Superman DCNU VS Silver Surfer

Started by ODG40 pages
ODG Find Your Own Fire

Originally posted by -Pr-
His punches against H'el were described as being powerful enough to topple mountains, not that it was some sort of maximum. The collateral effects of said punches alone should be enough to indicate that.
First thing's first: it is the maximum level of explicitly measured strength output we've seen so far from DCnU Superman. Let's not lose that in the conversation. Most times, feats don't get this kind of detail in them. Here, we have a super scientist who has tested his strength before and is monitoring him again.

Second, why are we entertaining this butchering of plain English? This type of garbage deflection already played itself out in my conversation with Bentley. You're just promoting a limp negative proof fallacy to ignore the plain text and meaning of what was written. Furthermore, what reason do you even have to doubt that Lobdell meant exactly what he wrote? Is Lobdell the type of guy who held back when describing Superman's strength? He had him bench the equivalent of the Earth's weight explicitly in no uncertain terms, ffs. He created a new personality-less super scientist character, Dr. Veritas, for the sole purpose of explicating his strength. So doubting that Lobdell has some sort of propensity for underplaying strength or being purposefully vague about it in comics is just laughable.

You don't just take two statements where his punches could topple mountains, that are accompanied by indirect and direct correlation to comic super scientists measuring his strength levels, and just react:

Phuck it. Nobody said he couldn't bust a planet. So I'll just pretend he actually meant "blows that couldn't just topple mountains, but, yknow, maybe even planets n sh1t."

What a ridiculously boneheaded way of reading comics. Y'know what? Let's invite carver9 to reread World War Hulk and just ignore that those footsteps were going to break the Eastern Seaboard and have him pretend that they were going to break the galaxy. Because, y'know, they never said they couldn't. This, somehow, being an argument we should take seriously now.

-Pr- Hey Yo!

Originally posted by ODG
First thing's first: it is the maximum level of explicitly measured strength output we've seen so far from DCnU Superman. Let's not lose that in the conversation. Most times, feats don't get this kind of detail in them. Here, we have a super scientist who has tested his strength before and is monitoring him again.

Second, why are we entertaining this butchering of plain English? This type of garbage deflection already played itself out in my conversation with Bentley. You're just promoting a limp negative proof fallacy to ignore the plain text and meaning of what was written. Furthermore, what reason do you even have to doubt that Lobdell meant exactly what he wrote? Is Lobdell the type of guy who held back when describing Superman's strength? He had him bench the equivalent of the Earth's weight explicitly in no uncertain terms, ffs. He created a new personality-less super scientist character, Dr. Veritas, for the sole purpose of explicating his strength. So doubting that Lobdell has some sort of propensity for underplaying strength or being purposefully vague about it in comics is just laughable.

You don't just take two statements where his punches could topple mountains, that are accompanied by indirect and direct correlation to comic super scientists measuring his strength levels, and just react:

Phuck it. Nobody said he couldn't bust a planet. So I'll just pretend he actually meant "blows that couldn't just topple mountains, but, yknow, maybe planets n sh1t."

What a ridiculously boneheaded way of reading comics. Y'know what? Let's invite carver9 to reread World War Hulk and just ignore that those footsteps were going to break the Eastern Seaboard and have him pretend that they were going to break the galaxy. Because, y'know, they never said they couldn't.

😐 You seem angry.

TheGodKiller True Killer

Temp-ban his arse, Pr. ODG needs a time-out. 👆

ODG Find Your Own Fire

Originally posted by Odekahn
First, my "bumbling" analogy is perfect in relation to the comic world. To say that Superman could bench press the entire weight of a planet effortlessly, but somehow couldn't destroy said planet, despite his body being more durable than any element on said planet, is idiotic.
Idiotic to you. Because of your own prejudices and based on absolutely nothing. And also relying on ignoring the explicit scenes in the comic.
Originally posted by Odekahn
Of course you can't break a 5 lb iron weight with your fist, because your flesh isn't more durable than the metal, despite its weight. It's really not difficult.
It isn't difficult to point out that punching with the force of 5 lbs. isn't going to bust 5 lbs. of weight. That's not what that measurement means. So your bumbling analogy remains bumbling.
Originally posted by Odekahn
Superman is durable enough to fly through the center of the earth, he's strong enough to lift it like its nothing, and you don't think he could bust it?
It doesn't matter what I think. It matters that within the four corners of the comic, he could measurably bench the planet's weight but when exceeding that level of strength output, was only throwing out mountain toppling punches. At a time, he wasn't holding back anymore.

We don't have anything else to work with. And you dragging along your own mental baggage isn't changing that.

Silent Master Senior Member
Originally posted by Odekahn
But no one was using that to try to prove he does have planet busting attacks, people were trying to use that AGAINST Superman .

Fair enough. I've just been skimming the arguments, so I might have misunderstood people's stances.

ODG Find Your Own Fire

Originally posted by -Pr-
😐 You seem angry.
I dismiss negative proof fallacies accordingly. And it's not the first time it's been presented to me in this thread. That sort of self-serving reasoning doesn't just suddenly apply because we're talking about Superman.

-Pr- Hey Yo!
Originally posted by ODG
I dismiss negative proof fallacies accordingly. And it's not the first time it's been presented to me in this thread. That sort of self-serving reasoning doesn't just suddenly apply because we're talking about Superman.

...Why are you being so mean?

TheGodKiller True Killer

Originally posted by ODG
Let's invite carver9 to reread World War Hulk and just ignore that those footsteps were going to break the Eastern Seaboard and have him pretend that they were going to break the galaxy.

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."

Interestingly enough, there was an interview with Pak(I think on cbr, and which I believe you may already be aware of, given your galaxy-busting references in retrospect to WBH) where the interviewer asked that after the super-feats that Hulk got in HoTM, would galaxy-busting be the next level to go upto. I don't remember Pak's response, but I will try to find it again, just to let carver run wild in this thread.

ODG Find Your Own Fire

Originally posted by -Pr-
...Why are you being so mean?
-_-;

Fine, I'll stop being a jerk.

But I'm beginning to detect an alarming trend of two-faced attitudes concerning these sorts of discussions. carver9 creams his pants about Hulk resisting a weapon "that could soften and reshape adamantium" and everyone gives him sh1t because you have to take that with a grain of salt, hyperbole, blah, it never did sh1t to adamantium on-panel, Hulk's not more durable than adamantium shut up, etc.

Superman, while not holding back, while measured by some super scientist, throws out "blows that could topple mountains," and all of a sudden, I'm being lectured by three separate people trying to convince me, hey! that's not all it could mean... it could have meant planet-busting, they never said it couldn't be, it's stupid to think that's all they were capable of.

Come. On.

-Pr- Hey Yo!

Originally posted by ODG
-_-;

Fine, I'll stop being a jerk.

But I'm beginning to detect an alarming trend of two-faced attitudes concerning these sorts of discussions. carver9 creams his pants about Hulk resisting a weapon "that could soften and reshape adamantium" and everyone gives him sh1t because you have to take that with a grain of salt, hyperbole, blah, it never did sh1t to adamantium on-panel, Hulk's not more durable than adamantium shut up, etc.

Superman, while not holding back, while measured by some super scientist, throws out "blows that could topple mountains," and all of a sudden, I'm being lectured by three separate people trying to convince me, hey! that's not all it could mean... it could have meant planet-busting, they never said it couldn't be, it's stupid to think that's all they were capable of.

Come. On.

Wasn't trying to apply some kind of no limits fallacy or anything. Was just going to ask how you reconcile "mountain toppling" with the fact that the punches could be felt both in space and down in to the earth's core (iirc).

Or do you think mountain toppling punches could still be that strong.

And even outside of that, I'm finding it quite strange to see people acting like his maximum is mountain-level punches, when he's had several nice strength feats outside of that.

ODG Find Your Own Fire

Originally posted by -Pr-
Wasn't trying to apply some kind of no limits fallacy or anything. Was just going to ask how you reconcile "mountain toppling" with the fact that the punches could be felt both in space and down in to the earth's core (iirc).

Or do you think mountain toppling punches could still be that strong.

Because that's what mountain-toppling punches are capable of within the four corners of the comic. I don't have to think too hard to accept it for what it is because it doesn't offend my preconceptions.

If you're asking me why that is, maybe because I've read enough comics to not be surprised by that. And my passing knowledge of cataclysmic power levels like that is informed by real life science. The Tunguska Event didn't even destroy a mountain and just flattened a forest for miles but was heard around the world and had registered far-reaching seismic impact too. But all this sh1t is rather needless as I can just read the plain words of the comic for what they are. I don't have to rationalize anything or prove a negative.

Originally posted by -Pr-
And even outside of that, I'm finding it quite strange to see people acting like his maximum is mountain-level punches, when he's had several nice strength feats outside of that.
His maximum recorded level is mountain toppling, so far. Whatever other feats you want to throw into the discussion, go for it. But this discussion began with whether or not we could reliably assume Superman could bust planets with his fists since he showed he was strong enough to bench Earth. Apparently, that's a faulty assumption disproven by the comics in question.

-Pr- Hey Yo!

All right... Fair enough, I guess... shrug

carver9 Senior Member

Originally posted by ODG
-_-;

Fine, I'll stop being a jerk.

But I'm beginning to detect an alarming trend of two-faced attitudes concerning these sorts of discussions. carver9 creams his pants about Hulk resisting a weapon "that could soften and reshape adamantium" and everyone gives him sh1t because you have to take that with a grain of salt, hyperbole, blah, it never did sh1t to adamantium on-panel, Hulk's not more durable than adamantium shut up, etc.

Superman, while not holding back, while measured by some super scientist, throws out "blows that could topple mountains," and all of a sudden, I'm being lectured by three separate people trying to convince me, hey! that's not all it could mean... it could have meant planet-busting, they never said it couldn't be, it's stupid to think that's all they were capable of.

Come. On.

Nothing against you Pr so please dont get hostile when I say this but I couldn't agree more. The picking and choosing is freaking amazing.

DarkSaint85 Bonified abstract
Originally posted by carver9
Nothing against you Pr so please dont get hostile when I say this but I couldn't agree more. The picking and choosing is freaking amazing.

Glad you like it 👆

carver9 Senior Member
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Glad you like it 👆

You was one of the people giving me a hard time about it. 😠

Good thing Hulk footstep would have cracked the world. 🙂

http://s118.photobucket.com/user/bigbran1/media/wwh035.jpg.html

Odekahn 7399

Originally posted by ODG
Idiotic to you. Because of your own prejudices and based on absolutely nothing. And also relying on ignoring the explicit scenes in the comic. It isn't difficult to point out that punching with the force of 5 lbs. isn't going to bust 5 lbs. of weight. That's not what that measurement means. So your bumbling analogy remains bumbling. It doesn't matter what I think. It matters that within the four corners of the comic, he could measurably bench the planet's weight but when exceeding that level of strength output, was only throwing out mountain toppling punches. At a time, he wasn't holding back anymore.

We don't have anything else to work with. And you dragging along your own mental baggage isn't changing that.

1. Who am I prejudice against?

2. If someone repeatedly and effortlessly benches 5 pounds do you not think it common sense that they could punch more than 5 pounds worth of pressure?

3. Take a Midol.

Odekahn 7399

Originally posted by ODG
-_-;

Fine, I'll stop being a jerk.

But I'm beginning to detect an alarming trend of two-faced attitudes concerning these sorts of discussions. carver9 creams his pants about Hulk resisting a weapon "that could soften and reshape adamantium" and everyone gives him sh1t because you have to take that with a grain of salt, hyperbole, blah, it never did sh1t to adamantium on-panel, Hulk's not more durable than adamantium shut up, etc.

Superman, while not holding back, while measured by some super scientist, throws out "blows that could topple mountains," and all of a sudden, I'm being lectured by three separate people trying to convince me, hey! that's not all it could mean... it could have meant planet-busting, they never said it couldn't be, it's stupid to think that's all they were capable of.

Come. On.

If that instance was all we had you would have a point. But he also lifted the weight of earth 5 days without tiring or struggling that throws a wrench in what you're saying.

ODG Find Your Own Fire

Originally posted by Odekahn
1. Who am I prejudice against?

2. If someone repeatedly and effortlessly benches 5 pounds do you not think it common sense that they could punch more than 5 pounds worth of pressure?

3. Take a Midol.

1. The notion that Superman isn't as strong as you'd like him to be.

2. Punching with 5 lbs. of pressure doesn't mean you can bust a 5 lb. object with your fist. I feel like I'm talking to a child, so let me run the risk of patronizing you. Heavy-weight boxers can punch with the force of 1,000 psi. They don't run around busting 1,000 lb. objects with their bare fists, ffs.

3. Clench that butt. The blood is noticeably seeping out.

Originally posted by Odekahn
If that instance was all we had you would have a point. But he also lifted the weight of earth 5 days without tiring or struggling that throws a wrench in what you're saying.
That doesn't throw a wrench into anything. It's actually inextricably tied into what I'm saying. Dr. Veritas was measuring DCnU Superman's output again during his fight with H'el and stated he was exceeding his previous benching strength output. That was because DCnU Superman was no longer holding back. And how powerful were his punches? They were "blows that could topple mountains." Not small moons, not planets. Mountains.

If you have trouble comprehending just how incontrovertible these ramifications are, I suggest you reread the comics again. This time, without any mental baggage.

-Pr- Hey Yo!
Originally posted by carver9
Nothing against you Pr so please dont get hostile when I say this but I couldn't agree more. The picking and choosing is freaking amazing.

You do it plenty, so I'd be surprised if he wasn't aiming the general statement at you too, seeing as you're consistently one of the worst of the bunch.

====

What is the big discussion about here, anyway?

carver9 Senior Member

Originally posted by -Pr-
You do it plenty, so I'd be surprised if he wasn't aiming the general statement at you too, seeing as you're consistently one of the worst of the bunch.

====

What is the big discussion about here, anyway?

Not true, at all.