Post flashpoint shazam vs superman.

Started by MrMind3 pages
MrMind Senior Member
Originally posted by Astner
Gladiator and Hyperion have feats on par with some of Supergirl and shazam's best quantifiable feats. Punching planets apart, crossing galaxies in the blink of an eye, and holding apart two Earths on a collision path, and so on....

fix it for you

actually scratch that

kara and billy's best feats are so far superior to gladiator and hyperion it's not even funny

let's see marvel's best heralds come up with something that come close to dc's mid herald, then we can move to the weakest superman. but let's start with supergirl first

Originally posted by abhilegend
Supergirl can haul stars, survives attacks that could destroy several solar systems, hits hard enough to shake the cosmos and is brought down by attacks that could destroy galaxies.

😂

DarkSaint85 Bonified abstract

Originally posted by Astner
No, I meant cherry-picking, as in arbitrarily deciding what evidence to use and what evidence to ignore.

Gladiator and Hyperion have feats on par with some of Superman's best quantifiable feats. Punching planets apart, crossing galaxies in the blink of an eye, and holding apart two Earths on a collision path, and so on....

Do they have as many of these kinds of feats as Superman? Of course not, but that's a consequence of having fewer showings overall. Luckily, if the goal is determining consistent portrayals, then the number of showings aren't relevant beyond establishing said consistency.

Just crack open a Superman comic. Superman is not one-shotting Black Adam, Doomsday, Mongul, or Zod, despite the fact that these characters don't have the same number of high showings.

Whilst I agree with some things, I have to ask - how many showings, then, determine consistency, for you?

Let's say character A has 10 showings, character B has 100 showings. Sure, character A has 1-2 showings that compare with character B's - but if character A ALSO has 1-2 lower showings, why does one trump the other?

I then smiled at your accusations of one side cherry picking, whilst mentioning in the same post 'quantifiable'. Who do you think has hotter HV, Gladiator or Superman?

MrMind Senior Member

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Whilst I agree with some things, I have to ask - how many showings, then, determine consistency, for you?

Let's say character A has 10 showings, character B has 100 showings. Sure, character A has 1-2 showings that compare with character B's - but if character A ALSO has 1-2 lower showings, why does one trump the other?

I then smiled at your accusations of one side cherry picking, whilst mentioning in the same post 'quantifiable'. Who do you think has hotter HV, Gladiator or Superman?

I heard you are playing sentry in the new marvel thunderbolts movie

when the movie come out, will you do me a favor and tell all the mcu fans on screen you are weaker than ezra miller's flash?

Astner The Ghost Who Walks

Originally posted by MrMind
kara and billy's best feats are so far superior to gladiator and hyperion it's not even funny

This is what I mean with cherry-picking. You know that Superman doesn't have these feats so you fall back on other characters.

Originally posted by MrMind
let's see marvel's best heralds come up with something that come close to dc's mid herald, then we can move to the weakest superman. but let's start with supergirl first

Ironic. The scene you posted doesn't include any notable feats at all. What it does include is purple prose. Which, sure, you could interpret literally, but given the fact that we have no actual feats on this level, plus a number of limits that put them far below what a literal reading would suggest, it's worthless.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Whilst I agree with some things, I have to ask - how many showings, then, determine consistency, for you?

It's not the number of showings and limits, it's the ratio. If a character has 10 times as many showings than another, then we should expect the former to have roughly 10 times the amount of of the impressive feats, just as we should expect them to have roughly 10 times the amount unimpressive limits.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Let's say character A has 10 showings, character B has 100 showings. Sure, character A has 1-2 showings that compare with character B's - but if character A ALSO has 1-2 lower showings, why does one trump the other?

There's a lot of things being omitted here, but technically: on a surface level it would depend on how many "lower showings" character B had.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
I then smiled at your accusations of one side cherry picking, whilst mentioning in the same post 'quantifiable'. Who do you think has hotter HV, Gladiator or Superman?

We concluded in the other thread that Superman's Heat Vision was roughly around the 5,000 - 6,000 Celsius range, from the numeric values we've got, right? I don't think we've ever gotten a numeric value for Gladiator's Heat Beams, but it's been described in similar vague terms "hotter than stars" and whatnot. Interestingly enough, Hyperion's Atomic Vision has been enumerated at 12,000 Fahrenheit, which is 6,600 Celsius.

And these values are close enough to where I'd consider them the same. Or more aptly: I wouldn't bother delving into obsessive detail here, especially considering that there are so many relevant details that are left out such as how quickly it would heat an object, etc. So as far as I'm concerned, they're the same.

DarkSaint85 Bonified abstract

Originally posted by Astner

It's not the number of showings and limits, it's the ratio. If a character has 10 times as many showings than another, then we should expect the former to have roughly 10 times the amount of of the impressive feats, just as we should expect them to have roughly 10 times the amount unimpressive limits.

Fair enough. I leave the bad showings to the abhis et al.


There's a lot of things being omitted here, but technically: on a surface level it would depend on how many "lower showings" character B had.

Which then devolves into a race to the bottom - not that I am saying we should ignore them, I agree that if a character has 10 showings, any low showings then hold more 'weight', as it were (just as high showings also hold more weight). Which leads to wild swings between extremes, I guess.


We concluded in the other thread that Superman's Heat Vision was roughly around the 5,000 - 6,000 Celsius range, from the numeric values we've got, right? I don't think we've ever gotten a numeric value for Gladiator's Heat Beams, but it's been described in similar vague terms "hotter than stars" and whatnot. Interestingly enough, Hyperion's Atomic Vision has been enumerated at 12,000 Fahrenheit, which is 6,600 Celsius.

And these values are close enough to where I'd consider them the same. Or more aptly: I wouldn't bother delving into obsessive detail here, especially considering that there are so many relevant details that are left out such as how quickly it would heat an object, etc. So as far as I'm concerned, they're the same.


It's in the range of 1000 degrees Kelvin, when he's angry:
Originally posted by DarkSaint85

We use the latest versions, dood.

Which is about 700 degrees C, or ~10% of the other 2.

Astner The Ghost Who Walks

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Which then devolves into a race to the bottom - not that I am saying we should ignore them, I agree that if a character has 10 showings, any low showings then hold more 'weight', as it were (just as high showings also hold more weight). Which leads to wild swings between extremes, I guess.

There are more ways than one to measure consistency. Recency is another: If we look at the last 50 comics featuring each character, if they're consistently equal then they should be roughly equal in that particular sample.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
It's in the range of 1000 degrees Kelvin, when he's angry:

Which is about 700 degrees C, or ~10% of the other 2.


Then it's not as hot.

qwertyuiop1998 The Vampire

Originally posted by Astner

It's not the number of showings and limits, it's the ratio. If a character has 10 times as many showings than another, then we should expect the former to have roughly 10 times the amount of of the impressive feats, just as we should expect them to have roughly 10 times the amount unimpressive limits.

There's a lot of things being omitted here, but technically: on a surface level it would depend on how many "lower showings" character B had.


But this seems to extremely hard in the case of comics(specifically, DC and Marvel)

1) The sheer number of certain comic characters have appeared.
There are like countless comics these famous characters have appeared in. To a point it's hard to determine the surface levels others point out are accurate.

Take this for example:

Originally posted by Astner
But the most notable feat was when the Marvel Family displaced "billions of stars" (and planets) the Marvel Family #61 to prevent a collision of galaxies, and this was also before Superman got any planet-level feats.



There are two problems I can find in this sentence.
First of all. Marvel Family didn't displace "billions of stars" (and planets) in that story. In the very next page is the comic states they couldn't do that(so later they used a machine to do that)
https://ibb.co/m8C0j6W
Second, Superman/Superboy(Kal-El) pushed a comet that has planetary mass and is going to destroy Earth in Superboy 2(1949). Before Marvel Family #61(1951)
https://ibb.co/mGNsYdL

As you can see. The surface levels can very well be the guy who makes/thinks it is, instead of actually reading every related source.
The case of Gladiator's HV in this thread is also an example highlights this issue. More often than not, the surface levels are what the people(whether it's intentionally or not) make/think it is.

2)Even when we've read the same feats, how much weight does individual given them is also varies.
Take "scaling from another character" for example. There are posters agree to use it in some cases and there are posters don't agree with it.
Or just recently, the stopping the Moon feat Shazam performed. There are many different opinions on how to decide it and how impressive the feat is.
Etcetcetc

DarkSaint85 Bonified abstract

Originally posted by qwertyuiop1998
But this seems to extremely hard in the case of comics(specifically, DC and Marvel)

1) The sheer number of certain comic characters have appeared.
There are like countless comics these famous characters have appeared in. To a point it's hard to determine the surface levels others point out are accurate.

Take this for example:

There are two problems I can find in this sentence.
First of all. Marvel Family didn't displace "billions of stars" (and planets) in that story. In the very next page is the comic states they couldn't do that(so later they used a machine to do that)
https://ibb.co/m8C0j6W
Second, Superman/Superboy(Kal-El) pushed a comet that has planetary mass and is going to destroy Earth in Superboy 2(1949). Before Marvel Family #61(1951)
https://ibb.co/mGNsYdL

As you can see. The surface levels can very well be the guy who makes/thinks it is, instead of actually reading every related source.
The case of Gladiator's HV in this thread is also an example highlights this issue. More often than not, the surface levels are what the people(whether it's intentionally or not) make/think it is.

2)Even when we've read the same feats, how much weight does individual given them is also varies.
Take "scaling from another character" for example. There are posters agree to use it in some cases and there are posters don't agree with it.
Or just recently, the stopping the Moon feat Shazam performed. There are many different opinions on how to decide it and how impressive the feat is.
Etcetcetc

A textbook example of my theory that comics being readily and freely available online through certain sites, for everyone to read, is what is really 'killing' comic debates. Back in the day, someone could make a specific argument, and it would then be unchallenged. Now? Boom, the entire comic can be read for context and corrections.

Juntai Divine Vengeance

I don’t see it as killing them but sorting out the bullshit. We used to have so many people with super cropped and/or out of context scans in the early-mid 2000s and people would run with it.

Smurph tu quoqumber

Look, Darksaint just wants to be able to lie without Qwerty calling him out.

That's what makes comic debating fun.

abhilegend Prince of All Saiyans

Originally posted by Astner
No, I meant cherry-picking, as in arbitrarily deciding what evidence to use and what evidence to ignore.

Gladiator and Hyperion have feats on par with some of Superman's best quantifiable feats. Punching planets apart, crossing galaxies in the blink of an eye, and holding apart two Earths on a collision path, and so on....

Do they have as many of these kinds of feats as Superman? Of course not, but that's a consequence of having fewer showings overall. Luckily, if the goal is determining consistent portrayals, then the number of showings aren't relevant beyond establishing said consistency.

Just crack open a Superman comic. Superman is not one-shotting Black Adam, Doomsday, Mongul, or Zod, despite the fact that these characters don't have the same number of high showings.


You're still peddling this bullshit after getting destroyed several times. Pathetic

StiltmanFTW CBvF

Qwertykent and Abhilane:

DarkSaint85 Bonified abstract

Originally posted by Smurph
Look, Darksaint just wants to be able to lie without Qwerty calling him out.

That's what makes comic debating fun.

Man, hopefully qwerty is never a BZ judge.....

ODG Find Your Own Fire
Originally posted by ODG
How often has Post-Flashpoint Superman performed planet or star busting feats?