Originally posted by TheHulksteryou
Superman officially being declared as unable to destroy a world is quite relevant.
Your attempt at lying about the way this character is portrayed is not relevant, no.
Superman has destroyed planets. As a side effect. He withstand planet destroying attacks. Thus, your hilarious desperation is amusing as usual.
Yes, but power levels aren't universally translated into all comic book arcs, under different writers. Starbrand is, by definition, the total energy it takes to destroy a planet. Just because Terrax is the same in a completely different arc [he is not, btw, it takes much more energy to destroy a planet, than to split it, and Terrax's power is specifically Earth control so it makes it murky], it doesn't mean that Starbrand should be above that.Let's take a theoretical example, like Nitro. If his power is defined a nuke level, and he blows up and hurts Thor, but in a different arc we saw Thor can tank being inside the sun, does that mean that Nitro is not nuke level, but supernova level? Replace this with another example, and the logic still wouldn't hold.
breaking feats down into arcs and writers is something i'm rarely comfortable doing. terrax either has the power to shatter/break a planet, or he doesn't. we don't qualify feats by writers or arcs. he's done it, so imo that is his power level. of course pis plays a role in some feats and common sense plays a role in others. maybe terrax used his earth control but it didn't look like it and that didn't appear to be the writers intent so i consider the feat viable. we also don't know what it means to destroy the planet, if we're nitpicking. disintegrate it? erase it completely? shatter it like terrax? they all take different-vastly different--levels of power. and what about the sentient sun? was it only sub-planetary in power? seems odd.
i'm not saying with any sort of definitiveness that starbrand can match power with a greater-than-planetary level threat. but by the same token, given its history in comics overall, i certainly wouldn't be surprised (nor would i throw out such a showing or label it pis) to see some other writer have it perform well above that were such a thing required to defend the earth. were the avatars starbrand faced powerful enough to destroy a planet? doesn't seem unreasonable to think so. the fact that he didn't appear to use greater-than-planetary-force to beat them may or may not be relevant. every time superman is ko'd was the force used to do so greater than the greatest force he's been shown to withstand?
a slippery slope. like i said, i'm not sure who wins, but i'm personally not comfortable attributing a definitive ceiling yet to starbrand.
Originally posted by leonidasIt is, in fact, his history in comics and literal definition that makes me say it's planetary. A being created with the exact energy to destroy a planet he is meant to protect, who is repeatedly shown and stated to release all of his power in a planet destroying blast - it does't take any more blatant than that, unless there's a guy named Hiroshima, and he explodes with 'nuclear power'.
breaking feats down into arcs and writers is something i'm rarely comfortable doing. terrax either has the power to shatter/break a planet, or he doesn't. we don't qualify feats by writers or arcs. he's done it, so imo that is his power level. of course pis plays a role in some feats and common sense plays a role in others. maybe terrax used his earth control but it didn't look like it and that didn't appear to be the writers intent so i consider the feat viable. we also don't know what it means to destroy the planet, if we're nitpicking. disintegrate it? erase it completely? shatter it like terrax? they all take different-vastly different--levels of power. and what about the sentient sun? was it only sub-planetary in power? seems odd.i'm not saying with any sort of definitiveness that starbrand can match power with a greater-than-planetary level threat. but by the same token, given its history in comics overall, i certainly wouldn't be surprised (nor would i throw out such a showing or label it pis) to see some other writer have it perform well above that were such a thing required to defend the earth. were the avatars starbrand faced powerful enough to destroy a planet? doesn't seem unreasonable to think so. the fact that he didn't appear to use greater-than-planetary-force to beat them may or may not be relevant. every time superman is ko'd was the force used to do so greater than the greatest force he's been shown to withstand?
a slippery slope. like i said, i'm not sure who wins, but i'm personally not comfortable attributing a definitive ceiling yet to starbrand.
We both know comics don't work the way you describe them here. Do you think that when Starbrand was written, did the writer think "Hm, what's the absolute highest feat, ever, of all these characters he's facing? He's that, +1!". No, he defined him as more powerful than them, and put him at planet-busting. What ruffles the feathers of everybody here is that if Starbrand is only planet-busting, then that means Thor/Hulk/etc., being so much comparatively weaker, and Kevin being inexperienced when he faced them, look like bugs.
But...again, that's not how comics work. Why do you think I usually go by relative comparisons, and not feats? I wanted to have fun with carver here and make him cry that Hulk was treated like a bug by a planet-buster, but the triggered suspects, as usual, started babbling. In one comic, a writer might think that the Thors and Hulks of the world would be KOd by a nuke, in another they might tank moons exploding. Now, leo, in this situation - what do you do, do you think that the nuke was actually a planet-busting nuke, or do you accept that characters get scaled up and down all the time?
In this case, if Terrax would meet Starbrand in a comic, what do you think would happen? He'd get scaled down as below a 'planet buster' and get his ass kicked. [who doesn't have a clean planet-busting feat - as I said, and as you pointed out, there's completely different magnitudes between Terraxwho can control Earth, has an axe, and only split a planet in half - and Starbrand having the total energy to destroy it - math would put Starbrand at literally hundreds if not thousands of times more powerful]
As I said before, there's big words here "abstracts", "sun" that don't hold up under scrutiny, when you realize they're just amping villains and ghost sun who tries to possess stuff. But the fact that he is, by definition, in totality of his energy a planet buster? That this is repeated multiple times - in the same stories used where it's being tried to argue above? What about him going full power, and only being capable of having an output comparable to that of a nuke? Let me guess....all of these are, in actually, not usable, but the vague fights against wishful thinking powerlevels are.
Meh.
His power adapts
So to defend a planet he needs to equal such power
An will adapt to.future Adversaries higher than simply planet tier if need be
That's seen when he fights the children of eternity
Starbrand pulls more power if it deems it necessary
He matches the power needed to destroy a certian thing as said in that piece of dialogue
Mentioning the destruction output of a planet is due to Starbrand shepherding the earth an if it needs to kill other earths that endanger it
Literally in his mini series that's what the kree Starbrand does
An same as Kevin matches her power
That's the point of the Starbrand is to adapt to the something willing to endanger what he protects
Philo, you are reading into the scans wrong. Teleporting them to the Antarctic wasn't supposed to literally negate their powers, it was to reduce the collateral damage (back when Nightmask and Starbrand still thought they were fighting mortal villains).
As to the rest of your post, Starbrand was shown to be above legit planet busting heralds like Thor/Hyperion/Hulk/etc.. Look how he annihilated the Builder's fleet with a wave of his hand. He beat down a living star that was larger than the Earth. He held his own against the avatars of three universal abstracts that wanted him dead so they could restart the universe.
I get that you are asking for SB showing >than planet busting power but you ain't gonna get it. Hell, Eternity's best feat is blowing up a planet on panel and Thanos said he unleashed all his fury. Do you really believe that's his max power output?
Originally posted by zopzopZop, what did you use as your argument? That they were possessed and powered - not just powered like Juggernaut. I pointed out that being 'possessed' means nothing, and use them being nullified to show just that.
Philo, you are reading into the scans wrong. Teleporting them to the Antarctic wasn't supposed to literally negate their powers, it was to reduce the collateral damage (back when Nightmask and Starbrand still thought they were fighting mortal villains).
If being 'possessed by abstracts' were so powerful, moving them in another location on Earth would make no difference if their power is above Earth busting level.
That Nitro "possessed by the abstracts" was just school busting level.
https://imgur.com/a/THC7hoX
They were restrained by being surrounded in amber [...]:
https://imgur.com/a/CEsYcsH
That is, fairly simple. Understand your point, and why it is wrong?
Why being possessed means nothing?
Originally posted by zopzopCharacters don't get other character's feats, especially when the former characters aren't going all out.
As to the rest of your post, Starbrand was shown to be above legit planet busting heralds like Thor/Hyperion/Hulk/etc.. Look how he annihilated the Builder's fleet with a wave of his hand.
Originally posted by zopzopIt was the ghost of a dead star, who was trying to possess a structure. Do you understand how that is different from an actual star?
He beat down a living star that was larger than the Earth.
Originally posted by zopzopI keep asking you this, and you keep dodging.
He held his own against the avatars of three universal abstracts that wanted him dead so they could restart the universe.
Seriously Zop, focus.
Answer questions.
1). Where did the zombified amped villains display above planet-busting power
2). Where did Starbrand face and overpower that planet busting power.
Show me the scan.
You have no case otherwise. Big words don't replace arguments.
Do you understand this?
I mean, this is so ... easy, and I know you've read comics. There's plenty of people amped by abstract entities, that are not 'above planet-busting'. I'm just wondering, at what point, you realize that saying big words will get you nowhere.
Originally posted by zopzopFinally 👆
I get that you are asking for SB showing >than planet busting power but you ain't gonna get it.
Originally posted by zopzopWh---at? No, because Eternity has better feats of power, and contains the Universe.
Hell, Eternity's best feat is blowing up a planet on panel and Thanos said he unleashed all his fury. Do you really believe that's his max power output?
The same way Starbrand, is the defender of Earth, and contains the power to destroy it.
Originally posted by Philosophía
Zop, what did you use as your argument? That they were possessed and powered - not just powered like Juggernaut. I pointed out that being 'possessed' means nothing, and use them being nullified to show just that.If being 'possessed by abstracts' were so powerful, moving them in another location on Earth would make no difference if their power is above Earth busting level.
That Nitro "possessed by the abstracts" was just school busting level.
https://imgur.com/a/THC7hoXThey were restrained by being surrounded in amber [...]:
https://imgur.com/a/CEsYcsHThat is, fairly simple. Understand your point, and why it is wrong?
Why being possessed means nothing?Characters don't get other character's feats, especially when the former characters aren't going all out.
It was the ghost of a dead star, who was trying to possess a structure. Do you understand how that is different from an actual star?
I keep asking you this, and you keep dodging.
Seriously Zop, focus.
Answer questions.
1). Where did the zombified amped villains display above planet-busting power
2). Where did Starbrand face and overpower that planet busting power.Show me the scan.
You have no case otherwise. Big words don't replace arguments.
Do you understand this?
I mean, this is so ... easy, and I know you've read comics. There's plenty of people amped by abstract entities, that are not 'above planet-busting'. I'm just wondering, at what point, you realize that saying big words will get you nowhere.
Finally 👆
Wh---at? No, because Eternity has better feats of power, and contains the Universe.
The same way Starbrand, is the defender of Earth, and contains the power to destroy it.
Back to the thread :
The heroes ASSUMED they were fighting the base unamped human villains, that's why they thought it was a good idea to move the fight to a different location where innocent people wouldn't get harmed in the cross fire. Later they found out that they weren't fighting mere humans.
Also how many times does it have to be said, collateral damage ins't an indication of true power level. Molecule Man hit Beyonder with a blast that could have slagged several billion dimensions, Marsha's apartment wasn't even singed. According to you, MM and Beyonder weren't even herald level because that fight didn't' wreck the planet.
Thane trapped Thanos in amber, so that means Thanos isn't herald level?
Also, do you have examples of Eternity doing more than busting a planet on panel? Because according to Thanos, he hit him with all his might and the only thing that got wrecked was the planet Thanos was on. Thanos would know Eternity's limit seeing as how he had the HotU at the time. But common sense says Eternity is capable of more than that.
Originally posted by zopzop
Philo can you change/update your username? I can't quote you for some reason and I think it's cause of that special character in your username?
Raz comes here once per 3 years and even when he does, it doesn't mean he'll accept any username changes.
He did few months ago and everyone got shocked their requests from years ago got accepted 😂
He promised to take care of the glitches (such as the one you're talking about), then disappeared. Typical 😛
Originally posted by zopzopYour argument, when Juggernaut was brought up as being amped by an abstract level being, is that on top of being amped, the villains were also possessed. I showed you that possession doesn't mean anything, that possessed Nitro was school busting-level, and the villains were affected by being placed at, and casually beat, in the Antarctic.
Back to the thread :
The heroes ASSUMED they were fighting the base unamped human villains, that's why they thought it was a good idea to move the fight to a different location where innocent people wouldn't get harmed in the cross fire. Later they found out that they weren't fighting mere humans.
Do you understand why being amped by abstracts and possessed means nothing, and that unless you have proof of power, it's just empty statements?
Originally posted by zopzopNitro's whole power is collateral damage. He was school level, yet possessed by 'abstract power!!'.
Also how many times does it have to be said, collateral damage ins't an indication of true power level. Molecule Man hit Beyonder with a blast that could have slagged several billion dimensions, Marsha's apartment wasn't even singed. According to you, MM and Beyonder weren't even herald level because that fight didn't' wreck the planet.
Blizzard was affected by the Antarctic cold, also while possessed by 'abstract power'!!!
Do you...understand your non-argument?
I keep asking you questions, zop.
But have you realized that you have zero argument here, in terms of feats? How long will you keep running on water?
Originally posted by zopzopYou seem to have a hard time understanding the different situations, by comparing Eternity [the Universe] to Starbrand [energy to destroy Earth], yet at the same time have a hard time understanding the similarity in situations, between Juggernaut and the villains.
Thane trapped Thanos in amber, so that means Thanos isn't herald level?Also, do you have examples of Eternity doing more than busting a planet on panel? Because according to Thanos, he hit him with all his might and the only thing that got wrecked was the planet Thanos was on. Thanos would know Eternity's limit seeing as how he had the HotU at the time. But common sense says Eternity is capable of more than that.
Can you keep at least a semblance of logical consistency, Zop?
You keep trying to deviate -- Eternity, the embodiment of the Universe being said to destroy the Earth with his power being a contested assertion, doesn't mean that Starbrand, by definition, being a planetary busting energy level is untrue. In order for you to prove it untrue, you'd have to contest it on its own merit, which you are blatantly, and even self-admittedly, unable to do so.
I will give you one more post to provide scans of:
1). Zombified amped villains display above planet-busting power
2). Starbrand face and overpower that planet busting power.
I'm not going to keep pointing out the abysmal line of thinking here, just for you to shout again and again "Abstract!! Sun!!", then having it shut down, then shouting again, etc.
So...go ahead. Show me. One last chance.
But...we both know there isn't any. We both read all of his apperances. And we both know...there's nothing there.
Apart from that your scans irrelevant
Starbrand Sealed graviton in Cosmic amber
Even before
They actually caused any damage lol
That's why Nightmask is baffled that that move Kevin did could have killed them
Since Kevin doesn't usually do that
Starbrand killing a Beyonder is ridiculous. remember this is the same ivory King that defeated most of the abstracts including Eternity
As I said before, there's big words here "abstracts", "sun" that don't hold up under scrutiny, when you realize they're just amping villains and ghost sun who tries to possess stuff. But the fact that he is, by definition, in totality of his energy a planet buster? That this is repeated multiple times - in the same stories used where it's being tried to argue above? What about him going full power, and only being capable of having an output comparable to that of a nuke? Let me guess....all of these are, in actually, not usable, but the vague fights against wishful thinking powerlevels are.
too much to quote all of it. i'm not fully following your logic as regards relative showings and scaling. you say if terrax fought starbrand he'd get his a$$ kicked. of course. but you think that's because he wouldn't be portrayed at world cracking levels? for the sake of a forum fight, why does it matter how it would be portrayed in a comic? how many times have we seen someone say something like--"hal's shield withstood this attack, and this guy has broken worlds, ergo hal's shields can withstand world breaking powa!!11!" it literally happens every day in the forum. not sure why terrax v starbrand would be any different. hell, think of those 3 loser villains amped in the hotm hulk arc and how many times they were used to show hulk's level.
think about this for a second--imagine if superman fought and defeated 3 abstract empowered entities, one of whom at base was graviton, i honestly shudder at the conclusions that would be reached by some..... and imagine for a second if superman actually KILLED (not fought off or vaguely defeated in some pis-riddled scene) a beyonder! seriously, the forum would likely melt down. lol THAT melt down would be NOTHING compared to the LITERAL sh!tstorm that would ensue if someone then claimed it took only PLANET-BREAKING levels of power to kill a beyonder! 😂
obviously none of that is aimed at you, one of the most rationale superfans out there (usually lol )
my opinion on this subject is clearly just that and i readily admit to speculating but like i said, i don't like to place hard ceilings, especially when i'm not even sure what this 'destruction' would look like. it would also seem strange to me to place him on saturn, with all the times he has said he can destroy a "world" as opposed to "earth", then see him fail miserably to destroy saturn. lol he'd be like--sorry guys, only had enough juice to destroy earth, specifically. sounds silly, and i'm not poking fun, seriously, it just doesn't sound right to me placing such a hard cap on such a massive concept.
you disagree, i know, and believe me i am totally cool with that. i feel like this wasn't my clearest post, maybe because i'm going more off feel and opinion than anything else. /shrug
I'll tldr, since I spent already too much time on the subject, lol.
I think Starbrand is, intrinsically by his very origin, very defined as Earth-energy destroying power, at his peak. Since he doesn't have much wiggle room in terms of scale, the other characters scale around him, if they really need to [there's not many characters, in general, that are planet busters without going into 1-2 showings, so the writers really have no problem showing him as above]. You can even see HIM scale down, when he faced the nuke-barrier around the Earth, and he went "just one of the rest".
Starbrand would also murder Terrax on the forum, in terms of absolutely every ability, raw power and whatever else can be considered. As in, without even getting into scaling.
@ the beyonder stuff, we had something similar with Mangog recently. He roflstomped Asgard, then he got evaporated, alongside Mjolnir, by the sun. How many times have you seen me argue that Superman heat visions Mangog, Mjolnir and all of Asgard into ash? The Beyonders were turned into trees, destroyed by planetary-level explosion [Stabrand] etc.
Starbrand being planetary doesn't really matter much to me, I wanted to anger carver, but then everybody took it seriously, one thing led to another...I legitimately think him getting plowed by zombie Graviton and literal whos amped by some cosmic beings was unimpressive as shit...as was the 'ghost' sun, and I'm not being facetious here. I do like some of the details of those fights though, but there's literally nothing there...that's why I kept asking for specific scenes. But JUST big words like 'abstract' and 'Sun' don't impress me....especially when I read those issues. And given the circles this discussion has been taking place [it really was frustrating asking for proof, and repeatedly only getting "Abstract! Sun!"], you can see that they're not as concrete as they sound. Green Lanterns actually DO have feats that don't require "Superman punched infinity, here he punches GL shields, ergo GL shields are infinity!", unlike Starbrand here.
So....yeah. Agree to disagree. With you too, zop. This discussion has taken more pages than issues the character has.
Superman 10/10 👆
Originally posted by leonidas
breaking feats down into arcs and writers is something i'm rarely comfortable doing. terrax either has the power to shatter/break a planet, or he doesn't. we don't qualify feats by writers or arcs. he's done it, so imo that is his power level. of course pis plays a role in some feats and common sense plays a role in others. maybe terrax used his earth control but it didn't look like it and that didn't appear to be the writers intent so i consider the feat viable. we also don't know what it means to destroy the planet, if we're nitpicking. disintegrate it? erase it completely? shatter it like terrax? they all take different-vastly different--levels of power. and what about the sentient sun? was it only sub-planetary in power? seems odd.i'm not saying with any sort of definitiveness that starbrand can match power with a greater-than-planetary level threat. but by the same token, given its history in comics overall, i certainly wouldn't be surprised (nor would i throw out such a showing or label it pis) to see some other writer have it perform well above that were such a thing required to defend the earth. were the avatars starbrand faced powerful enough to destroy a planet? doesn't seem unreasonable to think so. the fact that he didn't appear to use greater-than-planetary-force to beat them may or may not be relevant. every time superman is ko'd was the force used to do so greater than the greatest force he's been shown to withstand?
a slippery slope. like i said, i'm not sure who wins, but i'm personally not comfortable attributing a definitive ceiling yet to starbrand.
Well written Leo. I'm clapping. The Starbrand is as powerful as the users imagination. The Sentient Star was obviously powerful enough to destroy the Earth, as it posed a threat to all life on the planet. Hyperion alone showed planetary level strength, and he was treated like a weakling. As was the Hulk and Thor. The he got into it with three extremely powerful beings that were being powered up by Abstracts, and it still isn't enough to stop the cherry picking.
Originally posted by leonidas
too much to quote all of it. i'm not fully following your logic as regards relative showings and scaling. you say if terrax fought starbrand he'd get his a$$ kicked. of course. but you think that's because he wouldn't be portrayed at world cracking levels? for the sake of a forum fight, why does it matter how it would be portrayed in a comic? how many times have we seen someone say something like--"hal's shield withstood this attack, and this guy has broken worlds, ergo hal's shields can withstand world breaking powa!!11!" it literally happens every day in the forum. not sure why terrax v starbrand would be any different. hell, think of those 3 loser villains amped in the hotm hulk arc and how many times they were used to show hulk's level.think about this for a second--imagine if superman fought and defeated 3 abstract empowered entities, one of whom at base was graviton, i honestly shudder at the conclusions that would be reached by some..... and imagine for a second if superman actually KILLED (not fought off or vaguely defeated in some pis-riddled scene) a beyonder! seriously, the forum would likely melt down. lol THAT melt down would be NOTHING compared to the LITERAL sh!tstorm that would ensue if someone then claimed it took only PLANET-BREAKING levels of power to kill a beyonder! 😂
obviously none of that is aimed at you, one of the most rationale superfans out there (usually lol )
my opinion on this subject is clearly just that and i readily admit to speculating but like i said, i don't like to place hard ceilings, especially when i'm not even sure what this 'destruction' would look like. it would also seem strange to me to place him on saturn, with all the times he has said he can destroy a "world" as opposed to "earth", then see him fail miserably to destroy saturn. lol he'd be like--sorry guys, only had enough juice to destroy earth, specifically. sounds silly, and i'm not poking fun, seriously, it just doesn't sound right to me placing such a hard cap on such a massive concept.
you disagree, i know, and believe me i am totally cool with that. i feel like this wasn't my clearest post, maybe because i'm going more off feel and opinion than anything else. /shrug
Be careful, or Sophia will put you on ignore for questioning her weak one sided logic that only make sense to those of us with extremely narrow minds.
Supermans faced down powers far greater then Starbrands.
Emperor.Joker would finish him in one move. If Joker could kick Darkseid, Highfather, Ganthet, Phantom Stranger, and Spectre out of the game, Starbrand, who is inferior to all.of them, wouldn't last a second.
Superman beats Starbrand with a whistle, just like he did True Darkseid.
Originally posted by panthergod
youYour attempt at lying about the way this character is portrayed is not relevant, no.
Superman has destroyed planets. As a side effect. He withstand planet destroying attacks. Thus, your hilarious desperation is amusing as usual.
And Starbrand has exceeded planet destroying level by a wide margin. Do you even know what is going on in this thread and the basis behind the points being made? Read the thread before commenting.