Comic Book Questions & Discussion · Comic Book 'Versus' Forum

DarkSaint85 Bonified abstract

I think at best it implies picosecond reactions, no more.

If I said I stayed incredibly still - and didn't move a single muscle - that implies at the very least I have muscles. I clearly didn't take any action, I didn't move.

If I said I didn't eat any of your cake - not even a lick - that at best implies I am capable of licking (lol). Doesn't mean I actually licked the cake.

Astner The Ghost Who Walks

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
I think at best it implies picosecond reactions, no more.

Right, but that's interpretative. Hence not admissible.

If I say "I didn't hesitate for a single picosecond before I took a sip of tea," that's grammatically correct. Does that mean I could hesitate for just a single picosecond? No. Of course not.

And this supervenes on the assumption that we're taking the statement literally to begin with.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
If I said I stayed incredibly still - and didn't move a single muscle - that implies at the very least I have muscles. I clearly didn't take any action, I didn't move.

It's implied, because that's how the expression "didn't move a single muscle," is used. But it's further worth noting that it isn't a literal expression: It doesn't imply that your heart stopped beating, or anything like that.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
If I said I didn't eat any of your cake - not even a lick - that at best implies I am capable of licking (lol). Doesn't mean I actually licked the cake.

This too is a figurative expression, used in many contexts that have nothing to do with the process of licking, e.g. "the kids didn't have a lick of common sense."

DarkSaint85 Bonified abstract

Originally posted by Astner
Right, but that's interpretative. Hence not admissible.
If I say "I didn't hesitate for a single picosecond before I took a sip of tea," that's grammatically correct. Does that mean I could hesitate for just a single picosecond? No. Of course not.
And this supervenes on the assumption that we're taking the statement literally to begin with.
It's implied, because that's how the expression "didn't move a single muscle," is used. But it's further worth noting that it isn't a literal expression: It doesn't imply that your heart stopped beating, or anything like that.
This too is a figurative expression, used in many contexts that have nothing to do with the process of licking, e.g. "the kids didn't have a lick of common sense."

Although as I'm using it in the context of eating a cake, licking means licking here.

It's as bad as that old Surfer nanosecond scan, really.

But indeed, using the word 'single muscle ' implies I have muscles to begin with. You don't say 'the car didn't move, not even a single muscle', because it's nonsensical.

So like I said, implication. I'd use it in conjunction with other speed feats, but won't rely on it solely.

Astner The Ghost Who Walks

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Although as I'm using it in the context of eating a cake, licking means licking here.

It's still a figurative expression, and you could get away with saying that someone who licked the cake didn't eat a lick of it. "The kid licked the cake-piece on the spoon, and spit it out! He didn't eat a lick of it."

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
It's as bad as that old Surfer nanosecond scan, really.

I don't want to digress into whataboutism, but "that nanosecond won't pass," is a lot more direct than what we're discussing. Could you reasonably reject it? Sure. But you could only do so by assuming that it was figurative. With the Superman scene we can assume it's 100% literal and it still wouldn't be admissible, because non-hesitation isn't an action, it's the lack thereof.

- Marvel Comics Presents (1988) #1

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
But indeed, using the word 'single muscle ' implies I have muscles to begin with. You don't say 'the car didn't move, not even a single muscle', because it's nonsensical.

If you assume a literal interpretation of this expression (which you shouldn't because it's figurative, which I hopefully made clear in the previous post) then it would be correct to say that the car didn't move a muscle (by virtue of not having any muscles).

If you assert that "the car didn't move a muscle" is a false statement, then you're inferring the the opposite (that the car did move a muscle) by the law of the excluded middle.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
So like I said, implication. I'd use it in conjunction with other speed feats, but won't rely on it solely.

But it doesn't imply that at all. You're reading said implication into it.

If an interpretation can be rejected in good faith then it ought to be dismissed. Otherwise we'll just end up with a bunch of interpretative bullshit under the rule the Full Capacity rule.

qwertyuiop1998 The Vampire

But isn't the point here is the "lack of hesitation" is not inherently a counter for reading it as it implies that speed?

Like DS's example, you can have a sentence that states someone doesn't do something, but also implies someone has the ability to do that

I also think Abhi actually(though probably unintentionally) points out something about "I(normal human) also don't hesitate for a picosecond) argument, which is our normal humans can't hesitate in a picosecond. Hence, we usually use "hesitate for a second/minute" expression I think
That' s like when a comic saying "Character A moves in nanoseconds" and I saying "That's not a proof for this guy has nanosecond reaction speed, after all, I also can move in nanosecond, albeit a very small distance"

Edit:
Or in DS's case, I think it more like "Superman didn't use Phantom Zone Projector to send his opponents to PZ" as a conjunctive proof to cement that Superman has a Phantom Zone Projector

Astner The Ghost Who Walks

Originally posted by qwertyuiop1998
But isn't the point here is the "lack of hesitation" is not inherently a counter for reading it as it implies that speed?

You can read the story and baselessly conclude anything, as long as it's not in direct contradiction to what's established. But when we powerscale we're not really interested in just any interpretation, we're interested in interpretations that can't be dismissed in good faith.

This also applies to statements that describe actual feats, like Gladiator being "fast enough to cross entire galaxies in the blink of a god's eye," in Mighty Thor (2016) #15 (another Jason Aaron feat). We take that to mean two galaxies rather than e.g. a trillion galaxies, because you can in good faith deny the latter interpretation.

Originally posted by qwertyuiop1998
Like DS's example, you can have a sentence that states someone doesn't do something, but also implies someone has the ability to do that

For literal readings it doesn't. I addressed this in full in the previous post.

Originally posted by qwertyuiop1998
I also think Abhi actually(though probably unintentionally) points out something about "I(normal human) also don't hesitate for a picosecond) argument, which is our normal humans can't hesitate in a picosecond. Hence, we usually use "hesitate for a second/minute" expression I think
That' s like when a comic saying "Character A moves in nanoseconds" and I saying "That's not a proof for this guy has nanosecond reaction speed, after all, I also can move in nanosecond, albeit a very small distance"

When you're making an argument concerning a statement you first have to commit to either a figurative or literal reading of it. If it's figurative then we can't discern definitive meaning from it. If it's literal then you have to treat it as a formal statement.

Galan007 |Quantum Observer|

I can agree that if you stretch the verbiage, then at best there is just a subtle implication that Superman might have the potential to act on a picosecond basis.

He did not actually do so in the scene itself, however, so it's ultimately moot for debating purposes either way.

qwertyuiop1998 The Vampire

Originally posted by Astner
You can read the story and baselessly conclude anything, as long as it's not in direct contradiction to what's established.

Yeah so if I understand the exchange between you and DS correctly, isn't this is the point here?
The narration by itself is an implication, hence it needs to join with other estalibshed proofs/the best use for it is as a supplementary proof

Originally posted by Galan007
I can agree that if you stretch the verbiage, then at best there is just a subtle implication that Superman might have the potential to act on a picosecond basis.
He did not actually do so in the scene itself, however, so it's ultimately moot for debating purposes either way.

Yeah, basically this. I also read it as this. It's some good implication for Superman's speed, but it can't be used as solely.

Astner The Ghost Who Walks

Originally posted by qwertyuiop1998
Edit:
Or in DS's case, I think it more like "Superman didn't use Phantom Zone Projector to send his opponents to PZ" as a conjunctive proof to cement that Superman has a Phantom Zone Projector

This argument is different in that it relies on a literal statament where the inference follow.

You can't infer anything from a literal reading of, "Superman never hesitates. Not for a single picosecond."

Originally posted by qwertyuiop1998
The narration by itself is an implication, hence it needs to join with other estalibshed proofs/the best use for it is as a supplementary proof

There's a difference between evidence and proof. Proof is a conclusive body of evidence, while evidence is anything that's used to support an argument. Flimsy as it might be, could it be used as evidence? Sure. But anything can be sued as evidence.

StiltmanFTW CBvF

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
not even a lick - that at best implies I am capable of licking (lol)

Trust me, I know 😂

Where is that avi/sig set from, anyway? 😮

DarkSaint85 Bonified abstract

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Trust me, I know 😂
Where is that avi/sig set from, anyway? 😮

I'm not referencing it.

Spoiler:
I can never say no to you my sweet Polish hussar. Titans Beast World #3

StiltmanFTW CBvF

Thank you 😍

ODG Find Your Own Fire

Originally posted by qwertyuiop1998
It's a preview for AC 1051.

Originally posted by ODG
^ Cool. Once the comics are published for release, I would unironically appreciate your opinion on how this fight compares to Jane Thor's battle w/ Odin.

So? What's your opinion now that the comic has been released?

DarkSaint85 Bonified abstract

I wouldn't say being smashed around the place constitutes a 'fight'....good... durability from Clark, I guess?

Or another example of his CIS where he's still trying to talk to his opponent as he's being smashed about the place. I know your post was to qwerty but I happened to see it.

MrMind Senior Member

Originally posted by ODG
So? What's your opinion now that the comic has been released?

qwerty living rent free in your head

Galan007 |Quantum Observer|

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
I wouldn't say being smashed around the place constitutes a 'fight'....good... durability from Clark, I guess?
Or another example of his CIS where he's still trying to talk to his opponent as he's being smashed about the place. I know your post was to qwerty but I happened to see it.

Pretty much.

It was just Clark getting rocked across the solar system whilst trying to figure out wtf was going on.

Good durability feat for sure, as it looked like Bizarro was also using Clark's face to moon-bust during the scuffle.

qwertyuiop1998 The Vampire

Originally posted by ODG
So? What's your opinion now that the comic has been released?

A good feat for both I guess?

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
I wouldn't say being smashed around the place constitutes a 'fight'....good... durability from Clark, I guess?
Or another example of his CIS where he's still trying to talk to his opponent as he's being smashed about the place. I know your post was to qwerty but I happened to see it.

Yeah. Superman gets hit by force that sends him instantly to Venus and then gets smashed into an asteroid(and destroyed it in the process) of Jupiter without any serious injuries is a good durability feat.

It's also example of collateral damage not always indicates the full potent of attacks I think. As the hit that instantly knocked Superman into Venus should be FTL

Originally posted by Galan007
Pretty much.
It was just Clark getting rocked across the solar system whilst trying to figure out wtf was going on.
Good durability feat for sure, as it looked like Bizarro was also using Clark's face to moon-bust during the scuffle.

It is also worth noting that the hit that sends Superman into Venus in moments(which should be FTL) gives no noticeable injury to him

ODG Find Your Own Fire

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
I wouldn't say being smashed around the place constitutes a 'fight'....good... durability from Clark, I guess?
Or another example of his CIS where he's still trying to talk to his opponent as he's being smashed about the place. I know your post was to qwerty but I happened to see it.

👆

Originally posted by MrMind
qwerty living rent free in your head

barker

Originally posted by qwertyuiop1998
A good feat for both I guess?
Yeah. Superman gets hit by force that sends him instantly to Venus and then gets smashed into an asteroid(and destroyed it in the process) of Jupiter without any serious injuries is a good durability feat.
It's also example of collateral damage not always indicates the full potent of attacks I think. As the hit that instantly knocked Superman into Venus should be FTL
It is also worth noting that the hit that sends Superman into Venus in moments(which should be FTL) gives no noticeable injury to him

I think most of us are on the same page. Good pure durability feat for Superman. Since it was a magically amped feat for Bizarro, we reserve judgment for Bizarro.

Originally posted by Galan007
Pretty much.
It was just Clark getting rocked across the solar system whilst trying to figure out wtf was going on.
Good durability feat for sure, as it looked like Bizarro was also using Clark's face to moon-bust during the scuffle.

👆 👆

You still smell.

qwertyuiop1998 The Vampire

The Necrostar wasn't a match for Victor's Apokoliptian GeForce RTX 4090, apparently
https://ibb.co/rK9w1Sw
https://ibb.co/wC9WjZv

DarkSaint85 Bonified abstract

Originally posted by qwertyuiop1998
The Necrostar wasn't a match for Victor's Apokoliptian GeForce RTX 4090, apparently
https://ibb.co/rK9w1Sw
https://ibb.co/wC9WjZv

Another feat for his processing speed 👆 even the Flashes were scared to be infected by Starro.

DC showing my boy Cyborg much love.