Comic Book Questions & Discussion

Started by Smurph1,926 pages

Originally posted by DeadpoolXXX
wait.

how? 😕


Ninja

that tracks 👆

What comic character with human level durability and no healing factor has survived the most amount of physical damage (stabbed, shot, burned, etc)?

Batman, Punisher, Daredevil, Elektra/Widow have some good feats

Dredd has to be up there as well.

Conan would be up there. Maybe not shot but he's been through some shit

Originally posted by LordGod
What comic character with human level durability and no healing factor has survived the most amount of physical damage (stabbed, shot, burned, etc)?

ninjak also.

Originally posted by Smurph

There's also his latest showing, being punched by Rogue into a wall

Also, Slaine

Who knows how much hypothetical damage Cyclops survived in those millions (or however many) of Nimrod simulations

All we know is he's the omega. Always the last one standing.

Oh, also Kingpin.

If we can even call him human durability.

Originally posted by Smurph
Oh, also Kingpin.

If we can even call him human durability.

Like how Volstagg is emblematic of a typical Asgardian, Kingpin and Punisher are emblematic of New York humans.

Also, Moon Knight is another worthy mention.

mk has a healing factor no?

DC really loves making these two fight

Originally posted by LordGod
What comic character with human level durability and no healing factor has survived the most amount of physical damage (stabbed, shot, burned, etc)?
Other mentions: Onomatopoeia, Bullseye (although his durability might not be human level, with the adamantium).

Originally posted by Smurph
I'm not saying that the Ba'al scan resolves the entire question. I'm just saying it clearly refutes your allegation that I'm making shit up.
I don't think it "clearly refutes" anything. But I do think you and I closely share opinions on evidentiary standards. So I blame my own flippant posts for any conflict here. I will try to elaborate:

I don't think comic creators understand/care/parse human skeletal structure exactly. And they shouldn't. It's fiction. Who cares? As the audience, we usually don't care either. And even if something seems peculiar, comics are afforded the suspension of disbelief.

The sh1t I am prone to criticize is when KMC posters take an otherwise innocuous scene and demand that it's absolutely determinative/dispositive of a theory.

Baal's failure to pull Wolverine apart is not determinative of Wolverine's skeletal inseparability. Sure, it is more probative of that notion than not. But frankly, any time that scene is referenced, I cannot help but feel that KMC mythologizers are projecting their own motivations onto it. It's an unextraordinary scene for the typical comics reader. Demanding cognition of it as exceptionally probative is both tenuous and transparent.

Conversely, Beast's dissection of Wolverine's skull is absolutely dispositive that Logan's skeleton is inseparable. You cannot read that scene any other way. But frankly, it is also an unextraordinary scene. It only chafes Logan-stan bungholes. It's not like Beast announced with sheer aplomb, "Ha! Did you think your skeletal structure was immune to dissection?!?!??! Watch this sh1t!!!111" No, it just happened.

The comic creators were not on a mission to dispel the myth that Wolverine's skeleton was inseparable. They probably weren't even aware of such a notion because they aren't KMC nerds. And even if they were aware, they probably don't give a sh1t and just wanted to tell their story.

So if you agree with that notion, then ask yourself: do you really think Hama & Buscema were trying to foment the notion that Wolverine's skeleton was utterly inseparable during that Baal scene?

If you cannot help but feel that way, fine. As I said, it's more probative than not of such a notion. But its probative value would have to stand on a high-chair to kiss the a$$ of the probative value of Beast decapitating Logan. It ain't no holy grail piece of evidence either way and I sh1t on anybody who tries to pretend otherwise.

In the end, it doesn't matter anymore as Wolverine's skeletal structure is prone to being dismembered as it has happened multiple times on-panel. You want to treat current comics as some sort of calculated and purposeful retcon? N1gga, plz. That's Wolverithmetics talking.

I think buried within that post is a fundamental misunderstanding of what I was saying. And it makes sense that we've lost the thread of the argument, because it was really splitting hairs to begin with, and it was back in November so I'm not inclined to find the specific quotes to correct the misunderstanding.

The overall position is best summed up in Stilt's original quote about how the separability (is that a word?) of Wolverine's skeleton varies with the writer. My specific point was a refutation of the argument that any of it is based purely on forum myth. I've never argued that the Ba'al scan is dispositive of the whole issue.

Hellblazer: Dead in America #11 was perfect. What a way to stick the landing.

Spurrier's entire John Constantine: Hellblazer run is the best comics run I've read since at least Dan Watter's Lucifer vol.3. I mean, it's not even close. It is the best comics run I've read in decades.

Originally posted by Smurph
I think buried within that post is a fundamental misunderstanding of what I was saying. And it makes sense that we've lost the thread of the argument, because it was really splitting hairs to begin with, and it was back in November so I'm not inclined to find the specific quotes to correct the misunderstanding.

The overall position is best summed up in Stilt's original quote about how the separability (is that a word?) of Wolverine's skeleton varies with the writer. My specific point was a refutation of the argument that any of it is based purely on forum myth. I've never argued that the Ba'al scan is dispositive of the whole issue.

Like I said, I do think our opinions are more aligned than not when it comes to comics. 👆