Thanos vs Supermans

Originally posted by LordofBrooklyn
I didn't ask you about MY feelings on Superman's depictions without mental blocks.

The first question involves YOUR interpretation of Superman's performance without mental blocks.

You seem incapable of answering, is that due to your lack of knowledge of Superman?

Are you claiming every writer has written superman to have mental blocks fluctuating his strength? If not, then your question is moot. We know plenty of writers haven't written him that way. Most of his writers for Superman's history haven't written him that way. So why would I focus on specific writers who have written him that way and try and analyze those select cases? Talk about an exercise in futility. That is what and why I'm not interested in. I'm not interested in deciphering in which comics he had mental blocks and how much of a mental block etc etc. The most important thing is this.. There's a threat.. Superman tries to put that thread down and tries to do so. That's it.

Originally posted by abhilegend
My, my, aren't you just getting desperate? Post the quote where I said Superman is stronger than Thanos. That's hardly comparable. Thanos has way less appearances So according to you we just go by Superman's showings? His high showings don't matter IYO? All this time you're just lowballing? In other words you have no scans. Again. Take this real life crap and shove it.

Show me a scan from a comic where a weaker being kills a stronger being in one punch.

Post an actual scan from a an actual comic kiddo. At this point you're just being childish.

Also where are the other grundy Superman fights?

When did I ever say his high showings don't count? What doesn't count for me are space cheese feats. Benching pressing earth kinda feats. Those are just lame and pointless and don't reflect a combat situation with somebody actively trying to put you down and vice versa. Space cheese has no place in actual combat showings of strength.

It's so amusing how scared you're about real life and how this totally crushes your argument. Are you claiming that comics in no way shape or form mirror real life? we know it absolutely does in many ways. Yet somehow, when it comes to bigger guys KOing smaller guys it doesn't have one thing to do with it? Laughable. Common sense is common sense. Logic is logic. Those are universally applied. So if in real life smaller weaker guys can KO bigger stronger guys... why would that not be possible in comics? It's beyond idiotic to even assume such a thing. We routinely see these things in comics anyways... we see people that have no business beating stronger more power foes. This is also routine in comics... Do I need to mention Surfer and the armbar? How about Surfer and Mephisto... How about Odin getting beaten by Ants?

Let me ask you... Do less powerful people beat more powerful people in comics for a variety of reasons and ways? fi so, why wouldn't weaker guys be able to KO stronger guys?

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
Are you claiming every writer has written superman to have mental blocks fluctuating his strength? If not, then your question is moot. We know plenty of writers haven't written him that way. Most of his writers for Superman's history haven't written him that way. So why would I focus on specific writers who have written him that way and try and analyze those select cases? Talk about an exercise in futility. That is what and why I'm not interested in. I'm not interested in deciphering in which comics he had mental blocks and how much of a mental block etc etc. The most important thing is this.. There's a threat.. Superman tries to put that thread down and tries to do so. That's it.

Given your knowledge and advocacy for the character, I'm sure you're aware that Thanos has had several low showings as well. This all gets conveniently retconned by Starlin as....

Thanosi

So do you accept Starlin dismissing other depictions of The Mad Titan by other writers or do you count them as legit showings of Thanos?

Originally posted by LordofBrooklyn
Given your knowledge and advocacy for the character, I'm sure you're aware that Thanos has had several low showings as well. This all gets conveniently retconned by Starlin as....

Thanosi

So do you accept Starlin dismissing other depictions of The Mad Titan by other writers or do you count them as legit showings of Thanos?

They count, but they were OFFICIALLY rectonned, so I have to go with that. DC never EVER official rectonned superman previous showings as him always having mental blocks. Never occurred. Some writers choose to write him a certain way, cool, those count. I'm not dismissing them. What I'm saying is, you cant' dismiss showings of superman from writers who didn't write him that way. If DC made an official recton of the character.. his powerset and history.. cool. They didn't.

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
They count, but they were OFFICIALLY rectonned, so I have to go with that. DC never EVER official rectonned superman previous showings as him always having mental blocks. Never occurred. Some writers choose to write him a certain way, cool, those count. I'm not dismissing them. What I'm saying is, you cant' dismiss showings of superman from writers who didn't write him that way. If DC made an official recton of the character.. his powerset and history.. cool. They didn't.

Explain the "Official" aspect of the retcon please.

To my understanding Starlin doesn't like non-Starlin depictions of Thanos.

Ever.

Due to this fact he inserted the Thanosi defense to retcon them. Byrne did the same with DOOM. Neither of those equate to an official retcon.

Originally posted by LordofBrooklyn
Explain the "Official" aspect of the retcon please.

To my understanding Starlin doesn't like non-Starlin depictions of Thanos.

Ever.

Due to this fact he inserted the Thanosi defense to retcon them. Byrne did the same with DOOM. Neither of those equate to an official retcon.

Originally posted by Insane Titan
more false posts, you need to read up on starlin's opinion of other Thanos stories before you try putting others straight.

Starlin stated that the depictions of Thanos outside of his writing were in direct contrast with his vision of the character. In particular was the issue of what he considered unnecessary taking of life.

Starlin's reponse was to retcon the issues in question.

What did I miss about Starlin's opinion?

The answer is nothing but I'll like seeing you trying to rage your way out of it.

Originally posted by LordofBrooklyn
Explain the "Official" aspect of the retcon please.

To my understanding Starlin doesn't like non-Starlin depictions of Thanos.

Ever.

Due to this fact he inserted the Thanosi defense to retcon them. Byrne did the same with DOOM. Neither of those equate to an official retcon.

Starlin's words don't though, it's Marvel's final say and they have accommodated him in this regard. What I mean by official recton is this... Thanos has had bios SPECIFICALLY reference the issue and incident in the bio of the issue that is rectonning the older comic. Marvel publishes that, and when they say, in ___ comic that was a clone.. well it's a clone. That is an official recton. DC has never done so with Superman. They have never said in this issue he had mental blocks and thus we're rectonning it to such. That never happened. Which is the point. We are then left with if a writer wrote superman that way.. cool... it counts and applies. If they didn't.. well those count to and apply. So, we are then left with.. Superman getting feeb'd vastly and I mean VASTLY more amount of times than Thanos. True or false?

Those Thanosi retcons were official because they were published in official comic books. They weren't just simply "Starlin's opinion" lol.

Exactly.. published in the comics and in the bios... It had nothing to do with Starlin's personal feelings on the matter. Marvel had the final say and they were rectonned.

Plus Thanos's first appearance was a clone...

Originally posted by One-Punch
Those Thanosi retcons were official because they were published in official comic books. They weren't just simply "Starlin's opinion" lol.

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
Exactly.. published in the comics and in the bios... It had nothing to do with Starlin's personal feelings on the matter. Marvel had the final say and they were rectonned.

Did the original writers intend them to be Thanosi?

Originally posted by LordofBrooklyn
Did the original writers intend them to be Thanosi?

You're NOT understanding something very basic. MARVEL.. not this writer or that writer MARVEL deemed it recton worthy. When Marvel SPECIFICALLY in the bios mentions the issue and issue no. of the recton in question it becomes crystal clear it's a recton of those issues. That is in STARK contrast to DC and superman. I no bio of superman does it say... Superman had mental blocks in this particular issue that issue.. also in this issue and we're rectonning those showings to him having mental blocks. THAT would be an official recton by DC of superman. That hasn't occurred. You can retroactively self recton canon issues because you like one writers interpretation of superman better than another. Doesn't work that way.

Now, who's gotten feeb'd more.. superman or thanos?

Originally posted by LordofBrooklyn
Did the original writers intend them to be Thanosi?

Besides, some of these Thanosi were pretty damn powerful.

This is the same Thanosi that tanked Thor absorbing his own energy blast and throwing it back at him amplified 100x + Anti-Force blast + Planetary storms all at once.

Starlin didn't retcon these Thanos appearances because they were weak. He retconned them because they shat on all the character development he had been working on all these years.

Originally posted by One-Punch
Not relevant after the retcons were [b]officially published.

Besides, some of these Thanosi were pretty damn powerful.

This is the same Thanosi that tanked Thor absorbing his own energy blast and throwing it back at him amplified 100x + Anti-Force blast + Planetary storms all at once.

Starlin didn't retcon these Thanos appearances because they were weak. He retconned them because they shat on all the character development he had been working on all these years. [/B]

add to that Celestial Quest Thanos... which again was very powerful and did stuff regular thanos has never done.

Celestial Quest was a weird retcon. He wasn't really evil there. Plus Starlin could have just said it was in the past or something since Steve Inglewood California wanted to do that Mantis story for years but Marvel was pissing him off.

I think he even did it to honor Starlin too. 😂

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
You're a clown..

3. Are you claiming DS never fell to a place a didn't belong?

He felled and took the multiverse with him. Your point is?

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
When did I ever say his high showings don't count? What doesn't count for me are space cheese feats. Benching pressing earth kinda feats. Those are just lame and pointless and don't reflect a combat situation with somebody actively trying to put you down and vice versa. Space cheese has no place in actual combat showings of strength.

Let me ask you... Do less powerful people beat more powerful people in comics for a variety of reasons and ways? fi so, why wouldn't weaker guys be able to KO stronger guys?

KO, yes? Kill in one hit? No. If you're so certain why don't you post a scan?

And where are the rest of grundy and Superman fights punk?

Originally posted by abhilegend
What happened kid? Ran out of insults to throw? Of course I have. Have you?

Post scans for supporting your arguments kiddo. Nobody especially me gives a shit about what you think.

Why are you obsessed with reality cracking? Darkseid dragged the multiverse down with him as shown on panel.

Show me a scan that contradicts it.

Nope, never happened. Post a scan for it.

He felled and took the multiverse with him. Your point is?

So you didn't read final crisis then... Cool... I was starting to think that anyways.

What you can't get around was DS did NONE of that on his own. IF he was able to crack reality on his own.. and then (without dying mind you) is able to drag the multiverse down through his power.. sure that would be great... ONLY THAT NEVER HAPPENED. That is why it's not the least bit impressive really. Think about it, I know this is hard for you to do, but try.

1. If DS can't crack reality on his own, then how could he drag the multiverse down with him? Simple question. if you claim he can, you need to prove it. If you can't, than you can't claim it was a feat for DS... He wouldn't even be able to get to the point of dragging down anything with cracking reality. If he can't crack reality he could do absolutely nothing

2. DS wasn't planning on falling... that WASN'T part of his plan. He was killed, and thus decided, f this i'm not going down without a fight. Cool. However, he didn't actively try and fall, THAT WAS HIS PLAN. It just happened and DS went with it. IF he was able to just bring down the multiverse ON HIS OWN, that would be impressive. Only he wasn't was he?

1. He needed others to crack reality
2. He needed the ALE to further crack reality
3. He needed somebody to kill him in order for him to call

NONE of the above did DS do or plan. Thus, THE most important factors in the multiverse getting flushed down the toilet DS DIDN"T DO ONE THING TO MAKE IT HAPPEN NOR PLAN ON IT HAPPENING.
Now either post the evidence to back up your claim or concede DS did nothing multiversal by his own power in FC

Originally posted by abhilegend
I didn't say space chesse feats for Superman.

What I said was the actual fighting feats with characters.

Haha, what? Scared? Are you real, punk? Nobody gives a shit about real life stuff. And Surfer was never koed or killed by Armbar. Neither was Mephisto. Odin was weakened. So yeah, you're just packing a bunch of lies.

KO, yes? Kill in one hit? No. If you're so certain why don't you post a scan?

And where are the rest of grundy and Superman fights punk?

Well I'm not sure if you did or didn't this time, but you have in the past post space cheese feats to support superman's strength against other characters. In fact, another Superman fanboy (LOB), did just that in this very thread and posted the bench pressing earth feat and asked to see a thanos feat like it. That's the idiocy I'm dealing with here.

Right, and when you go by combat situations, Thanos crushes superman in strength and it's really not that close. Sure, if you only go by superman's high showings, sure I'd be pretty close. I would make such a concession with it being able to go either way. Problem is, we don't just go by high feats. We count them all. When you do so, the picture becomes very very different. It becomes a picture of Thanos clearly being stronger than superman. You can't get Feeb'd the amount of times Superman has, and have very little of thanos EVER getting Feeb'd and then claim superman is stronger.

I could show a five year old a video of one guy kicking some butt, having some good wins, but also getting feeb'd numerous times. Then show him another guy, almost always winning, rarely if ever getting Feeb'd... and you're damn right that 5 year old would say fighter B is clearly stronger. I mean it's really that easy. if superman didn't have a documented history of getting feeb'd, that would be different, only he does and that can't be changed.

You didn't answer my question, which again you avoided. Do comics in anyway mirror real life. Punches, dialogue, emotions, plot, drama, etc etc? Are they in any way similar? if you say yes, which you'd have to if you're being honest, then why not combat situations as well. We know they do mirror real life.. we see punches, kicks, throws, tackles.. shit we even see armbars and other submission holds. So those all come from real life, but somehow, weaker guys KOing stronger guys never made it.. even though that is very much a reality and fact in real life. Sorry, that is illogical.

So you concede weaker guys can KO bigger guys... then why can't they kill them? Do you know what being concussed means? If so, why wouldn't a little more brain drama and death be possible? It would be.

Lastly, and there is no getting around this, you can't prove that those hits from superman and Allan didn't have an effect on me. Are you claiming that people don't get weaker and weaker the more they are punched? So superman could've simply just reached the point with that one punch that put Grundy's durability over the top. He'd been dealing with blows and eventually they took their tool. Now PROVE, that this wasn't the case. Which again, would perfectly fit your (wrong) theory that weaker guys can't kill stronger ones in one hit. Cool, it didn't take one hit, it took multiple hits from two people. The last hit killing him, was just the finishing blow. Or are you claiming you can prove grundy wasn't affected by the initial punches at all and his durability wasn't slowly deteriorating? Prove it.