So, you want to start a dialogue and exchange opinions? If you stay polite I am more then willing to help you 🙂.Do you wonder why you are so defensive now? Think about it. Nobody said or implied it? Well, we will see. The fallacies are more common on the Marvel side. However you can take both sides, DC and Marvel into account, blame both sides instead of ignoring and blaming the one you are against. But that would mean to be honest with yourself.
Ok, you point is now that nothing short of an Being of King Thors level is capable of hurting Ironman? Well, you said "Nobody said it was." (It refers to being invulnerable to harm). Now, you limit it at least to Skyfathers. So you stance is obviously that no one short of a Skyfather or beyond, because you demand Batman to hurt something more powerful then the Thorbuster which is a match for King Thor in your opinion, can hurt IronMan.
So no Herald stands a chance. If this is your opinion, more power to you. But maybe you should reconsider your point.
No one said? No one has to prove that? So defensive again, ok.
I made enough arguments, which are ignored because they require to think and consider the possiblities of both adversaries.
Maybe some personal preferences are responsible for this but tell me, do you think that Black Panther could come up with a plan to hurt or destroy IM armor with prep? I know Black Panther isn't in this thread but you should be able to follow my line of reasoning.
It's not imprevious. Nothing is failsafe and this "Ironman is invulnerable to all harm" talk is the standard argument from the IM supporters which blocks any potential of a thriving discussion where both sides can be enlightened about both characters, be creative and find ways to defeat each other. It can't be hacked until it is hacked and Tony say "but that's impossible" the same is true for EMP and Acids, happens often enough in comics.
So you are back to insults again? And here I had the hope you improved. I though you grow intellectually and emotionally, are open to discussions, a dialogue, but it seems you just search for a "internetz-fight" to show how tough you are, what new and fancy words you learned and pretend you are smart and well educated, when in truth you just prove you are not, with your insults and your "way of debating". So go on with your monologue, you surely don't need me to participate in this. Now rage on, don't learn, don't grow and start your flaming, I won't read it nor will i help you turn yet another thread into sh1t.
I can follow you quite easily tbh. 🙂 So now we need Abstracts to defeat Tony. It's not a tech war, it's a prep war, tech is a part yes but if you can't see other ways to defeat tony then Skyfather or Abstract weapons, we are done here... indeed we are already, my bad.
So the new OMAC technology is known now to Bruce which makes it even easier to replicate it 👆. Tony won't be able to hack it because Batman is a mystery to him, while Tony as a public whore is exploitable. The trump Card isn't the satelites, you got it wrong, yet again. There have been enough means named that could damage IMs Armor. The trump card is better intel, being a better tactician and strategist, psychology and being simpy more clever. Finally you got it. And we agree that the Brother Eye would take out tony easily.
Yeah, yeah, Tony is now a Skyfather and nothing below can hurt him. Only weapons that can hurt Skyfathers or Abstracts will be effective, so let's forget everything, even the Insider Suit, which could be improved and is able to damage Heralds. It doesn't matter now what the Batman side names, if it isn't able to hurt high end Skyfathers or abstracts whe have to throw it out of the window.
But nice Strawman argument 👆.
Oh I won't make the same mistake again. IOW giving you a second chance was a mistake or not I learned something at least about you. Sometimes I can't stop believing in humanity, in you case I have to though. And even though I pity you I won't waste my time reading your flames and insults anymore. But thanks for playing.
Feel honored I took the time to reply to you though.