Lvenger

Seconded.

Nice to get a high tier BOW for a change but I guess street level BOW seem more popular consistently. Never mind, next week's BOW should interest some specific niche debaters on CV in the video game department ;)

If you hadn't made an attempt to bad mouth me, I wouldn't have brought up those facts. As for me not knowing Aquaman, that's another false accusation since there are several New 52 Aquaman threads I've commented on including two Battle of the Week articles, Aquaman vs Thing and Aquaman vs Red Hulk. I've already said I'll move on from this since it's the arguments, reasoning and evidence being discussed which are more important considerations.

I do state he's noticeably inferior in strength and power and feats support that position, not suggest otherwise. I can prove all day long how Superman outclasses Aquaman's physicals, including his best high end feats in every way but feel free to show how evidence suggests otherwise.

There's a little room to debate in this match up because speed is equalised but to be honest, it's more the stubbornness and refusal of the Aquaman crowd to see that Aquaman is still outclassed by Superman in many respects. You've pounced on this thread with the speed equalised condition without recognising the continued massive gap between Superman and Aquaman in spite of the removal of speed blitzing.

Ah your reductionist fallacies continue to fall flat in disproving the validity of my arguments. So Superman survives nuclear missiles, a multi mountain busting attack and a planetary explosion but lightning KOs him? Watch out everyone, Livewire's now Superman's most dangerous enemy! Your repeated failures to see where your arguments don't make sense is costing you heavily in your position's credibility. You failed to counter the logical contradictions in your scans when the events of Thrones of Atlantis contradict themselves, you failed to recognise the absurdity of Superman being KOed by lightning when he's tanked other bolts of lightning in his New 52 comics and there were many users in the previous thread who did not believe you that Aquaman could beat Hyperion. And he's weaker than New 52 Superman in terms of feats. Ultimately, your biggest grievance isn't that your science is inaccurate, your major debating flaw in this paragraph is trying to assert that lightning can KO Superman when I have shown evidence which proves otherwise. I have yet to see any credible answer from you which shows how Orm's lightning and Major Disaster's lightning are so different.

Gallery

Indeed, that argument has been presented very truthfully on this thread and that proof is really all that is needed for Superman to win. Superman is stronger, hits harder and can take more punishment than Aquaman can. He's moved heavier objects, punched more forcefully and withstood greater attacks than Aquaman has on innumerous occasions. How does Aquaman defeat someone who's so physically superior to himself? How does Superman's big strength advantage not amount to a win?

Aquaman is only more versatile in that he currently has more combat applicable powers than Superman thanks to Poseidon's blessing. Once Cullen Bunn's run finishes, Aquaman goes back to being just a super strong brick who can talk to fish and Superman gets his full powers back. At that point Superman will be more versatile than Aquaman once again. Versatility is only a temporary advantage and nor does it mean Aquaman can harm Superman with his current powers. I've rigorously debunked your fallacious lightning defence several times in two threads at this point, ice attacks can be melted with heat vision and earth control is useless against Superman. In contrast, Superman's heat vision has a stronger chance of hurting Aquaman and his freeze breath can halt Aquaman in his tracks. Raw power>versatility in some cases.

Freeze breath is more than a good point, it's a potent ranged and AOE attack that Superman has employed to great effect. New 52 Superman has used it 9 times mid battle and its range can freeze entire sections of jungle, an entire city block even after Superman was weakened by red sun aliens and can freeze a body of water large enough to hold up the Burj Khalifa, the tallest building in the world from falling over. What has Aquaman got to suggest he can power through it?

Topo is the only sea creature who would have any effect on Superman, if other sea creatures have been ignored, it's with good reason since they can do nothing to Superman. I don't know how many times Aquaman has summoned Topo in character so I would like that question to be answered. In any case, Superman can either overpower it like he one shotted the head of a giant undead Kryptonian dragon in Superman #13. Note its size compared to the buildings, Topo's size isn't much greater than that if it is at all larger than this Kryptonian beast.

Gallery

Or he can blitz Topo or throw him away like he did to the subterranean creature Baka in Action Comics #26.

Gallery

As for the trident, you amongst others are overrating its effectiveness and significance in changing the outcome of the battle greatly. As mentioned to you earlier on this page, "Your whole argument hinges on Aquaman fighting the likes of MMH and Darkseid before, and therefore he should beat Superman? That makes no sense." Besides, Superman has piercing resistance feats to indicate he could survive some stabs from the trident and has healed from damage he takes.

Hence, Aquaman is not being downplayed in this thread despite your disapproval that the majority don't have the same interpretation of Aquaman that you do. Aquaman is not being downplayed in contrast to Superman's power levels. It's those who feel Aquaman is capable of more than he's proven to be that are perpetuating the bigger falsehoods, Aquaman is still outclassed by Superman in a speed equalised battle and these arguments show how much of a stretch users can make a character out to be. Aquaman isn't strong enough, versatile enough or powerful enough to contend with Superman, reliable evidence and arguments will attest to that. At least Ashrym makes an effort to come up with nicely constructed arguments, yours on the other hand are not so well argued.

Yes but this just causes the less objectively minded posters to bicker about the outcome though, top rated or not I can't stop the Superman fanboys from claiming he blitzes all Hulks every time 10/10.

@ashrym: Yes you were right about the time in the UK, it was nearly midnight at the time I made those posts. Perhaps we'll have more amicable discussions at a more suitable time frame for each of us.

It's not just generally considered that Superman is stronger than Aquaman, it's wholeheartedly accepted as practically comic book law. Most comic book writers, including the writer responsible for Aquaman's strength boost Geoff Johns, would say that Superman is stronger than Aquaman. But based on their feats and showings, it is easy to show Superman is stronger and more invulnerable than Aquaman and that's all that is needed for him to claim victory even in a speed equalised match. I find it quite dubious that you and others are so willing to jump on the Aquaman bandwagon once Superman loses the speed edge since there's such a big gap in strength and power between the two in spite of them being in the same tier. Nonetheless, this time I'll nip your "Aquaman eliminated Superman in one blow" argument with more Superman specific evidence I forgot to bring up in the Hyperion vs Aquaman thread. This evidence being Superman tanking H'El's uppercut that sent him from the arctic into cis lunar orbit without Superman being KOed or hurt significantly.

Gallery

There's plenty more examples of this I can use to back my point up. All Aquaman did was accomplish a smaller version of these events and Superman was no worse for wear from both kinds of blows. Once his momentum was arrested, he flew back into battle. Thus, if Superman can tank harder blows from stronger characters than Aquaman, what do you find so valid about Aquaman's punch then?

I'll press on from the first part of your comment and address the second half. I'm willing to bring my knowledge about Superman and scans of his feats to the table, I did say to you on the other thread that I'd be willing to show how Superman could beat Aquaman even in a speed equalised fight and now I have the opportunity. In essence, I'm taking a guess that these are the arguments and positions you've adopted to defend your view that Aquaman is in with a shot;

1. Physical Comparibility - How do you prove that Aquaman has what it takes to contend with Superman's much greater raw strength, striking power and durability? Because despite insistence that Aquaman is on Wonder Woman's level, the feats gap between them and Superman is quite wide. I can show Superman trumping Aquaman's best physical feats on a consistent basis. That alone should be enough of an advantage to assure Superman's victory.
2. Trident - As always with the Aquaman camp you're overplaying the damage Aquaman did to Darkseid with that trident. It stabbed out his eye sure but did it do anything to stop him? Nope Darkseid still kicked the entire League's butts whilst blinded. All you're relying on is "Aquaman's trident hurt Darkseid so therefore it must be able to hurt Superman." Very obvious ABC logic that, even if true, does not constitute as big a game changer as you'd like to believe. Besides, Superman has piercing resistance feats durability to counter the trident.
3. Poseidon Amp - I don't remember seeing much of this being discussed in depth but this means Aquaman's trident isn't the same trident that pierced Darkseid so therefore it doesn't have the same piercing feats as his previous one unfortunately for you. Even with Aquaman's current powerset, how do Aquaman's new abilities affect Superman? And what answers are there for Aquaman's resistance against Superman's heat vision and freeze breath?
4. Aquatic Telepathy - Only one fish in the sea is actually useful for Aquaman to summon to fight Superman and before I prove how Superman beats him, I'd need proof of how many times Aquaman has summoned Topo before explaining how he doesn't turn Aquaman's tides of victory. Just because he's a big sea monster doesn't mean he's a match for Superman.

@reactor: I know, it'd be a nice feature to copy from Facebook onto forum boards wouldn't it? I'd share this post too if I could, this was a nice improvement over current Superman comics.

Wow Jash you're a mod now? That's awesome news, congrats on being able to wield the flag ban and the banhammer, use them wisely now ;)

@ashrym: The new poster comment was in reference to his misunderstanding of the battle forum rules and citing CAV victories and being in the HOF were in response to his poorly thought out accusations that my debating style was somehow poor in the field I'm considered an expert in. If I relied on accolades I wouldn't be a good debater and I don't need them to undermine his or your credibility, my arguments and evidence do just that by themselves. I'll get back to both replies in the morning as it's late where I am.

Though I'll forewarn you, I'm afraid I'll be very thorough when it comes to inaccurate arguments and flawed points and they're both present heavily in both your posts with characters I know a great deal about. Just a heads up.

@heavenlydarkdragon:

Here we go again...

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother, but let's do this.

You responded to me here and on the other thread which I have yet to get to answering, I didn't start this round of arguments this time. Only you know the answer.

Really! 22. Good for you. I'd think you'd be more my age 33, or higher. When I read your posts I notice two things, how well informed you are, and also how uptight your words come across. Like it's either your way or the highway.

Landis is doing things his way. I personally like it, because I can relate to what he writes about and how. He doesn't showcases Clark has the alien messiah that came to saves us poor humans from ourselves. But a boy, a alien boy at that, that most likely wants nothing more than to be just like everyone else.

That was close to my guess for your age, not quite but I was close I see. Anyway, I don't see how expressing my opinion makes me anymore uptight than anyone else who expresses their opinion. People are open to challenge other people's ideas and views and I respond to those same challenges on here and outside of the Internet too.

Yes indeed he is but my reason for questioning you in this respect is because you don't seem to be getting the relatability of Superman. By that I mean approving of Landis' way of making Superman relatable since he doesn't come off much like an alien boy who wants to be like everyone else. He comes off unpredictable, edgy and dare I say it unstable in all 3 issues thus far. Pre Flashpoint and even New 52 Superman as young boys and teenagers fit your description far better than Landis' approach does, young Clark was obviously not the alien messiah of humanity in his youth, but his character was on the right path to his adult life. This Clark is not however.

Maybe you're not looking hard enough. Or not even trying.

When Clark makes reference to that girl that got badly burned and how even making a collection of money they only managed to relief her suffering for a month, while there they were, eating food with gold flakes, that could have bought her cirurgy 3 times over. This to me shows the molding of the boy that will eventually become the man.

Congrats, you found one example to support your point. Doesn't change the fact that most of the issue was spent on party boy Clark, drunk Clark, wasted Clark and one night stand Clark. If I want to read a party boy superhero, I'll read Iron Man or Green Arrow. Superman comics don't gel with this kind of approach to the character.

Also from all the people that where there he focused on Minerva. He could have gone wild and make the most of it, but he showed restraint in a place where there was anything but that.

Even what happened between him and Minerva, it will mark him now, by showing him that even those with monetary possession can be in many ways like him in terms of being good person's, and will mark him later on when he sees how down the wrong path Barb went. And that always makes people think about those things "Could I have done something? Didn't I tried enough?" these are things that he has Superman will one day think about.

Yes it has been done in many ways over the years. It's it worst? Not in my opinion. And of course you'll have your own like it's your right. Doesn't matter that we don't see eye to eye.

And I'm very grateful Landis didn't stoop that low, believe me. I wouldn't have been surprised if that's how he chose to present Clark in this issue, the man has a severely overrated grasp of Superman that people need to wake up about.

This isn't inherently wrong in itself nor did I have a huge problem with the aftermath of what I hear happened between Clark and Minerva, it was the before and during sequence I found to be tacky and unnecessary. Plus three more problems, the third one not being my criticism but some whiny female and feminist readers unfortunately. One this is a non canon series which will have no impact or bearing on the future of Superman comics. Two, Landis used a Wonder Woman villain to get this point across, not an original character or someone connected to Superman so it creates unnecessary problems for this Superman's future. And lastly, the whiny feminists got annoyed on Twitter that Clark acted like a dudebro and Cheetah was treated as a sexual conquest for Clark to further the narrative whilst they were drunk and not sound of mind. I don't like paying those kind of fans heed but it turns out Superman has a larger female fanbase than I thought and they were annoyed by this scene.

That's your go to for everything nowadays, of course we like our own stuff and don't see eye to eye on several matters but we have the right to different opinions, that is stating the obvious.

Out of character... I love it when people use this phrase about Clark when he's young. And especially when a different writer is writing about him.

So what is in character? Does such a thing even exist? Not for a good writer. A good writer gives us new things, show us new paths and new ways of doing things.

To quote what Sterling Gates tweeted "I really, really didn't need a comic where Superman gets stoned and has sex with a stranger." Who wanted to see a Superman story where this happened? I don't see how it's unfair to point out how

All nice sounding fluff but that's all it is I'm afraid, just fluff. It's not accurate for Superman's character to have him party it up on an exotic cruise ship, nor is it a sign of good writing to have Superman in a one night stand which nothing will come off and new paths such as Cheetah reduced to a one night fling and Deathstroke randomly showing up having nothing to do with the plot is not a new way of doing things that is very good storytelling.

Also saying that's out of character, is like saying "I know who Superman is, and he's not this" when Landis is not even writing about Superman but Clark.

It's like the person is thinking "We all know he's gonna become Superman, so why waste time with this." And that has created more problems than it should. Because people assume they know who and how Superman is/should be.

It's not why I read Superman comics in that case nor is it what I want to read in Clark, I believe that will be the more subjective answer you're looking for. Personal feedback's kind of important if you want to enjoy a certain comic or character or story.

Landis is guilty of that very same sin then, his videos reek of him claiming a greater understanding and interpretation of Superman when the reality is he misses certain traits and themes that are what makes the character tick.

Again you're assuming he doesn't have any inner struggles. He's Superman, Clark should eat inner struggles for breakfast, right... Wrong! Superman is all about inner struggles. Just because there's a Super before the Man, doesn’t mean he has less problems than humans. The day Superman loses his inner struggle, is the day he goes all kinds of wrong. Look at Injustice, Red Son and For Tomorrow, if you need evidence of that.

Just as you're yet again wrong in wrongly assuming I said Superman doesn't have any inner struggles. When this image popped up on the Vine, I happened to praise it for how I felt about the character.

Based on me agreeing with this, does that mean I think Superman has no inner struggles? That answer should be obvious now. What it means is that better writers than Landis have approached Superman's inner struggles in a way that doesn't demean the character or make him seem bad for doing what he does. Waid handled Superman's struggle to prove himself to Metropolis and the world far better than Landis has. Likewise, Loeb showed a much stronger depiction of Superman failing to save someone's life in Superman For All Seasons. Indeed Superman should not lose his inner struggles, I don't object to your statement.

And tell me, who hasn't Superman threatened at any given moment? Luthor, Brainiac, Darkseid, Maxima, Obsession, Toyman, Prankster, Eradicator, Bruce, Diana, Lois... The list goes on.

• Luthor knows how to push Superman's buttons better than anyone so he can get him to lash out.
• He hasn't threatened to murder or torture or vengeance on Brainiac though, the threats are to get Kandor back or to stop Brainiac's scheme or whatever he's planning.
• Darkseid you can have.
• Nothing violent or to cause suffering on Maxima.
• Even I needed to do a quick search of who she was to remind me, he was warning her to stop imitating him and to stop trying to get them together as a couple. Nothing violent yet again.
• Don't recall him threatening Toyman or Prankster.
• Eradicator's usually an artificial being when Superman's threatened him.
• The only example in character I can think of is that Superman said he wouldn't avoid Batman's punch.
• With Diana, the threats have been in conflicts of interest, not about causing each other harm.
• The Lois threats are gravely out of character moments, I'd have thought you'd know better than to pull up such inaccurate and poorly written instances. Though I'm not surprised you did.

The list does go on but there's usually context to it you conveniently ignore eh?

Actually Landis pretty much nailed it. It might not be like you and me didn't mainly lived our lives. I'm not super-rich and I'll go on a limb and assume you also aren't.

But I have rich friends. Quite wealthy in fact. And the times we all went partying rare was the time everyone didn't get wasted. They spent money in one day, like maybe you and me win it over more than the course of a entire year.

And that was a Bruce Wayne party. You know... The billionaire. And the super-rich don't know exactly have the same level of restraint as a regular person, working 60 to 80 hours a week. If they work 30 hours in one week it's a stretch in itself.

Yes he nailed the super rich self absorbed brats of this generation, what high company Landis is having Clark Kent keep. Truly an everyman of the people.

Good for you, you can feel as happy as you like about knowing how the 1% live. I don't disagree with your assertion, that is what the rich elite of society do. I didn't say Landis got them wrong, I said Landis got the story and character wrong by placing Superman in that and justifying it with a Who's Who of the DCU.

Point is that it's not an environment Clark Kent should be comfortable in nor is it really necessary for a Superman story, as Sterling Gates correctly pointed out above. I could have done without a Superman gets wasted and laid comic book in existence.

FYI. I was being sarcastic.

How could I not be. When you even reprove the fact of Clark having fun. Of acting his own age.

As was I poking at your tendency to make complaints in many Superman threads. I never reproved Clark having fun, I reproved a Superman story where he gets unnecessarily drunk and wasted. That's not fitting with the character's depiction, other superheroes can be used for that story if Landis wanted to tell it.

That's why I also used the 80 age thing. Again I knew you were not 80 but sometimes it seems all the youth and fun has been sucked from you. I'm not saying you're not fun, I don't know you that well. But you limit your options or at least what you're willing to accept within a comic book character, that sometimes you do pass on this vibe that, like I said before... My way or the highway.

No one can deny you do know your facts. No one. But aside from that... It would be cool if you were more open to changes. To go with the flow of new things.

So me liking certain things about a character makes it seem like I don't know how to have fun? I'm aware that's not what you're actually saying but it just comes off that way which is rather strange and doesn't make that much sense. In any case, when my favourite character has been so poorly depicted, represented and treated in comics and film, I don't hide my displeasure with what I don't like. It's fairly clear that I'm not a huge fan of the DC reboot, especially on what it's done to Superman and my thoughts on MOS don't need to be clarified at this point. It's not exactly pleasant when your favourite character is worse off than he's been in years of publication and presence in the media and people want him to be something he's not.

Of course your Superman knowledge is pretty top notch too but since you're commenting on me then, I've noticed how you give off the vibe in your posts that you seem to be slightly condescending of all us negative nancy Superman fans and that we need to accept change no matter what. And that you know what changes are needed for Superman. Yet you seem to want to Superman to act like someone else entirely, such as Mr Majestic, Iron Man, Plutonian, Dr Manhatten and more based on your posts. You're never satisfied with a character who you're now a top boards poster for and it's sometimes hard to catch onto what it is you want from the character.

I am open to changes if they're good, fit the character and are integrated well into the story. But change for change's sake just because some think the character should needlessly evolve, like what you think should happen to the character, is not a valid reason for change in of itself. It has to be done right and it has to make sense. Making unnecessary, unneeded or unfitting changes just for the sake of change can come off poorly, as the state of Superman comics currently shows.

Mr Majestic for Round 1, Green Scar Hulk for Round 2.