Comic Battle >> View Post
Post By
zvelf

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
In Reply To
Aang

Member Since: Sat Jun 26, 2010
Posts: 1,369
Subj: Re: Evidence (EDIT added)
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2017 at 07:34:02 am EST (Viewed 95 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Evidence
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2017 at 12:16:50 am EST (Viewed 86 times)



    Quote:

      Quote:
      But Thor has only ever used his godblast on Galactus that one time. So based on Thor #169, it should go without saying that if Thor ever unleashes his godblast on Galactus, then Thor should win, right?

    LOL, no. Thor and Galactus have faced off many, many times since that issue and Galactus has proven superior and therefore you would expect Galactus to be ranked higher as he should be. If the godblast is an autowin, then Thor should use it everytime he fights Galactus but he doesn't. Why would that be?


Because of the needs of the story of course. Magneto could use blood tricks every fight but he doesn't. Invisible Woman can turn the eyeballs of her enemies invisible in every fight, but she doesn't. Spectrum can fly through the eyes of her opponents in every fight and fry their brain, but she doesn't. Kitty Pryde could phase her opponents into the ground in every fight but she doesn't. I could go on and on. These are all tactics these characters have used, but if they used them constantly for auto-wins, it would be hard to tell the story. So you can try to spin away the results of the Thor-Galactus fight with other Thor/Galactus showings, but there's no difference than my pointing out that there is other evidence for how a Thor-Superman fight can go.


    Quote:
    But really, I can see you are trying to herd me to answer you with negative on the Thor godblast question so you can justify saying Superman's knocking Thor out shouldn't matter that much because it was just one issue. It doesn't work out that way, because really you aren't even comparing apples to apples, you are comparing apples to an Aardvarks. To be blunt, bringing up these weird, disjointed tangents seems like an odd attempt to just muddy up the waters. Based on the JlA/Avengers story, Superman deserves the #1 ranking in the OP's thread. It is as simple as that.

Again, I'm not debating whether Superman or Thor should be #1. I am arguing about the "goes without saying" description. I am arguing exactly that it's not 100% settled because of one fight in one issue. I am arguing exactly that the waters are muddied because Busiek put these things into his own story. Sure, the result of the fight should take primacy, but that doesn't mean other evidence should be ignored, which is what you and Bk are saying. Thor's confidence in a different outcome, Superman's awe at Mjolnir's power, Superman describing Thor as the toughest opponent he's ever faced, Thor having beaten three different characters with Superman's powers, one of whom has feats better than Superman and one of whom who has stalemated Superman on numerous occasions, all of these should at least be taken into account. You keep acting like my point is that Thor should beat Superman. It's not. It's simply that there is a fair amount of evidence that he could.

Basically, this is practically your calling a majority of the people on this board irrational because they think there is evidence that Thor could beat Superman the preponderance of the time, saying that's a ridiculous notion because it's completely settled by one fight in one issue whose continuity isn't even clear. How about this, Spider-Man has only ever fought Firelord once as far as I know. Spider-Man won that fight. Is it completely settled that Spider-Man is superior to Firelord?





How to make an entrance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfMiOlIUGQw