My sense is that - unless there's a specific reason to think otherwise - metatextual powers always trump traditional ones. It's not necessarily that the scope of CA Supes' feats is great (both have fairly unquantifiable ones, tbh), but that the nature of his powers makes it a tricky matchup for anyone not able to meet him on the same narrative-breaking level.
I'm hardly an expert. But that's how my mind has always wrapped around such powers.
Originally posted by Digi
My sense is that - unless there's a specific reason to think otherwise - metatextual powers always trump traditional ones. It's not necessarily that the scope of CA Supes' feats is great (both have fairly unquantifiable ones, tbh), but that the nature of his powers makes it a tricky matchup for anyone not able to meet him on the same narrative-breaking level.I'm hardly an expert. But that's how my mind has always wrapped around such powers.
In other ways, I also view them similarly to Lucifer and Michael.
Originally posted by xJLxKing
That's generally what I think do regarding CA Superman and Mandrakk.In other ways, I also view them similarly to Lucifer and Michael.
Yeah, agreed. I mean, if the writer decided that the metatextual concept that CA Supes represents didn't oppose Lucifer in the same way it opposed Mandrakk, or that CA Supes was an aspect or avatar of a portion of reality of which Lucifer is a greater portion, he might be impotent to affect the Morningstar. Things get really, really subjective at that point, to the point of nullifying debates like these.