Is Wonder Woman really bulletproof?

  • 150 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#101 Posted by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

@pokeysteve:

i think she can,but we'll have to wait for that to happen to be sure.

#102 Posted by TAneT62 (1054 posts) - - Show Bio

@gokuwarrior: That is true, but the main reason behind her bracelets was for deflecting bullets ... Isn't that the most known thing with her bracelets? And yeah, I forgot to mention the shield her bracelets create when held together, thanks for clearing these up.

#103 Edited by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

@tanet62:

she will still use the bracelets for other kind of attacks.

#104 Edited by w0nd (2017 posts) - - Show Bio

as this a magic gun or something. Im not being sarcastic either lol

#105 Posted by PowerWoman (3253 posts) - - Show Bio

@gokuwarrior: @tanet62: i think the bracelets just hold wonder woman power/strength,not just deflecting bullets,i dont like wonder woman have vulnerability of piercing weapons

#106 Posted by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio
#107 Posted by Pokeysteve (7011 posts) - - Show Bio

@pokeysteve:

i think she can,but we'll have to wait for that to happen to be sure.

I don't think she can and I don't think that'll ever happen. She can block it (pre52 could anyways).

@w0nd Nope not a magic gun. The girl shooting is Devastation, basically an evil version of WW so she has the speed to get a shot in.

#108 Posted by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

@pokeysteve:

but she has taken attacks that can destroy a planet like a black hole,a full blast from imperiex,etc,so it could happen.

#109 Posted by Pokeysteve (7011 posts) - - Show Bio

@gokuwarrior:

Those are impact damage. Except Imperiex and with him/it I don't think she took a full blast. Doomsday was incinerated and there is no way she outclasses him in durability.

#110 Posted by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

@pokeysteve:

so you think she can't take a planet busting attack?.

#111 Edited by lykopis (10756 posts) - - Show Bio

Interesting thread. Didn't really clear things up for me -- kind of confused how Wonder Woman can be considered unbeatable by Batman and not be impervious to bullets or anything else that pierces.

#112 Posted by Press Oblivion (1643 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis said:

Interesting thread. Didn't really clear things up for me -- kind of confused how Wonder Woman can be considered unbeatable by Batman and not be impervious to bullets or anything else that pierces.

A majority of the material presented here is from pre-n52 era of Wonder Woman. The greatest proof that this thread provides is that there are a multitude of inconsistencies, for the character of Wonder Woman, about various points. One instance shows her withstanding the blast of a warhead at point blank range and another image shows her getting shot in the stomach with an ordinary fire arm. It's up to you which instance should be dismissed, given Wonder Woman's history and feats.

#113 Edited by LaserLambert (635 posts) - - Show Bio

@press_oblivion said:

@lykopis said:

Interesting thread. Didn't really clear things up for me -- kind of confused how Wonder Woman can be considered unbeatable by Batman and not be impervious to bullets or anything else that pierces.

A majority of the material presented here is from pre-n52 era of Wonder Woman. The greatest proof that this thread provides is that there are a multitude of inconsistencies, for the character of Wonder Woman, about various points. One instance shows her withstanding the blast of a warhead at point blank range and another image shows her getting shot in the stomach with an ordinary fire arm. It's up to you which instance should be dismissed, given Wonder Woman's history and feats.

Do you not see the difference between a bullet and a warhead? You keep talking about how surviving big explosions and punches from Superman like that somehow dispels the whole weakness to bullets and other piercing weapons. Why?

#114 Edited by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

@press_oblivion:

but you must remember,wonder woman always had a weakness against piercing weapons,a warhead isn't a piercing weapon,she took the explosion of a warhead,it's not the same that a bullet,there isn't nothing inconsistent about those scans.

#115 Posted by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

@laserlambert:

that's true,wonder woman always had a weakness against piercing weapons,a warhead isn't a piercing weapon,she took the explosion of a warhead,it's not the same that a bullet,there isn't nothing inconsistent about those scans.

#116 Edited by Press Oblivion (1643 posts) - - Show Bio

Do you not see the difference between a bullet and a warhead? You keep talking about how surviving big explosions and punches from Superman like that somehow dispels the whole weakness to bullets and other piercing weapons. Why?

Because it defies physics (and logic) that the impact from a bullet would be harmful but the explosion of a warhead in your face (point blank range) wouldn't. Superman, theoretically, can deliver more mass velocity force in one punch than a missile warhead. . . . Is why!

Tell me how it makes sense to you and if what you say makes sense, I will concede.

I would kindly ask you to leave your attitude elsewhere before addressing me like I'm an idiot. If you disagree with my opinion or don't like it, you're free to say so but consider doing it respectfully. If you want to challenge my opinion, you should make points of your own, to support your argument and convince me and other contributors to this thread, that I am wrong, without treating me like trash or as if I owe you anything. Your comment is full of disdain and contempt and there is no reason for it.

@gokuwarrior said:

@laserlambert:

that's true,wonder woman always had a weakness against piercing weapons,a warhead isn't a piercing weapon,she took the explosion of a warhead,it's not the same that a bullet,there isn't nothing inconsistent about those scans.

Shrapnel is remnant shards from the warhead casing and propulsion housing that would be expelled in the surrounding atmosphere at velocities greater than a bullet, shrapnel pieces are piercing objects.These are inconsistencies.

In the first image, we see, who appears to be Devastation, brandishing an ordinary Fire Arm, which she uses to shoot Wonder Woman in the gut. I dismiss the first image as P.I.S. : Plot Induce Stupidity.

The second image shows the actions of a long range missile heading towards Wonder Woman. Leading us to the third page where Wonder Woman violently neutralizes it with a right cross. You will notice that she is not lacerated or singed by the intense heat that would have emitted from the blast. . . a blast that is more than a billion fold more powerful than a bullet fired from a hand gun.

Superman >Missile>Bullet. Wonder Woman withstands them all and still has great hair at the end of the day.

You can believe what ever you want about Wonder Woman, I believe that she is BULLET PROOF!

#117 Edited by LaserLambert (635 posts) - - Show Bio

It's an enchantment by the gods, it's magic not science, If a god says you are invulnerable to blunt objects, heat and other explosions, but NOT to sharp spears, knives, swords, arrows and bullets, are you going to explain to them that shrapnel comes from explosions and blah blah blah? No because it's magic.

It's like Golden Age Green Lantern's vulnerability to Wood. What properties does wood possess that stone, metal, flesh, bone and plastic do not? doesn't matter, MAGIC.

#118 Posted by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

@press_oblivion:

i don't think it's a good weakness but it is what it is,they say she is super durable against everything except piercing weapons,her character is insipred by greek mythology,so piercing weapons would be like her achilles heel,i think that's the only way i can explain it.

#119 Posted by Celestialseed (96 posts) - - Show Bio

Maybe she isn't.. Whats the use of deflecting bullet if she not vulnerable to them.

#120 Posted by Press Oblivion (1643 posts) - - Show Bio

It's an enchantment by the gods, it's magic not science, If a god says you are invulnerable to blunt objects, heat and other explosions, but NOT to sharp spears, knives, swords, arrows and bullets, are you going to explain to them that shrapnel comes from explosions and blah blah blah? No because it's magic.

It's like Golden Age Green Lantern's vulnerability to Wood. What properties does wood possess that stone, metal, flesh, bone and plastic do not? doesn't matter, MAGIC.

It's magic . . . that's it.

It sounds to me that you're subscribing to a personal belief in an idea. An idea that I can accept, as the evidence that's been provided shows both scenarios clearly, but I don't agree with. If Wonder Woman can do one then the other becomes superfluous and moot because this is magic in the face of science and physics. To me, giving this a pass just because it's "Magic" is tantamount to saying "Just Because", there's no foundation with which to base this argument on because you have to establish a definitive value and rules to magic in order to explain these glaring inconsistencies.

It's magic . . . I respectfully disagree. It's Plot Induced Stupidity.

I have a belief in an idea too, based on the evidence, contrary as it may be, I believe that Wonder Woman is BULLET PROOF, post C.o.I.E & post n52.

#121 Posted by lykopis (10756 posts) - - Show Bio

@press_oblivion:

I have to say, I am more inclined to believe she is bulletproof. I can't wrap my head around someone being able to walk away unscathed from what she has and still not be able to bounce off arrows and/or bullets. I understand how that was shown in pre-52 and (ugh) the whole love gun thing in her own series -- but if she was susceptible to piercings, wouldn't Batman have concocted some plan where she would be riddled by machine gun fire and arrows or something? Granted, you might need to be at close range because of how fast she is (assuming she would deflect everything that came at her) but again, if Batman says she has no "kryptonite" save Superman, then that would include piercing or bullets not having any effect on her.

So bulletproof for me, until proven otherwise.

#122 Posted by Press Oblivion (1643 posts) - - Show Bio

@press_oblivion:

i don't think it's a good weakness but it is what it is,they say she is super durable against everything except piercing weapons,her character is insipred by greek mythology,so piercing weapons would be like her achilles heel,i think that's the only way i can explain it.

You can't explain this to me without some evidence to the point, Mythological inspiration or not, it does not make sense. It's fine to accept these ideas without reason as the world of comics is founded on suspension of disbelief, but I choose not to in this case.

Maybe she isn't.. Whats the use of deflecting bullet if she not vulnerable to them.

If what I said makes no sense, then I apologize, I can't make my point any better. If the missile pages never existed and Wonder Woman had never fought Superman and there was only instances of her riddled with bullets and there were no inconsistencies then I wouldn't be having this conversation.

I choose one or the other, for me it can't be both and it can't be resolved by saying "it's Magic".

#123 Edited by LaserLambert (635 posts) - - Show Bio

@press_oblivion:You ignore facts as they are presented to you, accuse ME of "subscribing to a personal belief in an idea" like you're some kind of genius who is "thinking outside the box" and I'm some idiotic sheep? You have some nerve insulting me for bringing an answer you don't like.

How can you even claim to be a Wonder Woman fan and not have reconciled this aspect of her character, which has been a part of her character for like 70 years. you just want to make it go away, cause it's stupid? some fan you are.

#124 Posted by Urban_Ronin (9935 posts) - - Show Bio

I cant believe this is still being debated.

#125 Edited by PowerWoman (3253 posts) - - Show Bio

@press_oblivion: h-bomb core even hotter than sun core

@press_oblivion:You ignore facts as they are presented to you, accuse ME of "subscribing to a personal belief in an idea" like you're some kind of genius who is "thinking outside the box" and I'm some idiotic sheep? You have some nerve insulting me for bringing an answer you don't like.

How can you even claim to be a Wonder Woman fan and not have reconciled this aspect of her character, which has been a part of her character for like 70 years. you just want to make it go away, cause it's stupid? some fan you are.

wonder woman vulnerability is illogical,if she can take superman hits,i dont know why a bullet can kill her

#126 Posted by Urban_Ronin (9935 posts) - - Show Bio
@lykopis said:
if Batman says she has no "kryptonite" save Superman, then that would include piercing or bullets not having any effect on her.

So bulletproof for me, until proven otherwise.

Batman's word isnt gospel. Or maybe he just doesnt know that she was already shot and nearly killed with a magic bullet. Either way, his statement is meaningless.

#127 Posted by Press Oblivion (1643 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis said:

@press_oblivion:

I have to say, I am more inclined to believe she is bulletproof. I can't wrap my head around someone being able to walk away unscathed from what she has and still not be able to bounce off arrows and/or bullets. I understand how that was shown in pre-52 and (ugh) the whole love gun thing in her own series -- but if she was susceptible to piercings, wouldn't Batman have concocted some plan where she would be riddled by machine gun fire and arrows or something? Granted, you might need to be at close range because of how fast she is (assuming she would deflect everything that came at her) but again, if Batman says she has no "kryptonite" save Superman, then that would include piercing or bullets not having any effect on her.

So bulletproof for me, until proven otherwise.

Thank you for understanding my point and I'm glad that someone else could come to the same conclusion.

Now the whole Hell shooting Wonder Woman through the Bracer and into the chest was not the result of a standard fire arm. That was something of ethereal design and can be explained as Magic.

I had this to say about Superman and Magic bullets and I feel it falls true to Wonder Woman as well. :

@hart7668 said:
It has been shown before that Superman is able to receive a cut from magic imbued weapons (as in the time Diana knicked Superman with a magic-knife in the For Tomorrow arc, drawing blood).

I just wanted to speak to this point. . . Wonder Woman is one of the strongest characters in the DCU and has the strength to deliver the kind of force necessary to break Superman's skin. The same blade in Batman's hands shouldn't garner the same effect. This topic has come up before : http://www.comicvine.com/superman/4005-1807/forums/can-superman-be-killed-with-a-magic-bullet-727438/#28

Here was my thought on the magic bullet.

@press_oblivion said:

OH man, that's a good question.

@moywar700 said:

It can kill him but he can just move out of the way.Superman isn't weak is magic.He's just susceptible to it.

My feelings too.

I think that the bullet would have to have a mass density then shot at a velocity, both, superior to Superman's durability. Or the Magic would have to dictate these properties. I guess I'm saying that there should be a relative physics ingredient equal or surpassing the amount of violent, destructive power Superman can withstand.

Magic shouldn't be thought of as Kryptonite or equal to Kryptonite. There are varying degrees of skill that it would require to make a weapon of this magnitude and couldn't be engineered by just anyone who can manage an incantation. Someone like Circe would be able to wage war against Superman in this fashion or perhaps the multitudes of Pantheons of GODs that may be roaming around the DCU.

Just saying "IT"S MAGIC AND SUPERMAN"S DEAD" isn't compelling enough of a story. Introducing Theoretical Physics creates a difficult feat for the villain as well.

@laserlambert said:

@press_oblivion:You ignore facts as they are presented to you, accuse ME of "subscribing to a personal belief in an idea" like you're some kind of genius who is "thinking outside the box" and I'm some idiotic sheep? You have some nerve insulting me for bringing an answer you don't like.

How can you even claim to be a Wonder Woman fan and not have reconciled this aspect of her character, which has been a part of her character for like 70 years. you just want to make it go away, cause it's stupid? some fan you are.

Dude you are really making me tired. I would really appreciate that you stop attacking me and stay on topic.

I haven't accused you of anything, I'm stating that you believe one side of this debate and I am with the other side . The only facts that I see here is that there is a poor understanding of the character from within the house that she was created. I don't want to get rid of anything . . . . It just doesn't make sense within the facts that are presented.

@laserlambert said:

@press_oblivion:You ignore facts as they are presented to you, accuse ME of "subscribing to a personal belief in an idea" like you're some kind of genius who is "thinking outside the box" and I'm some idiotic sheep? You have some nerve insulting me for bringing an answer you don't like.


If you perceive me to be that way or to have done that to you, that's on you. I made a statement about our differing points of view. You asked, I answered there should be no foul here. You are free to believe what you want and I will believe what I will.

I never used foul language, called you names or challenged your thoughts in a disrespectful manner. My apologies for upsetting you, I hope that we can simply agree to disagree and stop taking things personalty, we're discussing Wonder Woman.

@quintus_knightfall said:

I cant believe this is still being debated.

Yeah man . . . I just can't help it. sorry to bother you.

#128 Posted by PowerWoman (3253 posts) - - Show Bio

@press_oblivion: I agree your point,dont care him

@lykopis said:
if Batman says she has no "kryptonite" save Superman, then that would include piercing or bullets not having any effect on her.

So bulletproof for me, until proven otherwise.

Batman's word isnt gospel. Or maybe he just doesnt know that she was already shot and nearly killed with a magic bullet. Either way, his statement is meaningless.

i agree,in the pre-crisis,superman even says wonder woman invulnerable to any weapon,but we all know she isnt

#129 Posted by Urban_Ronin (9935 posts) - - Show Bio

@press_oblivion: hahaha no need to apologize. I just dont see how one, or maybe two illogical scans of Wonder Woman not being hurt by exploding shrapnel some how erases the characters entire history as it pertains to being vulnerable to projectiles. Any source volume explaining the bracelets lays out her vulnerability to bullets and the defensive purpose of said bracelets. But I'm an open minded dude so if someone can show me one scan in which Wonder Woman does a Superman and lets a bullet bounce of her then hey, I'll reverse my position.

#130 Posted by lykopis (10756 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis said:
if Batman says she has no "kryptonite" save Superman, then that would include piercing or bullets not having any effect on her.

So bulletproof for me, until proven otherwise.

Batman's word isnt gospel. Or maybe he just doesnt know that she was already shot and nearly killed with a magic bullet. Either way, his statement is meaningless.

It's too bad Wonder Woman's book is so far removed from the others. Things like this should be easy enough for the writers to at least acknowledge. Just throws new readers like me off a bit.

#131 Posted by Urban_Ronin (9935 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis: I agree. I know they started crossing over elements into the Superman title but I dont know if they have or are with the JLA. Either way though you're right. It takes a badass moment (like Batman saying she has no kryptonite) and turns it into a debatable point of interest simply because in her book she does.

@powerwoman:

Thats an interesting scan. The next panel and dialog almost lead me to believe there is something more going on. Lois seems to think so anyway,"Even as an Amazon she wasnt that Super." as if she suggesting Wonder Woman not being hurt or unscathed is something that shouldnt have happened.

#132 Posted by Press Oblivion (1643 posts) - - Show Bio

@quintus_knightfall: Right, and that's why the debate, there is no scan like that other than out of continuity, which doesn't count.

I'm not trying to dismiss her history or change anything about her, there are plenty of creative reasons that she would want or need to deflect bullets or other things. It's not about that though, the only opinion I want to leave is only about being bullet proof.

#133 Posted by Urban_Ronin (9935 posts) - - Show Bio

@press_oblivion: The absence of evidence isn't evidence though right? Its not like we even have to guess or build a case. Has she been shot? Yes. Has she ever been shot and not been affected? No. What creative need is there to block bullets when you wouldnt have to? Thats a wasted motion. Thats actually doing the character a diservice in my opinion. "Oh I dont need to block these, but I'm going to stand here and do it anyway." Not only that but why use the bracelets to deflect them at all? If she were bullet proof and deflecting them for the sake of creativity, why not just use the hands? Swat em away. Why get all fancy and precision with it by only using the bracelets when her skin is just as capable?

#134 Posted by Urban_Ronin (9935 posts) - - Show Bio

I think its also important to note that alot of Wonder Woman's "no debris/shrapnel" injuries come from her force field. When the bracelets are crossed they form (or did back pre-nu) a small force field like shield. The depiction of this can be seen in several scans as well as described in the Bracelets overview.

#135 Posted by Pokeysteve (7011 posts) - - Show Bio

@pokeysteve:

so you think she can't take a planet busting attack?.

That's a tough call. We haven't really seen many planet busting attacks in DC. That's more of a Marvel thing. Depends on the attack I'd say. She would probably survive but that should definitely knock her out for more than a few seconds.

@press_oblivion

Shrapnel is remnant shards from the warhead casing and propulsion housing that would be expelled in the surrounding atmosphere at velocities greater than a bullet, shrapnel pieces are piercing objects.These are inconsistencies.

In the first image, we see, who appears to be Devastation, brandishing an ordinary Fire Arm, which she uses to shoot Wonder Woman in the gut. I dismiss the first image as P.I.S. : Plot Induce Stupidity.

The heat generated from the nuke explosion would have instantly melted any and all shrapnel. It was probably unintentional on the artists part but the falling debris appears to be well rounded like spheres of cooled metal.

Not really sure why you dismiss the first scan as PIS. Devastation is just as fast as Wonder Woman. Her piercing vulnerability makes no sense but it exists whether you choose to believe it or not. There are lots of examples, several of which have been posted here. Maybe DC will get their $h!t together and finally make her bullet proof. The scans from Injustice look bad ass.

#136 Posted by Press Oblivion (1643 posts) - - Show Bio

@quintus_knightfall: I didn't know that about the bracelets. And yes, the absence of evidence isn't evidence, I totally agree.

I think that there is reason to believe that Wonder Woman can deflect/redirect bullet fire back to the weapon to disarm the assailant. She's facing off against a battalion of armed hostiles, she uses her speed a acute reflexes and skill to use her assailants weapon against them and you have sufficient reason that also serves as a credit to her character. You don't have to buy it, just a thought.

I feel that bullets shouldn't ricochet off of soft tissue, contrary to popular depictions of characters like Superman. I think the impact of the bullet would mostly be absorbed kinda like Kevlar but bounce like a quarter off of a mattress. So I wouldn't think that using her hand would create the same result as the bracelets. Again, just a thought . . . . though I'm sure this is bound to piss someone off. . .

The heat generated from the nuke explosion would have instantly melted any and all shrapnel. It was probably unintentional on the artists part but the falling debris appears to be well rounded like spheres of cooled metal.

Not really sure why you dismiss the first scan as PIS. Devastation is just as fast as Wonder Woman. Her piercing vulnerability makes no sense but it exists whether you choose to believe it or not. There are lots of examples, several of which have been posted here.

I misspoke, it wasn't a judgement on Devastation but the action of a bullet penetrating her body and the inconsistencies of her character. If I continue to contend that Diana is Bullet Proof, then I can't endorse that action in the first image. Perhaps the missile image is the PIS then? Either way, the missile feat is impressive and a contradiction to all of the proof to her vulnerability.

Maybe DC will get their $h!t together and finally make her bullet proof. The scans from Injustice look bad ass.

That's what I'm waiting for . . . . I think if's going to be a long wait.

#137 Posted by PowerWoman (3253 posts) - - Show Bio

@press_oblivion: wonder woman should be bulletproof,if she can take h-bomb why a bullet can kill her..that just tooooooooo crazy for me

#138 Posted by Urban_Ronin (9935 posts) - - Show Bio

I think that there is reason to believe that Wonder Woman can deflect/redirect bullet fire back to the weapon to disarm the assailant. She's facing off against a battalion of armed hostiles, she uses her speed a acute reflexes and skill to use her assailants weapon against them and you have sufficient reason that also serves as a credit to her character. You don't have to buy it, just a thought.

Those arent bad theories but again, if she were bullet proof redirecting bullets back at the weapons would be a waste of time. If a battalion is firing on her it would be redundant to stand there and redirect bullets back at their weapons when she could simply speed blitz them, tank any shoots they may get off before she reaches them, and disarm/put them down.

I feel that bullets shouldn't ricochet off of soft tissue, contrary to popular depictions of characters like Superman. I think the impact of the bullet would mostly be absorbed kinda like Kevlar but bounce like a quarter off of a mattress. So I wouldn't think that using her hand would create the same result as the bracelets. Again, just a thought . . . . though I'm sure this is bound to piss someone off. . .

Thats even more reason to believe she "isnt" bullet proof. How many times have we seen her deflect a bullet to protect someone in a populated area? If she were bullet-proof the smarter option would be to use her body to impede the bullets trajectory and avoid risking any unnecessary ricochet. Unfortunately (and fortunately) comic inconsistencies lead to the majority of debate. Wonder Woman's weakness to projectiles (though illogical) is fairly cemented. And her weakness to projectiles isnt the same as Superman's Kryptonite weakness. There are varying levels. Gail Simone made a conscious effort to differentiate between passive/shrapnel/debris type projectiles causing little to no damage, and high level magic type projectiles inflecting more.

#139 Posted by Urban_Ronin (9935 posts) - - Show Bio

And some bits about the cross/shield thing

the orange circle
an early depiction
Read the last paragraph.

"When Diana crosses them to protect her from impact with larger projectiles as well as damage from explosions and collisions with hard surfaces, the bracelets generate a small energy shield."

though who knows whats up now in the nU

#140 Posted by Pokeysteve (7011 posts) - - Show Bio

@pokeysteve said:

The heat generated from the nuke explosion would have instantly melted any and all shrapnel. It was probably unintentional on the artists part but the falling debris appears to be well rounded like spheres of cooled metal.

Not really sure why you dismiss the first scan as PIS. Devastation is just as fast as Wonder Woman. Her piercing vulnerability makes no sense but it exists whether you choose to believe it or not. There are lots of examples, several of which have been posted here.

I misspoke, it wasn't a judgement on Devastation but the action of a bullet penetrating her body and the inconsistencies of her character. If I continue to contend that Diana is Bullet Proof, then I can't endorse that action in the first image. Perhaps the missile image is the PIS then? Either way, the missile feat is impressive and a contradiction to all of the proof to her vulnerability.

@pokeysteve said:

Maybe DC will get their $h!t together and finally make her bullet proof. The scans from Injustice look bad ass.

That's what I'm waiting for . . . . I think if's going to be a long wait.

Why does either one have to be PIS though is what i don't understand? She isn't bullet proof hence being shot and the heat from that blast melted any shrapnel. Seems pretty straightforward. She has extreme impact durability......clearly something the writers pulled out of their asses one day but it's still a thing.

Oh yeah. Very long wait sadly.

#141 Posted by Press Oblivion (1643 posts) - - Show Bio

@quintus_knightfall: thatnks for that, I didn't know that.

@pokeysteve: I'm sorry, I don't know what else to say or have any other way to explain it. It doesn't make sense that she's vulnerable to bullet fire yet invulnerable to missile detonation. Given Wonder Woman's considerable history of vulnerability to bullet fire, the missile scene should not exists and is stupid. Or if she's impervious to missile detonation then it's stupid that she can be harmed by a bullet.

I don't think I have anything else to offer. What it boils down to is that you guys don't get me and I don't get you. We all enjoy Wonder Woman let's at least agree on that.

#142 Posted by Pokeysteve (7011 posts) - - Show Bio

@press_oblivion:

We all enjoy Wonder Woman let's at least agree on that.

The conversation's on Wonder Woman's forum are always so easy and non-aggravating lol

#143 Posted by THEOCITYLEGEND (1098 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't think she is because she is always using her bracelets to deflect bullets. If she was bulletproof why bother using them?

#144 Posted by PowerWoman (3253 posts) - - Show Bio

@press_oblivion: I agree,wonder woman can take h-bomb and a bullet can kill her is very stupid

#145 Edited by lightsout (1811 posts) - - Show Bio

Yes, even with the piercing vs blunt-force aspect (based on her clay origin), a super-powered punch would deliver more force per sq inch than a bullet......can't we just say that if she's a magically based character, her weakness to piercing weapons doesn't have to make sense? To take it to a more hokey extreme, what if some god or wizard enchanted a person to be invulnerable, except to "bullets, arrows, spears & the cut of a blade"? Aside from bullets all those things are weapons of the era she represents. It's all thematic.

#146 Posted by PowerWoman (3253 posts) - - Show Bio

@lightsout: a bullet can kill wonder woman,and a h-bomb cant kill wonder woman,that just too stupid

#147 Posted by lightsout (1811 posts) - - Show Bio

@powerwoman: Maybe in our real-world logic, but it's a comic (and I don't mean this in a snarky-way, I am a big fan of trying to form a pseudo-science to the powers of heroes. In this case I guess it doesn't bother me b/c it adds to her theme/characterization).

Another one people don't think about - Superman is protected against virtually everything, but "kryptonite radiation" hurts him? Whoever thought that up doesn't understand the mechanics of how radiation works (and why it can be damaging to fleshy beings).

#148 Posted by PowerWoman (3253 posts) - - Show Bio

@lightsout: I hate this point,because this is comic so we dont needs use real-world logic,if so,maybe dc universe just a weak universe for our universe,dc earth weight maybe just 1kg,i mean,come on,the comic is based on the reality

#149 Posted by lightsout (1811 posts) - - Show Bio

@powerwoman: You may hate it, but it's "true". And where do we draw the line in the logic? Because obviously having different weird aliens or magic isn't logical. I could find MANY aliens featured in comics that wouldn't have (logically) have evolved the way they did. Hell, Kyrptonians wouldn't be "denser" (& therefor stronger on earth) by living on a higher gravity (they'd be less humanoid & more "squat"). Or the kyrptonite example I gave. Do I get to draw the line & include these examples because I know about these subjects & thus those comic-ideas are illogical to me?

And also...her powers are magic based, so they can write it however they want. (A god could have came through the clouds & touched her with their magical finger & said "I grant you invulnerability, unless you are stabbed or sliced!". Magic doesn't have to be logical (that's science's department). I'm sure the receiver is glad they have some sort of protection & the reader should be glad they're not totally invulnerable (ie: boring)).

#150 Posted by PowerWoman (3253 posts) - - Show Bio

@lightsout: maybe,but wonder woman can take h-bomb and a builet can kill her just beyond me,sorry

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.