Thor and the Destroyer vs Ghost Rider and Spawn

Originally posted by juggerman
As Rob and i have said the FG's were killed by a lot of other things far less powerful that what the first two were hit with.

I see it like if we see 10-20 people being killed by a fall from 1,000 feet on to jagged rocks and then we see one fall from 30,000 feet but don't check to see if he's dead i feel like it's pretty clear he died. There is no real reason to believe otherwise

But what are these feat's that you keep claiming as "lesser feats"? If you mean by getting killed by Loki, Sif, and Fandrall... well, all 3 are asgardian with asgardian strength (except Loki although he does have enough strength to go fisticuffs with Thor) and all of their weapons were sharp, bladed weapons. Loki's knife was enough to punch through Thor's armor and skin with nothing more than casual stab.

These are not "lesser feats". These are asgardian weapons wielded by asgardian warriors and getting killed by these is not proof of Frost Giants having low durability.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Can we get some Frost Giant durability feats, because otherwise the claim that they had the capability to survive is baseless.

Loki is a Frost Giant, a runt of a frost giant, and yet he seems pretty bullet proof against small arms fire and has survived unscathed from IM's repulsor rays and a direct explosion to the face via Hawkeye's arrow. He has also taken a hit from Mjolnir as well as a tackle from Hulk without apparent injuries.

And again, this is a frost giant runt we're talking about.

We know the companions' attacks are lesser than Thor + Mjolnir cos we know Thor's more powerful and Mjolnir is stated by Odin to be the "most powerful" weapon. Would you argue that Odin isn't more powerful than the others, even though he really didn't do much of anything?

eg, all the companions and Loki shit themselves when the giant beast cornered them, they had the "oh shit, we're dead" face. Then Thor flies in and take it out with a single hit. Another example would be the fight with the Destroyer. They couldn't do anything to it. Thor + Mjolnir took it down.

I really don't see why anymore would argue that Thor isn't more powerful than the companions and Loki. Since he's consistently portrayed and shows to be.

Originally posted by FrothByte
But what are these feat's that you keep claiming as "lesser feats"? If you mean by getting killed by Loki, Sif, and Fandrall... well, all 3 are asgardian with asgardian strength (except Loki although he does have enough strength to go fisticuffs with Thor) and all of their weapons were sharp, bladed weapons. Loki's knife was enough to punch through Thor's armor and skin with nothing more than casual stab.

These are not "lesser feats". These are asgardian weapons wielded by asgardian warriors and getting killed by these is not proof of Frost Giants having low durability.

A few things wrong here. 1. You assume all Asgardians have the same strength. They do not. Thor is far and away superior to the rest of them. If you disagree please provide feats that match Thor's. 2. You are assuming all Asgardian weapons are equal. They are not. Odin even says Mjolnir has no equal. Again if you disagree please provide feats for the other weapons that match what Thor's hammer has done.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Loki is a Frost Giant, a runt of a frost giant, and yet he seems pretty bullet proof against small arms fire and has survived unscathed from IM's repulsor rays and a direct explosion to the face via Hawkeye's arrow. He has also taken a hit from Mjolnir as well as a tackle from Hulk without apparent injuries.

And again, this is a frost giant runt we're talking about.

Loki is superior to any other Frost Giant. Fact. Proven by feats

EDIT: Also Thor takes it easy on Loki due to him loving his brother. He never hit Loki like he did the Frost Giants

Originally posted by juggerman
Loki is superior to any other Frost Giant. Fact. Proven by feats

EDIT: Also Thor takes it easy on Loki due to him loving his brother. He never hit Loki like he did the Frost Giants

Loki has superior training and has magical abilities, fact. That doesn't mean that his genetic and physical makeup and durability is superior to a normal frost giant. What feats do you have to support that theory?

Nobody is saying that Thor isn't more powerful, we are saying that blunt and bladed weapons do different types of damage so it's not a fair comparison.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Loki has superior training and has magical abilities, fact. That doesn't mean that his genetic and physical makeup and durability is superior to a normal frost giant. What feats do you have to support that theory?

Hulk, Ironman, Coulson's uber gun, Hawkeye's exploding arrow, ect all suppost this

Originally posted by juggerman
A few things wrong here. 1. You assume all Asgardians have the same strength. They do not. Thor is far and away superior to the rest of them. If you disagree please provide feats that match Thor's. 2. You are assuming all Asgardian weapons are equal. They are not. Odin even says Mjolnir has no equal. Again if you disagree please provide feats for the other weapons that match what Thor's hammer has done.

Thor is one of the strongest Asgardians, I agree. But that doesn't mean that the other asgardians (especially the warriors 3) don't have a good deal of super strength as well. Volstagg casually tilted a car with one hand. The warriors 3 were blocking, parrying, and taking hits from frost giants and were holding their own. If you want to include Loki, he sent Captain America (an enhanced super soldier) flying through the air and easily lifted Tony Stark with a single hand.

Asgardian weapons are not all equal, especially not in comparison to Mjolnir. That still doesn't change the fact that Thor got stabbed by Loki's dagger, proving that even a single asgardian dagger can hurt Thor. After all, why would you make weapons that can't hurt you? Asgardian weapons were made by asgardians to be effective for them and against their enemies. Meaning their weapons may not be as powerful as Mjolnir, but they're completely lethal to Frost Giants. Plus given their sharp and bladed nature, makes it hard to control whether you want to kill your opponent or just knock them out.

In short, you actually have no proof that these were really "lesser feats" because you have no idea just how powerful the warriors 3 are. If we go by comicbook lore, then you'll know that they are some of the best Asgardian warriors. Getting a sword through your gut is by no means a lesser feat than getting a hammer thrown at your face.

In any case, all this is moot. Ghost Rider won't be able to catch Thor in the penance stare anyway since he'll be too busy flying through the air after getting hit by mjolnir.

Originally posted by juggerman
Hulk, Ironman, Coulson's uber gun, Hawkeye's exploding arrow, ect all suppost this

Yes, that shows Loki's durability. That doesn't support your theory however that Loki's durability is better than the average Frost Giant.

As an example, Sif managed to impale the Destroyer with her weapon, while Thor didn't even dent the Destoyer his first two Mjolnir strikes.

Sharp weapons just have an easier time doing damage.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Thor is one of the strongest Asgardians, I agree. But that doesn't mean that the other asgardians (especially the warriors 3) don't have a good deal of super strength as well. Volstagg casually tilted a car with one hand. The warriors 3 were blocking, parrying, and taking hits from frost giants and were holding their own. If you want to include Loki, he sent Captain America (an enhanced super soldier) flying through the air and easily lifted Tony Stark with a single hand.

Asgardian weapons are not all equal, especially not in comparison to Mjolnir. That still doesn't change the fact that Thor got stabbed by Loki's dagger, proving that even a single asgardian dagger can hurt Thor. After all, why would you make weapons that can't hurt you? Asgardian weapons were made by asgardians to be effective for them and against their enemies. Meaning their weapons may not be as powerful as Mjolnir, but they're completely lethal to Frost Giants. Plus given their sharp and bladed nature, makes it hard to control whether you want to kill your opponent or just knock them out.

In short, you actually have no proof that these were really "lesser feats" because you have no idea just how powerful the warriors 3 are. If we go by comicbook lore, then you'll know that they are some of the best Asgardian warriors. Getting a sword through your gut is by no means a lesser feat than getting a hammer thrown at your face.

In any case, all this is moot. Ghost Rider won't be able to catch Thor in the penance stare anyway since he'll be too busy flying through the air after getting hit by mjolnir.

All you really did was agree with what i said and then said i was wrong 😕

The proof is that Thor is the strongest one and has the strongest weapon which means his hit are..... get ready now.... THE STRONGEST. So if his hits are the strongest then the other people's hits are lesser. So these are lesser feats.

But I'll take it even further for you. Thor hit these guys and sent them flying. Have any of the others done so? No? Well then it looks as tho they hit with lesser force and did less damage.

Well yeah the Stare would be pretty hard to use when his eyes are closed for good but this all started just to debate if it was even a factor here. I doubt he'd actually use it

Originally posted by FrothByte
Yes, that shows Loki's durability. That doesn't support your theory however that Loki's durability is better than the average Frost Giant.

It does. What other FG stood up to attacks like that unscathed? If the answer is "none" then we see Loki is superior. This can easily be explained by his magical prowess

Originally posted by Silent Master
As an example, Sif managed to impale the Destroyer with her weapon, while Thor didn't even dent the Destoyer his first two Mjolnir strikes.

Sharp weapons just have an easier time doing damage.

good point. But on of them was killing with a mace-like weapon. While it does have spikes it is still a blunt force weapon and kills like a hammer would ie crushing/breaking, weight based ect.

True, however the spikes themselves would be doing piercing damage....increasing damage is the entire point of adding spikes to a mace.

Originally posted by juggerman
It does. What other FG stood up to attacks like that unscathed? If the answer is "none" then we see Loki is superior. This can easily be explained by his magical prowess

To be able to judge whether an FG could survive the same attacks, they actually need to be put in the same circumstances. As it is, we never see an FG take on the Hulk, IM, or Coulson's gun or Hawkeye's arrow, so you can't really derive a conclusion where you say "Loki is tougher than the FG because he survived this and this".

Unless we put the FG's through the same scenarios, you can't say they won't survive those.

And getting stabbed with a sword will definitely not knock you back like a hammer strike would. Doesn't mean that the sword stab is any less powerful. That's just common sense man.

Originally posted by Silent Master
True, however the spikes themselves would be doing piercing damage....increasing damage is the entire point of adding spikes to a mace.

Most damage would be done by the crushing power tho. A FG was able to survive stabbing by Loki much worse than the piercing done by the mace

Originally posted by FrothByte
To be able to judge whether an FG could survive the same attacks, they actually need to be put in the same circumstances. As it is, we never see an FG take on the Hulk, IM, or Coulson's gun or Hawkeye's arrow, so you can't really derive a conclusion where you say "Loki is tougher than the FG because he survived this and this".

Unless we put the FG's through the same scenarios, you can't say they won't survive those.

And getting stabbed with a sword will definitely not knock you back like a hammer strike would. Doesn't mean that the sword stab is any less powerful. That's just common sense man.

IM, Hulk, and HE all have feats surpassing the Warriors Three so to believe they would produce less damage than them is silly. Coulson's gun has no feats so we can forget about that one

Originally posted by juggerman
Coulson's gun has no feats so we can forget about that one

Coulson's supertech gun was powerful enough to send Loki flying back and smash him though a steel wall.

That's not to shabby at all.

Originally posted by Robtard
Coulson's supertech gun was powerful enough to send Loki flying back and smash him though a steel wall.

That's not to shabby at all.

I meant other than that one 😛