Comic Book Questions & Discussion

One thing that I'm curious about is where people rank Superman. Because a lot of debaters here come across as disingenuous by playing fast and loose with how powerful he is: ignoring "inconvenient" limits while adjusting his portfolio of feats (and the interpretations thereof) to whatever puts him above whomever he's fighting, regardless of consistency.

This is different from debates featuring e.g. Galactus, where people immediately fall back on the galaxy explosion at the end of the Annihilation event, and if they can overcome that they stand a decent chance against Galactus.

- The Thanos Imperative: Ignition #1

So where do you guys think Superman's consistent power limit is? Can he bring about an impact event? Can he destroy a planet? Can he destroy a star? A planetary system? An interstellar cloud? And how does it relate to other Kryptonians like Zod?

Originally posted by Parmaniac
One shouln't use comedic moments is actual low showings, it's like in DBZ when Krillin throws a rock against Goku's head and he's "hurt".

Originally posted by Astner
One thing that I'm curious about is where people rank Superman. Because a lot of debaters here come across as disingenuous by playing fast and loose with how powerful he is: ignoring "inconvenient" limits while adjusting his portfolio of feats (and the interpretations thereof) to whatever puts him above whomever he's fighting, regardless of consistency.

This is different from debates featuring e.g. Galactus, where people immediately fall back on the galaxy explosion at the end of the Annihilation event, and if they can overcome that they stand a decent chance against Galactus.

- The Thanos Imperative: Ignition #1

So where do you guys think Superman's consistent power limit is? Can he bring about an impact event? Can he destroy a planet? Can he destroy a star? A planetary system? An interstellar cloud? And how does it relate to other Kryptonians like Zod?

Originally posted by abhilegend
Myth of Galactus destroying a galaxy based on this scan from Thanos Imperative.

Galaxy was swept clean of the annihilation wave, not destroyed entirely.

You can see the position where Galactus was on the first scan.

Galactus was on the edge of kree galaxy, obviously none of the kree galaxy was destroyed. Because those conquered worlds were ceded to centurions after the war.

So, what did Galactus actually destroy? A galaxy? No chance.

Moreover this is the size of kree empire, 1000 worlds.

Handbook also says Galactus laid waste to star systems, not galaxy.

The problem with Superman is that posters don't accept he can do something even when he has actually done it while other characters aren't given the same scrutiny.

Originally posted by abhilegend
First thing, Galactus is overrated as **** and that "galaxy" was never destroyed.

Originally posted by abhilegend
The problem with Superman is that posters don't accept he can do something even when he has actually done it while other characters aren't given the same scrutiny.

Originally posted by Astner
Okay?

I'm fairly certain that carver9 feels the same way about the Hulk, but can you please answer my question?

What if I told you he has multiple feats on pretty much every level you mentioned? You think he's a static character with hard defined limits, there's been none except for the post Crisis era before Loeb.

Originally posted by abhilegend
What if I told you he has multiple feats on pretty much every level you mentioned?

Originally posted by abhilegend
You think he's a static character with hard defined limits, there's been none except for the post Crisis era before Loeb.

Technically Batman, Catwoman, Harley Quinn to mention a few have all performed feats far above their limits. But we don't consider them while debating because that's not how they're consistently portrayed.

Originally posted by Astner
I'd say that it's completely irrelevant because we're talking about his limits, and particularly his consistent limits.

That's why I'm asking you for where his limits are consistently, and preferably recently. Discounting his recent death and/or depowered state on Warworld.

Technically Batman, Catwoman, Harley Quinn to mention a few have all performed feats far above their limits. But we don't consider them while debating because that's not how they're consistently portrayed.

But this logic fails if abhi turns around and says his limits - consistently - are fluid, and scales to his opponent.

Universe ending threat? He consistently does well and defeats them.

Toyman? He consistently has him as one of his recurring rogues.

Even using your example of Batman, for example - he consistently fights WW, and has consistently done well. This is especially true post Flashpoint, so hits your recent criteria. They fought when she was possessed by Eclipse, they fought when she was Jokerised, and he's done well.

So consistently, against heralds (I can bring up other example of course), Batman does well and occasionally outperforms them, including on direct comparisons.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
But this logic fails if abhi turns around and says his limits - consistently - are fluid, and scales to his opponent.

You can certainly decide to accept these kinds of arguments, but you can't counter them, which is why they're not accepted.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Universe ending threat? He consistently does well and defeats them.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Even using your example of Batman, for example - he consistently fights WW, and has consistently done well. This is especially true post Flashpoint, so hits your recent criteria. They fought when she was possessed by Eclipse, they fought when she was Jokerised, and he's done well.

So consistently, against heralds (I can bring up other example of course), Batman does well and occasionally outperforms them, including on direct comparisons.

Originally posted by Astner
That would be just as bad as if someone argued that Saitama is always more powerful than anyone he fights.

You can certainly decide to accept these kinds of arguments, but you can't counter them, which is why they're not accepted.

What's a universe-ending threat in this context? He certainly wasn't on Perpetua's level.

So you genuinly think that Batman is a universe-level threat (whatever that means).

You misunderstood me.

You and I agree. Just as we don't accept Batman Vs heralds as proof that Batman would dominate, say, Thor or Sentry, even though they happen in serious canon comics, OPM as a whole isn't really usable or acceptable.

As for Batman, he once saved the universe from a being who was threatening it, just by saying I'm Batman. Again, serious, canon comic. If I wanted to, I could use these kinds of showings in seriousness. He isn't a universe level threat - he ends them.

Originally posted by Astner
One thing that I'm curious about is where people rank Superman. Because a lot of debaters here come across as disingenuous by playing fast and loose with how powerful he is: ignoring "inconvenient" limits while adjusting his portfolio of feats (and the interpretations thereof) to whatever puts him above whomever he's fighting, regardless of consistency.

This is different from debates featuring e.g. Galactus, where people immediately fall back on the galaxy explosion at the end of the Annihilation event, and if they can overcome that they stand a decent chance against Galactus.

- The Thanos Imperative: Ignition #1

So where do you guys think Superman's consistent power limit is? Can he bring about an impact event? Can he destroy a planet? Can he destroy a star? A planetary system? An interstellar cloud? And how does it relate to other Kryptonians like Zod?

that galactus blast was no where near galaxy explosion level

Originally posted by Astner
I'd say that it's completely irrelevant because we're talking about his limits, and particularly his consistent limits.

That's why I'm asking you for where his limits are consistently, and preferably recently. Discounting his recent death and/or depowered state on Warworld.

Technically Batman, Catwoman, Harley Quinn to mention a few have all performed feats far above their limits. But we don't consider them while debating because that's not how they're consistently portrayed.

He also has shown universal level feats though not as consistent.

I'm partially agreeing with Astner's point here. Narrative intentions usually wouldn't count when we debating who will win in a battle

But I also agreeing Pr and Smurph's posts, it generally works like that. However there is still room for exceptions

After all, Vs battles on battleboards at the end of the day,are still fan-fiction written by some nerds. Pretending it is some high rocket science is a bit cringe imo

As long as people give a reasonable interpretation of the characters then it would hold some values

Originally posted by DarkSaint85

As for Batman, he once saved the universe from a being who was threatening it, just by saying I'm Batman. Again, serious, canon comic. If I wanted to, I could use these kinds of showings in seriousness. He isn't a universe level threat - he ends them.

Shown to be just another day in the life of Batman:

Again, I am not saying this is usable on the forums (which is why you hardly ever see these scans being used in seriousness). I am saying that they happened, in a serious (non-comedic), canon comic - that consistently, when Batman is facing herald and above tiers, he does incredibly well, in recent comics.

In short, he scales. I mean, 4 days prior to the above scans, he fights a normal human (albeit the greatest sports fighter of all time or whatever):

He DOES win the fight, but it shows his 'consistent inconsistency'.

This is all in the same comic issue, no less. He fights Kalibak single-handed, then fights The Frozen Man (who??? Exactly) the next day.

Originally posted by abhilegend
That's filler.

I sure am glad that nobody decided to enlighten Parm on the events of DBS.

Ooops 🙁

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
I sure am glad that nobody decided to enlighten Parm on the events of DBS.

Ooops 🙁

What's the debate here?

Originally posted by Parmaniac
In terms of what?

That filler scene you've mentioned goes really well with the infamous laser-ring scene from RoF.

As in, catching Goku unawares appears to be the surefire way to injure him.

This is further supported by the manga and other incidents.

In other words, you've just sabotaged Team Saitama here and opened a can of worms that leaves us no choice but to change the topic and, let's say, jerk off to cool covers with Carnage instead.

Well played, Parm. Well played.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
that leaves us no choice but to change the topic and, let's say,

😂 😂 😂

Originally posted by qwertyuiop1998
I'm partially agreeing with Astner's point here. Narrative intentions usually wouldn't count when we debating who will win in a battle

But I also agreeing Pr and Smurph's posts, it generally works like that. However there is still room for exceptions

After all, Vs battles on battleboards at the end of the day,are still fan-fiction written by some nerds. Pretending it is some high rocket science is a bit cringe imo

As long as people give a reasonable interpretation of the characters then it would hold some values

I don't actually believe Astner is wrong for the most part. Just that with most rules, there are exceptions, and Superman has become one of them as of late, even if he was straddling that line pretty hard in times gone by.