Buckshot's forum posts

#1 Posted by Buckshot (19356 posts) - - Show Bio

There's some misinformation here (unintentional I'm assuming). I'll address it character by character.

Spartan isn't quite on Majestic's level physically, but what he lacks in physical ability he makes up for in cosmic powers, most notably teleportation, but he's no stranger to outright reality manipulation. The go-to reason for why he's not as powerful as he could be with those abilities is that he's not creative enough (because he's a robot). The most he really did with it was just counter everything another reality warper threw at him when they fought.

This has been mentioned, but no, Zealot is not on Wonder Woman's level in power. She's probably got her beat in pure skill, definitely with a sword, but physically shes not as fast or strong. She can take or dodge a bullet, but she's not on Wonder Woman's strength tier by any stretch. But as I said, she is enormously skilled with a sword, and her blades are basically Wolverine's claws. They can cut most anything (I think they'd draw blood on Superman) and they can take a beating (forged in a star or something, they've taken Captain Atom's blasts and somehow been able to block them). I am curious what's being referred to when it's said that she's bested Majestic.

@micah: Zealot is nowhere near Wonder Woman in terms of physicals, but her hand-to-hand quenches that difference because she has bested Majestic.

Emp is technically in the same class as Majestic, but their classes come from their world and it's just as much political as genetic/physical it seems. So while they're both members of the Pantheon and have some overlapping abilities, they're not quite the same. Emp doesn't have Majestics stats (strength, speed, durability, flight, etc... the Superman power set). But while Majestic really only uses his psionic powers for defense, Emp has more going on. With focus he can read every mind on the planet and he can also shoot psionic energy blasts if i recall correctly. But mostly he doesn't do any of that, he just leads the wildcats. Or did anyway. He transcended his physical self and became a higher being. That was his last use of his psychic powers.

And while most of the team are Kherans/Kherubim, that race isn't uniform. There are characters like Majestic, with the superman power set. There are those like Emp who are more psychic than anything (but both of those types belong to the Pantheon). Even among them, Majestic is special because of some undisclosed enhancements. There are characters like Zealot, who are low level superhumans (they can toss a few tons, take bullets, parry bullets and lasers with their weapons, that sort of thing) with the women being called Coda and the men being called the Brotherhood of the Blade. There are those like Nemesis who are basically Coda but have some psychic powers. There are those like Warblade who can turn their body into liquid metal and shape it however they want. And there are those like Maul, who are basically Hulks but they trade intelligence for strength and size instead of needing to get angry. There are even some blends, like a portion of the brotherhood that mixed their dna with Shaper (warblade) DNA and are sort of both now. Other than their culture and technology, the thing they all have in common is that they're all practically immortal (seriously, Majestic lives to the end of the universe. if they weren't so hell-bent on extreme personal combat, they'd never die) and spend their thousands and thousands of years of life perfecting their skills at hand to hand, bladed weapons, and other forms of close quarters combat. Even the ones like Majestic that don't really need weapons.

Hope that helps.

Moderator
#2 Posted by Buckshot (19356 posts) - - Show Bio

@toptom said:

Fyi that was a rhetorical question,even if i did know that you could have used some kind or reasoning to answer it. So you are still going to ignore that Superman could take the Starfire blasts like if they were nothing,while the golden Helspont was at least pushed back by them and above all you are going to ignore that the Golden Helspont was damaged ,at first, and killed ,then ,by one of his guns while the other Helspont utilized his own energy to power his whole war ship. Again note this difference,one of them is heavily damaged by a gun wielded by one of his soldier while the other one utilizes his own energy to command a gigantic starship,so even if he was blasted by one of its weapons he shoud be able to survive since the energy that powered those weapons was just a fragment of his own personal energy.

Still now the golden Helspont is dead and TIME will give me reason when we'll see him again.

Now i am going to repost (again) a fragment of my previous post which you refused to address for too many times now:

"Now you will say again: “but in that moment helspont has lost his patience that’s why he could stun him,because he wasn’t holding back” but I have ALREADY proven to you that in their fight helspont believed in his victory,he thought he had defeated superman and he was even thinking at hal Jordan as a substitute for him. You keep to skip this part again and again and again. As I’ve already told to you he can’t believe in his victory if he didn’t believe that Superman was defeated, AND, if he believed so it is because he tried to defeat him (he was clearly surprised when he sees Superman again). Why Helspont couldn’t put him down again after that Clark rejected his offer for the second time? If you think Helspont defeated Superman just because he “offended” him,why he shouldn’t do the same just to show him his place after that he punched him in the face again and again,after that he rejected the same offer for the second time ? Why he couldn’t put him down,teach him a lesson as he did in the annual always without killing him,with zero effort? The answer is because he wasn’t the same guy of the annual and so he couldn’t do it,infact instead of defeating him for good,despite what you try to say ,he was the one forced to left the fight after he obtained....what?Nothing. His offer was rejected multiple times,his base was destroyed,Superman hadn't learned the lesson and his time was wasted."

and also this:

"However in all this posts I haven’t given enough weight to this simple fact: this ISN’T new-52 superman vs new-52 (golden) Helspont but this is Pre-52 Superman vs Helspont . So even if the golden Helspont could stun Superman ,such fact is still irrelevant since this is another Superman ,who has way better durability and streaking feats than his younger version "

You can call it a rhetorical question, but the facts remain the same. You tried to compare the two fights even though they are nothing alike and don't support your argument because of that. The only thing even bringing up the Outlaws does for Superman is say that he can do better against a weaker team, with different members, when he's not being betrayed, and when he actually fights back and defends himself. (And seeing as you used the comparison with the Outlaws as one of the pillars of your argument that there are two Helsponts, this is yet more proof that your theory doesn't hold water, but I've already shown that so whatever.) Someone getting pushed back by a blast doesn't really mean anything, but I'll point to where I posted their fight above where Sunfire hits Helspont and he doesn't budge. Other stuff happens later in the fight, but that's after the part where the fight no longer resembles anything Superman faced, not the betrayal, not the other attackers, and not Helspont's weapons. But I'll reiterate, getting pushed back is no great indicator. If getting "pushed back" means anything at all, then Helspont incapacitating Superman and leaving him on the floor means so much more for this discussion. Also, I note you didn't answer the question at the end of my message. Big surprise, since the only answer you can give clearly indicates Helspont's superiority.

Next in your response you try to say that Helspont must be different because when he fought the Outlaws he got beaten by his own weapon but in the annual he could power his ship. That's not a comparison and certainly not one that indicates the character is two different characters. The one in the annual would have to have been attacked by his weapon and responded to that attack differently for the comparison to mean anything. Helspont being able to power his own ship says absolutely nothing at all about how he'd deal with a weapon he provided. Trying to pretend otherwise is foolish and baseless.

I already responded to the first paragraph you reposted, but to sum it up, Helspont wasnt trying to beat Superman. It should be abundantly clear given that in the fight where Helspont knocks out Superman with a back hand, he explicitly says he doesn't want to kill him. You try to claim that something was different in the first fight, but Helspont makes it clear he doesn't want to kill him there either. He educates Superman when he has him at his mercy. He talks to him for a long time. He says that Superman is going to serve him regardless. You present Helspont thinking he beat Superman as if its proof that's what he set out to do. Helspont thinking he beat Superman doesn't mean his goal was to beat Superman. I can do something or think I did something without setting out to do it beforehand. Helspont made it very clear what he wanted from Superman, for Superman to get with the program. When he incapacitated Superman with one shot, he calls it an unfortunate outburst. You seem to not get what those two things mean. When he's trying to reason with Superman, that's his goal. When he's beating Superman effortlessly, that's not his goal. Altogether now class...what was the thing Helspont said was "unfortunate"? Beating Superman senseless. He may later think he beats Superman, but that's not his clearly stated goal. So if you accept (which you won't) that beating Superman isn't what Helspont set out to do, it's easy to see why Helspont didn't one shot Superman later. You don't need to compare Helspont to the annual to see if he's capable of one-shotting Superman, he'd already done it in issue 7. Him not doing it in issue 8 is immaterial. And with him saying both before and after the fight in issue 8 that destroying Superman isn't his goal, there's clear support for him choosing not to win in issue 8. I know you think its absurd that Helspont wouldn't try and win or would leave "empty-handed", but it's fully in line with how the daemonites and Helspont himself works, both in the new 52 and the original wildstorm appearances. Forgetting entirely that numerous villains have allowed their opponents to believe them defeated so they could come back later, it's in character for Helspont. Just off the top of my head I recall the final issues of the Majestic series when Helspont goes so far as to allow his physical body to be completely destroyed, and then later shows up wielding the power to remake a planet. Helspont letting people think he's dead is consistent. Helspont being able to one-shot Superman is also consistent. What do we see in the Superman comics? Hmmmm.... Well, we see Helspont one-shotting Superman and then being seemingly defeated, only to come back later. Wow, it's almost as if Helspont let Superman think he won just like he's done in the past with other enemies. It's almost as if Helspont has a plan going on at a cosmic level and he doesn't always care what Superman thinks. Wait, he revealed in the annual that he IS in fact operating on a higher scale that Superman is aware of and that everything Superman does only serves his purposes? Wow, isn't that a coincidence?

As for your last statement about the version of Superman in the fight, I don't really care. Most of the interest and discussion has been about the new 52 versions so that's what I talked about, which in turn fed into more interest and discussion about the new52 versions without anyone having an issue with it. It's a 3 year old thread with barely any activity, no big loss.

Moderator
#3 Posted by Buckshot (19356 posts) - - Show Bio

I had almost forgotten about this stupid argument. Let me just respond to this part (even though I've done so multiple times, like I have with every other part of your stance) since you say its the part you don't understand. What you're asking is how could the Helspont that beat Superman be the same one that was beaten by the Outlaws, if Superman was able to easily stall the Outlaws. Your transparent appeal to ABC logic is utterly worthless. I just needed to say that right at the top, but let's continue. It is not the case that Superman beat the Outlaws so if the Outlaws could beat Helspont that means Superman could beat Helspont. One of my very first posts (because that's how far ahead I see your pathetic arguments and counter them) directly asked you if Superman fighting the Outlaws was the same situation as Helspont fighting the Outlaws. If Superman suspiciously didn't fight back at all like Helspont did. If Superman had to also fight Sunfire's sister like Helspont did. If Superman was betrayed like Helspont was. And if Superman had to deal with Helspont's weaponry like Helspont did. You didn't answer any of those questions, which leads me to believe that you KNOW that Superman fighting the Outlaws was not the same as Helspont fighting the Outlaws, but still you stay with an argument that is irreparably flawed. You're basically saying "They both fought the Outlaws but Superman did better, so he must win between the two of them." But that completely ignores that while they both fought a team called the Outlaws, the fights were nothing alike, with Helspont's fight involving different tech and different opponents, and during that fight, he never defended himself or fought back. But really, your inability to acknowledge that is expected at this point. I'll leave it with an easy question though, between Superman and Helspont, which character has shown the ability to one shot the other in a fight before?

Moderator
#4 Posted by Buckshot (19356 posts) - - Show Bio

@toptom: Art differences aren't proof of character changes. Costume changes aren't proof of character changes. Using different powers for different purposes in different situations isn't proof of a different character. All of those things would also apply to Wildstorm Helspont, who has been drawn differently, worn multiple costumes, and displayed entirely different powers at different times, and yet remained the exact same character from beginning to end. Even your interpretation (which is exactly what I've written, your interpretation) of Helspont's statement that it had been a long time since he'd fought a Kryptonian isn't proof he's a different character. Your interpretation requires you to choose a start point for the instance in which Helspont can be said to be currently interacting with a Kryptonian. It cannot possibly be when the statement is actually being made, so you arbitrarily pick the beginning of this comic. Your decision that it starts in this comic has no more value than my decision that it's at their first fight, which was mentioned multiple times in the issue. What supports your arbitrary decision? Little more than a costume change. What supports my decision? The continuity of Helspont's message, the consistent display of his abilities (namely strength, teleportation, telekinesis, and his signature energy manipulation), his consistently portrayed physical form, and the narrative and tropes of the medium itself. The narrative does not suggest they are two different characters. The method chosen by the writer to explain the connection of events does not once suggest they are different characters. What the author chooses to put forth is that Helspont was holding back previously. Both times the previous encounter was referenced directly, there's no talk about the previous Helspont being a fake or a copy, even though Helspont has demonstrated the ability to create constructs capable of fighting Superman, and even though he's the leader of a race of beings capable of taking other forms. The only thing mentioned is that Helspont was holding back. But you choose to ignore what's been said because the character looks different. You attempt to support that with a statement he makes, but to do that you have to either ignore the rest of what he says, or throw your best guesses, unsupported as they are, at me and hope they make sense. Helspont talks about fighting a Kryptonian under a yellow sun. Is he fighting Superman under a yellow sun when he says that in the middle of his ship in the dead of space? Doesn't look like it. When did he fight Superman under a yellow sun? The previous issues in which you claim this Helspont never appeared. And your response to Helspont referencing another encounter is what? The one encounter they had this issue which you somehow think would count twice? Or the fight Superman has with Biomass in which Helspont didn't plan for or expect, wasn't watching, and in which Superman only took one good hit that came nowhere close to what Helspont did and which he obviously survived? So you're saying Helspont thought Superman was rendered moot by an attack Helspont never saw, but which, if he had seen, he'd know wasn't ANYWHERE NEAR as powerful as the one he himself hit Superman with which clearly didn't stop him? Even shorter sentences: You think Helspont thought Superman was bested by his idiot bodyguard when Helspont himself couldn't do it? And he thought that even though there's nothing saying he even saw the fight? (I know, these are all more questions you won't answer directly because they'd reveal how truly absurd your position is if you did.) You act like I'm making up something incredible when all I'm suggesting is that when Helspont talks about 2 encounters with Superman, he's referring to the 2 times they've been in comics together. It's an insane theory, I know...

I don't even need to respond to the rest. Helspont blasted Superman with energy and Superman was down for the count. That is undeniable. Whether you want to attribute that to something Helspont did in addition to that or not, really doesn't matter in the slightest, since Helspont did that too, and could easily do it again if it were actually necessary (which it's not). Your claims that no such biological attack would work again are completely unsupported. Especially given that Helspont said Superman got out because he rejected the scenario, not because he overcame the bug, which leaves plenty of other scenarios to also be effective with the same kind of bug, meanwhile Superman would be completely vulnerable as he was shown to be. But really, nothing either at the time of the blast or later suggests that the biological attack came from the blast anyway. End result though? Helspont blasted and Superman went down and remained in a vulnerable state. Whatever you want to imagine happened as a result of the blast to cause Superman to be completely incapacitated is fine by me.

Moderator
#5 Posted by Buckshot (19356 posts) - - Show Bio

@toptom: There's only one thing I haven't already addressed a number of times in your post so that's all I'll deal with.

Your opinion that something doesn’t make sense doesn’t mean it makes them two separate characters. In all your examples, even if you don’t like it, what you’re asking about doesn’t make the characters different versions. If Martian Manhunter used two methods as you propose, it might be silly to you, but it wouldn't make him two different characters. But, once again, I’ll humor you. Helspont is not attempting the same thing in the annual as he did in the earlier issues, so he wouldn’t use the same method. In the first, he was attempting to educate Superman by providing a scenario tailored to Superman himself. In the second, his telepathy was used to share his own personal story with Superman. Helspont has a biological device his people routinely use for indoctrinating their young. When he wanted to teach Superman something using a realistic scenario, he used the tool built for that. When he just wanted to show Superman his past, he used something else. There’s no contradiction there, but I’ll point out again, even if Helspont were trying to do the same thing both times, it still wouldn’t make him two separate characters. Helspont also says that it’s the second time in their conflict he thought he’d been done with Superman. If the second time was him knocking him into the moon, what was the first? It seems reasonable that it was their first interaction, when he determined Superman was a laughable opponent and little more. He cites two instances where he thought Superman was inconsequential, and they’ve only had two interaction (both of which Helspont showed the ability to one-shot Superman). Seems like Helspont is referring to their first fight, doesn’t it? Helspont says it’s been a long time since he’s faced a Kryptonian, but you assume he considers facing Superman in that instance to be the beginning of it. And you assume so incorrectly. Helspont isn’t saying that at the time of speaking it’s the first time he’s seen a kryptonian in a long time. His words necessarily include seeing Superman earlier in the issue. And since his words stretch to before he’s uttering them, why do you assume it also doesn’t include their first interaction? Helspont measures his life in millennia. It’s more than arguable that he considers his current engagement on Earth, including his interaction with Superman, to be a single event (as his counting both their fights as a single conflict would further suggest). His words lend support to the notion that Helspont considers not just their current exchange, but also their exchange earlier and their exchange in Superman 7 and 8, to be one extended conflict with a Kryptonian, which he’s saying he hasn’t had in a long time. There you go, your point directly addressed (unlike all my questions you've avoided answering directly, even when specifically asked), for all the good it’ll do.

And this bit I did address already, but maybe this is a little clearer:

Look at your own examples. When the writer and artist want to show some sort of bacteria being found in energy or any other substance, they make it perfectly clear. In your examples they not only show it in the energy but they use the comic layout to give it special attention. Furthermore they call it out in the narration. No such thing happened in the case with Helspont. In addition to this utter lack of evidence for your theory, let me look at your next claim. You suggest that when Helspont says the bug was a byproduct of “the process”, the “process” he’s referring to is an energy blast. This is not what the text suggests. Helspont talks about using a “low grade cerebral shunt” and that is the only other time he uses the word “process”. And the use of that process occurs AFTER his “unfortunate outburst” of knocking Superman out with energy, when he realizes he did things the wrong way. So we have Helspont knocking Superman out, realizing he acted rashly, wanting to reach Superman another way, then using that process which was familiar to his people, and then later the bug manifesting in a disgusting manner as a byproduct of that process, not the initial energy blast. There’s void to be filled, Helspont lays it out clearly.

All that really needs to be seen is what I've already shown. Helspont one-shotting Superman when he didn't even want to.

Moderator
#6 Edited by Buckshot (19356 posts) - - Show Bio

@reaverlation said:

Holy damn is Buckshot laying it down well.Great to see you post too btw :)

And seeing Helspont again

It's unfortunate that as usual toptom completely misses the point.

@toptom said:

@buckshot:

Firts of all there are all the reasons to believe that exist 2 versions of helspont...since we have seen 2 versions of him.That is so simple. One of them was able to ko Superman with a backhand the other one was killed by the Outlaws,stalled by a boosted Grifter ( he was the golden one and he was on his ship so your possible explanation isn't acceptable) and he was unable to put Superman down in the whole issue of Superman # 8. There is quite a gap between these two version of him and even if it wasn't stated on a comic ,the difference in power,costume and even size of the character is quite evident. Then the helspont in the annual (it isn't the only issue where we can see him with that costume by the way) has shown the ability to empower other beings

So not only he has shown an ability that could explain his other self appearances (he with all the probality could create a weaker avatar of himself,like drakseid did in the past, by sharing the blue-flame ) but in the annual he has also shown to have the telepathy ,on the other hand,the golden helspont had to use that bug to give Superman those visions.

Plus THIS version of helspont stated that a long time has passed since he faced a kryptonian under a yellow sun,and i bet that if a being severall millennia old says a "long time" he really means it.

So to recap again: this helspont seemed bigger,he WAS definitively stronger,had another costume,he hasn't faced a krytponian in centuries unlike his golden version and he has a certain level of tp while the other one hasn't it. This should put your theory that these guy are the same person to rest for good.

Then regarding that bug IT was the only reason because superman couldn't get up from the blast as soon it has hit him just like he did with all the other energy attacks in the next issue,which were quite a number. Helspont blasted Superman while they were talking,that's cool,and he was floored for a moment,ok,but when he was shown again he was still STANDING while he was trapped in that nightmare plus he was undamaged. When he was stunned on the ground (not koed) and the time in which he was standing trapped in a dream he was in those conditions thanks to the cerebral-shunt operated by the bug that somehow grew inside of him thanks to the blast itself. The blast was fired while they were talking and it has put Superman on the ground,nothing special here, but he was stunned by the cerebral shunt and not by the force of the burst,infact the next ones weren't enough to harm Superman in multiple occasions.Read this last sentence again 'cause you seem to skip this part.

The last panel down in the right is the part you should read and keep in mind.

Again Superman being floored for an instant isn't a big deal,he was floored many times before without passing out (hell he was even reduced to a skeleton in two different occasions, he was also stabbed through the whole chest without passing out) the only difference here is the bug which wasn't used in all the others blast , and which could be expelled once Superman rejected those visions.In the meantime Superman could even get up from the ground. In the end Superman wasn't koed, he wasn't stunned by the blast in se ,he could get free by rejecting that fake scenario ,so , we can easily argue that he will be ready for another similar attack which won't floor him just like the other ones couldn't (now they aren't having a conversation but a fight) and which will trap him for even a smaller ammount of time or maybe it won't trap him at all. But is this fight between Superman and Helspont or Superman and that alien octopus? If this fight is between the krytponian and the daemonite, just like in superman # 8, i don't see any problem here.

You are still counting on the fact that the bigger version of helspont didn't want to kill Superman (which is irrelevant),but even so the fact he didn't want to kill him doesn't mean he (the golden one) didn't want to simply defeat him just like he tried to do for the whole issue ,while Superman was holding back,lets not forget this.

This scan proves that you are wrong ,again. This helspont tried costantly to defeat Superman and he even believed in his success in multiple occasions,so he didn't had any problems in using is power in order to subdue his opponent. Oh,this was also the part of the fight in which he leaves before Superman charges him destroying his base and the whole mountain in the process.

In the end the Helspont in the annual probably wins (maybe,i am not so sure),the other one who was killed by the outlaws gets stomped.Hard.

You seem unable to distinguish what a character CAN do and what they necessarily MUST do. This come up every time we have any sort of back and forth. You see something happen one way and assume that's the way it MUST have happened. For example, you see Helspont using two different techniques to mess with Superman's mind, first using a biological organism and later using his own power, and while someone else might simply say, he has two methods to mess with someone's mind, your opinion is that he used the biological organism the first time because he was UNABLE to use a purely psychic method, that because that's the way it happened first, it's the way it HAD to happen, instead of that Helspont simply made a choice to use one ability over the other.

Your "reasons" there are two versions of Helspont are foolishness. Because Helspont was in a different costume in his annual? Right because a character has NEVER changed costumes before but still remained themselves. That's the biggest thing you keep coming back to and its just silly. In one issue, a special issue in fact, he wore a different costume. So what? Characters can look different without them BEING different. When Luke Cage wears a suit, is he a different character? When Monica Rambeau changes costumes or puts back on her jacket, is she a different character? When Blue Marvel is wearing his exploration suit, is he a different character? When Blade was wearing the Ronin costume, was he a different character? When Falcon started dressing like Captain America, did he gain new powers? The answer to all of these is "No". A different costume does not necessarily mean that a character is different or has new powers. Other than that, what do you have? Some comparisons that don't work because you're comparing two different things! You say he's different because he could backhand Superman into the moon but was killed by the Outlaws, but that's a faulty comparison. Did he try to backhand any of them to the moon and fail? No, he didn't. You know how I know, because, as I've said a bunch of times (all of which you've completely ignored) he DIDN'T ACTUALLY ATTACK THEM AT ALL. Your comparison might work if in one instance he could backhand Superman into the moon but in another he failed to do so against any of the Outlaws, but that never happened. There again youre confusing what Helspont DIDN'T do with something he COULDN'T do. Just because he didn't hit any of them and send them flying doesn't mean he couldn't. And do you honestly think Helspont, who was able to blast Superman through multiple mountains, couldn't smack the Red Hood into the moon? Really? And if the part you want to focus on is that he was "killed", it still doesn't help your case. He was defeated in one instance by weapons that were not in the other instance, so no comparison can be made. It's not like he died to them in one place but shrugged them off in another. You cannot make a comparison with a single event. What else you got? That he was "unable to put Superman down" in issue 8? I'll repeat what I've said before, he didn't want to. When he incapacitates Superman with one blast, he calls that "unfortunate". He tells Superman he doesn't want to kill him both in that issue and later on. So by his own admission, he doesn't want to kill Superman and he didn't even want to knock him out. Again, Helspont not doing something doesn't mean he can't do it, just that he didn't in that instance. You like trying to find ways to brush aside the fact that Helspont incapacitated Superman with a single blast because it clearly shows that he did beat Superman and could do so again. And the last thing, that Helspont references that he empowers his henchmen in the annual, is also not evidence that Helspont is a different character. Characters can show different powers at different times without them BEING different characters. Superman doesn't use all his powers in all his fights, does that make him a different character? No. But imagine for a second if I humored you and applied your "logic" across the board. Helspont's costume is different against the Outlaws than it was in his first fight with Superman, check his cape. Helspont also didn't blast energy out of his face or use his telekinesis when he fought the Outlaws. He also didn't use any form of psychic attack, whether purely telepathic or biological. By your own standards, he must be a different Helspont. He didn't use the same powers and his costume was different, so he can't POSSIBLY be the same. In which case, your attempt to use that low showing to suggest he couldn't beat Superman, can be completely ignored, since its a different character.

But let's get back to reality. Helspont wearing a different costume does not make him a different character. Helspont not attacking someone doesn't make him a different character. Helspont being defeated by a weapon that he never went up against again doesn't make him a different character. Helspont not beating Superman in a fight doesn't make him a different character.

Whichever way you want to play it, Superman loses. You can either admit he's the same character throughout, in which case his multiple defeats of Superman show him to be superior, or you can continue to pretend that him acting a little differently in different situations means he's an altogether different character, in which case his appearance in outlaws would also be a different character and not useful for the case you're attempting to make.

The next embarrassing piece of your argument is that Superman was incapacitated in their first fight because Helspont use a biological weapon against him, not because of the energy blast he hit him with. Before we even get into it, why does that matter? The end result is that Helspont incapacitated Superman. How he did it doesn't really matter. He did it himself with abilities and resources that he has. Regardless of how you try to break and apart and spin that fact, it remains, Helspont incapacitated Superman.

But let's actually look at it. You say the biological weapon was the only reason Superman couldn't get up. However, when we see the end of issue 7, there's absolutely no evidence of a biological weapon. Helspont blasts Superman with energy and Superman is down mumbling on the floor and unable to do anything to defend himself. If what you're saying is true and the biological weapon is the only reason he couldn't get up, then he'd have gotten up then since the weapon was nowhere in sight. Thus your claims are easily brushed aside. You keep trying to pretend the biological weapon was implanted into him thanks to the energy blast, but you fail to see how even if you were right, it wouldn't help your case because it would still be the case that Helspont incapacitated Superman with an attack. But let me just say, so you're not confused, you have no evidence (once again) to support your idea, that the biological weapon was implanted in Superman with the energy blast. You're still, incorrectly, operating under the assumption that what we see is the only thing that happened. Just because we see a blast doesn't mean everything that happened to Superman happened in that blast. Superman was incapacitated by the blast and Helspont, and I'm gonna paraphrase his own words here, realized he might have made an error so he used a common Daemonite technique to attempt to educate Superman. If the energy attack and the biological weapon were one and the same, Helspont could not have done the energy attack and then realized it was a mistake and tried to fix it with the biological weapon. That would be all one action. For them both to happen the way he described, the energy attack must have been separate from his attempts to make up for it. And that means that the energy attack was sufficient to incapacitate Superman on its own.

And I'll address the part you claim I'm ignoring all on its own so you can see I'm not skipping it (which you should already know since I've addressed it directly a number of times, but whatever). You continue to say that Helspont's other energy attacks weren't enough to harm Superman, and that's not at all surprising given the multiple times Helspont says he doesn't want to kill Superman. The one time he does incapacitate Superman with an energy attack, he says it was an "unfortunate outburst". An "unfortunate outburst" is not typically something you do again when you can help it. THAT'S why he doesn't drop Superman with energy blasts later, because he doesn't want to. When he chooses to use his energy attacks to stop Superman later in the annual, they work fine. That's not a contradiction in what his energy blasts can do, it's his control over his own powers. He can control what his energy does and how hard it hits. But since, as I've said, you can't seem to understand that a character using his powers one way doesn't mean that's the way their powers MUST be used in all situations, I doubt you'll understand that.

Lastly, your continued claim that Helspont was incapable of beating Superman in their mountaintop fight. Your support for this is that Helspont was "trying constantly" to beat Superman in their first fight, and since Superman could fly away at the end, Helspont "obviously" didn't succeed. That claim is provably untrue though, and it's easily demonstrated by looking at their fight. If, as you say, Helspont were "trying constantly" to beat Superman, he'd never have left Superman simply laid out any of the times he did. As Helspont goes on to say later, he's killed Kryptonians before, he's fought them under a yellow sun. He knows about their strength. Someone with the knowledge Helspont has wouldn't assume Superman was defeated just because he'd been thrown into a mountain. So all the times Helspont downs him but doesn't follow up with anything are examples of him not "trying constantly" to win the battle. As I said before, when he incapacitates Superman with an energy blast and he's lying on the floor, does Helspont take that opportunity to finish him off (whether that's kill him or anything else)? No. He educates him. When Superman is caught in a nightmare scenario and completely unaware of what's going on in the real world and Helspont is standing right next to him, does Helspont try and finish him off? No. When they leave Helspont's base and Helspont sucker punches Superman with an enormous boulder and he's briefly trapped, does Helspont try and finish him off? No, he continues talking to Superman, actually asking him questions because he's trying to have a conversation. When Helspont hammers Superman with hit after hit, energy blast, mountain top, then more energy blasts, and Superman flies away and Helspont thinks he's leaving, does Helspont try to finish him off? No. He doesn't care if Superman leaves because his goal isnt to win a fight, it's to plant ideas in Superman's head. When he blasts Superman through multiple mountains with a single energy attack, does he follow that up and try to finish Superman off? Again, no, he does not. He lets him sit there smoking in a crater, because he doesn't care about if Superman gets up or not. All these times when Helspont has Superman at a disadvantage and he doesn't do anything with it. That's not the behavior of someone"trying constantly" to defeat their opponent. What's it more in line with, you ask? It's more like Helspont showing Superman his place but allowing him to go on and protect humanity for Helspont, which is exactly what Helspont says later. Helspont doesn't care if Superman thinks he won that fight or got away from it, his purpose was to let Superman know that he existed and then let him think about the things he was saying. Superman flew away knowing that he hadn't defeated Helspont so Helspont got exactly what he wanted.

Now I expect this all to fly right over your head.

How about this, since you say I ignore your posts, I'd like you to go through my last two posts, find all the questions I've asked (those sentences that end with "?") and answer them directly. In full sentences please.

Moderator
#7 Posted by Buckshot (19356 posts) - - Show Bio

@toptom said:

@buckshot:

Now i am saying again that there are 2 version of Helspont,such a thing was never stated but it is still obvious nevertheless: there are this two bad guys which have different strength,a different appearance and even different size; the helspont in the annual was clearly much bigger and powerful that the one we've seen in rhato or in the early issues of Superman.Now that guy IS superior to Superman in every way so i think it is even futile to bring him to this fight if we are talking about the other version of him.

Then regarding that blast ,first of all we've never seen Superman passing out,he is on the ground,he has a nightmare which was caused by that little being inside him which was also stated to be the cause of that "low-grade cerebral shunt",litterally. Helspont says he has used it on Superman in order to make him see how the world can easily turn against him but,he also said that he has used it because he did know that his kryptonian physiology could exspell that parasite as soon Superman rejected those visions.So now that Superman knows how to break free every possible attack of the same kind may be useless. However Helspont just wanted to show him that possible scenario and nothing else, infact his other energy attacks in the real fight were completely useless. All of them and not just a blast or two.Plus we don't know how much time Superman was trapped in that nightmare but the important thing is that he wasn't dreaming thanks to the force of the blast in se but thanks to the being which has caused the cerebral shunt,which had to be implanted with the blast or,like helspont said "it was a byoproduct of the process".Still this whole argument is useless: Helspont had a whole, long (even longer that the usual standard in comics),fight to put Superman down but he couldn't make it. Can't you see a little contradiction in what are you saying? If he could knock him out with "zero effort" in a single blast, why in the next comic (with the same author,the same artist and right in the same story) he couldn't perform again such a feat despite the fact he had used multiple blasts (which seemed far stronger that the previous one) and even his telekinesis? Lets be honest here,THIS version of helspont tried everything he had against Superman,all of his powers,but in the end he couldn't put a scracth on him just like Superman couldn't damage him but at least he wasn't the one to leave the fight. About the fact that Superman is naive...well that is true,he always holds back against his enemies just like he was holding back with Helspont but of course the same can't be told for him .Still, here, this isn't going to play in your favour ,since now Superman is supposed to be bloodlusted and if we look at this argument again we can easily see that it isn't really helping helspont's cause: i mean, he couldn't even put down a superman that wasn't going all out.

Lets make a quick recap of this fight which can be confirmed by everyone who has read this issue:at first Superman smacked helspont into a mountain then helspont used an energy attack and his telekinesis against Superman (he did bring a whole mountain against him) then he used again his energy blasts.Finally Superman (still undamaged) started to use his brain after realizing that a front assault may be almost useless against him,so he used his speed: he seemed to fly away (here helspont made his first mistake by thinking that superman was leaving the fight) just to hit him from behind,then he began pummeling him. Helspont had to simulate a cheyne-stokes respiration to stop that assault .Such a "strategy" could work just with an holding back supes and while Superman was actually worried for him he blasted him in the face.Sure ,he was right in front of him but if you won't consider this a sucker-blast then nothing will change your mind.Probably the other people that may have read the issue could have a different opinion. However at this point helspont believed for the second time that he had won the fight just to be surpised a moment later ( his face isn't much expressive but we can clearly see such an emotion in that panel ) when Superman was still up and ready to fight...and above all still undamaged.This was a nice fight and above all it was a STALEMATE but Superman was the only one concerned about his opponent's healt,he didn't need to use a squalid trick to land his best shot,he wasn't the one who understimeted his enemy for two times and he wasn't the one to leave the fight. Now you say that he wanted to leave Superman alive,and that is true,at least for the other version ,but it is also true that this helspont couldn't put him down during a whole fight and defeating him was clearly his goal since he thought he accomplished it in multiple occasions.You have the ability to look at a fight by looking only at the things you want to notice,just at the things that are usefull to prove your point while ignoring completely the rest.Now i don't think that you believe to the things you are saying but i believe that you are simply very good in presenting a fight in a different light to support your argument and the weaker your argument is the more distorted your view of the things becomes.

And lets skip the fact that Superman performed better against the outlaws than this Helspont did,at least he has shrugged off the Starfire blasts. So in the end,this helspont has proved that he can't put Superman down while the other one easily stomps him...at least against this new-52 Superman (he may be way stronger than his previous self,but his older version has way better durability and streaking feats so i dunno)

You can claim its two different versions of Helspont, but you have nothing to support it. The best you can provide is a costume difference which can be chalked up the artist's preference. If you want an in-universe explanation it could be as simple as when Helspont goes down to Earth he wears the gold armor but when he's on his ship (as he was in the annual) he wears his "regular" clothes. For some reason you seem to want to say the two appearances by Helspont are different characters, but that's not supportable by the text. If you want an easy explanation for any power level difference, it's given to you when Superman says multiple times in the annual that Helspont was holding back. Why you insist that there's multiple versions of the character when you have no proof for it and a better explanation has been given is beyond me.

But I'll entertain your weak arguments... You don't need to see Superman passed out on the ground to know that Helspont had him at a severe disadvantage. Helspont floored him with a blast and at that point Superman is vulnerable on the ground for an undetermined amount of time. He is so vulnerable in fact that Helspont is able to further interfere with him without any response from Superman. I don't know how in your head Helspont being able to do whatever he wants to Superman's body laying on the ground doesn't equate to Helspont being in a position of superiority. If Superman knocked out Helspont with a punch and Helspont was on the floor and so unresponsive that Superman could just laser vision him all he wanted, wouldn't that suggest Superman was in a position of superiority? Answer that. Because if not, then there's no reason for further discussion (because you can't figure out when a character has lost a fight), and if so, that's virtually the position Helspont had Superman in and theres also no reason for further discussion. Also, the claim that "now that Superman knows how to break free every possible attack of the same kind may be useless" is utterly false. You have nothing to prove that's remotely true (its funny how your inability to support your claims with evidence seems to be a recurring theme) and in fact, the annual shows Superman is still susceptible to Helspont's psychic attacks, shown both when he shares the pain of all the people he's killing with Superman, and when he relays his backstory so Superman understands what's going on.

You seem to misunderstand both the points I am making and the comic. I never said he was dreaming because of the blast. I said he was incapacitated by the blast, and in that vulnerable position Helspont started to mess with his mind. You're right though, the argument is useless because everything we need to know is put out there right at the start. Helspont has an outburst and Superman gets incapacitated in one hit.

As for your next bit, I'll leave it intact and let the comic itself respond to you:

Helspont had a whole, long (even longer that the usual standard in comics),fight to put Superman down but he couldn't make it. Can't you see a little contradiction in what are you saying? If he could knock him out with "zero effort" in a single blast, why in the next comic (with the same author,the same artist and right in the same story) he couldn't perform again such a feat despite the fact he had used multiple blasts (which seemed far stronger that the previous one) and even his telekinesis? Lets be honest here,THIS version of helspont tried everything he had against Superman,all of his powers,but in the end he couldn't put a scracth on him just like Superman couldn't damage him but at least he wasn't the one to leave the fight.

Let's scratch our heads and try to figure this out. If Helspont could incapacitate Superman in one shot (which he undeniably did on panel), why couldn't he beat him in a fight?

"Was he HOLDING BACK before? If your first encounter was just some kind of TEST..."
"Nor do I want to see you dead..."

So let's recap. Helspont incapacitated Superman with one shot on panel after what he said was an "unfortunate outburst". When he's later more in control of himself he didn't incapacitate Superman. Superman later sees him and the text we're given through him is that Helspont was holding back and testing him. This is later supported by Helspont AGAIN incapacitating Superman in one shot. Then after that he keeps Superman on his knees and completely unable to do anything but listen to him. And what does he tell him then? That he doesn't want to kill Superman, though he does occasionally need to be tamed, something that Helspont had once found mildly amusing. So, to recap the recap. Helspont doesn't want to kill Superman but he's shown the ability to do so multiple times. There's no contradiction in what I've said. Helspont not wanting to kill Superman is the perfect explanation for his outburst incapacitating Superman but Helspont not actually killing him when they fought. Tell me, is this a thing you can't understand? Or is it just willful ignorance?

Also, you say "at least Superman didn't leave the fight", but think for a second please. Superman didn't even have the OPTION to leave the fight because he was laid out cold on the floor having his mind messed with and his body violated. Tell me, what's more impressive, winning a fight that your opponent can easily walk away from, or beating your opponent so badly they can't even move or stop your from doing anything else to them?

The "holding back" argument doesn't help Superman because you can't hold back your durability. Helspont incapacitated Superman with one blast. Whether or not Superman was holding back doesn't factor into it at all. As for the idea that "the same can't be said for Helspont", that's just untrue and (once again) unsupported by the text. Not only is it put forth in the annual that Helspont was in fact holding back and that Helspont doesn't actually want Superman dead, but in the issue itself Helspont says the attack that incapacitated Superman was an "unfortunate outburst". Him hitting Superman like that wasn't what he intended from their meeting. That was the only time in their fight that Helspont WASN'T holding back, and what happened? Superman was laid out on the floor.

I don't need a recap of the following fight because it doesn't matter. It's established that Helspont doesn't want to kill Superman so a fight that has Helspont not killing Superman doesn't provide new information. You're going to try and use that fight to say that Helspont couldn't beat Superman, but its explicitly stated that it's not that he CAN'T but that he doesn't WANT TO. And it's not just that he says it later in the annual, he even suggests it during their first fight when he says that Superman is going to serve him whether he wants to or not. That doesn't really work if he kills Superman, right? That he CAN beat Superman but doesn't WANT to is also supported by the fact that he's shown on multiple instances that he can incapacitate Superman in one hit. He's done that in both "versions" and it's something Superman has NEVER shown. You say I'm ignoring parts of the fight I don't like but I'm not, I just take the fight for what it is, something that Helspont didn't care that much about since he didn't want to kill Superman. You're the one ignoring the multiple times Helspont has easily incapacitated Superman and that Superman has never pulled off the same against Helspont. If Helspont wanted Superman dead, he'd have killed him when he incapacitated him at the start. What did he do instead? He educated him. He had Superman at his mercy but he would rather talk to him than kill him. That should tell you everything about how seriously he was taking their fight. Only further supported by the fact that he did the exact same thing when they met again later. The history of Superman and Helspont is of Helspont one-shotting Supes and then talking to him instead of killing him when he has him at his mercy.

Also you're stuck on Helspont tricking Superman as if it suggests that Helspont couldn't continue the fight without that ploy. Helspont didn't NEED to trick Superman. Superman had been completely ineffectual at doing any damage. Helspont wasn't hurt at all. Why would he NEED to trick Superman to get in an attack? He'd shown multiple times before that he could hit Superman without trying. He blasted him with energy multiple times, hit him with a boulder, and smacked him upside the head with the top of a mountain. Helspont didn't NEED to trick Superman to get an opening. Still don't believe me? Helspont was laughing when he tricked Superman. He didn't get Superman's guard down and hit him as soon as Superman laid off him. He laughed, for a while actually, then stopped and SPOKE to Superman before attacking him. He wasn't tricking Superman because he NEEDED to, he was doing it because it AMUSED him. That's typically what laughter suggests. And if the laughter wasn't enough to indicate it, he says it clearly on the page of the annual I posted above.He says the beating of Superman, taming him, reminding him of his place, was something that was amusement for him. You can call my view distorted if you like, but its perfectly in line with everything that's been shown. Helspont his the ability to incapacitate (and kill) Superman effortlessly, as shown multiple times, but he doesn't fully exercise that ability because he doesn't want Superman dead.

As for this Outlaws thing, it's meaningless when you have multiple instances of Helspont one-shotting Superman, which is the actual fight we're talking about. But if you insist on comparing with the Outlaws, I'm just going to ask, when Superman fought the Outlaws, did he actually defend himself or fight back at any point? Because Helspont didn't. Helspont literally sat there at took everything they threw at him without fighting back. And when Superman fought the Outlaws, were they using Helspont's weapons? Because that's what brought Helspont down, not the Outlaws themselves. And since you want to talk about Starfire, Helspont shrugged off Starfire's blasts also.

That's what happened when the Outlaws took on Helspont. Helspont shrugged off not only Starfire's attacks but everyone else's. He didn't even let out one of those silly grunts that every character lets out at when the slightest bit of damage goes their way. The only thing you get from Helspont is a laugh. Just like with Superman. He calls them children, their attacks adorable, and he laughs. That's how Helspont dealt with the Outlaws, not the weapons he brought to the fight or the henchman (and let's not here, he's made it a point that he shares his own power with his henchmen), since Superman didn't engage with those, but he did perfectly fine against the Outlaws themselves.

So in the end,this helspont has proved that he can't put Superman down

Simply wrong.

That's 1
That's 2
That's 3

That's every instance of Helspont effortlessly incapacitating Superman (the third one has a page missing in the middle where Helspont is talking but since you can't see Superman on his knees I skipped it), including their earlier encounter which you seem to believe, despite an utter lack of evidence, is another version of Helspont. Superman has not one example going the other way. This is what Superman's opinion on Helspont is.

Moderator
#8 Posted by Buckshot (19356 posts) - - Show Bio

@toptom said:
@buckshot said:
@allstarsuperman said:

@buckshot: its written by the same writer. It should have just as much weight to it IMHO. Not to mention Jurgens wrote that Superman beat Helspont. And lobdell retconned that into "he was holding back".

Just because something is written by the same person doesn't mean it wasn't bad once. Are you seriously implying that because it's the same writer it's all automatically good? That no writer can EVER contradict or undermine their own work years later by writing something that's inconsistent with it? Really? Anyway, as I pointed out in my post, even IF you give it any weight, all you're "giving weight" to is the fact that Helspont was largely unharmed by The Outlaws' attacks, and they only beat him when they used his own weaponry while he basically refused to fight him back. I'm assuming in this fight Helspont's actually going to try to beat his opponent, right? And I'll also go ahead and assume Superman isn't armed with Helspont's weapons, is that also fair? If so, if even one of those is accurate (and both are), these are two completely different fights and nothing from Outlaws matters since none of it is applicable here. So give it as much weight as you like, it doesn't change anything. What IS applicable and what DOES change things, is a clear example of Helspont easily manhandling Superman and knocking him out cold with a backhand. So I'll ask again, why ignore something that directly relates to the fight in favor of something that doesn't? Why put the focus on a fight where Helspont literally doesn't fight back (and only loses because of his own tech) instead of fights where Helspont actually uses his powers on Superman and instantly wins? I am curious about your answer.

As for the first fight, whether there was a retcon or not is largely irrelevant because even taken on its own the original fight shows Helspont's superiority when using his abilities. Superman struggled with Helspont's henchman construct, and when he came across Helspont, Helspont knocked him out with an energy blast with zero effort. (Hey, that's another time when Helspont easily knocks Superman out, almost as if his ability to do so is consistent throughout writers and appearances.) The only time it looks like Helspont is losing is later when they physically fight, and he immediately follows up with laughter, because he's playing games with Superman. He pretends he's hurt and Superman thinks he hit him too hard and he literally busts out laughing and telling Superman how naive he is. Helspont dominates him all through that fight until the end, but what happens at the end?.Superman blows up the mountain, can't find Helspont, and then flies away knowing he didn't beat him (yeah, that's in his internal monologue). If anything, Superman blowing up the mountain while yelling "Down does not mean out!" is a clear indication that it applies to both characters. Or does it only count when Superman is the one that gets back up from being beaten down? What I'm saying is, Helspont has easily dominated Superman with physical strength, mental attacks, and energy attacks in their fights. Superman shows up, Helspont drops him with an energy attack, Helspont beats him into submission with psychic attacks, or Helspont drops him with a slap. What's consistent is Helspont being Superman's superior. There were only two times when Superman looked good against Helspont, once when Helspont was literally tricking him into thinking he was doing well right before laughing that Superman would even believe that, and then when Superman blew up a large area and then couldn't find Helspont. I feel like Helspont effortlessly one-shotting him multiple times is far more significant than Superman incorrectly thinking he was winning or not being able to find his opponent.

We can argue that it wasn't helspont to knock supes down but that being which was inside him...but even with that i don't think that this is a good example: Superman was still talking (barely) when he was on the ground and after that nightmare (we don't know if it was just an instant or not) he is up without even a scratch on him.So it is possible that he wasn't even koed by that being.Then when they were fighting each other none of them was able to damage the other ,but, Superman was the one who was worried about his opponent's healt and not viceversa,and Helspont was the one who pretended to have breathing problems in order to have an advantage when he needed it.Then helspont was the one forced to leave the fight after he wrongly believed in his victory (just because he sucker-blasted superman) and after having lost his secret base.

Now i am not saying that the new-52 can defeat the Helspont we've seen in the annual,he absolutely can't (and i think that he is the real helspont,at least i hope so) but i don't see one single valid reason because he shouldn't beat the"golden" version of helspont,the weaker one,who had some trouble even with the outlaws when Superman didn't,the one that was being pushed back by the Starfire blasts when Superman could take them just fine.This helspont will lose the other won't.

The argument that Helspont didn't knock out Superman with his blast is a weak one, but you can make it if you like. You suggest that it wasn't Helspont's attack that brought Superman down, but the creature inside him, but that's worthless to your case for a number of reasons. For one, the order of events as presented don't support that position. Helspont says that after his outburst (the energy blast that floored Superman) he "realized he might have given him the wrong impression" and so he implanted the "bug" (Helspont calls it a "low grade cerebral shunt") to show him a different future. There is nothing at all suggesting that the bug was in Superman before the attack and nothing at all suggesting that the bug took him down. What was shown to bring him down was Helspont's energy attack (which is consistent with their later encounter in the annual, where Helspont is able to completely restrain Superman with nothing but his energy). Another reason the claim that it was the bug that took Superman down, and not Helspont's attack, doesn't help Superman's case at all is that the bug was made by Helspont. So even if it wasn't Helspont's energy attack that brought Superman down, it was still another of Helspont's attacks. Either way, Helspont brought down Superman easily. As for the idea that it's not a good example of Superman being taken down because he mumbled something, because we don't know how long he was down, and because there's no physical damage, we'll just look at those one at a time. First, Superman mumbling. That in no way means Superman wasn't downed easily or that its not a good example of how easily Helspont can drop Superman. With a single energy attack Helspont left Superman on the ground. He was able to mumble, sure, but was he able to fight? No. He wasn't even able to stand. His ability to say one word doesn't mean anything. When compared with the annual, Helspont backhands Superman into the moon. Superman gets up and has a whole page of words (technically thoughts, but its the moon, he cant talk there), but then he passes out from the concussion he just got. So yeah, words mean very little. Second, not knowing how long he was down. You're right, we don't know how long he was down, but we do know it was long enough for Helspont to psychically induce a "nightmare scenario" and grow an organism inside him. So while we don't know how long Superman was out, it was long enough to leave him open to further interference or attack, and that's really all that matters. If he was out for a minute or an hour, doesn't matter, he was completely unable to defend himself. Third, the lack of physical damage. I'm going to change that, there were no outward signs of damage. Clearly there was damage if Superman ended up laid out on the floor unable to defend himself. We may not see it on the outside, but that doesn't mean he wasn't hurt. Again I'll point to the annual. Superman was hit so hard he got a concussion and was left unconscious, but there was no outward sign of physical damage. So all in all, while you might want to say that encounter was not good evidence that Helspont can drop Superman, I don't think that's supported by the text. What we see is that with one attack Helspont left Superman laid out on the floor, completely vulnerable and unable to defend himself long enough for him to be hit by more attacks and have his mind taken over. Superman's "victory" over Helspont doesn't even come close. It takes Superman a whole battle to do anything to Helspont, and even then, when he's able to muster one attack that actually does something, Helspont is not left in a vulnerable state and open to attack. So to compare more directly. Helspont hits Superman with one attack and Supes is down and unable to do anything. Superman needs a whole battle and when he's done Helspont is still conscious and able to leave when he feels like it. This clearly points to Helspont's superiority.

You only have 2 things left in your post to use to give Superman any sort of advantage and even those are weak. One is that Superman worries about Helspont, with Helspont feigning injury, and that Helspont is "forced to leave". Again, we'll go one by one. The first one though, I don't see the point of bringing it up. Why does Superman worrying about Helspont matter? Superman is a good guy and we get to see his internal monologue. Helspont would never worry about Superman because he's a bad guy and even if he did we'd never see it because we don't get to see his thoughts like we do Superman's. It's a poor comparison to make because it can only be made in Superman's favor. Also, if Superman is worrying that he hit Helspont to hard because helspont TRICKED him, that's not really a marker of Superman's superiority. It just shows that he's as naive and Helspont said he was and falls for simple ploys. As for Helspont pretending he was hurt, that's not a mark against him. He was proving to Superman that mercy isn't useful in a battle, he says it on the next page. Helspont being able to trick Superman just shows he's a smarter, better, combatant. It MIGHT look bad for him if he had actually been hurt, but there's not even a shred of evidence to support that. The last bit is Helspont being "forced" to leave and losing his base, and that might look bad if the only thing going on was this fight, but Helspont is operating on a higher level than Superman. His mountain base isn't all he has, in comparison to his ship we later see, it's nothing, Superman even says as much. And given the context of their later exchange, where Helspont says he doesn't want to kill Superman because he wants Superman to keep protecting humans for him, Helspont choosing to leave their fight and letting Superman think he won, makes a lot of sense. Also, this idea that Helspont "sucker-blasted" Superman is sort of ridiculous. Helspont blasted him with energy from his face, which is something he had done mere moments before. If Superman was caught off guard by an attack that had been used on him, not once, but twice before in that very fight, it's his own fault.

Every time Superman has come up against Helspont, he's been put down in one attack. No matter which "version" is being considered, Helspont has been able to one-shot Superman, knocking him right out, whereas the best Superman could do was blow up Helspont's mountain base and let him escape.

Moderator
#9 Posted by Buckshot (19356 posts) - - Show Bio

@buckshot: its written by the same writer. It should have just as much weight to it IMHO. Not to mention Jurgens wrote that Superman beat Helspont. And lobdell retconned that into "he was holding back".

Just because something is written by the same person doesn't mean it wasn't bad once. Are you seriously implying that because it's the same writer it's all automatically good? That no writer can EVER contradict or undermine their own work years later by writing something that's inconsistent with it? Really? Anyway, as I pointed out in my post, even IF you give it any weight, all you're "giving weight" to is the fact that Helspont was largely unharmed by The Outlaws' attacks, and they only beat him when they used his own weaponry while he basically refused to fight him back. I'm assuming in this fight Helspont's actually going to try to beat his opponent, right? And I'll also go ahead and assume Superman isn't armed with Helspont's weapons, is that also fair? If so, if even one of those is accurate (and both are), these are two completely different fights and nothing from Outlaws matters since none of it is applicable here. So give it as much weight as you like, it doesn't change anything. What IS applicable and what DOES change things, is a clear example of Helspont easily manhandling Superman and knocking him out cold with a backhand. So I'll ask again, why ignore something that directly relates to the fight in favor of something that doesn't? Why put the focus on a fight where Helspont literally doesn't fight back (and only loses because of his own tech) instead of fights where Helspont actually uses his powers on Superman and instantly wins? I am curious about your answer.

As for the first fight, whether there was a retcon or not is largely irrelevant because even taken on its own the original fight shows Helspont's superiority when using his abilities. Superman struggled with Helspont's henchman construct, and when he came across Helspont, Helspont knocked him out with an energy blast with zero effort. (Hey, that's another time when Helspont easily knocks Superman out, almost as if his ability to do so is consistent throughout writers and appearances.) The only time it looks like Helspont is losing is later when they physically fight, and he immediately follows up with laughter, because he's playing games with Superman. He pretends he's hurt and Superman thinks he hit him too hard and he literally busts out laughing and telling Superman how naive he is. Helspont dominates him all through that fight until the end, but what happens at the end?.Superman blows up the mountain, can't find Helspont, and then flies away knowing he didn't beat him (yeah, that's in his internal monologue). If anything, Superman blowing up the mountain while yelling "Down does not mean out!" is a clear indication that it applies to both characters. Or does it only count when Superman is the one that gets back up from being beaten down? What I'm saying is, Helspont has easily dominated Superman with physical strength, mental attacks, and energy attacks in their fights. Superman shows up, Helspont drops him with an energy attack, Helspont beats him into submission with psychic attacks, or Helspont drops him with a slap. What's consistent is Helspont being Superman's superior. There were only two times when Superman looked good against Helspont, once when Helspont was literally tricking him into thinking he was doing well right before laughing that Superman would even believe that, and then when Superman blew up a large area and then couldn't find Helspont. I feel like Helspont effortlessly one-shotting him multiple times is far more significant than Superman incorrectly thinking he was winning or not being able to find his opponent.

Moderator
#10 Edited by Buckshot (19356 posts) - - Show Bio

@allstarsuperman said:

Helspont was recently killed by the Outlaws, he gets pummeled here.

In reality, Helspont was "killed" by his own weapons, or the weapons he brought with his army. He took some attacks from Starfire and her sister and other than some superficial damage, wasn't really harmed. It was the tech that belonged to him that took him out of the fight. So even if this obvious jobbing were worth anything, which it's not, saying he got killed by the Outlaws is a bit disingenuous, as it wasn't their powers or abilities that did anything. What's also relevant (and being completely ignored) is that Helspont didn't actually fight back at all. Other than one punch to the ground, not even at any of them directly, he didn't go on the offensive. He tanks the whole teams best shots without taking damage then brushes them off with an easy AOE at the ground. He doesn't even start to get hurt until Komand'r betrays him and the others get some shots in, but even then, before getting blasted by his weapons, the only damage he gets are some burns and his clothes being destroyed, and he's still doesn't actually fight back using any of his many powers. So really, the best you can say from that incident is that the Outlaws beat Helspont, but it took betrayal from his lieutenant, his own weaponry, and him not fighting back at all. That's a little different from "The Outlaws killed him." Furthermore, the massive jobbing shown in that issue doesn't negate the fact that Helspont knocked Superman into the moon and out cold with an easy backhand.

So tell me, why are we ignoring this in favor of the poorly written Outlaws showing?

Moderator