Originally posted by zopzop
Regarding Mazahs, why does he have the "Shazam" thunderbolt on his chest? Why is his name Shazam spelled backwards? Is he some alt Earth Shazam?
He's also supposed to take any power that he touches. He has a lot of implied power. The Crime Syndicate was supposed to throw him at the creature that is tearing through the Multiverse. So, he's pretty uber.
Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Imagine how different some of the replies in this thread would be if Ultraman and Hyperion had their feats reversed.Anyways, Hyperion wins.
lol well said.
Originally posted by Golgo13
He's also supposed to take any power that he touches. He has a lot of implied power. The Crime Syndicate was supposed to throw him at the creature that is tearing through the Multiverse. So, he's pretty uber.
Yeah unlike shazam who has the capacity to distribute his power he takes it away, that is scary. I hope he gets a good run and isn't a mere plot device.
Originally posted by Prof. T.C McAbeWell, it's the same with Superman as it is with the other feat fish: Hulk.
They would do the same to him what they do right now to his superior feats, since years btw and even worse. Hyperion can count himself lucky not being Superman, so his feats are at least a little bit valid 😉.
No matter what happens, people will blow it out of proportion and people will downgrade it just as well.
And you've seen earlier Phildo arguing that moving a moon is a better feat than stopping two planets, and ignoring all evidence of them being universes. Then he just stopped coming on like a day before Hyperion stopped a planet because he lost the will to live.
No matter what happens fanboys will try and degrade a feat they feel "threatens" their character. I mean, this is the sorriest thing I've ever seen to try and downgrade a feat, but the premise is still there. Had the feats changed hands there would be lowballing just the same. The difference is that it would be used a lot more to prove strength for Superman, since he has a large vocal fanbase. Which would result in more "hate". Hell, before I logged in today when I was taking a poop I saw Abhi using Starbrand blasting Hyperion as some sort of low feat in an effort to disprove his highs.
Anyway, where I'm going with this is that the lowballing and highballing would be a lot more vocal if it happened to Superman, or Hulk for that matter. But that's because of a larger fanbase. There is no "Boo hoo Superman" (the whole premise is ridiculous for that matter), it's just the way it goes. People get annoyed at rampant highballing and thus begins rampant lowballing. The forum is lucky it happened to a new character, since this place would be a lot worse had it happened to a well known character.
As well as company bias playing a part in this as well. The Marvel guys are defending Hyperion, while the DC ones are trying to shit on him. Had Ultraman (new character) switched feats it'd be the exact same. Only I feel the people here would go so far as to say he'd tear Hyperion in half. Though the same could be said if Tony Stark, and Quanchi were in here as well.
With that said, the argument that Ultraman wins is retardededededed. He has literally two feats. One involves beating a character who also had two feats (one involves the impressiveness being based off a statement of power). Since one feat is vastly eclipsed by Hyperion, that boils down to one feat. Do you put beating Black Adam above fighting decently against the Avengers (including scrapping Iron Man's armor), ripping apart High Evolutionary, ramming through Term who was taking Thor shots, killing Corvus, etc? I wouldn't, and even though I think his feat is worse, I could see it being put on the same ground at best.
Doesn't make sense to me personally, and seems only fueled by pure company bias. Of course though, some of the people saying Ultraman wins are the same who said he'd beat Thanos... So maybe I'm wrong about it being company bias...
Ultraman cannot win at this juncture. Maybe he will at one point in time. Maybe he will based on his next issue, but he simply completely and utterly lacks the feats right now to win. Stalemate is the best case scenario for him right now, but stating he wins raises a lot of questions.
Originally posted by Branlor SwiftGood points, but type less next time. 👆
Well, it's the same with Superman as it is with the other feat fish: Hulk.No matter what happens, people will blow it out of proportion and people will downgrade it just as well.
And you've seen earlier Phildo arguing that moving a moon is a better feat than stopping two planets, and ignoring all evidence of them being universes. Then he just stopped coming on like a day before Hyperion stopped a planet because he lost the will to live.
more to prove strength for Superman, since he has a large vocal fanbase. Which would result in more "hate". Hell, before I logged in today when I was taking a poop I saw Abhi using Starbrand blasting Hyperion as some sort of low feat in an effort to disprove his highs.
No matter what happens fanboys will try and degrade a feat they feel "threatens" their character. I mean, this is the sorriest thing I've ever seen to try and downgrade a feat, but the premise is still there. Had the feats changed hands there would be lowballing just the same. The difference is that it would be used a [b]lotAnyway, where I'm going with this is that the lowballing and highballing would be a lot more vocal if it happened to Superman, or Hulk for that matter. But that's because of a larger fanbase. There is no "Boo hoo Superman" (the whole premise is ridiculous for that matter), it's just the way it goes. People get annoyed at rampant highballing and thus begins rampant lowballing. The forum is lucky it happened to a new character, since this place would be a lot worse had it happened to a well known character.
As well as company bias playing a part in this as well. The Marvel guys are defending Hyperion, while the DC ones are trying to shit on him. Had Ultraman (new character) switched feats it'd be the exact same. Only I feel the people here would go so far as to say he'd tear Hyperion in half. Though the same could be said if Tony Stark, and Quanchi were in here as well.
With that said, the argument that Ultraman wins is retardededededed. He has literally two feats. One involves beating a character who also had two feats (one involves the impressiveness being based off a statement of power). Since one feat is vastly eclipsed by Hyperion, that boils down to one feat. Do you put beating Black Adam above fighting decently against the Avengers (including scrapping Iron Man's armor), ripping apart High Evolutionary, ramming through Term who was taking Thor shots, killing Corvus, etc? I wouldn't, and even though I think his feat is worse, I could see it being put on the same ground at best.
Doesn't make sense to me personally, and seems only fueled by pure company bias. Of course though, some of the people saying Ultraman wins are the same who said he'd beat Thanos... So maybe I'm wrong about it being company bias...Ultraman cannot win at this juncture. Maybe he will at one point in time. Maybe he will based on his next issue, but he simply completely and utterly lacks the feats right now to win. Stalemate is the best case scenario for him right now, but stating he wins raises a lot of questions. [/B]
Originally posted by Branlor Swift
Well, it's the same with Superman as it is with the other feat fish: Hulk.No matter what happens, people will blow it out of proportion and people will downgrade it just as well.
And you've seen earlier Phildo arguing that moving a moon is a better feat than stopping two planets, and ignoring all evidence of them being universes. Then he just stopped coming on like a day before Hyperion stopped a planet because he lost the will to live.
more to prove strength for Superman, since he has a large vocal fanbase. Which would result in more "hate". Hell, before I logged in today when I was taking a poop I saw Abhi using Starbrand blasting Hyperion as some sort of low feat in an effort to disprove his highs.
No matter what happens fanboys will try and degrade a feat they feel "threatens" their character. I mean, this is the sorriest thing I've ever seen to try and downgrade a feat, but the premise is still there. Had the feats changed hands there would be lowballing just the same. The difference is that it would be used a [b]lotAnyway, where I'm going with this is that the lowballing and highballing would be a lot more vocal if it happened to Superman, or Hulk for that matter. But that's because of a larger fanbase. There is no "Boo hoo Superman" (the whole premise is ridiculous for that matter), it's just the way it goes. People get annoyed at rampant highballing and thus begins rampant lowballing. The forum is lucky it happened to a new character, since this place would be a lot worse had it happened to a well known character.
As well as company bias playing a part in this as well. The Marvel guys are defending Hyperion, while the DC ones are trying to shit on him. Had Ultraman (new character) switched feats it'd be the exact same. Only I feel the people here would go so far as to say he'd tear Hyperion in half. Though the same could be said if Tony Stark, and Quanchi were in here as well.
With that said, the argument that Ultraman wins is retardededededed. He has literally two feats. One involves beating a character who also had two feats (one involves the impressiveness being based off a statement of power). Since one feat is vastly eclipsed by Hyperion, that boils down to one feat. Do you put beating Black Adam above fighting decently against the Avengers (including scrapping Iron Man's armor), ripping apart High Evolutionary, ramming through Term who was taking Thor shots, killing Corvus, etc? I wouldn't, and even though I think his feat is worse, I could see it being put on the same ground at best.
Doesn't make sense to me personally, and seems only fueled by pure company bias. Of course though, some of the people saying Ultraman wins are the same who said he'd beat Thanos... So maybe I'm wrong about it being company bias...Ultraman cannot win at this juncture. Maybe he will at one point in time. Maybe he will based on his next issue, but he simply completely and utterly lacks the feats right now to win. Stalemate is the best case scenario for him right now, but stating he wins raises a lot of questions. [/B]
Best post in this thread.
Originally posted by Branlor Swift
Well, it's the same with Superman as it is with the other feat fish: Hulk.No matter what happens, people will blow it out of proportion and people will downgrade it just as well.
And you've seen earlier Phildo arguing that moving a moon is a better feat than stopping two planets, and ignoring all evidence of them being universes. Then he just stopped coming on like a day before Hyperion stopped a planet because he lost the will to live.
more to prove strength for Superman, since he has a large vocal fanbase. Which would result in more "hate". Hell, before I logged in today when I was taking a poop I saw Abhi using Starbrand blasting Hyperion as some sort of low feat in an effort to disprove his highs.
No matter what happens fanboys will try and degrade a feat they feel "threatens" their character. I mean, this is the sorriest thing I've ever seen to try and downgrade a feat, but the premise is still there. Had the feats changed hands there would be lowballing just the same. The difference is that it would be used a [b]lotAnyway, where I'm going with this is that the lowballing and highballing would be a lot more vocal if it happened to Superman, or Hulk for that matter. But that's because of a larger fanbase. There is no "Boo hoo Superman" (the whole premise is ridiculous for that matter), it's just the way it goes. People get annoyed at rampant highballing and thus begins rampant lowballing. The forum is lucky it happened to a new character, since this place would be a lot worse had it happened to a well known character.
As well as company bias playing a part in this as well. The Marvel guys are defending Hyperion, while the DC ones are trying to shit on him. Had Ultraman (new character) switched feats it'd be the exact same. Only I feel the people here would go so far as to say he'd tear Hyperion in half. Though the same could be said if Tony Stark, and Quanchi were in here as well.
With that said, the argument that Ultraman wins is retardededededed. He has literally two feats. One involves beating a character who also had two feats (one involves the impressiveness being based off a statement of power). Since one feat is vastly eclipsed by Hyperion, that boils down to one feat. Do you put beating Black Adam above fighting decently against the Avengers (including scrapping Iron Man's armor), ripping apart High Evolutionary, ramming through Term who was taking Thor shots, killing Corvus, etc? I wouldn't, and even though I think his feat is worse, I could see it being put on the same ground at best.
Doesn't make sense to me personally, and seems only fueled by pure company bias. Of course though, some of the people saying Ultraman wins are the same who said he'd beat Thanos... So maybe I'm wrong about it being company bias...Ultraman cannot win at this juncture. Maybe he will at one point in time. Maybe he will based on his next issue, but he simply completely and utterly lacks the feats right now to win. Stalemate is the best case scenario for him right now, but stating he wins raises a lot of questions. [/B]
Originally posted by Branlor Swift
Well, it's the same with Superman as it is with the other feat fish: Hulk.No matter what happens, people will blow it out of proportion and people will downgrade it just as well.
And you've seen earlier Phildo arguing that moving a moon is a better feat than stopping two planets, and ignoring all evidence of them being universes. Then he just stopped coming on like a day before Hyperion stopped a planet because he lost the will to live.
more to prove strength for Superman, since he has a large vocal fanbase. Which would result in more "hate". Hell, before I logged in today when I was taking a poop I saw Abhi using Starbrand blasting Hyperion as some sort of low feat in an effort to disprove his highs.
No matter what happens fanboys will try and degrade a feat they feel "threatens" their character. I mean, this is the sorriest thing I've ever seen to try and downgrade a feat, but the premise is still there. Had the feats changed hands there would be lowballing just the same. The difference is that it would be used a [b]lotAnyway, where I'm going with this is that the lowballing and highballing would be a lot more vocal if it happened to Superman, or Hulk for that matter. But that's because of a larger fanbase. There is no "Boo hoo Superman" (the whole premise is ridiculous for that matter), it's just the way it goes. People get annoyed at rampant highballing and thus begins rampant lowballing. The forum is lucky it happened to a new character, since this place would be a lot worse had it happened to a well known character.
As well as company bias playing a part in this as well. The Marvel guys are defending Hyperion, while the DC ones are trying to shit on him. Had Ultraman (new character) switched feats it'd be the exact same. Only I feel the people here would go so far as to say he'd tear Hyperion in half. Though the same could be said if Tony Stark, and Quanchi were in here as well.
With that said, the argument that Ultraman wins is retardededededed. He has literally two feats. One involves beating a character who also had two feats (one involves the impressiveness being based off a statement of power). Since one feat is vastly eclipsed by Hyperion, that boils down to one feat. Do you put beating Black Adam above fighting decently against the Avengers (including scrapping Iron Man's armor), ripping apart High Evolutionary, ramming through Term who was taking Thor shots, killing Corvus, etc? I wouldn't, and even though I think his feat is worse, I could see it being put on the same ground at best.
Doesn't make sense to me personally, and seems only fueled by pure company bias. Of course though, some of the people saying Ultraman wins are the same who said he'd beat Thanos... So maybe I'm wrong about it being company bias...Ultraman cannot win at this juncture. Maybe he will at one point in time. Maybe he will based on his next issue, but he simply completely and utterly lacks the feats right now to win. Stalemate is the best case scenario for him right now, but stating he wins raises a lot of questions. [/B]
Originally posted by Branlor Swift
Well, it's the same with Superman as it is with the other feat fish: Hulk.No matter what happens, people will blow it out of proportion and people will downgrade it just as well.
And you've seen earlier Phildo arguing that moving a moon is a better feat than stopping two planets, and ignoring all evidence of them being universes. Then he just stopped coming on like a day before Hyperion stopped a planet because he lost the will to live.
more to prove strength for Superman, since he has a large vocal fanbase. Which would result in more "hate". Hell, before I logged in today when I was taking a poop I saw Abhi using Starbrand blasting Hyperion as some sort of low feat in an effort to disprove his highs.
No matter what happens fanboys will try and degrade a feat they feel "threatens" their character. I mean, this is the sorriest thing I've ever seen to try and downgrade a feat, but the premise is still there. Had the feats changed hands there would be lowballing just the same. The difference is that it would be used a [b]lotAnyway, where I'm going with this is that the lowballing and highballing would be a lot more vocal if it happened to Superman, or Hulk for that matter. But that's because of a larger fanbase. There is no "Boo hoo Superman" (the whole premise is ridiculous for that matter), it's just the way it goes. People get annoyed at rampant highballing and thus begins rampant lowballing. The forum is lucky it happened to a new character, since this place would be a lot worse had it happened to a well known character.
As well as company bias playing a part in this as well. The Marvel guys are defending Hyperion, while the DC ones are trying to shit on him. Had Ultraman (new character) switched feats it'd be the exact same. Only I feel the people here would go so far as to say he'd tear Hyperion in half. Though the same could be said if Tony Stark, and Quanchi were in here as well.
With that said, the argument that Ultraman wins is retardededededed. He has literally two feats. One involves beating a character who also had two feats (one involves the impressiveness being based off a statement of power). Since one feat is vastly eclipsed by Hyperion, that boils down to one feat. Do you put beating Black Adam above fighting decently against the Avengers (including scrapping Iron Man's armor), ripping apart High Evolutionary, ramming through Term who was taking Thor shots, killing Corvus, etc? I wouldn't, and even though I think his feat is worse, I could see it being put on the same ground at best.
Doesn't make sense to me personally, and seems only fueled by pure company bias. Of course though, some of the people saying Ultraman wins are the same who said he'd beat Thanos... So maybe I'm wrong about it being company bias...Ultraman cannot win at this juncture. Maybe he will at one point in time. Maybe he will based on his next issue, but he simply completely and utterly lacks the feats right now to win. Stalemate is the best case scenario for him right now, but stating he wins raises a lot of questions. [/B]
Well said.
Originally posted by Bentley
😂I kind of wish Hickman never touched the Avengers.
Oh well.
--------------------
This fight can go either way because of how few appearances these guys have. Hyperion screaming like a b|tch from a mid heralds attack does nothing to make me believe he'd survive an assault from Ultraman.