It shows them using it as a crucible, melded the Apokolips tech and Brainiac 13's tech which made the temporal boom tube. Brainiac 13 calculated it and said that Steel could not withstand both the power of Lextower and Apokolips, but he did and Brainiac 13 said "no, error, no". Without it they would have not been able to make the boom tube.
Anyways, as silly as this endeavor sounds, I am willing to get a mod ruling on this matter, whether Thor was weakened or not when he performed the Godblast against Exitar.
It's the same level of power because THE WRITER WANTED IT TO BE.
Stop acting like the two attacks actually happened in real life and one was ACTUALLY more powerful than the other.
The goal of the showing was to cement Juggs durability. This is obvious.
Lastly, Mjolnir's durability does change from comic to comic. This is a fact.
So you're a telepath now that can dig into the mind of the writer? Otherwise no, we don't get to ignore on panel evidence in favor of your guesswork. The arrogance of it all.
So what? That doesn't mean the God Blast was on par. Not to mention Juggernaut's durability wasn't even mentioned, the scene was meant to showcase that Thor's power can even stop and push back Juggernaut.
It's a fact is it? How are you going to go about prove this fact? Especially under this writer who never gave any indication of fluctuating durability.
This is not rocket science dude.
Why in the hell would the writer PURPOSELY want the attack to be lesser than previous? Especially when he referenced the previous Godblasts right before Thor did the attack?
The feat doesn't take away from Thor. It only adds to Juggernaut. The Godblast is still awesome.
It isn't, which is why I'm curious what in particular is confusing you.
Ask the writer, I'm not a mind reader like you. A few issues before that fight, he had a Mjolnir reinforced with the belt of strength explode under the strain of the God Blast. This indicates far more powerful energy was used.
Which is hardy contradictory, the Celestials are far more powerful then Juggernaut. Especially in that era when there armor shrugged off even planetary levels of power.
I don't give a shit. I'm not going to ignore the only possible logical conclusion and evidence slapping us in the face because you're desperate to give Juggernaut a better feat.
He referenced the other Godblast as being the same attack (while boasting that they were able overcome the enemy) prior to Thor doing it. It's obviously he's not trying to confuse the reader into thinking 'this' Godblast is weaker than the previous one.
There is 0 reason why the writer would want the Godblast to be lesser than previous, especially given the wording of the comic. You don't have to mind read when logic and common sense is perfect.
I love the Juggernaut. Way better than Hulk and possibly DD. He's my favorite brick by far.
Yes, same attack. That does not mean it's the same level of power. No one denied it wasn't a God Blast.
What the hell are you even talking about? How about you shut up, read the comic, and stop trying to speculate in favor of on panel evidence? Just compare the preparation against Exitar in comparison to Juggernaut alone: (please log in to view the image)(please log in to view the image)
Except it is. Then start using some.
I figured that out when you argued he was more durable then Galacus.
Yes. Because he referenced a story where a God Blast he wrote, shattered the hammer while it was reinforced and produced a powerful, and large enough explosion to stun Exitar.
Are you arguing that you know what a writer wants when the comic conflicts with it? Look at all the telepaths we have on KMC all of a sudden.
I'm arguing that basing your case on a point that you cannot prove in anyway is complete idiotic. We aren't comparing two writers from across decades, this is the same guy who wrote the story like a dozen issues apart. And he's pretty well versed no his Thor stuff.
What would be the point of making Godblast weaker? Wouldn't that be confusing to the reader, especially in light of it stopping Juggs and being referenced to give Celestials pause? The writer is not trying to confuse the reader at all but make things clear as day.
If you don't accept the variable durability concept (which is a proven fact in comics) then when the hammer was repaired maybe it was stronger and didn't need reinforcements the second time.
The comic doesn't not conflict with the writer because of
1. Variable durability concept
I did prove my argument. Writer's don't write things not shown or explained, nor do they secretly try to confuse the reader. Readers who read the comic instantly knew that Juggs was hit with the same Godblast as Thor hit Exitar with as the reason it was referenced.
If the Godblast was weaker than before the writer would have explained that it was and why it was, instead of confusing the reader and referencing past Godblast feats to compare. That's the proof.
1. Godblast was weaker (non founded) and hammer's durability is same
2. Godblast was same and hammer's durability is different
You are basically picking and choosing what suits you instead of what makes more sense. At best 2. is at least as credible as 1. and makes more sense
KMC Community Forums
Jul 13th, 2013 10:52 PM
