Thor vs A Planet

Originally posted by ScreamPaste

The scan was indeed up in the respect thread. "Able to shatter whole planets as easy as pebbles."

It's been said here, said during the Gorr fight, and shown during the Gorr fight that even indirect blows could cause grievous damage to a planet. I'm of the mind that yes, Thor can. With one blow more than likely.

Generally, such a statement would be written off as hyperbolic or just flowery prose, but given how later in the series we Thor do intense damage indirectly, it's a huge stretch (and borderline ridiculous) to assume he can't destroy a planet if he were to actively intend to do so.

And since the OP says Mjolnir strikes can be amped with energy, it becomes even more absurd to argue he can't do so.

Originally posted by JakeTheBank
Generally, such a statement would be written off as hyperbolic or just flowery prose, but given how later in the series we Thor do intense damage indirectly, it's a huge stretch (and borderline ridiculous) to assume he can't destroy a planet if he were to actively intend to do so.

And since the OP says Mjolnir strikes can be amped with energy, it becomes even more absurd to argue he can't do so.

The "shatter whole planets as easy as pebbles" definitely seems to be hyperbolic. Still, his fight with Gorr shows he is capable of destroying planets.

Edit: Beaten to the punch.

Originally posted by ScreamPaste
Indeed, if the statement were to stand alone I wouldn't bother using it, but issue 9 went out of it's way to show us, with no room for doubt, that planetary destruction is a very possible side effect of swinging mjolnir. I mostly posted it for the sake of consistency.

Originally posted by ScreamPaste
Indeed, if the statement were to stand alone I wouldn't bother using it, but issue 9 went out of it's way to show us, with no room for doubt, that planetary destruction is a very possible side effect of swinging mjolnir. I mostly posted it for the sake of consistency.

👆

I don't want to attempt to quantify the level of force/power needed from Thor swinging Mjolnir to deal enough damage to cause a distant world to break apart, but I'd imagine it's significantly higher than merely hitting a planet directly.

So Zop never answered? This guy is a real piece of work man smh. Motherphucker just straight up mentally edited a comic to fit his vision.

Originally posted by ares834
I definitely think there was more than just physical force in the Mjolnir/Strombreaker smashing feat.

But the Gorr feat shows Thor can easily shatter planets with a few blows. Yes, it may be a "shared" feat but the fact is the force required to blow planets up by shock-waves would be far higher than if Thor physically hit the planet.

Pretty much this.

There's no point in using the BRB/Thor feat because Thor has enough on his own in the Gorr saga (so does BRB 😛)

Originally posted by JakeTheBank
👆

I don't want to attempt to quantify the level of force/power needed from Thor swinging Mjolnir to deal enough damage to cause a distant world to break apart, but I'd imagine it's significantly higher than merely hitting a planet directly.

Originally posted by celeyhyga17
I think Rage already posted that pages ago.

Originally posted by celeyhyga17
That's the part where I just don't understand how it is less impressive to others as opposed to directly pounding a planet. It's just mind boggling. There's just no words..... I'm like derrr..... Losing more brain cells as this thread continues.

Originally posted by JakeTheBank
👆

I don't want to attempt to quantify the level of force/power needed from Thor swinging Mjolnir to deal enough damage to cause a distant world to break apart, but I'd imagine it's significantly higher than merely hitting a planet directly.

Jake or Rage I have a question.
I thought Odin applied the worthy enchantment AFTER Thor rebelled against him causing Odin to banish Thor to Earth powerless.

But in the above scans it shows Thor couldn't even lift Mjolnir in the very beginning.

Is this a contradiction?

Originally posted by h1a8
Jake or Rage I have a question.
I thought Odin applied the worthy enchantment AFTER Thor rebelled against him causing Odin to banish Thor to Earth powerless.

But in the above scans it shows Thor couldn't even lift Mjolnir in the very beginning.

Is this a contradiction?

No.

Mjolnir was created by Etri and the other dwarves and then enchanted by Odin, with the worthiness enchantment in place. Thor couldn't lift Mjolnir for some time, but eventually succeeded in doing so. Thor was a good and noble man, but eventually his pride got the better of him and he was reckless and prone to angry outbursts, leading to Odin sending him to Earth to learn humility. But he was still worthy of Mjolnir in spite of his flaws and in spite of being banished to Earth by Odin.

You may be thinking of the movie, in all honesty.

In any case, Thor had learned and earned "worthiness", but not humility.

Originally posted by JakeTheBank
No.

Mjolnir was created by Etri and the other dwarves and then enchanted by Odin, with the worthiness enchantment in place. Thor couldn't lift Mjolnir for some time, but eventually succeeded in doing so. Thor was a good and noble man, but eventually his pride got the better of him and he was reckless and prone to angry outbursts, leading to Odin sending him to Earth to learn humility. But he was still worthy of Mjolnir in spite of his flaws and in spite of being banished to Earth by Odin.

You may be thinking of the movie, in all honesty.

In any case, Thor had learned and earned "worthiness", but not humility.

I think we should go by stan lee's definition of what it takes to be worthy and not these current writers' which causes contradictions.

Neither are blowing up Earth sized planet but perhaps an Earth moon size sure.

It basically boils down to;

"Do you think Thor is more powerful than Terrax"

Use the same answer to answer the OP.

Originally posted by h1a8
Ok thanks!
Yes I thought the movie portrayed the real comic events in which Thor was banished.

I think we should go by stan lee's definition of what it takes to be worthy and not these current writers' which causes contradictions.

Np.

Well, one thing to remember is that it usually take something drastic for someone to lose worthiness. Even Thor when he's being an arrogant loutish brute is still worthy of Mjolnir (to say nothing of the times he's been mind controlled or otherwise compromised). But when Thor killed Jake Olsen, he was unable to lift Mjolnir.

Canonically speaking, Thor earned his worthiness when he confronted Hela to save Sif.

Originally posted by JakeTheBank
😐

Thor's feat was an actual combat feat. He was fighting a being more powerful than he was and the planetary destruction was a side effect of those blows. Gladiator was wailing on an empty planet directly and eventually wrecked it after several blows and wasn't a combat feat. In short, Thor wasn't trying to destroy a planet but was intend trying to defeat Gorr. In fact, upon discovering he was threatening innocent lives, he stopped his assault to save them. That's several orders of magnitudes higher than Gladiator's feat in pretty much every way that matters.

If you can't honestly see how and why Thor's feat is far more impressive and definitely "counts" more so as it pertains to combat settings than Gladiator's...well, I really don't know what to tell you outside of helpfully suggesting to re-read the comics again.

I'm not saying its less impressive than Gladiator's feat or Drax's feat or terrax's feat or surfer's feat and so on. I'm trying to find logic over how much you insisted that Gladiator's planet busting means little in terms of gauging strength. I'm sure there are better feats from thor against supposed skyfather level beings than getting beaten alongside two other Thors one of which is a legit trans tier character.

Originally posted by dmills
So Zop never answered? This guy is a real piece of work man smh. Motherphucker just straight up mentally edited a comic to fit his vision.

You have the right to openly harass him over it now 👆

Originally posted by abhilegend
Thor's feat was a combat feat, sure. But it doesn't take precedence over any other planet busting feats when the planet was only started to shatter after several strikes.

I'm not saying its less impressive than Gladiator's feat or Drax's feat or terrax's feat or surfer's feat and so on. I'm trying to find logic over how much you insisted that Gladiator's planet busting means little in terms of gauging strength. I'm sure there are better feats from thor against supposed skyfather level beings than getting beaten alongside two other Thors one of which is a legit trans tier character.

It's not so much the fact that he was shattering a planet after several strikes, but the fact that he was doing so without directly striking the planet itself. This is also without taking into account he was damaging a distant inhabited world in addition. Frankly, that's more impressive than busting a planet after several strikes while actively attacking it directly.

Gladiator's strike means little in the sense that he doesn't walk around busting planets/planetoids, just like every other herald. It's also a feat in which he's hammering away on a planet and eventually destroys it after enough blows, which pales in comparison to what Thor did who was actually in combat. And for a while, Gladiator's feat was used as some kind of irrefutable proof that he's stronger and more powerful than beings who have not physically busted a planet or have come close to on panel, which is beyond stupid as I'm sure you'll agree to. This isn't Thor's best combat feat, no, but it's definitely quite impressive.

Originally posted by Damborgson
You have the right to openly harass him over it now 👆

LOL. Nah I'm done. I was supposed to be semi-retired from aggressively debating until Richard Rider returns... But for some reason this particular thread just ended up pissing me off tbh...

Originally posted by JakeTheBank
It's not so much the fact that he was shattering a planet after several strikes, but the fact that he was doing so without directly striking the planet itself. This is also without taking into account he was damaging a distant inhabited world in addition. Frankly, that's more impressive than busting a planet after several strikes while actively attacking it directly.

Gladiator's strike means little in the sense that he doesn't walk around busting planets/planetoids, just like every other herald. It's also a feat in which he's hammering away on a planet and eventually destroys it after enough blows, which pales in comparison to what Thor did who was actually in combat. And for a while, Gladiator's feat was used as some kind of irrefutable proof that he's stronger and more powerful than beings who have not physically busted a planet or have come close to on panel, which is beyond stupid as I'm sure you'll agree to. This isn't Thor's best combat feat, no, but it's definitely quite impressive.

Thor doesn't walks around busting planet/planetoids either. Gladiator took only three hits to destroy the planet. Drax oneshotted two planets, terrax oneshotted one and so on. When anybody said that Gladiator was stronger than Thor because he destroyed a planet, he was called upon it. If anybody will argue that Thor is somehow stronger than anybody else because of this feat *coughCarvercough*, they will be called upon it too. Is this an impressive striking feat? Sure. Is it as WTF as some overzealous thor fans are suggesting? No. Thor has better combat feats than this. Like I'e said before, space cheese matters little.