Originally posted by DarkSaint85
You are very hostile, and you are just ignoring my points to accuse me of misogyny without actually debating points,
I can understand and accept there are different opinions when it comes to comics.
But being *that* hostile, angry, and without actually debating is something I really feel it's a bit too far
Originally posted by qwertyuiop1998Then disassociate.
Yeah, that's a big issue when debating with ODG.
Originally posted by qwertyuiop1998Or engage in actual debate. If you don't want to, then sit in silence. 👆
I can understand and accept there are different opinions when it comes to comics.
But being *that* hostile, angry, and without actually debating is something I really feel it's a bit too far
Anyway, all those KMC posters who are arguing that Zod would win? I welcome the discourse. Because I don't even have a strong position on majority here. I am just arguing against the notion that Zod would dominate Wonder Woman.
Could that happen? Sure.
Has that happened? I dunno, I figure it'd be posted by now.
But in a KMC Vs-dictated thread... and taking them both at their best? Cmon now.
I do not hold abhilegend's diarrhea sh1t posts against any of you. Dat schnook is a special type of poster who is irrationally obsessed with me to the extent of chasing me for 200+ posts across 10+ years. Over what? I don't even know.
Originally posted by ODG
Can Zod? Who is actually in this thread?Oh but, this is where abhilegend insists otherwise that Zod or Cyborg Superman and Eradicator should be reverse-projected vis-a-vis Superman but not Wonder Woman.
Can you show us these statements or feats from Wonder Woman?
Originally posted by ODG
Anyway, all those KMC posters who are arguing that Zod would win? I welcome the discourse. Because I don't even have a strong position on majority here. I am just arguing against the notion that Zod would dominate Wonder Woman.Could that happen? Sure.
Has that happened? I dunno, I figure it'd be posted by now.
But in a KMC Vs-dictated thread... and taking them both at their best? Cmon now.
I do not hold abhilegend's diarrhea sh1t posts against any of you. Dat schnook is a special type of poster who is irrationally obsessed with me to the extent of chasing me for 200+ posts across 10+ years. Over what? I don't even know.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
It's the first of Leo's statements. He was trying to injure her as much as possible before ending the fight.I have a bad guy in front of me, and I have a gun with six bullets. Rather than headshotting him with the first bullet, killing him, I take my time and shoot his left hand first, then his left leg, then his right hand, etc etc etc.
that's a bit of a cop out though because it negates the idea that he was desperate to literally kill her. so at what point did he decide to go for the kill? DID he decide? clearly, since he repeatedly says he was TRYING to kill her. this is a case of pick-and-choose. you are choosing to adhere to the suffering which makes the killing essentially irrelevant since we then have no idea when he actually TRIED to kill her. which flies in the face of his repeated statements. it also doesn't discount the fact that she was holding back against him. then too there's the idea of how weakened he wanted her so he could make her suffer. your gun analogy would be as apt if you said he shot her in the gut leaving her essentially defenseless and MUCH easier to make suffer. or the stomach and both legs. still alive and suffering immensely. the suffering thing leaves too much gradation. an all-out superman beating on you WOULD cause a ton of suffering before he finally beat you to death.
to say he was going all out trying to kill her doesn't negate the suffering stance. taking the suffering stance DOES negate the killing stance though. that makes no sense to me. /shrug
Originally posted by leonidas
that's a bit of a cop out though because it negates the idea that he was desperate to literally kill her. so at what point did he decide to go for the kill? DID he decide? clearly, since he repeatedly says he was TRYING to kill her. this is a case of pick-and-choose. you are choosing to adhere to the suffering which makes the killing essentially irrelevant since we then have no idea when he actually TRIED to kill her.
I.E, he wanted to kill Doomsday, but *before* that, he wanted him to suffer, and the suffering time he wanted it to last forever
https://i.ibb.co/kV6ZHVxK/P00145.jpg
Originally posted by qwertyuiop1998
But he said he wanted to make Doomsday/Wonder Woman suffer *first*. And the time for torturing is eternity/foreverI.E, he wanted to kill Doomsday, but *before* that, he wanted him to suffer, and the suffering time he wanted it to last forever
https://i.ibb.co/kV6ZHVxK/P00145.jpg
His first action was to throw her in the sun? That seems more like killing than suffering. That was the FIRST thing he did. Attempt to throw her in the sun.
Originally posted by qwertyuiop1998
But he said he wanted to make Doomsday/Wonder Woman suffer *first*. And the time for torturing is eternity/foreverI.E, he wanted to kill Doomsday, but *before* that, he wanted him to suffer, and the suffering time he wanted it to last forever
https://i.ibb.co/kV6ZHVxK/P00145.jpg
lol well then that statement is completely contradictory to wanting to kill her. so he NEVER wanted to kill her, just have her suffer forever? yeah i'll not be buying that. at all. purple prose doesn't hold much water for me especially when it flies directly in the face of other, equally valid statements. taking the eternal suffering stance makes no sense whatsoever and utterly invalidates what everything he said about wanting to kill her.
Originally posted by leonidas
lol well then that statement is completely contradictory to wanting to kill her. so he NEVER wanted to kill her, just have her suffer forever? yeah i'll not be buying that. at all. purple prose doesn't hold much water for me especially when it flies directly in the face of other, equally valid statements. taking the eternal suffering stance makes no sense whatsoever and utterly invalidates what everything he said about wanting to kill her.
Or make another analogy, I want to write a novel, but before that I want to make sure it's the best novel I can write. So I try to study all kind of things that related to writing and the time I take to study these things is indefinite(and possibly, I never would write the novel).
Do I want to write the novel? Sure. But it's also true it can take a very, very long time to reach that point(or even indefinitely).
And I think it also makes this very different from Zod's case. See DS' analogy. Sure, Superman wanted to kill, but the method he was using isn't very calculating, he had another goal(he wanted Doomsday to suffer first), he was half out of his mind etc.
It's no different to a supervillain devising the most convoluted plan ever to kill the hero, which then gives them the chance to escape and win the day.
Does the villain want to win/kill the hero? Yes, he does. But strapping lasers to genetically modified sharks whilst suspending the hero above a vat of boiling acid and taking your sweet time to kill the hero just gives him the chance to get out.
Rather than ending the fight with a swift decisive blow, or attempting to do so, Superman prolonged the fight to make WW/Doomsday suffer. I mean, people may handwave it away as purple prose, but the intent was still there. Maybe he wasn't going to LITERALLY do it FOREVER, but the intent was still to make them suffer BEFORE dying. Rather than just, killing them (hence the analogy with the bullet). If you want to use gut shooting, then fine that's also ok - the main point was that he wasn't going for headshots from the outset.
but if you throw out the 'suffer for eternity' part, you're REALLY picking and choosing. and apparently conceding the point about purple prose because you don't seem to think he literally meant what he said. he just meant suffer for a long time. how long? who knows since we can't take his word for it. but he didn't REALLY try and kill her according to you guys--except he said he was trying to do exactly that. makes no sense to me and feels like you're dying on the wrong hill. also vastly different from your classic ds comparison. some convoluted 60's batman tv series plan is a terrible basis of comparison here because he manifestly states he was going all out, not holding back and trying to kill her. his words. and of course the villain doesn't always want to kill the hero. here we're told--explicitly--he wants to. it was the whole point.
regardless--none of it changes the fact that she was holding back. this is also circular. you'll say the one thing is more meaningful and i couldn't possibly disagree with your stance more... so yeah.
Originally posted by leonidas
but if you throw out the 'suffer for eternity' part, you're REALLY picking and choosing. and apparently conceding the point about purple prose because you don't seem to think he literally meant what he said. he just meant suffer for a long time. how long? who knows since we can't take his word for it. but he didn't REALLY try and kill her according to you guys--except he said he was trying to do exactly that. makes no sense to me and feels like you're dying on the wrong hill. also vastly different from your classic ds comparison. some convoluted 60's batman tv series plan is a terrible basis of comparison here because he manifestly states he was going all out, not holding back and trying to kill her. his words. and of course the villain doesn't always want to kill the hero. here we're told--explicitly--he wants to. it was the whole point.regardless--none of it changes the fact that she was holding back. this is also circular. you'll say the one thing is more meaningful and i couldn't possibly disagree with your stance more... so yeah.
And if we want to make further examples. It later confirms that Max indeed can't force Superman kill because Superman is still subconsciously holding back in the slightly altered main timeline
https://i1093.photobucket.com/albums/i436/KMCPhilosophia/maxkillwill1.jpg
https://i1093.photobucket.com/albums/i436/KMCPhilosophia/maxkillwill2.jpg
And if I'm not mistaken, you seem to agree the point that a divergent timeline without major differences would be considered legit
Originally posted by leonidas
i agree with opr and phil--if a change in the 616 can alter a divergent timeline, and the characters in said timeline show no real differences, there should be no reason feats in those timelines aren't recognized.
Sure, Wonder Woman held back, but we aren't arguing about whether or not Superman was going to beat WW if she didn't. We just saying Superman's mindset makes it very different from Wonder Woman facing a sane, calculating, who isn't fighting half out of his mind Kryptonian
For example, I think you can make a plausible argument Zod will defeat WW by just simply drawing out all the air in her lungs.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
He doesn't so much as defend, as aggressively attack. Against Enchantress:
Originally posted by qwertyuiop1998
WW still needs to breathe, no? At least, the last time I checked Batman did use similar method to knock out Diana
https://ibb.co/pjw1V5MYI think Zod's super-breath also would be a problem for WW as Zod can(and did) draw the air from others' lungs by his super breath
Originally posted by leonidas
but if you throw out the 'suffer for eternity' part, you're REALLY picking and choosing. and apparently conceding the point about purple prose because you don't seem to think he literally meant what he said. he just meant suffer for a long time. how long? who knows since we can't take his word for it. but he didn't REALLY try and kill her according to you guys--except he said he was trying to do exactly that. makes no sense to me and feels like you're dying on the wrong hill. also vastly different from your classic ds comparison. some convoluted 60's batman tv series plan is a terrible basis of comparison here because he manifestly states he was going all out, not holding back and trying to kill her. his words. and of course the villain doesn't always want to kill the hero. here we're told--explicitly--he wants to. it was the whole point.regardless--none of it changes the fact that she was holding back. this is also circular. you'll say the one thing is more meaningful and i couldn't possibly disagree with your stance more... so yeah.
I say 'for eternity' is purple prose. Not conceding, I....never argued otherwise? I agree that he wanted her dead, again, not arguing otherwise?
I am saying he wasn't out to end the fight in the first millisecond. He EXPLICITLY says he wanted DD to suffer first for what he had done. Sounds like you're picking and choosing, here, tbh.
It's like this:
1. Match starts
2. Superman, bloodlusted, wants DD dead.
3. Wants to make him suffer first for *a* period of time.
VS
1. Match starts
2. Zod wants WW dead
3. Wants to end the fight quickly.
See the difference? Leo, you are picking and choosing. I am freely admitting (and never argued otherwise) that Superman DID want WW dead, but wanted her to suffer first (As the text clearly states):
Here, Zod would ALSO want WW dead, but wouldn't want her to suffer first. Hence, the two fights are not the same in terms of how the combatants approach the fight.
See the fight again. Superman punched Doomsday [i.e. WW] to the sun, to watch him [i.e. her] burn. But wanted him [her] to suffer first, so punched him [her] BACK to Earth as shown in my scan.
Whereas I am arguing that if Zod were in that place, he would just....punch WW to the Sun and then keep fighting there, WITHOUT punching her back to Earth.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
I say 'for eternity' is purple prose. Not conceding, I....never argued otherwise? I agree that he wanted her dead, again, not arguing otherwise?I am saying he wasn't out to end the fight in the first millisecond. He EXPLICITLY says he wanted DD to suffer first for what he had done. Sounds like you're picking and choosing, here, tbh.
It's like this:
1. Match starts
2. Superman, bloodlusted, wants DD dead.
3. Wants to make him suffer first for *a* period of time.VS
1. Match starts
2. Zod wants WW dead
3. Wants to end the fight quickly.See the difference?
Vs
"I'm fighting half out of my mind, and in my perspective I'm facing a guy who doesn't need to breathe(but in reality, WW needs to)"
This is also a very big difference IMO
