It is, with the caveat that there are days Superman could solo 2 or even 3 of the other combatants. Sometimes reasons are provided for this, sometimes it's just because he is Superman.
It's hard to say how often or likely this is to happen, but the same can't really be said about the other 3 (though theoretically it could apply to Supergirl, too.)
Stuff like that can apply to characters in general, though.
There are examples of single characters owning groups all through comics.
Heck even Attuma has had a good day against the Avengers.
Its not really a huge point in fights like this imo.
My argument is that it happens significantly more frequently with Superman, by enough of a margin that it is usually worth noting.
IMO, fight expectations are more of a function or a curve on a graph than a single point answer, especially with Supes. Hulk is, of course, even more so. Sentry's the worst. Some characters are a lot more variable than others and a good fight analysis should at least note this.
Fair enough. This site is slowly heading down the CBR rabbit hole. All about feats. Trying to be more realistic than the comics. Using stupid terms like CIS and PIS.
I gotcha. But I'm a glutton for punishment. Or more likely, will just be totally ignored. Guys here care more about trying to beat somebody than get at the truth.
Comics need to be discussed like literature or mythology; not debated like physics or archaeology.
The real universe has a coherence that comics lack. Any attempt to impose such coherence on comics will radically distort one's perceptions and understanding of the material.
That may true with respect to some misbehavior, but I feel the rules themselves encourage excessive realism. There's no need to mention PIS or CIS in the rules. These concepts add nothing to comic analysis, IMO.
A classic writer hedge. Supergirl is amped to some unknown, though seemingly not vast, degree; but she is also not fully in her right mind and somewhat possessed.
Wonder Woman wins by using the lasso to undo the possession, which also renders Supergirl unconscious.
It's unclear who would have won without this dynamic. It's unclear what the fight really indicates about Wonder Woman vs. Supergirl under normal circumstances, other than to reinforce the view that they are not vastly different in stats and are threats to one another--which seems to have been a fairly widespread take for at least the last few years.
But that relative equality is a bit complex when you really look at it. DC wants to keep Wonder Woman as their most powerful woman, but they tend to allow Superman to be the number one overall. Some writers like to try to draw attention to Supergirl by playing around with the idea of her being equal to or sometimes even greater than her cousin. In a universe where Superman is usually given precedence over Wonder Woman, playing Kara up as Superman's rival starts to undermine the 'WW is the most powerful female' stance. You sometimes get A>B>C>A contradictory logic.
Such tension will often play out with WW seeming equal to Kara in stats and superior in formidability due to skill when they face off 1v1. But when WW is not around, there are times where Kara raw power (and even overall formidibility) can be inferred to be greater than WW's based on what is going on or being said.
So very true. It often leaves you nearly feeling like you should bang your head against the wall when you bring solid proof that is denied as being some form of PIS.
Well, another common mistake IMO is the baord's attitude to what 'proof' really means.
At best, solid evidence shows you what one writer thought about a character in one portrayal. That's it. And that is 'at best', as writers have been known to contradict themselves in the same story or even book--especially when it comes to the empirical limits of a character's power. Writers tend to write the big feats just for fun, with little thought to physics or what such a feat should logically imply the next time the character throws down with some bank robbers in midtown. There's a reason we call a lot of the best feats 'space cheese'. It's not that they didn't happen. It's just that they are basically epiphenomenal and don't matter.
At the end of the day, it's tough to prove anything. If we want to know if say Orion would beat Wonder Woman, we have to look at the totality of each character's showings--and not just the ones where they are directly compared. That's a lot of data. Most posters have only seen some of it, and even if one has read every DC comic ever, that's way too much data to systematically process, even if the nature of the data allowed for that kind of logical processing (hint: it usually doesn't).
So we have to use the eyeball test and intuition. Good faith posters who try to be as unbiased as possible have to just paint a picture of what they think the totality of the evidence suggests. They can include some scans as illustrations--but even the most definitive scans simply illustrate a single data point among many.
So real comic discussion aimed at the truth is more about a poster indicating how much of the material they have seen, and then describing as best they can what trends and patterns they have seen. We compare such descriptions from posters and use our own holistic logic, intuition, and other faculties to make our best guess.
It's not science and can't really be.
KMC Community Forums
Jul 2nd, 2018 03:40 AM
