__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
That could be said for multiple characters, fortunately that's not how usually it works.
And Tyrant feeds on the biosphere, his orbs of power or whatever silliness.
Like it or not, Tyrant would beat the shit out of Clark pretty much every time. The circumstances for him losing straight up are so rare, it's almost not worth bringing up.
__________________
Last edited by Rage.Of.Olympus on Apr 1st, 2013 at 12:31 AM
As per DC, it can consistently be said specially for Superman. Even in his new 52 depiction Lex believes he'd whoop H'el if he didn't have mental blocks. Don't forget what Helspont said about Kryptonians either. Basically along the lines of inventing new superpowers is apart of that species' genetic arsenal under a yellow sun. He even could give others super powers under a blue sun. What if in a supposed fight with Tyrant he flees, dips in a blue sun for an hour, than goes back and proceeds to over power him with no mental blocks (high end feats) and with an array of new super powers? With high end feats, that doesn't seem entirely out of the question in a no holds barred.
If that's true, the circumstance couldn't be any different from no holds barred. Unlike Tyrant, Superman's abilities really really fluctuate under special circumstances. In character.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Last edited by KillaKassara on Apr 1st, 2013 at 12:40 AM
Consistently? Lol? You think there's enough evidence to support him consistently winning here? In comparison to him losing?
You mean Lex questioning why H'el is so much more powerful than Superman, that perhaps Clark is limiting himself (Which is a lot different from what you're implying fyi)? Helspont calling Clark the most powerful Superhero?
You don't seem to understand, I'm not questioning the fact that Superman is on average DC's most powerful hero barring the odd push or whatever. I'm saying that it doesn't matter, because Tyrant is the kind of threat that would require the JLA to come together to beat and that barring some kind of extreme scenario, he'd tentacle rape Clark.
So was Darkseid, Imperiax, War World, Solaris, so is Helspont, in the end - an All Star esque, or an end of series Action Comics WOS or OWAW esque, Superman is a ***** to keep up with. He even took out Doomsday by copying the Flash and inventing a new super power. Intangibility.
I'm going to hit and run, and leave it at that.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Last edited by KillaKassara on Apr 1st, 2013 at 12:50 AM
Bro, the arcs you're mentioning had so much shit involved beyond Superman to squeeze out the win, that it boggles my mind that you think it's relevant.
Darkseid is the only real reference I can take seriously, and honestly, Tyrant would rape Darkseid worse than he would Superman. Not sure how the Helspont arc ended, didn't keep up with that.
Tbf, if you used Superman's highest most absurd feats of all time and ignored everything else, thereby butchering Superman as a character and skewing his entire powerset, you could probably begin to make some sort of insane and ludicrous argument for him beating Tyrant.
It wouldn't skew him as a character if every other showing was just him with mental blocks and maybe a little less solar energy.
Because in all of those situations, at least in the feats I brought up, the stakes were extremely high for the Man of Steel.
Emotionally, he's a human. He's very conflicted between the roles of Clark, Kal, and Superman. That human part is as terrified of his Kryptonian part as Superman would be of an existential threat such as Tyrant.
However, he's Superman. He has sooo much versatility at his disposal and a scary potential power level.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
There was a comment on the DC Nation Facebook page by some disgrunted fanboy who was mad that Geoff Johns hasn't had Batman "pwn the League" yet and has dropped the title because of it.
This explains why the hate for superman being so powerful is absurd and biased. People hate him because he is so powerful but even at those levels he has no chance against Tyrant?
If you want to go that route, you tell me if tyrant is beating a superman who can locate a dead universe devoid of life, fly to it and blow out a solar system like you would a candle all before the reaction to sneeze runs its course. Now tell me, what's more absurd? This feat or this superman having a insanely minuscule chance of beating tyrant?
In DCU online, a serious superman beat Black Adam like a red headed step child before he got impaled with a spear made of Green K.
What? How does my post equate into "Superman hate" at all?
I like Superman, pretty much in all of his incarnations and enjoy his stories. That doesn't mean I think he can beat anyone. And pointing out that you'd have to specifically use high end/crazy showings of Superman and throw out everything else to justify him beating or even having a chance against certain characters doesn't translate into "hating him because he's so powerful".
Not sure why you'd bring up a Pre-Crisis feat here, but okay?
And yeah, Superman had been hovering next to the sun for God knows how long. And the fact he still was done in by Kryptonite makes hardly any sense considering the fact he was super charged enough to dismiss Black Adam with minimal effort, anyway.
__________________
Last edited by JakeTheBank on Apr 1st, 2013 at 01:50 AM
KMC Community Forums
Apr 1st, 2013 12:22 AM
