean much.
You're just arguing to argue at this point. Nevermind the fact that the comic clearly tells us that Thor is regaining his strength, your own rejuvenation logic destroys the idea that Thor was still exhausted by the time he got to charging up his Godblast.
Except they do. Claiming that Thor was exhausted after a scan has been provided to you, even while ignoring the rest of the statement that tells us clearly that he's regaining his strength is dishonest to say the least.
Originally posted by h1a8
Only someone deluded or bias would not clearly see the writer wanted the attacks to be exactly the same.2 Things
1. Objects have variable durability in comics
2. Writer's intentions trump anything else though.So we can't ignore the varying durability concept in comics and go against the writer.
In other words, We must go along with the writer and apply the varying durability concept.
Why would Mjolnir have fluctuating durability under the same writer who was explicitly aware of the Exitar scene? This line of reasoning from you requires far too much insight on what a writer was thinking and ignoring what was in the comic.
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
Yes, and said showing cements his position as an Abstract level being.You're just arguing to argue at this point. Nevermind the fact that the comic clearly tells us that Thor is regaining his strength, your own rejuvenation logic destroys the idea that Thor was still exhausted by the time he got to charging up his Godblast.
Except they do. Claiming that Thor was exhausted after a scan has been provided to you, even while ignoring the rest of the statement that tells us clearly that he's regaining his strength is dishonest to say the least.
I am? Thor regaining his strength gradually=/=being at full strength. If you have a caption that tells us that he was at full power, its well past time to post it.
Except they don't. Thor was exhausted and he was regaining his strength. How does that tells us that he was back at full strength except you drawing assumptions again?
Originally posted by abhilegend
I know. I'm just amused by it. You still haven't posted any proof that Oblivion had them under control besides drawing assumptions.I am? Thor regaining his strength gradually=/=being at full strength. If you have a caption that tells us that he was at full power, its well past time to post it.
Except they don't. Thor was exhausted and he was regaining his strength. How does that tells us that he was back at full strength except you drawing assumptions again?
Him regaining his strength somehow means that he hadn't been restored by the time he started the Godblast? By this line of logic, you might as well start claiming that Thor never performed the Godblast itself, since the narrative merely indicated that he had been charging it up.
Basic grasp of the English language would tell us that when the narrative claims that Thor was regaining strength, then that mans he was restored by the time he started invoking the GB.
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
Apart from my citation of the note on which Oblivion ended the comic?Him regaining his strength somehow means that he hadn't been restored by the time he started the Godblast? By this line of logic, you might as well start claiming that Thor never performed the Godblast itself, since the narrative merely indicated that he had been charging it up.
Basic grasp of the English language would tell us that when the narrative claims that Thor was regaining strength, then that mans he was restored by the time he started invoking the GB.
Yes. Now you're just using a strawman argument.
No.