Originally posted by lawest9
The point I've been trying to make exactly, physically and power wise you can call him Superman but as a person he is Hank, not Clark, Carver calked it correctly with 'Hank stomps'.
The tech makes him Superman, you fool. With Clark’s encrypted DNA running through his veins, he is sufficiently Clark Kent himself.
Clark Kent wins vs Sissy Surfer anyday, especially if it’s his Cyborg Superman form which is one of my personal faves.
I I wouldn't throw the word fool around too loosely if I were you, your eyes are blinded and closed, Cyborg Supes having Clark's dna running through him still doesn't make him the man that Clark really is, Hank Henshaw is evil and psychotic, being similar to Clark physically doesn't make him Clark at all.
Originally posted by lawest9
I I wouldn't throw the word fool around too loosely if I were you, your eyes are blinded and closed, Cyborg Supes having Clark's dna running through him still doesn't make him the man that Clark really is, Hank Henshaw is evil and psychotic, being similar to Clark physically doesn't make him Clark at all.
Cyborg Superman is an evil and psychotic version of Superman whose darkness that was always lying dormant, became manifest. He’s a cybernetic and darkened version of whom Clark may have become, added by technological advances and a ring.
Originally posted by Eon BlueI have a link down below on Henshaw's history that proves that his psyche is not based off of any "evil side of Superman", it explains that his warped psyche manifested gradually over time due to the horrific tragedies that he experienced.......
Based on?
Name calling simply proves that you have nothing to further your argument with, the information from a comic book character's history is legitimate and on time, anyone who has been reading these stories from the beginning and over time can bare witness to the legitimacy of the wiki info on Henshaw.
But it's alright, your concession is accepted and I am through with you.
Originally posted by lawest9
Name calling simply proves that you have nothing to further your argument with, the information from a comic book character's history is legitimate and on time, anyone who has been reading these stories from the beginning and over time can bare witness to the legitimacy of the wiki info on Henshaw.But it's alright, your concession is accepted and I am through with you.
Someone sounds salty.
Superman wins, moron. DC is better than Marvel and you aren’t a true Superman fan by paltry rite of merit. I win, you lose. Concession accepted. You can’t prove that a copy isn’t the same as the original source.
Your salt is useful to throw it back into your wounds.