|
Teenage Fansub posted:Is that a quote from Superman Grounded or something? It's a rather popular Captain America quote, most recently reused in Civil War, where it was uttered by Sharon Carter instead of Cap.
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 08:55 |
|
|
WickedHate posted:If you see a story where Superman is flat out weak to magic and not just something that affects him like it effects everyone else, that's just bad, inconsistent writing. That's about the whole of it. A magic sword can cut him, but it won't hurt him any more than it hurts anyone else. It's been said that Shazam has a slight edge on Superman in a fistfight because his strength is fuelled by magic, but it's still a mostly even match.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Yea I don't get why 'the sword would hurt him as much as anyone else' is a weak thing. Swords hurt people really fuckin well. The entire point of the magic sword making Superman treat a sword like a normal person would is that swords tend to kill normal people really easy. That's entirely correct. We're only specifying "as vulnerable as anyone else" in contrast to kryptonite, which will gently caress him up just from being in the vicinity. With a magic sword you still have make the effort of running him through.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:A magic sword that is infinitely sharp due to magic can cut Superman. One suggestion I've heard is that while magic can bypass Superman's invulnerability (frequently characterised as a skintight invisible force field,) it doesn't change the fact that his superpowered body has far greater density than a human. So even if the magical property of a sword is specifically "can cut Superman," it still has to overcome his natural durability. If you'll permit a bit of wild speculation, it could be that his natural durability is essentially his Golden Age invulnerability, when "nothing short of an exploding shell" could hurt him.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
He might have been, at some point. It's hard to keep up. I also don't know if the skintight forcefield explanation for his invulnerability is still valid.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Soonmot posted:Dude, superman can totally lift mjornir Once, briefly, because Odin allowed it. He was unable to lift it after the fight was over.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Well that's a very thorough answer, wow. When Benito steps up, most of us just step back and let him do his thing. haitfais fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Jan 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
That made my weekend.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
Open Marriage Night posted:I'll step up and say that the Ultimates was a revelation at the time. Nobody saw them as heroes. They were hardly sympathetic. Havent read it in a decade, but I study every page when I see a copy laying about. Thor joining the fight against Hulk is one of my favorite sequences of all time. They were stock Millar characters: hyper-competent, insufferable assholes under a thin veneer of pop culture references and schoolyard snark. This might not have been obvious at the time, since I'm pretty sure the Ultimates were among the earliest iterations of Millar's stock characters.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 10:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 08:55 |
|
|
WickedHate posted:This isn't really the place to argue it tbh but Trump was elected legally and Richard Spencer was just exercising his right to free speech when he was punched, but when I'm radically opposed to "civil" evil I get called a delusional fascist. I support Nazi punching! Excising virulent existential threats to the common welfare and safety of the people is what I'm all about. Many of us who generally find violence abhorrent have found relatively solid philosophical and ethical grounds to make an exception for nazis. If someone attempts to popularise the idea of committing genocide against an entire race, and has any hope at all of those ideas gaining traction (as they have in the US,) then I would argue that the existential threat they represent to an entire people is at least equal to a direct physical threat against one person. If I would feel comfortable with using violence to stop violence in an immediate, one-on-one situation, then I must feel equally comfortable with an oppressed minority using violence to defend themselves against the views of an individual or group who would see them destroyed just for existing, i.e. punching a recognised spokesperson for the alt-right (read: a loving nazi,) who is well known for musing on the appropriate way to commit genocide against black people. It's important to remember that, for some people, this is not an abstract or hypothetical situation. If someone were to declare that I and everyone like me must be destroyed, in a setting where people like me were already being murdered by authority figures with astonishing regularity, I would feel entirely justified clocking that someone in the head on live television. If those factors were further compounded by a new head of state who has explicitly sided with the occasionally-murderous authority figures, while adding his own flavours of oppression on top, then an act of violent resistance might cease to be merely justified, and might feel like a necessity. In short, the punching of Richard Spencer didn't symbolise the use of violence to change the system or enforce an ethical standard, it symbolised a people's struggle to survive in a country that keeps trying to destroy them. Just my two cents.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2017 20:18
|
|