...and I have been with the character since his first mini series (of course, I back tracked his first and early appearances...including his beat-down on Supes
)...and I can conclusively say, he is NOT bulletproof. The reason he keeps on going like the energizer bunny on steroids despite his injuries is because of his insane healing factor. There is no way to kill Lobo, unless you disintegrate him. Leave a piece of his body, and it regenerates into a complete Lobo. And I'm sure you are aware that Vril Dox took away his ability to grow individual Lobos with just a drop of his blood. But technically, if you disintegrate his body but left a drop of his blood, Lobo will regenerate from that. What's wierd is he can be knocked out. With his healing factor, i don't think that is possible. But bullets? He can be injured by them (and that is consistently shown throughout his appearances).
...because he too can take punches from the mightiest around without batting an eye and still be rather easily pierced, cut or gun down. WW is hardly alone to have that weird durability in comics.
Yes, I agree, it's weird. But weird and false aren't the same.
|---> Well, Lobo and WW are probably similar (they can take blunt attacks, but can be injured by pointed or sharp attacks). But then again, I never said that Lobo is bulletproof. He is not, nor is WW. they have nothing to do with Thor.|
What's cool is that there is no doubt about Thor anymore. He's bulletproof in a more convincing way than ever before.
|---> It's not so weird. Lobo has his healing factor, WW has her bracelets to protect them. Different characters, different characteristics.|
Why does the past matter all that much anyway?
|---> Agree here. Hallelujah brother! Welcome back into the fold!|
|---> It doesn't. the reason I took offense to your reply to me was how it was phrased. You basically called me a liar for having a different view than yours (I think you said that, saying Thor has always been bulletproof is a pure and utter lie...or something). Like what I said, i don't mid whether you have a different view than mine. I take comfort in the fact that in the past, there was no showing that Thor is not bulletproof in his own title, and as a Thor fan, that's all I need to form my own opinion on his durability.|
The first argument used to support there was no doubt about Thor's past regarding bullets was that he could survive so much more powerful attacks. Oliva still go that route despite all that was said.
The other side has replied that the power of the attack isn't a sufficient proof in the light of many comicbook characters. WW was the example taken to illustrate that idea.
Then you say it's not the same because it hasn't been said explicitly for Thor as it had been for WW in ONE issue. As if before Byrnes there was any doubts anyway...
I then proposed Lobo, who just like Thor, hasn't anything explicit said on that topic. All we know, we know because of what we saw in the books he appeared in.
Then you say it's diffenrent because he has a healing factor. As if a healing factor necessarilly means bullet can't bounce of you. It's doubly disturbing when you consider the first argument you guys propose: how can lobo be affected by bullets if he isn't by Superman's punch? He doesn't heal from Superman's punches, he is plain undammaged. So what gives? You can't blame the healing factor if there is nothing to heal. He just has that good a durability vs at least punches. Conlusion, he respond to different kind of attack differently... maybe a bit like Thor in some period of his past.
As for me implying you were a liar that wasn't my intention. However, I think it wasn't accurate to use the word "always" considering what we have. At least, there is ground for the pros and the cons in roughly equal amount. The reason why it's equal is that when we remove all the showing who aren't about bullets and sharp projectiles what remains is very little. As little as what remains when we remove Thor blocking everything as an indicator he need to.
- I'm kinda ticked off by this DISBELIEF that Thor is NOT bullet-proof... [Spoilers] · Oliva · Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 04:15:11 pm EST
- From the mouth of Stan himself.... [Spoilers] · jazzbass6 · Fri Dec 23, 2011 at 05:53:10 pm EST
- Lol, TG for evolving Characters. [Spoilers] · oceanside1 · Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 11:22:59 am EST
- Re: I'm kinda ticked off by this DISBELIEF that Thor is NOT bullet-proof... [Spoilers] · Doc Boomstick · Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 10:33:44 am EST
- From various sources (Marvel Database, Official Handbooks, etc...) [Spoilers] · jazzbass6 · Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 01:03:37 pm EST
- Re: I'm kinda ticked off by this DISBELIEF that Thor is NOT bullet-proof... [Spoilers] · JesusFan · Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 06:40:23 pm EST
- Re: Why is it so easy to accept that Thor is invulnerable to a gaggle of things... [Spoilers] · Aang · Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 04:30:57 pm EST
- I don't think there is a conspiracy, but I do agree with the statement that the editor hates to admit to being wrong. [Spoilers] · Cyrus · Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 02:48:43 pm EST
- Although I do feel for what you are saying, dude, a piece of advise, give the conspiracy theory a rest. [Spoilers] · Mighty_Thor · Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 04:00:06 pm EST
- Re: I'm kinda ticked off by this DISBELIEF that Thor is NOT bullet-proof... [Spoilers] · Blacky · Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 01:23:01 pm EST
- Ditto. · Brizelli · Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 06:07:57 pm EST
- Re: I'm kinda ticked off by this DISBELIEF that Thor is NOT bullet-proof... [Spoilers] · Jonathanos · Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 04:59:39 pm EST