Paireon

Pretty true that DC's power levels tend to be inconsistent, though it's not so bad now as it was pre-Crisis. Marvel does have the same problems at times IMO, especially with their higher-tier characters like Hulk, Thor or Galactus, plus the utter ridiculousness that is Reed Richards' scientific prowess -he can find a cure for pan-dimensional superplagues in less than a week, but can't take a weekend to figure out a cure for aids or cancer!? What the fook!?- although it can be easily interpreted as him being a complete jerkass of Peter Griffin caliber (IIRC, the reason he's stinking rich is because big corporations pay him a fortune so he doesn't distribute his tech, basically robbing from the rich and giving to himself), and his treatment of his own family seems to support the assumption (see this link- http://www.cracked.com/article_16512_the-6-worst-comic-book-super-husbands_p2.html -although what's talked about there is fodder for another topic, that would be no doubt fueled with nerd rage and lulz).

*Ahem* Sorry for the off-topic rant, just had to get it out of my system. Now for a slightly more on-topic rant!

And as for DC's superior treatment of women, I believe it has to do with the fact that one of their first big-name characters was a strong quasi-feminist figure popular enough to have her own title in the 40's (e.g. WW), so when superhero comics made a comeback in the 60's they already had a good example of how to do it right. Marvel on the other hand didn't have that, and didn't really try to get it right for a long time; it took them almost a decade just to have heroines with powers on par with their male counterparts, and even then those women who received a power boost tended to eventually go insane and turn evil for a while (Dark Phoenix and Malice, I'm looking at you!). And even with strong powers, they were way too often undermined by plot devices and characterizations that made them look weak, useless or disposable. By the time the bronze age ended, the portrayal of women in Marvel comics had been so ingrained both inside the company and among its readership that it more or less crippled Marvel's ability to have strong, solo leading ladies. That's my personal theory, anyway.

As for X-Men, I haven't really read them -or much superhero comics in general- since 1996-97 (I don't think I need to explain this one :P) but I keep myself reasonably up-to-date on what's going on (hurray for Wikis and Comicvine), and for the last half-decade or more it feels like a really stupid soap opera gone FUBAR- a truckload of new and potentially interesting characters are introduced only to be fridged in various cruel and/or lame ways just so we can keep watching the old cast play out the same goddamn tired shenanigans they played 20 years back, with said old cast getting flanderized and exaggerated into one-dimensional cardboard cut-outs or derailed into barely recognizable shells of their former selves. I mean, how many more overwrought twists and turns (and dead ethnic lovers) can we give to Wolverine's past, and how much more can we pump up his healing factor? It started creeping up a long time ago, but now it's almost gotten to the same level as Lobo's, who's an exaggerated satire of grimdark antiheroes like Logan in the first place!

Also, what I said previously seems to jive pretty well with your "dislike" of Fraction- based on what I know, in the Utopia crossover, he fucked mutants over 20 years backwards, or worse. Now John Q. Public hates 'em even more (based on what NORMAN FREAKIN' OSBORN TOLD 'EM!! Seriously, the Marvel universe's general populace is a bunch of retards), they're completely segregated and discriminated against to a degree not even seen when the government still had a Sentinel project going, and they have to go live on out-of-the-way islands (or asteroids) like leper colonies to be left moderately in peace, and even THAT didn't last very long... Oh, and not that X-books were all that subtle in the first place, but making SAN FRANCISCO a mutant refuge and/or prison camp!? REAL smooth, guys...

Whew! Sorry for the longass tangential reply, just had a lot on my mind that I had to express.

"Just because Diana can take a punch from Supes does not necessarily mean that she is stronger"

Those are the quotes of the part of your post I responded to, which pretty much concern WW. And although you said it wasn't intended to be a battle thread, that's what it turned into anyway. And as far as iconicity goes, I don't concern myself much with it personally, but somehow DC has a consistently better track record in that department when it comes to women. Storm may arguably be the most iconic Marvel heroine, but DC has about half a dozen who are better known and more iconic than her: Supergirl, Batgirl, Catwoman, Poison Ivy, Lois Lane... and there's a bunch of others with comparable levels of recognition.

It may be mostly due to DC generally treating their female characters better than Marvel, though. When you think about it, Storm is one of the least screwed-over heroines in the Marvelverse, even accounting for a lengthy bout of depowering. It's probably why she managed her level of recognition, which is rivaled in the Marvel universe only by She-Hulk, Mary-Jane Watson and Sue Storm. No small feat considering the X-books where she's usually shown are freakin' horrible towards their female cast (believe me, you DON'T want a list... but you probably know what I'm talking about anyway).

It's not your opinion, it's the way you promote it that gets on people's nerves. Your liking a character does not make said character more powerful. I like Conan more than I like Batman, but that doesn't mean that I get blinded to the fact that Batman is the superior combatant, nor do I defend him by belittling others, which seems to be your case. Besides, this isn't a popularity contest, it's about which character would beat the other in a fight. And please stop your constant use of lol and rofl, it's annoying.

@Aqua11500:

See my remark about the popularity contest part above; iconicity is a non-factor here (which some WW advocates should also remember...). Also, you don't seem to know Wonder Woman very well, as she can not only take Supes' punches, but she can also respond in kind. She more than once beat Superman/god-level foes by punching them in the face. Storm has the physical abilities of a normal (albeit very athletic) human, while Wonder Woman has physical prowess equivalent to a top-tier Olympian god across the board. And being capable of tanking a t-nuke means you can tank any amount of lightning that can be created on Earth unless you're specifically vulnerable to electricity, which Diana ain't - she survived Zeus' divine lightning bolts, any natural lightning would merely tickle her by comparison.

Honestly, as much as I like Storm, she simply has nothing in her arsenal that can hurt or even slow down Wonder Woman, and doesn't have the speed or fighting ability to keep up or hold her at bay. Besides, if WW got cut before, it was due to her enemy possessing either inhuman strength or a powerful magical/ultratech weapon (or the writer nerfing her).

Slight preference towards DC, but I usually prefer stuff by other companies (or Vertigo). Also, I agree that "fanboy" has negative connotations versus "fan". Fans you can have polite intelligent discussions with. With fanboys you get pointless arguments that always boil down on their part to "I'm right, you're wrong, lalalalala I-can't-hear-youuu".

The art reminds me of franco-belgian comic books. Which is a good thing.

" Deathstroke, but Deadshot will go down fighting. "

Aaaaaand we now have one of the largest problems encountered when doing these Fight Club match-ups: That pretty much every super except Squirrel Girl have been jobbers at least once. That... can severely skew perceptions.