Superman DCNU VS Silver Surfer

Originally posted by CosmicComet
Why wasn't the planet destroyed immediately?

Hulk indirectly busted the Dark Dimension, that was in a weaker form, and then in a stronger form faced an attack that he actually felt, a stomp into the Earth, and it was not destroyed.

The conclusion to make is either, Earth is simply that durable, or Earth is just that important, or both.

All of this is pointless though and it isn't helping your argument.

In one scene the writer states "blows that could topple mountains"... In another scene we have "if this fight continues, earth will be destroyed". Writers intention. We have an indication of what would or did happen during both scenes.

^ Leave it to carver9 to cut through the bs. 👆

And to be more specific, "blows that could topple mountains." Not "shatter."

Originally posted by ODG
If the blows could destroy planets, they probably would have said so.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. The doctor doesn't need to have a phantom figure of strength that would destroy a planet in his mind when he's commenting about the fight. I know comics can throw some stupid statements, but I don't particularly think such a planet reference was particularly apt anyways. Did they even said "Superman can bench a planet" when they measured his lifting strength? Why are we really reducing the dialogue logic of the issue to planets anyways? Would the doctor know the exact amount of strength needed to "bust a planet"?

I find the idea of this statement bringing any definitive conclussion about the strength levels of the fight a bit far fetched. I mean, for all we know the strength levels would break a mid-sized hill instead of a big mountain.

How people are comparing those punching with Hulk's in HotM is beyond me 😐

Originally posted by ODG
But being able to bench planets =/= busting planets within the four corners of the comic. Apparently, per Dr. Veritas' scientific readings: benching planets = mountain toppling blows.

In the four corners of the comic, do you not think it logical to assume a character with super strength - that can bench a planet - could conceivably bust said planet? Now, what if that character could bench it repeatedly for 5 days with practically NO effort? It's common sense imo.

Originally posted by Bentley
Absence of proof is not proof of absence. The doctor doesn't need to have a phantom figure of strength that would destroy a planet in his mind when he's commenting about the fight. I know comics can throw some stupid statements, but I don't particularly think such a planet reference was particularly apt anyways.

If you have to read something into a plain statement, you're probably looking for something that isn't there. There was a reason it was described as mountain toppling. And rampant, unsupported speculation isn't a more reasonable way of reading comics.

Originally posted by Bentley
Did they even said "Superman can bench a planet" when they measured his lifting strength? Why are we really reducing the dialogue logic of the issue to planets anyways? Would the doctor know the exact amount of strength needed to "bust a planet"?

Originally posted by Bentley
I find the idea of this statement bringing any definitive conclussion about the strength levels of the fight a bit far fetched. I mean, for all we know the strength levels would break a mid-sized hill instead of a big mountain.

Originally posted by abhilegend
Superman outright said he was trying to be polite against Orion just after that blitz.

I was teaching the kid the rules of debate/logic. They won't learn if you keep holding their hands, Abhi.

😒

Originally posted by abhilegend
Yeah, I'm actually dying from laughter the way LordofBrokeBack is clowning around.

You hide your pain well. Don't worry, it's not the end of the world. I'm sure you'll figure out what to do next.

I heard that the house of flying surfboards had an opening in case you're interested, I'll put in a good word (tho I can't guarantee that it'll be much help).

Originally posted by Odekahn
In the four corners of the comic, do you not think it logical to assume a character with super strength - that can bench a planet - could conceivably bust said planet? Now, what if that character could bench it repeatedly for 5 days with practically NO effort? It's common sense imo.

Originally posted by ODG
Plain English is plain English.

If you have to read something into a plain statement, you're probably looking for something that isn't there. There was a reason it was described as mountain toppling.

That's exactly my point, mountain toppling is more easily to conceive from as scientific point of view than earth busting. No need to introduce a phantom figure that would bust a planet to judge the strength.

Imagine that you wanted the character to say "beyond mountain busting level", how do you even say that in plain English? Moon level? Asteroid level? Mountains are pretty much the biggest thing you can find on Earth, so the comparision is pretty close to an hyperbole without introducing some stupid huge objects into play.

Plain English is a necessity of narration, you aren't going to write books in a Comicbook forum mindset where you need to go "beyond mountain busting".

Originally posted by ODG
And rampant, unsupported speculation isn't a more reasonable way of reading comics.

Asking for comics to be written under unrealistic expectations isn't a realistic way to debate. You're basing your judgement on an absence of proof and making the proof pretty hard to even exist in the medium we are discussing.

My point is simple: the showing ranges from all kinds of different strength possibilities to the point that it makes it a pretty bad thing to use in a debate anyways. Supes can be very strong from that description, he can be exponentially weak too.

Originally posted by ODG
If you haven't read the comics, you might want to before continuing this discussion.

Eh, I suppose I could do that. I actually trust you with the information you provide, I know you are an attentive reader and you wouldn't hide things on propose just to back your point.

Originally posted by ODG
I find it farfetched to look at someone like Worldbreaker Hulk and think, "Well... they never said he couldn't bust a galaxy. So maybe he could be Galaxy Breaker Hulk." I also find doing the opposite and lowballing it equally absurd.

If WB Hulk had benched a Galaxy you'd have a point. Again, I'm just dismissing the showing as not all that important, not using it to support Superman being stronger than he is.

Originally posted by Bentley
That's exactly my point, mountain toppling is more easily to conceive from as scientific point of view than earth busting. No need to introduce a phantom figure that would bust a planet to judge the strength.

Originally posted by Bentley
Imagine that you wanted the character to say "beyond mountain busting level", how do you even say that in plain English? Moon level? Asteroid level? Mountains are pretty much the biggest thing you can find on Earth, so the comparision is pretty close to an hyperbole without introducing some stupid huge objects into play.

Originally posted by Bentley
Plain English is a necessity of narration, you aren't going to write books in a Comicbook forum mindset where you need to go "beyond mountain busting".

Originally posted by Bentley
Asking for comics to be written under unrealistic expectations isn't a realistic way to debate. You're basing your judgement on an absence of proof and making the proof pretty hard to even exist in the medium we are discussing.

Originally posted by Bentley
My point is simple: the showing ranges from all kinds of different strength possibilities to the point that it makes it a pretty bad thing to use in a debate anyways. Supes can be very strong from that description, he can be exponentially weak too.

Originally posted by Bentley
Eh, I suppose I could do that. I actually trust you with the information you provide, I know you are an attentive reader and you wouldn't hide things on propose just to back your point.

Originally posted by Bentley
If WB Hulk had benched a Galaxy you'd have a point. Again, I'm just dismissing the showing as not all that important, not using it to support Superman being stronger than he is.

Originally posted by ODG
I could conceive of it. Until the comic literally showed DCnU Superman exceeding his previous Earth-benching output and releasing blows that could topple mountains, instead of busting planets. I don't have anything else to work with beyond that. And neither do you.

That would be like a body builder who could bench 500 lbs but couldn't hit a bag worth 1 lb of pressure. The statement "they could topple mountains" can be accurate and not be the definitive UPPER limit of the punches. By saying the statement means Superman is not able to punch with planetary strength, even after him being shown to possess such, is a negative limit placed on what's previously been shown and defies common sense imo.

Originally posted by ODG
There is proof that he threw "blows that could topple mountains.".

Planet busting blows can topple mountains, imagine that they were mountains the size of several planets!

I'm messing with you ODG.

Personally I don't understand why is it so easy for you to sit on the absurd strength difference between benching planets and toppling mountains, but the possibility of the comic being written without Comicvs mentality in mind seems so offending. But to each its own.

Originally posted by ODG
If you are just going to pretend that they haven't been said before, feel free to exit the conversation now. Because my patience is going to start to wear thin.

You really need to work out on that patience man.

But you know what, I'll try to look for the comic later, since it seems so pivotal for my point to be accepted. Maybe if I read the comic my argument will seem more valid and you'll be easily convinced?

Anyways, you already admitted that the planet busting level was acceptable in an off-hand reply to someone else, which was sort of what I wanted to know about your stance anyways so... I really hope I wasn't really that annoying, my intention was not to get on your nerves.

Originally posted by Odekahn
That would be like a body builder who could bench 500 lbs but couldn't hit a bag worth 1 lb of pressure.

Originally posted by Odekahn
The statement "they could topple mountains" can be accurate and not be the definitive UPPER limit of the punches.

Originally posted by Odekahn
By saying the statement means Superman is not able to punch with planetary strength, even after him being shown to possess such, is a negative limit placed on what's previously been shown and defies common sense imo.

I haven't read most of this conversation but I'm going to give my opinion anyways. Why? F*ck Mindset that's why.

Most writers just treat Superman -and other Top Tiers- as mountain level in strength. In the DCnU, I've seen Superman strength described as mountain level (Powerful enough to shatter mountains, lift mountains etc.) a few times. Benching the weight of a planet is the outlier. The closest thing that I can think of is when he unleashed his might on H'el, and the fight was heard across the planet or whatever.

Superman and Wonder Woman feeling the weight of that Aircraft Carrier is more indicative of his usual operating strength level I think.

Could Superman destroy a planet with his punches? Maybe. Probably but at this moment, he isn't equal to Surfer in the space cheese destruction category imo.

Originally posted by Bentley
Planet busting blows can topple mountains, imagine that they were mountains the size of several planets!

I'm messing with you ODG.

Personally I don't understand why is it so easy for you to sit on the absurd strength difference between benching planets and toppling mountains, but the possibility of the comic being written without Comicvs mentality in mind seems so offending. But to each its own.

Originally posted by Bentley
You really need to work out on that patience man.

But you know what, I'll try to look for the comic later, since it seems so pivotal for my point to be accepted. Maybe if I read the comic my argument will seem more valid and you'll be easily convinced?

Originally posted by Bentley
Anyways, you already admitted that the planet busting level was acceptable in an off-hand reply to someone else, which was sort of what I wanted to know about your stance anyways so... I really hope I wasn't really that annoying, my intention was not to get on your nerves.

Originally posted by ODG
It's like you tried to make a point, but didn't.

mmm

I'll need to reread myself and check.

It’s confusing to see where this has headed.
In any case Superman being or not being able to bust a planet with his punches isn’t what decides this fight

Hey, at least he is capable of toppling mountains. According to narration surfer's "power cosmic reaching critical mass" is only enough to destroy a spaceship.

He was totally spent afterwards. But hey, narration trumps actual feats.

srug

Originally posted by Odekahn
In the four corners of the comic, do you not think it logical to assume a character with super strength - that can bench a planet - could conceivably bust said planet? Now, what if that character could bench it repeatedly for 5 days with practically NO effort? It's common sense imo.

true however this is not a matter of strength but of durability.