Originally posted by KingD19
So your logic is that since Hela isn't Wonder Woman(i.e. The God Killer) then Hela can't beat him, right?Well, Hela could only be sealed by Odin before he got old, and stopped by Ragnarok, and even then we don't see her die or defeated. Just that Asgard is gone along with her and Surtur.
However, we know for a fact that Ares was already defeated prior to Diana's birth, so we know she's not the only one who can take him down.
Also yeah, all of her feats are far superior to him, and if she should happen to take damage, she will heal immediately.
Ares gets taken down hard. And lol if you think he has more control with his magnetic powers over her magical creation and control of her swords.
WHO BEAT WHO HOLDS NO WATER.
It's about the matchup at hand. Sometimes we get rock, paper, scissors scenario.
Hela:
1. As strong if not stronger
2. More skilled in h2h fighting
3. Able to heal to a limited extent
4. Can produce blades and weapons, etc.
5. Skilled at throwing weapons she produces.
6. Super durability
Ares
1. Super strong
2. Super durability
3. Can disintegrate durable objects on contact
4. Can teleport
5. Has tk
6. Can control lightning
Ares can simply avoid her blades by using tk or teleportation.
He can use her weapons against her.
He can strike her with lightning.
Ares wins.
If you disagree then clearly explain exactly how Hela wins.
Originally posted by KingD19
Ares lightning pales in comparison to Thor's which if you recall, Hela had no problem eating for breakfast.Prove his TK is superior to her control of her blades as she can control them in flight.
Lightning is lightning. There is no difference except in the amount of charge. Ares can charge his lightning as much as Thor can. In the last scene, Ares charged his lightning longer than Thor ever had.
Hela can't control her blades in flight. She throws them where she wants them to go. Unless you have a scene where she curves them.
Originally posted by KingD19
The only difference is Thor showed far more power and control with his lightning. Ares lightning is weak sauce in comparison.If I need a scene that shows her curving her blades, I need you to show Ares taking control of magical weapons pulled out of nothing by a goddess.
You claimed that she can control her blades in the air. You must prove that.
Help you out. That would be a waste of time. Because even if she could then Ares would still overpower her control because he has tk feats in the tonnage range and she doesn't.
With tk one can control any object, magical or not.
Originally posted by h1a8
Lightning is lightning. There is no difference except in the amount of charge. Ares can charge his lightning as much as Thor can. In the last scene, Ares charged his lightning longer than Thor ever had.Hela can't control her blades in flight. She throws them where she wants them to go. Unless you have a scene where she curves them.
He charged it longer and blew up like one small building. As opposed to the lightning that Thor charged for a quarter of the time in Sokovia, or an eighth of the time in Jotunheim, both of which either atomized several blocks of skyscraper or ruined an entire landscape.
Or the lightning he used on Hela which destroyed advanced Asgardian structures such as the castle and the Bifrost.
Lightning is lightning....when it's in our atmosphere and coming from a natural earth storm. Thor's lightning obviously has more oomph than a regular bolt.
Originally posted by ShadowFyre
He charged it longer and blew up like one small building. As opposed to the lightning that Thor charged for a quarter of the time in Sokovia, or an eighth of the time in Jotunheim, both of which either atomized several blocks of skyscraper or ruined an entire landscape.Or the lightning he used on Hela which destroyed advanced Asgardian structures such as the castle and the Bifrost.
Lightning is lightning....when it's in our atmosphere and coming from a natural earth storm. Thor's lightning obviously has more oomph than a regular bolt.
Jotunheim was a lot of ice and unstable ground that created a domino effect.
Sokovia was a shared feat with Iron man, the engines which already had a shit load of energy, etc.
Thor lightning is powerful because it lasts longer.
Anyway, real lightning is just as powerful if not more. Why? Because it only lasts about 30 microseconds and has a peak power of 10^12 watts. Thor lightning lasts for multiple seconds. Just so you know. A 1 second lightning bolt would have more than 30 times the energy of a natural lightning bolt. So Thors lightning appears to be more powerful than natural lightning. But in reality it should be more powerful than even what we see due to the time duration of the strike.
In summary, lightning is about how long. 1 sec gives 33 times more than a natural bolt.
Originally posted by h1a8
Jotunheim was a lot of ice and unstable ground that created a domino effect.
Sokovia was a shared feat with Iron man, the engines which already had a shit load of energy, etc.Thor lightning is powerful because it lasts longer.
Anyway, real lightning is just as powerful if not more. Why? Because it only lasts about 30 microseconds and has a peak power of 10^12 watts. Thor lightning lasts for multiple seconds. Just so you know. A 1 second lightning bolt would have more than 30 times the energy of a natural lightning bolt. So Thors lightning appears to be more powerful than natural lightning. But in reality it should be more powerful than even what we see due to the time duration of the strike.
In summary, lightning is about how long. 1 sec gives 33 times more than a natural bolt.
Where in the movie does it state that "Jotunheim was a lot of ice and unstable ground that created a domino effect" because if you can't provide a direct quote, that is just your opinion. and opinions aren't facts.
Originally posted by Silent MasterIt was shown. Duh. You don't know what Ice looks like? The place was cold full of ice. Duh. We see the structure underneath. It wasn't completely solid. Anyway. It doesn't matter. You can win on this. I made may point already which is more relevant.
Where in the movie does it state that "Jotunheim was a lot of ice and unstable ground that created a domino effect" because if you can't provide a direct quote, that is just your opinion. and opinions aren't facts.
Originally posted by h1a8
It was shown. Duh. You don't know what Ice looks like? The place was cold full of ice. Duh. We see the structure underneath. It wasn't completely solid. Anyway. It doesn't matter. You can win on this. I made may point already which is more relevant.
Wrong, we never saw the structure directly underneath where Thor's strike landed, you're referring to the area further out.
Where is your proof the area directly under Thor's strike wasn't completely solid?
Although we have evidence that the high majority of the ground wasn't solid (seeing miles underneath when the creature was under the ground) then at best we can't be sure whether it was or not. Therefore, the feat can't be proven.
But anyway,
Originally posted by h1a8
It doesn't matter. You can win on this. I made may point already which is more relevant.