Galactus vs Classic Juggernaut (Durability)

Originally posted by h1a8
Based on it being the same Godblast in power yet the first one breaking Mjolnir.

But you dont have any proof that it was the same Godblast. Your "evidence" is a personal theory about authors intetion. Is hard to we debate if you best argument is your ideas about authors mind.

We should debate about we see in the comics. And the comics show to us the two Godblast were not the same. The attack against Celestials was far stronger.

Mjolnir was with durability amped in the first Godblast, and still was destroyed. Thor was not weakead in that story. And it was a much more extreme situation than the fight against Juggernaut.

In the second one, he was weakened. Thor weakened = weaker Godblast. There is no room for debate in this point, is a fact. In the second one, the Mjolnir didnt exploded.

Originally posted by eaebiakuya
But you dont have any proof that it was the same Godblast. Your "evidence" is a personal theory about authors intetion. Is hard to we debate if you best argument is your ideas about authors mind.

We should debate about we see in the comics. And the comics show to us the two Godblast were not the same. The attack against Celestials was far stronger.

Mjolnir was with durability amped in the first Godblast, and still was destroyed. Thor was not weakead in that story. And it was a much more extreme situation than the fight against Juggernaut.

In the second one, he was weakened. Thor weakened = weaker Godblast. There is no room for debate in this point, is a fact. In the second one, the Mjolnir didnt exploded.

Originally posted by Dampyre
The Juggernaut may seem to be more durable than Galactus on a superficial level but it would be a lot easier to destroy the Juggernaut than it would be to destroy Galactus.

This. The OP can't be serious with this thread.

Galactus has the feats obviously, although it's not insane when people assume Juggs might be more durable by default, it's not always about overall power, everybody knows Galactus is billion times more powerful and can amp his durability to an unknown level. It's just Jugg's default and main super power is to be immune to physical damage, that's what he's mostly known for. Then there are guys like Butterball who is completely useless power-wise compared to low level metas even yet can laugh off a nuclear blast.

Originally posted by eaebiakuya
But you dont have any proof that it was the same Godblast. Your "evidence" is a personal theory about authors intetion. Is hard to we debate if you best argument is your ideas about authors mind.

We should debate about we see in the comics. And the comics show to us the two Godblast were not the same. The attack against Celestials was far stronger.

Mjolnir was with durability amped in the first Godblast, and still was destroyed. Thor was not weakead in that story. And it was a much more extreme situation than the fight against Juggernaut.

In the second one, he was weakened. Thor weakened = weaker Godblast. There is no room for debate in this point, is a fact. In the second one, the Mjolnir didnt exploded.

The Godblast was the same because the writer WANTED IT TO BE as said through the narration. That is all folks.

Originally posted by SamZED
although it's not insane when people assume Juggs might be more durable by default,

If we take averages, it's obvious that Galactus is much more durable than Juggernaut.

I know this is off-topic, but, does anyone know what has happened to the Herochat forums web site?

I can no longer access it.

Originally posted by Epicurus
Actually it is, considering that the method they use for making such an assumption is to take Juggernaut's highest feats and compare them to Galactus' lowest feats. And Juggernaut isn't completely invulnerable to harm either, as his various comic book appearances have shown us.

If we take averages, it's obvious that Galactus is much more durable than Juggernaut.

What are you talking about. When Juggs has his forcefield then nothing in comics has been shown to harm him. In other words, he doesn't even have 1 showing that shows him getting hurt or damaged when he is written with a forcefield. So his average with the forcefield is the highest feat he has achieved.

P.S. All the instances of Juggs getting hurt was without his forcefield.

Originally posted by h1a8
What are you talking about. When Juggs has his forcefield then nothing in comics has been shown to harm him. In other words, he doesn't even have 1 showing that shows him getting hurt or damaged when he is written with a forcefield. So his average with the forcefield is the highest feat he has achieved.

P.S. All the instances of Juggs getting hurt was without his forcefield.

Juggernaut's best durability feats are dwarfed by Galactus' best feats. Galactus' lowest is nowhere near as bad as Juggernaut's lowest feats. This much is indisputable fact not up for debate.

this thread is dumb. galactus wins. close. please. i'm begging you....

Im not sure why this required 4 pages of debating.

I remember in those early X-Men issues (in the 60s) some wind machine taking out Juggernaut's force field for a while when he crashed into one (yeah, seems like Galactus-level). And well, without his force field, i could mention several characters way below Galactus who have hurt him . Not to mention that Juggernaut doesn't even use his force field all that much. Even if the writer has him activate it in the same issue, he just turns it off after a while despite being in a dangerous situations. Happened several times in comics.

Galactus should win rather easily, no argument about it.

Juggernaut