Comic Book Questions & Discussion

Originally posted by -Pr-
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.

Originally posted by qwertyuiop1998
👆
We were basically the same

😂

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

In general, comic book characters aren’t math equations with solvable or static power levels. There exists a reasonable range of outcomes for any non-spite match and the battle board is just an exercise in defining that range. And as Pr indicated, some characters have a particularly exceptional range of power, not just for narrative convenience but because it’s an actual function of how they work.

Originally posted by Astner

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

He'll probably say it's not an argument, but a law (as in, scientific law). In short, there's nothing debatable about it, so it fails in terms of discussion.

Originally posted by Smurph
In general, comic book characters aren’t math equations with solvable or static power levels.

Originally posted by Smurph
some characters have a particularly exceptional range of power, not just for narrative convenience but because it’s an actual function of how they work.

We understand that Odin isn't portrayed like he was in Journey Into Mystery #513 anymore, and most of us adjust to that. That said, there are always going to be people who'd argue that galaxies are blown away and the tapestry of the multiverse comes down when Odin gets serious, and the ambiguity you're trying to inject gives them that leeway.

Originally posted by Smurph
also, maybe a pedantic point but this just doesn’t make sense. An argument isn’t flawed because it can’t be countered.

We generally assume that a character is limited despite never having displayed limits, and those limits are modeled after the character's greatest feats.

We could decide not to do this, and conclude that Saitama always win because that's what's intended, but there'd be no room for debate, and that's not the kind of debating environment we want.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Well my point was that, comedic or not, it's a low showing for Saitama.

The entire premise and depiction of Saitama in the OPM universe is one of a gag; he's a comedic element in a serious series, if that makes sense. Even the source of his powers (100 pushups, 100 sit-ups etc) is a comedic gag.

But all that gets accepted without question. Ok, that's fair- suspension of belief etc.

it's just a bit rich bringing low showings up for one side (tractors and Superman, back when he was depowered or whatever), then asserting Saitama has no limits, when we've seen him have low showings.

And it's not even Carv doing it. It's Stilt (who, incidentally, loves using Logan tapping Peter's head).

It's a sign of desperation. You're using a comedy showing to downplay a character because you're desperate.

Originally posted by -Pr-
*****, you didn't even read my post. Don't try weighing in when you have no idea what's even being talked about.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Well my point was that, comedic or not, it's a low showing for Saitama.

The entire premise and depiction of Saitama in the OPM universe is one of a gag; he's a comedic element in a serious series, if that makes sense. Even the source of his powers (100 pushups, 100 sit-ups etc) is a comedic gag.

But all that gets accepted without question. Ok, that's fair- suspension of belief etc.

Main difference is that the artwork in OPM is staggeringly good, so all the battles and whatnot just come off as WAY more impressive from a visual perspective.

Originally posted by Galan007
Do you remember a character called Herbie Popnecker? Because that is very similar to how I view Saitama within the OPM verse.

Main difference is that the artwork in OPM is staggeringly good, so all the battles and whatnot are just WAY more impressive from a visual perspective.

Damn, nice analogy.

👆

Originally posted by Galan007
Do you remember a character called Herbie Popnecker? Because that is very similar to how I view Saitama within the OPM verse.

Main difference is that the artwork in OPM is staggeringly good, so all the battles and whatnot just come off as WAY more impressive from a visual perspective.

or like arale from dbz.

Originally posted by Galan007
Do you remember a character called Herbie Popnecker? Because that is very similar to how I view Saitama within the OPM verse.

Main difference is that the artwork in OPM is staggeringly good, so all the battles and whatnot just come off as WAY more impressive from a visual perspective.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Pretty much. The art is pretty, and there being an anime also helps sell the visuals. But that shouldn't be how feats are viewed - it would be like saying DKR Batman is the strongest Batman because he's drawn like a tank.

As an arbitrary example: a weakened/borderline powerless Superman shatters a planet by simply jumping off of it -- a feat that is accompanied by standard comic book artwork, with standard comic book narrative. Saitama, however, does something similar while in 'serious mode', but because the artwork is absolutely gorgeous and has a far greater sense of "impact" or w/e, some automatically assume it is a more impressive feat... Even though it's really not in the scheme of things.

I think that might account for some of the hangup here, tbh, but that's just my two cents. /shrug

Originally posted by DeadpoolXXX
👆

or like arale from dbz.

Already made that comparison, you're late to this orgy.

goddamnit. 🙁

thought i was onto something.

Originally posted by Galan007
No, I agree completely.

As an arbitrary example: a weakened/borderline powerless Superman shatters a planet by simply jumping off of it -- a feat that is accompanied by standard comic book artwork, with standard comic book narrative. Saitama, however, does something similar while in 'serious mode', but because the artwork is absolutely gorgeous and has a far greater sense of "impact" or w/e, some automatically assume it is a more impressive feat... Even though it's really not in the scheme of things.

I think that might account for some of the hangup here, tbh, but that's just my two cents. /shrug

Gladiator and Hyperion's fight was in the space of nanoseconds. Literally thousands of times faster ....but the art doesn't look 'cool'.

The recent JL fight where Naomi made her debut was supposedly at superspeed - but the art didn't show it, we only knew about it thanks to dialogue.

Originally posted by Galan007
No, I agree completely.

As an arbitrary example: a weakened/borderline powerless Superman shatters a planet by simply jumping off of it -- a feat that is accompanied by standard comic book artwork, with standard comic book narrative. Saitama, however, does something similar while in 'serious mode', but because the artwork is absolutely gorgeous and has a far greater sense of "impact" or w/e, some automatically assume it is a more impressive feat... Even though it's really not in the scheme of things.

I think that might account for some of the hangup here, tbh, but that's just my two cents. /shrug

We have no idea the size of the planet or if previous supermen damaged it beforehand. We know how big Jupiter moons are. Huge difference here.