#1 Posted by CountofMC (131 posts) - - Show Bio

After spending a certain amount of time viewing the battle forum I have begun to notice, along with others I'm sure, that there can sometimes be a split among people when it comes to measuring a person's power level. Hopefully this will get a nice discussion going on some ways we can all agree to better judge a persons power.

Here is an example: Zeus doesn't have the quantity of feats to match up to Odin. He does have some good ones, just not many. On the other hand by his status as a skyfather he is implied to be Odin's equal. From this, some will say they are equal because it has more or less been stated and others will say because Zeus doesn't have the feats he cannot be considered as powerful as Odin. The only problem with this is that as long as Thor is more popular than Hercules, Odin will always display more feats on panel than Zeus. So are we to say that Odin is more powerful just because he has more time in front of the reader?

That's just one example. This one might be a little more of a stretch but it's worth bringing up as well. Most on these forums tend to agree that to have travel speed doesn't necessarily imply that a person will also have high combat speed. I don't always agree with this but many members have made a strong case for it still. We all know Superman, WW etc, have displayed high end travel and combat speed but they have also fought people who have displayed all of their super powered attributes except for the reflexes. I'm not a regular DC reader but from what I have gathered on the forums Black Adam and Captain Marvel would be two examples.(Correct me if I am wrong.) Should those two or any other examples be given 'assumed' super combat speed even though it hasn't been displayed, or are we to believe various members of the Justice League, or Marvel speedsters like Gladiator, deliberately handicap themselves every time they battle said opponents?

To take it a little further, high level beings like Galactus, the celestials, Odin and whoever else don't have any speed feats really but with all of their vast power would it be too much of a stretch to assume they could not augment their speed to do physical combat if they chose to? When someone mentions a Superman vs Odin fight for example many people will bring up the fact that Superman could theoretically speedblitz but most still write off the idea that Superman could fight and defeat someone on Odin's level? There are other powers that can fall under 'Implied vs. Displayed' too. I am just making a case with speed blitzing because it comes up a lot.

Anyways, I just wanted to generate a little discussion to see how people set boundaries for things like this as well as your reasoning for it. I would like to hear all sides to see how certain things have come to a consensus.

Ready...GO! :)

#2 Posted by FiMFTW (687 posts) - - Show Bio

TL;DR

#3 Posted by WaveMotionCannon (5381 posts) - - Show Bio
@CountofMC This was so good it made my head hurt thinking about it
#4 Posted by CountofMC (131 posts) - - Show Bio

@WaveMotionCannon: lol, thank you sir!

#5 Posted by MrShway88 (655 posts) - - Show Bio

I believe to imply what a character can do is only valid point for one who doesn't get much spotlight such as Zeus. But a character like Superman, who gets bunch of screen time, should be measured by feats displayed.

#6 Posted by SC (12963 posts) - - Show Bio

Great thread and great points. For me it power depends on reasoning. I think its really important to acknowledge these are fictional characters. Why? Comics never has, nor will it ever have the same consistency and objectivity real life has. In real life you can draw accurate and objective conclusions based on implications, (especially as far as speed) in comics not so much. Like the skyfathers are all equal implication? Its an assumption, and a reasonable one, so is pointing out that Thor's popularity and excess of panel time relative to Hercules and both characters relationships with their respective fathers, and thus an abundance of examples, actions so on for Odin. Then again you have to consider things like characters personalities, motivations, histories, mythologies (Norse mythology being a bit tougher, warlike and stoic compared to the colorful drama and exuberance of Greek mythology) and how that would translate to fictional settings. I mean throw in Hindu mythology and the arguably superior sense of scale and vastness and so how does that translate in a fictional setting where writers are trying to combine all these mythologies?

With Thor and Odin you get the first and historic value deal going on as well. Odin more than any all father does tend to get a bit more props, some official handbooks have alluded to him being Earths most powerful skyfather but in very vague and ambiguous ways that really only exist because as far as publication history he has been a more important part of Marvel history in much the same way you look at any and all characters that have been around for a long time having and getting special treatment in multiple contexts. Doesn't just apply to power, applies to everything and especially applies as far as defining and core characteristics. There can be natural progression though, I mean remember when Galactus was just some random big god like being who travelled around the Universe a lot instead of a fundamental force of the Universe in the middle of impossibly big concepts like Eternity and Death? Back when he first appeared he would have been more of an Odin type character. Retcons only really seem to bother people when it happened before they were alive lol but Galactus never needed to appear a lot to have power creep, just popularity given his originality. So thats another additional context to consider on top of sheer panel time and historic value. Might as well throw in definitions as well and use of value. Much like the term skyfather you have s situation where people have attempted to quantify planet busting as a thing. You know sort of ignoring that planets come in as much size variety and density variety that using it in a standardized way to imply attributes is like implying that Hawkeye is as strong as Colossus because Hawkeye can lift up and throw a cat and Colossus can lift up and throw a Elephant because both are animals. I mean the difference in scale and therefore value between a cat and a elephant is relatively tiny and minuscule compared to the difference in scales when it comes to planets and stars and so on. A lot of fans forget that, a lot of writers forget that, and if you can't trust the consistency of the people writing the material your referencing it can be a bit tricky trying to make inflexible assertions set in concrete.

Hence why earlier on I spoke of the reasoning behind power and acknowledging the characters as fictional then drawing on and considering as many sources as one thinks warrants merit.

Moderator Online
#7 Posted by guttridgeb (4831 posts) - - Show Bio

This is similar to the issue as to whether or not Hulk does truly have infinite potential strength. Because he is meant to have infinite potential, he therefore can never show that this is the case. He can get angrier and angrier, stronger and stronger but that alone confirms nothing. Thus we have to go by the assumption that the Beyonder was correct in saying he has infinite strength (that's not the only instance of it being stated, just the most valid one IMO).

#8 Posted by CountofMC (131 posts) - - Show Bio

It's great to see all of your thoughts on this. We may never have definitive answers for all of these questions but seeing the reasoning behind a particular decision really helps!