Luke Cage vs. Loki

Originally posted by Silent Master
Crushing Iron-man's armor, hitting Iron-man so hard that he goes through a tree, catching and holding Hulk's arm, cracking a prison made for the Hulk, ripping spaceships apart etc etc etc.

For crying out loud, watch the movies before commenting on them.

1st feat isn’t better than casually bending the gun.
2nd feat isn’t quantifiable because it was with Mjolnir.
A weaker can easily catch the arm of a stronger using the ground. It’s called a block.

Mjolnir feats are unquantifiable.

So again, none of the feats come close to casually bending the gun.

Loki wins H1.

Cage doesn't have enough power to put him down. And arguably Loki is stronger than Cage.

Loki takes the lead.

All of the feats I listed were better, H1 is just doing his normal trolling.

H1 has to be the biggest troll on this site and that’s saying something.

Loki wins.

Originally posted by Eon Blue
H1 has to be the biggest troll on this site and that’s saying something.

Loki wins.

Cage wins in h2h

Originally posted by h1a8
Cage wins in h2h

Why?

Originally posted by FrothByte
Why?

Because h1 is a massive troll.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Why?

Stronger, more durable.
And Loki kind of sucks in h2h.

Originally posted by Eon Blue
H1 has to be the biggest troll on this site and that’s saying something.

Loki wins.

Naah thats Quanchi

Originally posted by h1a8
Stronger, more durable.
And Loki kind of sucks in h2h.

Kinda sucks? What makes you say that?

Originally posted by FrothByte
Kinda sucks? What makes you say that?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Because h1 is a massive troll.

I laughed at the "but he can bend a gun" argument. Top notch.

Originally posted by Surtur
I laughed at the "but he can bend a gun" argument. Top notch.

Well, based on his posts across various threads, he seems to think casually bending a gun > caving in the face of a giant, alien space-whale.

Apparently, Thor crushing IM's armor in his grip is not as impressive as Luddendorf crushing a WW1 pistol.

Ha jokes on all of you, the gun was obviously made of adamantium.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Apparently, Thor crushing IM's armor in his grip is not as impressive as Luddendorf crushing a WW1 pistol.

No its not.

1. Casually implies that someone has multiple times more strength
2. The damage was at least an order greater (Thor only slightly bent the wrist armor where Luddendorf crumpled the gun).

Here's a good analogy.
Someone casually lifting 1 ton off the ground and then throwing it 100ft away vs
Someone lifting 2 ton 1ft off the ground.

Your fallacy lies in thinking since IM wrist armor is more durable (debatable) then it is automatically the greater feat.
Its not, because you are not considering levels of damage and levels of effort.

Loki wins.

Originally posted by h1a8
No its not.

1. Casually implies that someone has multiple times more strength
2. The damage was at least an order greater (Thor only slightly bent the wrist armor where Luddendorf crumpled the gun).

Here's a good analogy.
Someone casually lifting 1 ton off the ground and then throwing it 100ft away vs
Someone lifting 2 ton 1ft off the ground.

Your fallacy lies in thinking since IM wrist armor is more durable (debatable) then it is automatically the greater feat.
Its not, because you are not considering levels of damage and levels of effort.

Only a troll or biased fanboy would think Iron-man's armor being more duable than a WW1 era gun is debatable. Which are you?

Originally posted by h1a8
No its not.

1. Casually implies that someone has multiple times more strength
2. The damage was at least an order greater (Thor only slightly bent the wrist armor where Luddendorf crumpled the gun).

Here's a good analogy.
Someone casually lifting 1 ton off the ground and then throwing it 100ft away vs
Someone lifting 2 ton 1ft off the ground.

Your fallacy lies in thinking since IM wrist armor is more durable (debatable) then it is automatically the greater feat.
Its not, because you are not considering levels of damage and levels of effort.

IM's armor is bulletproof. A WW1 gun... is not. Your analogy is completely flawed since the numbers are way off.