Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Who wins this battle of powerhouses?

Hercules at his strongest vs. Doomsday from the Death of Superman?

Herc would kill him 3 times but then get killed since all he has is brute force. The first time he could beat him a brawl. Then the second time he can outwrestle him and stuff. The the third time he could use his environment like dropping stuff on him and stuff. After that tho Herc gets killed.

Um. NO. Hercules gets curbstomped.

Doomsday for sure. Doomsday is much stronger.

Doomsday is not at all stronger actually. Herc held up the Earth. (yes i know it doesnt make sense, but he did it. He also dragged Manhattan. He also stalemate the Mindless Hulk who destroyed an asteroid the size of the moon with one punch.

Same strength level, Doomsday = more durability, Herc more Skilled.

I still say Doomsday. I don't think Herc could take Byrnes Supes.

Herc never held the Earth. It was a blatant lie made by a drunken Hercules in order get laid with his billionth victim.

If DOS Doomsday can outbrawl Superman AND the JLA than Hercules doesn't stand a flippin chance.

And Hercules never stalemated Mindless Hulk. He got curbstomped until his daddy could save him. Nice Jesus reference at the end though.

It was GREY Hulk who destroyed an asteroid the size of PLANET. BUT only do to the magnetic replusion device he was wearing. (How else did the Hulk get up there?)

Originally posted by Draco69


If DOS Doomsday can outbrawl Superman AND the JLA than Hercules doesn't stand a flippin chance.


Thats a great way too look at it.

Doomsday Beat J'onn J'onnzz (Martian Manhunter) and the rest of the JLA

The Martian Manhunter and Wonderwoman could easily take Hercules.

dude Draco ur totally full of shit! It was Mindless Hulk actually who destroyed the asteroid. Hercules DID hold the earth, i even have a scan to prove it. And the fight ur referring to when Zeus had to save Herc is when he was Mortal. Im talkin about the fight when after Mindless Hulk beat down WM, IM, and Namor. Herc and Hulk then battled to a stalemate.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b11/armandovalles/HercholdstheEarthforAtlas.jpg

doomsday

Originally posted by armandovalles
dude Draco ur totally full of shit! It was Mindless Hulk actually who destroyed the asteroid. Hercules DID hold the earth, i even have a scan to prove it. And the fight ur referring to when Zeus had to save Herc is when he was Mortal. Im talkin about the fight when after Mindless Hulk beat down WM, IM, and Namor. Herc and Hulk then battled to a stalemate.

So sad.

Your "scan" will have a caption where Hercules sarcastically says he held the Earth.

No. It was GREY Hulk who destroyed the asteroid. Go to the Hulk Respect Thread. Mr Fix-it was snobbering the entire time.

Also, If DC Hercules (who REALLY held the Earth) couldn't last against a friggin clone of Doomsday than....

<<So sad.
Your "scan" will have a caption where Hercules sarcastically says he held the Earth.>>

hahahah!!

wait til olympian gets into this!! i said the EXACT same thing to him, but he also takes that pic as canon. what do you say to something like that?

Originally posted by armandovalles
dude Draco ur totally full of shit! It was Mindless Hulk actually who destroyed the asteroid. Hercules DID hold the earth, i even have a scan to prove it. And the fight ur referring to when Zeus had to save Herc is when he was Mortal. Im talkin about the fight when after Mindless Hulk beat down WM, IM, and Namor. Herc and Hulk then battled to a stalemate.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b11/armandovalles/HercholdstheEarthforAtlas.jpg

Honey.

Did you even READ the caption? "heh-heh" ring a bell to you?

Also isn't Hercules a little, I don't know, GIANT?

Originally posted by Draco69
Honey.

Did you even READ the caption? "heh-heh" ring a bell to you?

Also isn't Hercules a little, I don't know, GIANT?



So true !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't know what it is, but Marvel seem to always screw it up when they try to illustrate their characters performing impressive feats. It causes so much doubt.

seriously. you take THAT scan as canon for the feat??????????????????????????????????????????????????????

i just, i . . i mean . . .

blowup

(i can hear it already -- the heheh was because he was laughing at his own pun . . .)

i can't wait til oly reads this . . .

Kevin Sorbo pwns ju

herc couldn't even handle Hulk.

he gets killed.

Death of Superman----- it's called death of Superman for a reason

"Herc never held the Earth. It was a blatant lie made by a drunken Hercules in order get laid with his billionth victim."

Read the story Draco. He wasent neither drunk and neither talking to ladies to get laid. You assumed that from the scan, how, may i ask?

And he lied (we know this because there was a character saying so) about Thor`s fight. Nothing about the labours. They are as we know.

"If DOS Doomsday can outbrawl Superman AND the JLA than Hercules doesn't stand a flippin chance."

A Jla whose big gun was Byrne Superman. The same who in the end defeated him since Doomsday died first.

"And Hercules never stalemated Mindless Hulk. He got curbstomped until his daddy could save him. Nice Jesus reference at the end though."

He stalemated Mindless Hulk (byrne) in the first round. The same where Iron Man, WMan and Namor try to take him by turns.

That post Onslaught fight, had Herc depowered by Half.

"It was GREY Hulk who destroyed an asteroid the size of PLANET. BUT only do to the magnetic replusion device he was wearing. (How else did the Hulk get up there?)"

By flying.

"Also, If DC Hercules (who REALLY held the Earth) couldn't last against a friggin clone of Doomsday than...."

And we know he did how? by statements right. Same with Herc at marvel. Or you didnt knew when he moved Manhattan ("present day" feat eh Leonidas) it was also stated he did the said feat.

You also failed to mention that, the Doomsday clone was more powerful than the DOS version. And that Herc did as good as WW did without weapons.

"Did you even READ the caption? "heh-heh" ring a bell to you?

Also isn't Hercules a little, I don't know, GIANT?"

Didnt Hulk looked way bigger than he should when he punched an asteroid -twice Earth`s size"? Or when WW and Supes tried to move Earth. Or when pre crisis he moved them as well? If you are looking real life perspective, comics arent the best place Draco.

That hehe? A sign of arrogance and pride. Wich he always is.

"wait til olympian gets into this!! i said the EXACT same thing to him, but he also takes that pic as canon. what do you say to something like that"

Ill say what i already said. He held Atlas " Celestial Burden " That is what is written. How the artist depicts the feat its secondary. He could had draw him helding the heavens for all he cared. He depicted a feat that -belongs to the character- the way he wanted/envisioned it.

A Flasback ( thats for you Leonidas ) its much as cannon as a present day scene as long its not contradicted. Any of you by any chance have a scene/scan showing he never did? I dont. So either -provide it- or ill accept it the same way i accept other flasbacks that are canon in the characters history and feats resume.

Is it IMMORTAL Herc? If so then he cant be killed.

Originally posted by Draco69
So sad.

Your "scan" will have a caption where Hercules sarcastically says he held the Earth.

No. It was GREY Hulk who destroyed the asteroid. Go to the Hulk Respect Thread. Mr Fix-it was snobbering the entire time.

Also, If DC Hercules (who REALLY held the Earth) couldn't last against a friggin clone of Doomsday than....

Draco is right. It was Grey Hulk. He used rocket springs to get up there. Still a great feat of strength for him, tho.

Doesn't that scan show Herc holding the earth, though?

"Is it IMMORTAL Herc? If so then he cant be killed."

Not by conventional means.

I place Byrne Supeman under Savage Hulk, Thor, Glads and Herc, strenghtwise. Plus this is a slugfest kind of fight. Supeman isent better at it than the ones i listed.

"Doesn't that scan show Herc holding the earth, though"

Yes.

Makes me wonder why pll try to racionalize a high end feat in Herc`s case, but not one of hulk`s, or Thor`s or Wonder Woman.

This is - superhero/fantasy - comics, real life physics dont live here. Real life perspectives dont live either. Its as over the top like any other feat.

People don't give immortal Herc enough credit for his strength. He's at least got at least Superman level strength. Heck, he and Thor accidentally moved the Earth from it's orbit during their fight, while they were just warming up. It took Supes MM and Wondie to move the Earth, and they were struggling like hell. Respect Herc.

Originally posted by olympian
"Is it IMMORTAL Herc? If so then he cant be killed."

Not by conventional means.

I place Byrne Supeman under Savage Hulk, Thor, Glads and Herc, strenghtwise. Plus this is a slugfest kind of fight. Supeman isent better at it than the ones i listed.

"Doesn't that scan show Herc holding the earth, though"

Yes.

Makes me wonder why pll try to racionalize a high end feat in Herc`s case, but not one of hulk`s, or Thor`s or Wonder Woman.

This is - superhero/fantasy - comics, real life physics dont live here. Real life perspectives dont live either. Its as over the top like any other feat.


I.e. Namor, Atlas, Abomination, Mortal Herc level ?

"I.e. Namor, Atlas, Abomination, Mortal Herc level ?"

What? Byrne Superman?

"People don't give immortal Herc enough credit for his strength. He's at least got at least Superman level strength. Heck, he and Thor accidentally moved the Earth from it's orbit during their fight"

The one that also shattered the mountain where they wer doing the armwrestling match, right.

Doomsday.

Originally posted by olympian
"I.e. Namor, Atlas, Abomination, Mortal Herc level ?"

What? Byrne Superman?

"People don't give immortal Herc enough credit for his strength. He's at least got at least Superman level strength. Heck, he and Thor accidentally moved the Earth from it's orbit during their fight"



Yes

Yeah, around that. (Not original double_Hulk strength Abomination tho!). Wonder Man would also be in my pov another good example.

Byrne Superman didnt had that much of high feats of strenght, and had some lows on it.

More than the others anyway. Like having trouble with planes, building structure, globes and the like.

Originally posted by olympian
Yeah, around that. (Not original double_Hulk strength Abomination tho!). Wonder Man would also be in my pov another good example.

Byrne Superman didnt had that much of high feats of strenght, and had some lows on it.

More than the others anyway. Like having trouble with planes, building structure, globes and the like.

I'd have him at the high end of that Level. He did lift a mountian into space.

dragging manhattan in water is NOTHING to holding . . . whatever you claim he held.

has it been contradicted? unclear. forgotten one HAS been credited in marvel with having done at least a couple of herc's feats, though. so if ONE of them was contradicted, doesn't that throw ALL of them into question?

we'll never see eye-to-eye on this until it is definitively proven to me. herc is a boaster (what we call an unreliable narrator) so taking what he says as fact is not a good idea imo. ESPECIALLY in light of the story (a complete joke and an entire issue FULL of herc claiming to have done things he in fact didn't do -- whether he later admited to some of it being clowning or not) in which it was claimed.

as you know, i stand with draco on this one. ahh, the memories . . .



<<Doesn't that scan show Herc holding the earth, though?>>

it's all about context, cc . . .

and i've been respecting herc for 20 years! doesn't mean i think he can hold the earth on his shoulders.

"I'd have him at the high end of that Level. He did lift a mountian into space"

Mountain level would be his high end feat. Herc, Hulk and Thor high end feats are above. And usually with no lows like he had.

"dragging manhattan in water is NOTHING to holding . . . whatever you claim he held"

Its a statement by the narration while he was making the feat. Holds water to me like it does in other cases.

"forgotten one HAS been credited in marvel with having done at least a couple of herc's feats, though. so if ONE of them was contradicted, doesn't that throw ALL of them into question"

Now that is a great question (no, im not being sarcastic). Yes he has. The only problem is it has been retconned back. He was first said to have done the cleaning stables labour only. Then helding the Earth AS Atlas (yup ye heard me).

Problems with this? Herc got all his labours to his credit again (as seen in the last mini for example) and even in stories of that era.

And he couldnt be Atlas (and never was) simply because the Titan has been in Marvel stories before and after the instance where he said that. (last seen during Jurgens run on Thor).

If he had -nothing- to contradict it, no writer giving Herc his credits, and no Atlas the titan at Marvel, id give the Forgotten one his due in - all of those -

But it was retconned, changed, contradicted. I`ve yet to seen a case in the real Atlas/Herc case.

"we'll never see eye-to-eye on this until it is definitively proven to me. herc is a boaster (what we call an unreliable narrator) so taking what he says as fact is not a good idea imo. ESPECIALLY in light of the story (a complete joke and an entire issue FULL of herc claiming to have done things he in fact didn't do -- whether he later admited to some of it being clowning or not) in which it was claimed"

If that would be true, every arrogant and boaster around (including the Hulk/rey, Thor, Namor, Pre crisis Superman and more) would have -not-to be taken serious in any case.

Being arrogant or sarcastic (like him saying hehe and making a pun with the "herculean" task being his name) alone, doesnt say if hes lying unless someone or something says so.

For example, we know he was lying about Thors fight, because Jarvis mentioned it didnt went that way. That he was exageratting.

The labours on the other hand, havent such a contradiction. Those are the labours we all know. The way the artist decided to depict them its his choice.

I respect your opinion (ahh the memories indeed this is going to be one of those things well never agree with) but between a statement and a scene on panel with no contradictions and only assumptions on the other side, i go with what it was showed.

"and i've been respecting herc for 20 years! doesn't mean i think he can hold the earth on his shoulders."

Your entitled to your opinion.

I don't know... I can see where leonidas and Draco are coming from. It appears that the art is drawn to reflect the comment, more than the art is a flashback depiction of the actual event. The veritability of the narration is the real question... the context of the comic as a whole, the narrator's nature and the feat itself all make it rather suspect... just imo.

"The veritability of the narration is the real question... the context of the comic as a whole, the narrator's nature and the feat itself all make it rather suspect... just imo."

The narration nature in that one its all Herc. Boastful, prideful in itself,a and arrogant. Its him whos telling us about his past labours ater all, not another character. It has to sound that way.

The other narration when he drags Manhattan its a more serious one. Its made by the writer/narrator (not the character) where the same was stated.
For me examples that exist without contradiction tells me more than the other way.

again, there is an ENORMOUS difference between dragging manhattan -- which i fully accept as a great feat -- and holding the earth. which to me still hasn't been definitively shown.

If Atlas constantly holds up the earth, why don't you think Herc can do it?

<<If Atlas constantly holds up the earth, why don't you think Herc can do it?>>

actually, the way marvel cosmology is set up, atlas CAN'T be holding the heavens/earth. the whole notion is ridiculous and sets up so many inconsistencies it's not even funny.

<<And inconsistence? Id say it happens all the time in this medium no?>>

just further illustrates my point that perhaps it DIDN'T happen then . . .

Actually I was pointing out with Thor that there are occasions where a showing doesn't accurately depict strength. On occasion a character does something that exaggerates strength, and at times a character does something that underestimates strength. If something in either direction is completely beyond showings or generally accepted levels for a character, then the incident should be taken with a grain of salt, rather than just accepted without question.

Hercules is a high cl100, but if you want to consider lifting the Earth as canon then does that make him 3 times as strong as Superman - considering he needed the aid of Wonder Woman and Martian Manhunter - and do we take it that he always has the strength to lift 6.6 x 10^21 tons and every other showing is just a matter of him holding back (a lot)?

and thor never lifted jormungand -- he could barely lift one foot. and that's the point by the way -- there ARE no other high class feats that compare to holding the entire earth! even hulk's shouldering a mountain range literally PALES in comparison. holding the earth is SO far outside the norm of high class feats it's ridiculous. no other character (including thor) has come close to that. even using their strengths TOGETHER to 'knock a planet out of orbit' (which is just another 'legand tale' and again need NOT be viewed by all as canon) is nothing to herc alone holding the earth.

you say dismiss other cl100 feats -- i likely would if any other feat were to compare with this one.

"Hercules is a high cl100, but if you want to consider lifting the Earth as canon then does that make him 3 times as strong as Superman - considering he needed the aid of Wonder Woman and Martian Manhunter - and do we take it that he always has the strength to lift 6.6 x 10^21 tons and every other showing is just a matter of him holding back (a lot)?"

Why are even trying to get numbers.....? That doesnt work in comics.

There are several explanations you could pull it off like he tried harder than they did, or had to deal with less restraining forces than they did OR its just a high end feat above what they could in that day.

Take your pick. If you ask me if he showed to be stronger than those 3 one on one -with that feat- then yeah. In that moment at least. But guess what...

. Gladiator destroying a planet with punches doesnt mean the same? Or Superman moving Warworld doesnt mean the same?

And its also cannon at DC he did the same, WW says so before trying the same with the others, what does it means then?

"and thor never lifted jormungand -- he could barely lift one foot."

Wrong. He pulled the serpent OFF earth once. With a fishing line no less. This is a Marvel feat that happened on panel in a Thor comic.

The instance your recalling its another in keen with the myth...that was shown as a flasback oddly

"and that's the point by the way -- there ARE no other high class feats that compare to holding the entire earth! even hulk's shouldering a mountain range literally PALES in comparison."

Yes but on the other hand, clapping a cosmos and punching a freaking time storm is. And inconsistantly the weakest Hulk destroying an asteroid twice Earth`s size.

"holding the earth is SO far outside the norm of high class feats it's ridiculous. no other character (including thor) has come close to that."

Pulling the Midgard Serpent off Earth, while this is struggling is in the same class.

"even using their strengths TOGETHER to 'knock a planet out of orbit' (which is just another 'legand tale' and again need NOT be viewed by all as canon) is nothing to herc alone holding the earth."

Herc strengh -against- Thors strenght in an armwrestling match did generated force to pull Earth out of orbit. It happened, you guess it : on panel too. Also stated in the narration.

"you say dismiss other cl100 feats -- i likely would if any other feat were to compare with this one."

- pre crisis Superman moving earth

- Superboy pulling a solar sistem (at least several planets in line) with also a line.

- Hulk dealing with the antimatter force without being zapped

- Hulk destroying an asteroid twice the earts size

- Thor pulling the Midgard Serpent off Earth.

- Thor moving the world engine.

- Gladiator destroying a planet in 3 punches.

So many to chose aight. Wich ones you take out.

Medians are better... less outlier effects...

"If one was to take a MEAN level of their strength, Post Crisis Superman (i.e. Byrne and co) would be stronger."

You mean -average- showings? Youd still have to deal with low strengh showings that he had, in relation with the Marvel top tier.

And for the record im saying Byrne Superman is weaker than those, not the later versions.

"Medians are better... less outlier effects..."

You mean taking out the high end feats?

<<The instance your recalling its another in keen with the myth...that was shown as a flasback oddly>>

no it wasn't. it was shown as thor tried to lift fin fang foom who was really jormungand in disguise.

thor's pulling the serpent (which i did forget about, was later contradicted -- which would mean it what, didn't really happen then ) when he was shown to barely be able to lift one foot. also, that's a scan i'd need to see again for context purposes. anyway, it WAS contradicted in a much more recent book.

you're using pre-c supes/superboy as comparisons?? those 'feats' were part of the reason he was revamped to begin with!

matter/antimatter -- writers had no clue what they were really showing. it happened of course, but its not the same as holding the earth.

glads' destroying some rock with 3 punches also is not the same. you don't even know how big the rock ball was.

i suppose hulk destroying the asteroid is rather silly, but again, it is different from holding a weight.

rule out supes' prec feats, thor's serpent is contradicted later, and you're left with less then a couple feats that MAY APPROACH holding the earth -- which in itself is wrong and a marvel interpretation of that event. and that's leaving aside the impossible contradictions such a rendition of marvel cosmology would create . . .

so as i said, no there are not any feats that compare equally. destroying an asteriod? uh-uh. glads?? uh-uh. matter/antimatter? maybe, but its a different display and one the writers did not understand, clearly.

the feat never happened. too many contradictions created if it did, never shown clearly in present time, never raised by any other characters, never mentioned save one little time in some comedic issue where herc is BRAGGING through the whole thing (and if he DID, wouldn't you think it would be a feat mentioned more than that tiny instance?)

bottom line is you'll never convince me it happened until it happens in real time and it is clearly and definitively shown.

"no it wasn't. it was shown as thor tried to lift fin fang foom who was really jormungand in disguise."

And on another time as flasback without being Fing fang Foom. John Buscema style.

"thor's pulling the serpent (which i did forget about, was later contradicted -- which would mean it what, didn't really happen then ) when he was shown to barely be able to lift one foot. also, that's a scan i'd need to see again for context purposes. anyway, it WAS contradicted in a much more recent book"

Go to thor alvaros message board, do a search in scans and u`ll find it.

It was contradicted as long it was -stated or shown- that he never pulled the other one before. Like Doomsday being said to have "Flash speed" and being showed in the same comic he never did. How was it?

It becomes even less of a contradiction in fact, if that encounter you are describing happened during the time Thor had the Hela curse.

"matter/antimatter -- writers had no clue what they were really showing. it happened of course, but its not the same as holding the earth"

Then you dismiss it? And not the same? Of course not, shouldnt it be harder even.

"glads' destroying some rock with 3 punches also is not the same. you don't even know how big the rock ball was."

It was a planet of that we are sure. And we dont know, the same way we dont know either if it was bigger than Earth. He has the strenght to punch one, he has to move or held it. Its a plenetary level feat i.e a high end one.

"i suppose hulk destroying the asteroid is rather silly, but again, it is different from holding a weight."

Every feat we are talking about are silly. And while being different he destroyed something -twice the Earts size- . And with one punch only. Thats more over the top for me and inconsistent considering it was Grey Hulk.

"rule out supes' prec feats, thor's serpent is contradicted later, and you're left with less then a couple feats that MAY APPROACH holding the earth"

Pre crisis feats are there to remind you that characters have done it and will continue to do so. Like moving Warworld. Like Glads punching a planet .Same with the others. Thor moving the world engine (wich he did, even he struggle) its another.

"so as i said, no there are not any feats that compare equally. destroying an asteriod? glads? no way. uh-uh. matter/antimatter? maybe, but its a different display and one the writers did not understand, clearly."

Some are even higher. And the writers dont understand cleary? This isent sciences, however you either dismiss pretty much all or none. Are you? Since the writers get nada of it.

"which in itself is wrong and a marvel interpretation of that event"

First off, if you admit its Marvel interpretation, you have no need to even claiming anything against.

Second that version exists, like the heavens one. A writer deciding what to use its up to him.

Everything that happens in comics are "wrong". Big discovery. Have a statement on panel saying it never happened?

"the feat never happened. too many contradictions created if it did, never shown clearly in present time, never raised by any other characters, never mentioned save one little time in some comedic issue where herc is BRAGGING through the whole thing (and if he DID, wouldn't you think it would be a feat mentioned more than that tiny instance?)"

The feat could never have happened in the present time. I already explained why. Being arrogant now its the same as lying?

Alot of characters are a bunch of liars then.

Its quite simple. Either get me something on a page showing or stating he never did or take it as face value.

Or dont take any high end feat. Inconsistence alone doesnt cut it, every character its full of it.

Originally posted by leonidas
<<The instance your recalling its another in keen with the myth...that was shown as a flasback oddly>>

no it wasn't. it was shown as thor tried to lift fin fang foom who was really jormungand in disguise.

thor's pulling the serpent (which i did forget about, was later contradicted -- which would mean it what, didn't really happen then ) when he was shown to barely be able to lift one foot. also, that's a scan i'd need to see again for context purposes. anyway, it WAS contradicted in a much more recent book.

you're using pre-c supes/superboy as comparisons?? those 'feats' were part of the reason he was revamped to begin with!

matter/antimatter -- writers had no clue what they were really showing. it happened of course, but its not the same as holding the earth.

glads' destroying some rock with 3 punches also is not the same. you don't even know how big the rock ball was.

i suppose hulk destroying the asteroid is rather silly, but again, it is different from holding a weight.

rule out supes' prec feats, thor's serpent is contradicted later, and you're left with less then a couple feats that MAY APPROACH holding the earth -- which in itself is wrong and a marvel interpretation of that event. and that's leaving aside the impossible contradictions such a rendition of marvel cosmology would create . . .

so as i said, no there are not any feats that compare equally. destroying an asteriod? uh-uh. glads?? uh-uh. matter/antimatter? maybe, but its a different display and one the writers did not understand, clearly.

the feat never happened. too many contradictions created if it did, never shown clearly in present time, never raised by any other characters, never mentioned save one little time in some comedic issue where herc is BRAGGING through the whole thing (and if he DID, wouldn't you think it would be a feat mentioned more than that tiny instance?)

bottom line is you'll never convince me it happened until it happens in real time and it is clearly and definitively shown.

You are a bit of a Thesaurus Leo, but i totally agree with you (I had to read it a few times though)

"Thor moving the world engine (wich he did, even he struggle) its another. "

When did this happen ?

Warren Ellis and Deodato Jr Run. Cant tell the issue number from memory tho.

Check the Deodato Jr Thor visionaires TP and its there Yahman.

Originally posted by olympian
Warren Ellis and Deodato Jr Run. Cant tell the issue number from memory tho.

Check the Deodato Jr Thor visionaires TP and its there Yahman.

What is that ?

How big is the 'World engine'?

if thas really the way comic book showings should be taken, then that also means that we cant take destroying of planets by ANY normal charcters to be cannon, cause that requires literally THOUSANDS of times more force/power than to LIFT a planet{ a ridiculous concept anyway} what i personally think marvel was tryin to show when hercules lifted the earth or thor lifted the serpeant was their MYSTICAL or mythical strengths, not DIRECT physical strength, because looking at those imaged, hercules was nearly 1/10th the size of EARTH. these kinda things only happen in the mystical realms and should not really be taken PHYSICALLY.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
if thas really the way comic book showings should be taken, then that also means that we cant take destroying of planets by ANY normal charcters to be cannon, cause that requires literally THOUSANDS of times more force/power than to LIFT a planet{ a ridiculous concept anyway} what i personally think marvel was tryin to show when hercules lifted the earth or thor lifted the serpeant was their MYSTICAL or mythical strengths, not DIRECT physical strength, because looking at those imaged, hercules was nearly 1/10th the size of EARTH. these kinda things only happen in the mystical realms and should not really be taken PHYSICALLY.

Indeed, and when we take his into consideration Thor's impressive feats displays seem to be lacking compared to Wonder Womans.

i could go into debtaing point for point, but that gets tedious. you said a couple of things of relevence:

<<Its quite simple. Either get me something on a page showing or stating he never did or take it as face value.>>

so i should take spidey beating firelord at face value? wolvie stabbing thanos? the statement is ridiculous. not all feats (on panel or not) should be taken at face value. it's why we have the term PIS, as much as i HATE invoking it. matter/antimatter can CERTAINLY be viewed as PIS because the writers had no knowledge of what they were really doing.

<<Alot of characters are a bunch of liars then.>>

news flash: of course they are!! glads says he can 'rip stars apart'. should i believe him? how about ss having 'infinte power', as he and others have said of him, or ss being 'power incarnate'? should i just blindly accept those statements as fact? again, ridiculous. as a reader you have the ability to choose what to accept or not accept based on what you know of the characters themselves and the comic world around them as well as it's inherent rules. glads cannot rip stars in half (has never been shown to have that power), ss's 'infinite' power, pales in comparison to odin's 'infinite power' (which odin has claimed) which pales in comparison to lt's 'infinite' power. all statements made by characters who were lying OR exaggerating . . . and that's not mentioning any villains who ALWAYS lie . . .

and of course, the one fact i neglected to bring up last time as it is self evident by now -- all those impossible feats you mentioned DO share one thing in common -- they happened in PRESENT time on panel. none were flashbacks -- well, except of course for thor's feat which WAS of course later contradicted anyway. as such, those others may be labelled PIS if deemed as such. herc's feat i wouldn't deem PIS -- i say it hasn't happened.

<<Pre crisis feats are there to remind you that characters have done it and will continue to do so.>>

that's a blind fallacy. marvel has ALWAYS represented its characters differently than dc -- more 'realistically'. we won't see anyone in marvel juggling planets or pulling solar systems. never have, never will.

you seem to deny herc's feat is unique in many many ways. comparing it to other feats doesn't work. if glads was discussing a time he ripped a star in half sitting at some shiar bar table clearly boasting about it, and in the background we saw him ripping a star in half (as though he were recalling the incident) would you believe he did it if no one in the bar contradicted him? if you say yes, well . . . i have nothing for you. what you SHOULD do is put the context/setting into the equation and recall what you know of glads and deduce he is full of crap. readers CAN (and at times SHOULD) be discriminating.

like, in this instance, i deduce herc is full of his usual crap.

<<You are a bit of a Thesaurus Leo, but i totally agree with you (I had to read it a few times though) >>

heheh. i've been called worse (by YOU!! ) so i'll take it as a compliment. glad actually i've got a few level-headed people agreeing on this. you and x and draco are all knowledgeable. i'm glad it's not JUST me this time . . .

not that oly isn't level-headed . . .

"Indeed, and when we take his into consideration Thor's impressive feats displays seem to be lacking compared to Wonder Womans"

Except she doesnt have many on her own.

"if thas really the way comic book showings should be taken, then that also means that we cant take destroying of planets by ANY normal charcters to be cannon, cause that requires literally THOUSANDS of times more force/power than to LIFT a planet{ a ridiculous concept anyway} what i personally think marvel was tryin to show when hercules lifted the earth or thor lifted the serpeant was their MYSTICAL or mythical strengths, not DIRECT physical strength, because looking at those imaged, hercules was nearly 1/10th the size of EARTH. these kinda things only happen in the mystical realms and should not really be taken PHYSICALLY."

Lets put it this way. No feat that involves plenetary force its accurate. That image does strike as being more simbolic or mistical. But in comic terms its valid as much is a bunch of pll flying around and moving the moon without this one breaking into pieces.

"so i should take spidey beating firelord at face value? wolvie stabbing thanos? the statement is ridiculous. not all feats (on panel or not) should be taken at face value."

As much as dumb those wer, they happened. And they can be used. Its not ridiculous no, a guy can come and say that Wolverine beat immortal Herc with bone claws and as stupid as it is, i cant say it never happened. It wasent even retconned.

So how do we get out of it? Maybe with : Its pis, or it would never happen in normal conditions etc.

"Would never happen in normal conditions" its also another way to describe high end showings.

This example its a high end feat like any other. The man has shown strenght as rare as the examples are in that range. Certainly this is extreme but so it was in the myths.

And so its every feat like that in comics. Your just rationalizing feats when characters have been thro black holes by the dozen and doing things even above.

How to we deal with all this. We only accept feats until a certain limit or what?

"it's why we have the term PIS, as much as i HATE invoking it. matter/antimatter can CERTAINLY be viewed as PIS because the writers had no knowledge of what they were really doing."

But it stll can be used in a feat list or comparation, its still there. Pis or no Pis.

"news flash: of course they are!! glads says he can 'rip stars apart'. should i believe him? how about ss having 'infinte power', as he and others have said of him, or ss being 'power incarnate'? should i just blindly accept those statements as fact? "

So we just chose wich statements work for us.

Not to mention those statements arent far fetched, Surfer has done things like giving life and destroying planets. Hes infinite until a certain level. like the Hulk. Glads case?

If no writer ever said he cant, then you can say he cant. Get it?

Any writter can come up and use it since it was never establized he couldnt and he once stated it.

"glads cannot rip stars in half (has never been shown to have that power), ss's 'infinite' power, pales in comparison to odin's 'infinite power' (which odin has claimed) which pales in comparison to lt's 'infinite' power."

Infinity until a certain level isent "lying". Otherwise Beyonder also lied about the Hulk when he said he tapped into a infinite power source. Even he never showed infinite power compared with the likes of Skyfathers and Celestials for example.

"that's a blind fallacy. marvel has ALWAYS represented its characters differently than dc -- more 'realistically'. we won't see anyone in marvel juggling planets or pulling solar systems. never have, never will. "

Just destroying them like Hulk, Surfer, Brb, Gladiator.....realistic indeed.

"if glads was discussing a time he ripped a star in half sitting at some shiar bar table clearly boasting about it, and in the background we saw him ripping a star in half (as though he were recalling the incident) would you believe he did it if no one in the bar contradicted him? if you say yes, well . . . i have nothing for you"

I nothing at all contradicted yes i would accept it s face value until a writter decided to use it or retconned it as bull.

Thor`s example with the Midgard Serpent. Did that enounter you mentioned stated or showed that the previous one where he pulled Jurggamound off Earth never took place? Was it show him trying and one of them saying "you never did manage to accomplish it?"

If so -that- is a retcon/contradiction/new cannon. Whatever you like to call it. If nothing did then the encounter still exists but the characters wer in diferent power levels according to two different writters.

"you seem to deny herc's feat is unique in many many ways"

I dont find it more unique than someone punching planet size objects into pieces or moving/trying to move one with chains or with bare hands. No i dont.

I also think passing thro black holes are more over the top for example. Or at least they should be.

And while i think they are all ridiculous it doesnt take the account that it can be used when high extreme feats are discussed. But only in that situation.

"not that oly isn't level-headed . . "

Eh i have my moments. This is an issue that happens even when aknowleged people dont agree. Theres always one.

I know the feat its ridiculous, i know it cant be explained other than "its magic".

But saying that when showings like this are required it -cant- be used thats another thing. Especially when you dont have anything to say it didnt happened other than "Herc was bullshitting" -without providing a single proof-.

I said medians are less impacted by outliers because... medians are less impacted by outliers of both extremes. In a dataset with a central tendency around for example lifting 2 tons with a single incident of being unable to lift 50 lbs, or a single incident of lifting 20 tons the mean would be severely impacted while the median would be relatively unchanged, therefore in such cases a median can give a better estimate of the centre of a distribution. STATS101.
Originally posted by olympian
"so i should take spidey beating firelord at face value? wolvie stabbing thanos? the statement is ridiculous. not all feats (on panel or not) should be taken at face value."

As much as dumb those wer, they happened. And they can be used. Its not ridiculous no, a guy can come and say that Wolverine beat immortal Herc with bone claws and as stupid as it is, i cant say it never happened. It wasent even retconned.

But it stll can be used in a feat list or comparation, its still there. Pis or no Pis.Actually no, they could go into a feats list, but the incidents mentioned by leonidas, and that one about Wolverine vs Herc wouldn't be considered in a versus comparison. In fact Spiderman vs Firelord is the name of one of the two rules pertaining to such incidents.
Originally posted by olympian
Infinity until a certain level isent "lying".Technically it is. Something can't really be "infinite to an extent." It's a contradiction in terms.

<<I dont find it more unique than someone punching planet size objects into pieces or moving/trying to move one with chains or with bare hands. No i dont.>>

the difference is in the way it is presented. it is also different in that no one else in marvel has ever done such a thing. characters fly through black holes all the time. they bust big things all the time. they do not hold up planets on their shoulders all the time.

<<"if glads was discussing a time he ripped a star in half sitting at some shiar bar table clearly boasting about it, and in the background we saw him ripping a star in half (as though he were recalling the incident) would you believe he did it if no one in the bar contradicted him? if you say yes, well . . . i have nothing for you"

I nothing at all contradicted yes i would accept it s face value until a writter decided to use it or retconned it as bull. >>

then you are not being a very discriminating reader. what if one writer had wolverine lifting a battleship because a kid was telling the story to another kid claiming he saw it happen and there was a pic in the background. no one in the story contradicted it so it would be a true rendition of the fact? again, that's silly. and by your reasoning you can't NOT accept that example just because i took it to a another degree of silliness. it was on panel. it was not contradicted.

use what you know of the character to judge the feat.

and now you're saying even though thor's feat WAS contradicted it is STILL good?? it's just a different impression by the writer?


now who's picking and choosing. you keep saying if it's not contradicted it's good. here is IT contradicted and you STILL say it's good.

<<"news flash: of course they are!! glads says he can 'rip stars apart'. should i believe him? how about ss having 'infinte power', as he and others have said of him, or ss being 'power incarnate'? should i just blindly accept those statements as fact? "

So we just chose wich statements work for us.>>

YES! of course. it's part of being a knowledgeable, discriminating reader.

you choose to blindly follow what you see. i'll choose to use my brain and decide if something is feasible or PIS. guess that's what debate forums are for.

<<Technically it is. Something can't really be "infinite to an extent." It's a contradiction in terms.>>

"Technically it is. Something can't really be "infinite to an extent." It's a contradiction in terms"

Arent there levels of infinite now, Leo? It was you who came with that one to me remember? And if i recall there -is- a comic where some beings (Cubes) are discussing theyr infinite level against Celestials infinite level.

Saying my power is infinite and showing it until a certain point isent lying. Saying it is and showing it isent at all, is.

"then you are not being a very discriminating reader. what if one writer had wolverine lifting a battleship because a kid was telling the story to another kid claiming he saw it happen and there was a pic in the background. no one in the story contradicted it so it would be a true rendition of the fact? "

Yes.

Its not a matter of being discriminating, if a writters uses it and they dont change it after, for example its a valid use for debates.

Wich is what im arguing. Not if theyr silly. But that they can be used when a writters makes it so. Discriminating doesnt make one feat "not usable". The writters do.

"the difference is in the way it is presented. it is also different in that no one else in marvel has ever done such a thing. characters fly through black holes all the time. they bust big things all the time. they do not hold up planets on their shoulders all the time."

And that is what should be the issue. Passing thro a black hole its levels more impossible and silly and dumb than holding a planet.

Holding one stops being so unique when you have characters both DC and Marvel who have moves or destroyed one.

Even out of those two like its the case with He-Man and Early Majestic before he showed up at DC.

Herc has two cases of narration one being of the writter itself. And in none, including in the myth it says he did it all the time. He did for a brief period.

"and now you're saying even though thor's feat WAS contradicted it is STILL good?? it's just a different impression by the writer"

Im not sayng it was contradicted. You did. Im asing you who read the feat to tell me, what elements it had to show the other before - never toook place- .

"YES! of course. it's part of being a knowledgeable, discriminating reader"

Leonidas i can agree. However let me just post again something:

-But saying that when showings like this are required it -cant- be used thats another thing. Especially when you dont have anything to say it didnt happened other than "Herc was bullshitting" -without providing a single proof-.

This is what im arguing. You can discriminate all you like. What you cant its unless you have something that shows it never happened, say it cant be use in a high end feats debate.

<<This is what im arguing. You can discriminate all you like. What you cant its unless you have something that shows it never happened, say it cant be use in a high end feats debate.>>

so you'd be happier if i just labelled it PIS? i don't think it happened, though, so i don't like calling it that. and your only proof it DID happen is that one instance in that farsical book. and it is not the same as flying through a black hole. science speculates we can fly through blackholes to wormholes. characters' power sets allow them to bend and manipulate space to allow them to do this feat.

there is nothing in marvel that says the earth is manifested in such a way that it could be held/lifted by a being. explain HOW he can be doing it? is it a magical representation of the earth? where does it say that? THE FEAT MAKES NO SENSE in so many ways. there is ZERO context for it, nothing to lead us (beyond the silly pic itself where herc is almost the size of the earth -- which SHOULD factor in here because you are focusing so graetly ON that pic. the pic itself clearly makes no sense) to believe it did happen.

<<"Technically it is. Something can't really be "infinite to an extent." It's a contradiction in terms"

Arent there levels of infinite now, Leo? It was you who came with that one to me remember? And if i recall there -is- a comic where some beings (Cubes) are discussing theyr infinite level against Celestials infinite level.>>

heheh. i KNEW you'd bring that up . . .

and of course there ARE varying degrees of infinity -- the difference between the 2 (which i never brought up in our previous discussion) is that though the magnitudes of infinity are different in mathematical terms, each subset of infinity truly IS infinite -- ie -- without END. ss's power DOES have limits, for instance. so no, it is not truly limitless in a mathematical sense, nor even in a practical, in-book one.

oh, and i checked -- there is no mention at all about thor having done the serpent deed. he simply could lift only one foot. now, given that thor has never shown the strength to lift and hurl the serpent in the past, i believe the more recent showing to be the accurate one -- not least of which it was in present time and we are not relying on the memory of a character to make us believe it. i suspect you'll say BOTH are relevent, though i don't know how that could be. difefrent writers interpretations of powers? then one of them needs to be PIS. guess which one i choose . . . ?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I said medians are less impacted by outliers because... medians are less impacted by outliers of both extremes. In a dataset with a central tendency around for example lifting 2 tons with a single incident of being unable to lift 50 lbs, or a single incident of lifting 20 tons the mean would be severely impacted while the median would be relatively unchanged, therefore in such cases a median can give a better estimate of the centre of a distribution. STATS101.
Actually no, they could go into a feats list, but the incidents mentioned by leonidas, and that one about Wolverine vs Herc wouldn't be considered in a versus comparison. In fact Spiderman vs Firelord is the name of one of the two rules pertaining to such incidents.
Technically it is. Something can't really be "infinite to an extent." It's a contradiction in terms.

That doesn't really work either, as some one like Namor becomes stronger than someone like Thor. I do think you have a good point though. Thinking back on it, i think i may have meant medians.

"so you'd be happier if i just labelled it PIS? i don't think it happened, though, so i don't like calling it that. and your only proof it DID happen is that one instance in that farsical book. and it is not the same as flying through a black hole. science speculates we can fly through blackholes to wormholes. characters' power sets allow them to bend and manipulate space to allow them to do this feat"

That wasent the only time it was referenced, i already showed the other moment in question.

Of course you can do better and show where its stated its a farse. I have been waiting for that, after all.

If there is nothing, its much of a farse as the other feats that i listed so far.

"there is nothing in marvel that says the earth is manifested in such a way that it could be held/lifted by a being. explain HOW he can be doing it? is it a magical representation of the earth? where does it say that? THE FEAT MAKES NO SENSE in so many ways"

Show me scans where it says Marvel Earth -cant- be held or pushed or moved in any way or form.

Makes no sense? Passing thro black holes makes no sense, clapping a cosmos makes no sense.

And we have instances where planetary objects have been destroyed with mere raw force. -HOW did those happened-? Start explaing those first, its better that way.

And you wont because the how matters little in comics, this is all fantasy not an accurate science book. Coming with trying to explain something that cant happen in real life and not explain all the other feats its wrong in a debate.

"and of course there ARE varying degrees of infinity"

Right.

"the difference between the 2 (which i never brought up in our previous discussion) is that though the magnitudes of infinity are different in mathematical terms, each subset of infinity truly IS infinite -- ie -- without END"

Infinite under that same level then? Odin for example its infinite when he summons more power from Asgard. That doesnt mean he is infinite (as you well said) in comparation with the beings above.

Saying you are infinite under certain examples and showing it isent lying. Saying you possess it and not showing even a degree of it -is-.

"oh, and i checked -- there is no mention at all about thor having done the serpent deed. he simply could lift only one foot. now, given that thor has never shown the strength to lift and hurl the serpent in the past, i believe the more recent showing to be the accurate one -- not least of which it was in present time and we are not relying on the memory of a character to make us believe it. i suspect you'll say BOTH are relevent, though i don't know how that could be. difefrent writers interpretations of powers? then one of them needs to be PIS. guess which one i choose . . . ? "

Guess what ill say.

Different interpretations of different writers are revelant. What you are or should be looking for in order to make the one where he did such a feat not revelant, its a recton. A contradiction happens in the same story after a statement.

Examples:

. Thanos in the IG saying he cant survive a nuclear blast explosion and after been tossed by Thor into open space with the bomb. In the end of the same story he is shown alive. That is a contradiction.

. DOS Doomsday being stated to be fast or faster than the Flash. In the same story we see normal human beings following the whole fight, the same being shoot on national tv among other examples. Thats another contradiction.

And example of a retcon would be:

. Thor hurling the Midgard Serpent off Earth being showed as never happened -in continuity- in a most recent encounter. Thats a retcon.

Wich is why i will ask for you to post that particular fight. What wer the conditions, was there any statement that the previous encounter did not happened. Was Thor weaker? Was the Midgard serpent stronger/more powerful?

I cant finish by saying two things tho. If there is nothing saying the previous never took place it isent a recton.

And i recently got a hold on a Thor/Midgard Serpent fight during Simonson`s run wich i belive was the most recent one (the one you are refering to, its when he was disguised as FFF, correct?).

In this one where Thor was weaker due to Hela`s curse and was wearing an armour, Jurgammound states Thor once had the strenght that rivalled his own.

I will wait for your scans.


Olympian who is back time to time.

<<That wasent the only time it was referenced, i already showed the other moment in question.>>

where? those scans from the start of the new ltd series? that doesn't show him holding the earth. perhaps he got the apples another way.

i posted the thor scans in the supes v thor thread. it would be a headache to get them again. if i get time i will.

much of what you say is simply 'nu-uh' arguments. i say tell me how it can be possible for herc to hold the earth because marvel earth/cosmology isn't established that way (obviously many characters see earth from space and there is nothing holding earth up, no atlas, no ground to stand on, so what more do you need to know? :blink and you say prove it isn't. an obvious logical breach since i can't prove a negative. you do that a lot.

fact. you have one silly scan in a farscial issue that shows something make makes no sense and has no context.

you don't care about context or whether it makes sense or not (which it doesn't even in the marvel earth context of rules). it IS a unique feat (has it ever happened in marvel before? no. hence it is unique) but you refuse to see it as unique.

i've done my part to convince a few that is DID NOT happen.

i'll be happy with that.

and you say prove it isn't. an obvious logical breach since i can't prove a negative.

yep.. because it's harder to prove that something doesn't exist than to prove that it does the burdon of proof is on you olympian...

he'll just say the picture in the book is proof enough, despite circumstances that surround it and the lack of any relevent context. it's an old argument that neither of us will change our minds on. now if only a REAL PRESENT-DAY NON-FARSICAL source would show it happening . . . then the debate could end.

... well that's bullocks..

Originally posted by jinzin
... well that's bullocks..



but i'll be proud to count you among the level-headed of the forum that says no, it has NOT been definitively proven that herc has indeed held the earth. despite that silly flashback image in that single ridiculous book.

"where? those scans from the start of the new ltd series? that doesn't show him holding the earth. perhaps he got the apples another way. "

No. When he moved Manhattan. Altho in the lt series it wasent stated either way. Just that the labour existed and he suceeded at it.

"much of what you say is simply 'nu-uh' arguments. i say tell me how it can be possible for herc to hold the earth because marvel earth/cosmology isn't established that way (obviously many characters see earth from space and there is nothing holding earth up, no atlas, no ground to stand on, so what more do you need to know?"

If you dont have a single proof or estabelized fact, why dont you say so.

Marvel continuity wise Atlas now resides in Olympus. He didnt held it because without him the Earth would fall. He held it because it was a punishment from Zeus*. There is nothing to say the Earth ever needed to be held other than being punishment stunts from him and Heracles.

* wich goes along with the myth because as you know the heavens/earth already existed before Zeus overtrew his father and the titans, and neither wer "falling". Its a simbolism for strength and punishment.

"yep.. because it's harder to prove that something doesn't exist than to prove that it does the burdon of proof is on you olympian"

It actually isent.

I gave two scans both stating and showing the said feat. When both were referenced the -moment- was present Marvel time, continuity wise.

One when moving Manhattan.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y226/jjschm20/Hercules/HercmovesManhattan.jpg

Another when talking to kids with Jarvis.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y226/jjschm20/Hercules/Thor_1985_356_07.jpg

I havent seen a single comic so far retconning those out of existence. I obviously count it as a high end feat only.

You on the other hand, on the other side of the debate claim its bullocks even when other characters have destroyed planets with raw strenght and done things like going thro black holes and clapping a cosmos.

The burden lies on you`s to show me a comic page in continuity saying he never did. Should be easy, right?

"i posted the thor scans in the supes v thor thread. it would be a headache to get them again. if i get time i will"

The page of the thread will do.

"you don't care about context or whether it makes sense or not (which it doesn't even in the marvel earth context of rules). it IS a unique feat (has it ever happened in marvel before? no. hence it is unique) but you refuse to see it as unique"

I dont see it because its wrong. Hulk has more "unique"and absurd feats. Gladiator destroying one with mere punches falls in the same category as helding one.

It would be unique if no character before had used strenght on a planet size object.

" it has NOT been definitively proven that herc has indeed held the earth. despite that silly flashback image in that single ridiculous book"

Even with some evidence against -none- so far you refuse to aknowlege the feat. Period.

And talking about flashbacks. Wasent that annual where Hulk managed to get Thor to fight without the hammer after making a hostage, a whole flasback showing something set in the past as well

Probably doesnt count then.

<<Wasent that annual where Hulk managed to get Thor to fight without the hammer after making a hostage, a whole flasback showing something set in the past as well
Probably doesnt count then.>>

hmm, maybe . . . i'd check if it mattered to me. as i've said a hundred times though, it depends on the context and the reliability of the narrator.

<<I dont see it because its wrong. Hulk has more "unique"and absurd feats. Gladiator destroying one with mere punches falls in the same category as helding one.
It would be unique if no character before had used strenght on a planet size object.>>

difference: the planet is THERE. it is obviously not something that is impossible. he flies and punches. herc could do the same and i'd have no problem accepting it. planetary feats are a dime a dozen -- HOLDING a planet on your shoulders is ludicrous for so many reasons it's not even funny. seriously oly, if you don't see the difference there's no help for you. and you've yet to tell me exactly how in present marvel cosmology herc could possibly have held the earth. then too, i never said was it MORE unique -- i said it IS unique. more unigue is a contradiction. i mean it in the sense that 'no one else in marvel history has done it before.' period. if you can't admit it's unique in that sense, again, nothing for you.

i'm wholly confident in letting people decide for themselves based on our arguments. thankfully, it seems those who've already partaken of the debate see the lack of sense and rationality in your side, despite your 'proofs'. based on everything i know of marvel and how it works, i'll stick with being discriminating enough, and bright enough to realize the absurdity of the claim -- despite what was shown. that's good enough for me.

oh, and the bit of narration is more convincing than that picture is. but i'm still not buying it, nor will i, ever, until someone illustrates the 12 labors or until it's mentioned a lot more than 2 times in the last 40 years.

as always, it's been fun.

"hmm, maybe . . . i'd check if it mattered to me. as i've said a hundred times though, it depends on the context and the reliability of the narrator"

Check it then. Its a whole flasback. There goes Hulk best showing against Thor.

"difference: the planet is THERE. it is obviously not something that is impossible. he flies and punches. herc could do the same and i'd have no problem accepting it. planetary feats are a dime a dozen -- HOLDING a planet on your shoulders is ludicrous for so many reasons it's not even funny. seriously oly, if you don't see the difference there's no help for you"

A planet in both cases wer "standing there". There isent really a difference between both except one punched it to pieces and another held it.

There is nothing unique on it when more than one character has done it.

"i'm wholly confident in letting people decide for themselves based on our arguments"

Thats the whole point.

" it seems those who've already partaken of the debate see the lack of sense and rationality in your side, despite your 'proofs'. based on everything i know of marvel and how it works"

"How marvel works"

Now that is a funny catch. You know exactly what goes in the minds of the writers and creative teams?

Your inability to provide a counter proof in continuity against two its the only lack of sense thing around here.
As absurd as the feat is, its no more than Hulk destroying an object TWICE earth`s size and clapping a c o s m o s.

No more ludricious and dumb as punching one p l a n e t into dust and pieces in less than five shots.

The best you can all do it seems its call something not true because you -cant prove it-.

Gladly other posters as much as the ones disagreeing, also manage to see this.

"oh, and the bit of narration is more convincing than that picture is. but i'm still not buying it, nor will i, ever"

You said it all Leo. Even with proof in continuity and suporting another example you dont -want- to buy.

Key word: -want-.

Nothing more needs to be said. And its always a blast and fun discussing this with you.

If we had a hall of fame for debates, it would be there, bub.